On the recent Opening of Parliament for this season; Mr Howard was at pains to strongly comment that people are better off financially now than ever before. He very aggressively pushed this view at the Labor Party.

However, it is interesting that on Southern Cross news last night there was a story about housing affordability; the comment being made that fewer people can now buy homes, in our State. Our State is meant to be booming at present.
Its' somewhat academic if people are earning more, when the cost of living has gone up beyond peoples' earnings.
Clearly the conservative view cannot be trusted as far as our State is concerned.

Why quote what howard says this ma-er politician is renown for his lying. So we help some who are bludging on the system, we can afford it.Yet at the same time we are helping really disavantaged people who out number the, so-called, bludgers. In a free and democratic nation these fellow citizens need and deserve our assitance. My wife and I are aged pensioners. In our tax paying working life we payed lots of tax. This tax was used to educate for FREE people like nelson, the federal education minister, FOR FREE! his education did not cost him a brass razoo! When I was in his position we could not afford to go to a university, only the rich could do so. As I said my wife and I are aged pensioners who exist on about $200 a week - could you really live on this amount?. Most of your younger readers would spend that much on a meal at some trendy restaurant. Yet we need to run a car, we get hungry and need wholesome food, we get cold and need clothing. We need all you younger people need and we think we deserve it. I began my life in poverty during the depression. Then along came WW2, no father, a serviceman o/seas, and further deprivation. Did not see a refrigerator, stereo system, vacuum cleaner, washing machine or motor vehicle until well after the end of the war. Now we are tossed $200 a week while our servants, the well fed overpaid grubby politicians, and the many similar obscenely paid CEOs live the life of Riley. This on the backs of our poverty and struggles. I know to some I will appear as a whinging so and so. All I ask is where is the fairness? To answer some NO there was no superannuation in my day. numbat

Well said Numbat. It is indeed interesting that the people currently running the place conveniently forget how they got there.

Just wondering, when the neo-lib champions of self reliance talk about "self-funded benefits and services" are they talking about the profits of burglary and theft? Surely if you go to all the trouble and personal risk of stealing something in the hope of profit you're entitled to the benefits and services you get as a result. Taking something from someone else is fairly normal in the neo-lib conception of a fair society. CEOs manage to reap enormous profits by taking employees means of survival and they do it all the time. Or should the poor turn to other means like prostitution or selling their spare organs on the black market? Would that count as self-funded?

I just find it interesting that there are some rules which apply differently to different categories of people.

The old catchphrase about the rich getting richer and the poor getting poorer again raises its ugly head. The truth is that todays 'poor' are much 'richer' than the poor of 50 years ago. Better food and medical system assure that. No-one need go hungry or without medical care in this country.

The most missed point about poverty is that it really is not so much about money than lack. Lack of everything from opportunities to good decision making to motivation. This is not to 'blame' anyone but the govt has to find away to keep the poor functional while rewarding effort and success in others.

Throwing money at the poor alleviates the poverty temporarily but not the lack, so these people often rapidly become poor again.

Numbat I fully concur with your post - my only request is that you use paragraphs in future as it makes your post easier to read.

I lost my job last week. I am still in a state of shock. I didn't see it coming. Of course hindsight has given me a number of clues - none of which are relevant to this thread.

You're right about surviving on $200 a week, Numbat, my mortgage repayments alone are more than that. However, I do have some savings, I do have marketable skills and I have a strategy to survive - this learnt from hard times in the past.

An attempt to measure poverty is a bit of a smokescreen - my version - not enough money to buy food, is not the same as another's - not able to buy Nikes.

Or perhaps poverty is being unable to participate in what Australia has to offer. Like education, going to the movies occasionally, eating out once in a while or sending the kids to their favourite sport/hobby.

There will always be bludgers - as a former worker in both Centrelink and Human Services I have encountered the bludgers, and can state quite categorically that they constitute the minority. The rest do everything they can to move on and they deserve every bit of help they can get.

Sounds like I'm arguing for my own dole. I don't anticipate being out of work long enough to require it. However, we do need this safety net and, more importantly, we need to enable people to get back to and find employment. Nothing is more demoralising than feeling you are unemployable. Nothing is more empowering than knowing you can stand on your own two feet and bring home a liveable wage.

To those who have never been unemployed - you are lucky. You can claim its all of your own making, but catastrophes can happen to anyone.

Survival of the fittest is for animals -just an excuse to do nothing to help each other.

Are we are intellectually above such a primitive mind set?

Atman "Throwing money at the poor alleviates the poverty temporarily but not the lack, so these people often rapidly become poor again."

Totally Agree - rather than repeat what I have expressed on another thread on this same topic, I will simply endorse Atman's statement.

The issue of "poverty" is derived from the absence underlying societal and other competencies needed to effectively manage ones own affairs and plan ones own destiny / outcomes.

Col Rouge: What arrant nonsense you spouted in your donation to this discussion.
Many in your position repeat " Help the poor and they will be poor again" This tawdry, unproved phrase is a sop used to cover up your selfishness.
You said: The issue of poverty is derived from the absence etc. So the poor are also stupid and could not manage their finances so caused their own misfortune.
What utter bilge and arrogance!
How would have my parents planned or managed their financial affairs during a world wide depression the same during WW/2. My parents caused neither of these catastrophes, but they had to live through them. My mother was on her own through most of the war years. Many were of course in the same situation they, these idiots who could not manage their finances, lost everthing but they, and their children survived.That must prove something even to you.
Then today a lot of mature proud men and women have been sacked. Not because they were unfit for work or lacked skills.
They were sacked because the CEOs wanted bigger profits thus bigger bonuses. Or their firms went belly-up.
Is this the fault of those dismissed, and now perhaps unemployable?
In your eyes they and their now deprived children will always be poor because of their sudden inability to manage their affairs.
Col you appear to be a fine liberal, a complete unfeeling ass, (same thing) or a total uncaring ding-a-ling. numbat

Numbat,

The people in the Depression, of which my grandparents were, didn't have anywhere near the safety net that is provided today so it is a different situation.

Given that though, most of them survived and worked bloody hard to scrape by in the trying conditions.

What Col has said is that continuous welfare does not help anyone. He has never advocated removing all welfare because sometimes people need it.

However, long term welfare is another thing, when kids grow up with neither parent working that is too long on welfare. There are jobs out there for people that want to work - it may involve a move or it may not be the perfect job but it would be work while you look for something you would prefer.

Welfare is good in small doses, but when it becomes a lifestyle it is a problem.

t.u.s

I think you should be spouting your venom at me not Col after all he just agreed with what I had said.

Sure many companies are not managed in the public interest but that is not the issue here. It is also clear that handing out money to the poor does not make them wealthy.

Just as poverty is not just about money neither is wealth. Money is what frequently results from the following behaviours:

Wealth comes from wise management of money, hard work, setting goals, delaying gratification, being frugal, planning ahead, good investments, avoiding addiction, learning skills, being a good employee, doing the best job you can, giving value for money, showing kindness and gratitude etc.

You'll find the poor often lack these characteristics and consequently lack money.

People who avoid work, do as little as possible for their money, try to get an advantage over others, resent rich people, fell they are "owed" more, are prone to addicition,want everything immediately, don't plan ahead, constantly seek pleasure and relaxation, don't look after themselves also tend to be poor as a consequence.

The wealthy are not the cause of poverty, in fact without the wealthy the poor would be poorer because there would be no-one to generate wealth!

Hmmm...I've recently done a diploma...I thought it would improve my chances of secure employment...that was why I committed two years of my life to complete it...i worked hard and met deadlines...my classmates however bludged, taking days off whenever they felt like... 12 months later I'M the one out of secure employment... whilst the bludgers found work!

My life experiences prove Atman to be a complete idiot. Or maybe just has'nt faced much adversity.

In life there are positive reinforcements and negative reinforcements. People living in poverty often face constant negative reinforcements, which affects motivation levels and the drive to succed. Wealthy people, have more positve reinforcement which propel them upwards.

Although I am technically employed, I am really under-employed. My 'mate' sent out three applications and secured employment. I have sent out 106 applications and recieved twice as many rejections (work that out!). After a steady stream of negative reinforcements my psychology has changed from excited 'get up and go' enthusiasm too 'why should I have to look harder than THEM'.

So when people say people in poverty don't work hard enough, in my present state of mind, I will smack 'em out!

“Wealth comes from wise management of money, hard work, setting goals, delaying gratification, being frugal, planning ahead, good investments, avoiding addiction, learning skills, being a good employee, doing the best job you can, giving value for money, showing kindness and gratitude etc.”

Atman – you can do all the ‘right’ things and you can still get shafted. Many people do all of the above – they aren’t wealthy (whatever that means) - they may not even be employed.

This is why we need a safety net. As I have stated previously (from direct experience) and Numbat has acknowledged, the bludgers are in the minority. Why should the bulk of people, who want desperately to work, be penalised for the actions of the few?

I’m very grateful I saved enough money so that I don’t have to apply for the dole. I can go about applying for work in a rational way that suits me. On the dole you have to supply 10 signed job applications per fortnight. Even before I became unemployed, I was looking for alternative work and I was lucky if I saw 4 jobs per fortnight that I was qualified for and sounded like good places to work.

The dole is about quantity not quality – the attitude is that people should accept anything for any low level of pay. This is not conducive for either long term employment or for a viable living wage. At 51, I don’t think I could dig ditches indefinitely and I doubt the pay would cover my mortgage.

I am, of course, prepared to take lower level work & pay in the interim. So please don’t beat me up with a diatribe of “I should take anything and be grateful” when it is not you unemployed and you do not know me – or the detail of my circumstances. Clearly there are limitations on a post and I do not wish to share all my personal details.

PS – Thanks Numbat for using paragraphs. I may not always agree with U but at least I can take your POV on board.

Atman “Wealth comes from wise management of money, hard work, setting goals, delaying gratification, being frugal, planning ahead, good investments, avoiding addiction, learning skills, being a good employee, doing the best job you can, giving value for money, showing kindness and gratitude etc.”

Agree –

As you said “Planning ahead, learning skills, doing the best job… etc”
and as I said “…societal and other competencies needed to effectively manage ones own affairs and plan ones own destiny / outcomes.”

Same statement different words.

Numbat – your hissing fit is not worthy of direct response.
Please moderate the invective or I will have to show you up by putting you down and that would be almost as good as taking you to the rollercoaster in Luna park, the sort of thing which delights children (although you would probably throw-up).

Trinity – I have been self employed for over 20 years. That does not mean I have known periods of slow/low activity and been challenged to find solutions to meet my cash flow needs – nowadays I have at least 3 -4 projects either earning of lined up to earn – as Atman and I would say “it is all in the attitude” and the skills.

Davo – don’t get down hearted, we all try things which do not succeed but go on to success by virtue of our determination. Life will often seem unfair.
We have to believe in ourselves before others will believe in us or to put it another way… we project what we become, if you project and live with a negative expectation – that is what you get- If you want a positive outcome – try expecting and projecting it – that is what works for me. Oh finally - do not look for secure employment, it is no substitute for the "security" you will find by being true to who you are after you have developed a positive attitude.

Col: Your description of my letter as a hissing fit- that from you?

You!? will show me up - you must be such a clever, educated chappie though not tolerant of views that differ from your concise and erudite beliefs.

What has the roller coaster have to do with this discussion? You should return to your medication Col and keep to it this time.

The poor are seen by some as fools etc. and not really worthy of help.
According to newspaper reports many of the rich and very rich and even the very, very rich have been availing themselves of child allowance, first home allowance etc. This from the go-getters, this from the clever people who know how to manage their money. numbat

numbat, I'm not one of the wealthy (by Australian standards) but I don't see a problem with the rich availing themselves of any benefit the system does not allow them to opt out of.

I'd prefer the contributions to a lot of the benefits schemes be optional then we could find out how much people really want them.
To many of our current schemes don't seem to take any account of how people came to need them. If we had some means to tell who needed help because they never got a break and could exclude those who need help because they could not be bothered providing for themselves then means testing would make a lot more sense.

R0bert

Numbat “availing themselves of child allowance, first home allowance etc. This from the go-getters, this from the clever people who know how to manage their money.”

To the matter of getting “benefits” – being a self employed, divorced father who bought his first house in Australia in 1983, I receive no benefits of the ones you mention. Theoretically I could have “claimed” in lean periods, but the DHSS / Centrelink reporting expectations of the self employed are too onerous to bother with. I simply sold some shares, did a redraw on my mortgage and held my breath until the lean days were over but I did maintain my life and income protection insurance, some things are worth too much in terms of security to let go – especially when one has a history of heart attacks.

Robert – I agree with you. I am levied medicare charges, I am entitled to benefit from public hospitals. When I need a doctor I see a bulk billing one in my area. If these services were not a government impost I would have more private medical insurance (just as I have income protection insurance presently).
Most important, “monetary wealth” is secondary to emotional / spiritual wealth.
Unfortunately the socialists never developed (and never will) beyond the lower levels of perception and thus can only focus and measure things in base material and monetary terms – they have never heard of Maslow.

Numbat “Col you appear to be a fine liberal, a complete unfeeling ass, (same thing) or a total uncaring ding-a-ling. Numbat”

dingbat – above is an example of your limited vocabulary, you use such words as “unfeeling ass” and “total uncaring ding-a-ling” which qualifies it as a “hissing fit” – having nothing of value to add you simply expel your crass invective like a petulant infant who now needs its nappy changed.

I suggest you take your seething ignorance and pretence at intellect and run back to your mother, you are already outclassed, out smarted and out performed in all arenas to remain would risk you being humiliated further.

Col: One more - the roller coaster you mentioned, you haven't explained its significance. Strange that you seem to 'hiss' at me yet condemn me.Perhaps it's because you are so urbane, so intelligent. Again Col get back to your medication - you will feel better:-) numbat

Philip Mendes hits the nail on the head when he describes the government and neo-liberal solution to poverty as “completely utopian, likely to produce enormous social damage, and based solely on ideological preconceptions rather than any genuine desire to improve the life chances of the poor”.

The hypocrisy of the neo-liberal ideology is illustrated by their refusal to see that there is an obvious power differential between the consumer and the marketer. First the consumer is almost always an individual whereas the marketer is often a large corporation with considerable resources at its disposal. These resources are used very effectively to influence human behaviour and elicit irrational choices.

The example of the adolescent who feels poor if he has to wear Dunlop Volley’s is a classic example of how this power influences people to make poor choices. The issue of shoes is real problem for a poor family trying to do bring up a shy and self-conscious adolescent who feels ashamed and uncool when wearing ‘daggy’ shoes.

The underlying unfairness is that the consuming individual is expected to take all the responsibility for making rational choices but there is no responsibility on the marketer to present their product honestly and rationally; to show that they accept the values of the community, and ensure that consumers can make an informed choice.

Re the issue of Col Rouge - I have a friend who does not believe that Col is a real person. He claims that he must be a plant by the Labor party or the Greens to make right wing people look really really bad.

Tus suggests that people can move to find work. This is true but is one of worst aspects of capitalist theory for the development of functional communities and families.

At all stages of our lives we have a need for social support from community family and friends.

Consider an 18 year old who moves to a big city for work. Of course ‘good kids with the right attitude’ will not be led astray. Unfortunately, we are NOT all as 'good' as Col. Some of us are more prone to depression, anxiety, and to being influenced by advertising and by bad kids with bad attitudes.

The consequences for a single mother, who moves to an area where family cannot help with child care, can be serious.

Moving schools is very disruptive (socially, emotially and academically) for children, but especialy for adolescents in the final years of high school.

For all poor families moving from an area where they have good relationships with people like doctors and mechanics to an area where they do not, is more difficult than it is for wealthy and/or functional family and the consequences are more serious.

These things can not be addressed by market forces. The families/individuals are poor and so do not have any disposable income to buy services.

In the past charities 'helped' but these organisations and individuals tend to discriminate on the basis of their own prejudices, which are often unconscious and unacknowledged. The only acceptable alternative is government.

Although, it is certainly the case that government has erred on the side of too much indiscriminate welfare, the question is HOW governments should provide welfare and in what form, and how people should be moved from welfare into work.

Mollydukes

Aspirations to achieve ones full potential start with acceptance of full and total responsibility for oneself.

When you lefty failures get that into your thick heads, you might, just might, start to realise long term welfare just lead to poverty traps.

TUS knows it is true. Since you choke on my words just read his instead.

As for

“The hypocrisy of the neo-liberal ideology is illustrated by their refusal to see that there is an obvious power differential between the consumer and the marketer.”

We have lots of “marketeers” wooing consumers, I have yet to find a consumer “wooing” a particular supplier, excepting the possibly producers of Harley Davidsons motorcycles or Morgan autos but I guess you mean the average consumer, concerned with the overwhelming force imposed upon them to buy “Heinz baked beans”, simple solution buy “Watties”.

Your misguided and deluded misrepresentation of reality and promotion of the "nanny state" ignores the presence of competitors in the market.

What you describe is a monopoly supply market.

The best example of that would be Telstra before Optus & Co.

A circumstance where consumers were held to ransom by an unassailable monopoly run by unions for the benefit of the employees, not consumers.

That is why we are better off without government ownership of commercial organisations.

Umpires are supposed to be neutral. Government ownership is like the umpire owning one of the competing teams. It tends to lead to ethical issues and “conflicts of interest”.

Consumers are not incompetent. We do not need the government to tell us what toilet paper to buy nor how to use it.

Then your moving house rubbish, I have moved continents 3 times now. I suggest if you think moving house is disruptive try doing a real move.

Finally, you have a friend. Bragging? From what you say, he/she is equally recluse from reality but it does confirm “birds of a feather flock together”

Let me assure you I am real. Your feeble attempts at flaming fails, as surely as the demented and debunked socialist theories you bore us with.

Molly, You seem to be (and I say seem, so I don't get flamed down for puttign words in your mouth) arguing that poverty is a state of mind and just because you feel poor, you are. If so, what is the solution to poverty. Extra money won't help.

Maybe the Government can appoint everyone a personal shrink so they can be cured of their poverty with some time on the couch.

Better yet, seeing as though everyone is an idiot ready to be led astray by evil marketeers, the government could just run ads non stop telling everyone they are rich. Instant cure.

I don't know how many times I have to say it Molly - people have to learn to live within their means. If that means wearing Volleys instead of Nikes and copping some flak from the jocks at school so be it. The government cannot change that.

And as for Col, there is no way he could be a Labor or Green stooge. They are incapable of making coherent, reasonable arguments, something Col does in spades.

t.u.s.

tus - the short answer is I don't have the answers but some ideas I have are that training and education are necessary and using the stick rather than the carrot is counter-productive. I also object to the whole value system of the neo-liberals and the idea that more economic success will continue to make us more happy.

But I will run out of words for this post and I do want to have some more fun with Col.

Col I note that you have come across Maslow in your wide ranging reading. I predict you see yourself as a ‘self-actualised’ person.

Here are some of Maslow’s words about the behaviour of self-actualised people that I wonder if you think apply to you?

“Able to learn from anyone, humble. Friendly with anyone …”

“can laugh at themselves, never make jokes that hurt others”

“Painfully aware of own imperfections”

LOL I don't think so!

Maslow believed that people have basic, (biological and psychological) needs that have to be fulfilled in order to be free enough to feel the desire for the higher levels of realization.

He believed that all people have an internal, natural, drive to become the best possible person they can be. I am surprised that you like Maslow's ideas because they are very socialist ideas - you know that idealistic perfectability of mankind that the socialists believe in.

Do how do you reconcile this idea of human nature with your view of the bludging welfare recipient?

"My life experiences prove Atman to be a complete idiot. Or maybe just has'nt faced much adversity.

So when people say people in poverty don't work hard enough, in my present state of mind, I will smack 'em out!"

Your "life experiences" is that you don't have the job you want when you want it. Join the club!

I think you're misinterpreting what was said.

I said people who lack motivation, interest etc are more likely to be in poverty.

And BTW have a good look at the NEWS, people in Australia really don't face much adversity compared to 90% of the world.

You should be happy for your mates not annoyed at them.

The problem with excessive welfare is that it can be a disincentive to work and, unfortunately, it is work which produces the wealth. It is apparent that those who support socialist principles don't understand that if someone is not working AND COULD WORK they are stealing the benefits of someone elses labour.

Therefore working people have to work harder to provide for themselves PLUS others.

The more people who work the LESS poverty.

Mollydukes, from your comments regarding your claimed insight into Maslow -

I suggest if you want to analyse me, you get better (more substantial) data than the scraps you will glean from these posts and be prepared for a full response in kind.

I will quote from one “Maslow” source regarding

“Self Actualisers”–
“… they resisted enculturation, that is, they were not susceptible to social pressure to be "well adjusted" or to "fit in" -
- they were, in fact, NONCONFORMISTS IN THE BEST SENSE”

All those darn “non-conformists” – they sure mess up the “uniform ranks of the proletariat” and debunk any claim you can make to Maslow’s theories offering any qualitative support for your silly notions of “socialism”.

Further, since you have been so presumptuous as to attempt an analysis of me, I feel at liberty to make similar conjecture regarding your own “progression” through the "hierarchy".

I would observe you seem to scurry among the “psychological”, maybe stretching up to the “safety”, never to achieve “belonging” nor experience “esteem” and leaving “self actualisation” as something completely beyond your comprehension, let alone aspiration.

This can easily be explained, you are likely held back (retarded) by “past deprivations still salient”, which cripple you as a person and as is confirmed by your posts.

Hope you find that as “amusing” (you did say “I do want to have some more fun with Col.”) as I did writing it!

Col: You may be a reasonably nice bloke yet you do come over as an arrogant, know-all boor.

You make very nasty comments about others at the same time get most upset if any one does the same to you.

As I have said before, I would strongly suggest that you begin taking your medication once again.

I find myself feeling sorry for you actually.(this is not meant to be, I think what is termed a flame, if I have used the wrong terminology you can 'get me' col. numbat

Numbat

One has to wonder at someone who believes he/she is presenting cogent argument while peppering his/her posts with invective and insults. Check out the insults I received for my post in Clive Hamilton’s article at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3715#13113

all I did was announce that I had lost my job. I received a stream of unwarranted insults. I do not wish them deleted as I prefer Col’s true nature to be on display. Therefore, it is not necessary to respond to Col's invective with insults of your own - he/she brings about his/her own disparagement.

I disagree with many (not all) of Col's arguments as they are not compatible with human nature - we are social creatures, we are successful as a species due to our ability to cooperate with one another. We are intelligent enough to know that we do harm if we do not assist each other. Col's 'survival of the fittest' ideology works only in extreme circumstances (eg War). For us to socially evolve requires cooperation not coercion. While there will always be a minority who will milk any form of welfare, it is not just to punish the majority who wish to work and who wish to contribute to our society.

I have no doubt that I will receive a stream of invective questioning my intelligence and abilities - or can Col actually engage in civilised debate?

Numbat I note the first thing you said when you initiated statement exchanges with me was

“Col Rouge: What arrant nonsense you spouted in your donation to this discussion.”

And now you go on like some pious priest, full of righteousness and who has never expressed a harsh word with suggestions that

“You make very nasty comments about others at the same time get most upset if any one does the same to you.”

I would suggest before you bother trying to admonish me, you look to yourself and humbly beg apology from the other posters for your own tendency to “come over as an arrogant, know-all boor.” (another expression which you have just used in your flaming attacks).

You might as well get this straight right here and now –

I respond in a manner I see fit, based on how people address me.

Hence whilst I disagree with many posters here on a range of topics, I do not get down and dirty with them (for example – Timkins and I disagreed recently on the matter of abortion, yet he did not denigrate me with personal attack and I did not use anything but objective argument in any response to him).

However, weasels like you who come out with “What arrant nonsense you spouted in your donation to this discussion.”” just do not understand why I respond with what is less than “politically correct”.

You are so arrogant – you just cannot see it – your pious selfrighteousness must be choking.

So I suggest, if you wish to avoid the sharper side of my vocabulary, you exercise some restraint with your own posts and stop behaving like an absolute hypocrite.

Trinity – more whine

A little while ago I was told of a worker in a large corporate company who was given the sack.

No gentle let down, no political correctness, no offer of counselling. The management didn't fulfill their responsibility to assist the worker find work elsewhere in the company (thereby fulfilling the their contract). The worker was laid off because of a restucture. By all accounts, the worker was a conscientious person and a competent worker. The management left the worker with no hope.

The worker, who was in their late twenties, walked out of the room and later jumped to their death.

Apparently, there have been other tragedies like this elsewhere in the country in that organisation.

In these times where the third-world lifestyle is just a few lost pay days away for some, where collecting the dole is seen as some sort of crime - there is a great need for folk to treat those in dire situations with utmost respect. I thought that was firmly embedded in the Australian tradition of mateship

Col: Go on give me a giggle lets have the sharper side of your vocabulary - please. numbat

I have come to the conclusion that few people understand the realities faced by some people in finding work.
For example - the seriously mentally ill.

The disability support pension supposedly exists for those who are too sick to work. The reality is that many mentally ill people simply cannot get the DSP. They have to be able to apply - and for some this is not possible in the state they are in. Secondly, to apply one must have a treating doctor that knows you well enough to fill in the treating doctor's paperwork - unfortunately, many of the mentally do not have a treating doctor at all - or only has someone who sees them occasionally.

Then there is all of centrelink's ridiculous criteria that are designed for physical disabilities and are extremely difficult to apply to psychiatric disabilities. Eg a psychiatrist may admit that there is a chance a person may be able to return to work within two years - however, they are not really given a chance to emphasize that while they may be able to work, that it may only be for a short time.

If a person is rejected for the disability pension, then they are left with few options. Most are forced on to newstart or youth allowance, requiring them look for work or have their payment cut off. Many are too ill to even look for work and are punished for it.

A big problem is that most people assume that if a person is not receiving the pension that they must automatically be able to work - they cannot conceive the reality that centrelink denies the pension to many very ill people who cannot work. Because assume a person is able to work, anyone who doesn't is a "bludger".

So, unfortunately for a large group of people who are unable to work, they are firstly punished by being denied the welfare they deserve and then further punished by ignorant people who call them bludgers.

this is the society we live in - where the most vulnerable are punished and forgotten.

I agree Sela

There is something wrong if people feel they cannot apply for assistance - eg Trinity who says she would rather live on her savings and the limitations and lack of support for people who suffer from mental illness - disablilities like depression, schizophrenia, bi-polar etc are not obvious like a broken leg and people are often demeaned when caught up in the welfare process.

Col - I don't find anything that Trinity has stated to be a whine at all - she is obviously getting on with her life despite a set back and all you can do is insult her. What is your problem? You complain about bludgers yet when someone is clearly standing on her own two feet and not claiming a benefit you seem to be offended by that as well.

Trinity - you are entitled to assistance with your job-search, I understand how you feel about the methodology with regard to quantity of jobs to be applied for, however there is assistance with travel expenses that you would be entitled to receive. Anyway I wish you all the best with your search for a good job.

Xena

Thanks for your comments. Truth is, even though I used to work at Centrelink way back when it was DSS, I really don't wish to be on the other side of the counter. I know that many employees there are reasonable people. I also know that there are those who really enjoy the modicum of power their job provides and love to make applicants and beneficiaries squirm. I would rather take my chances than be put through the mill and treated like a number.

Col

"Trinity – more whine" As I predicted more insults - nothing approaching cogent discussion.

I too agree with Sela.

There is a stigma - I haven't even admitted to my family and some of my friends yet that I am unemployed. Thanks to the anonymity of this forum I feel I can offer some insight into the topic of welfare both from having worked in the industry and now as a job seeker. I can also add that I do not see the need for the IR reforms as I have direct experience of how easy it is to force the resignation of an employee. I have been advised to seek recompense, I would really prefer to focus on getting on with my life.

Cheers everyone.

When I am subject to insults and abuse and seeming self indignation, it does sometimes make to step back and ask myself if I may have got something wrong, as happened over here :

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=3737

However, I can see, from this discussion thread, that, for Col Rouge, such debating techniques are only a matter of course.

I can only agree with Xena's advice. There should be no need to respond in kind to personal abuse from Col Rouge and others like him. Any reasonable person will be able to see for himself/herself, from his posts, the kind of person he is.

Great contributions, Trinity, Di, Xena, Sela and others! Keep up the good work.

Poverty is one of those difficult words. When measured in terms of relative incomes, it is useless in terms of measuring genuine hardship. If the rich get richer yet the poor’s incomes remain flat, has poverty really increased?

The original article, when it described poverty as exclusion from normal social and economic activities and participation, offered a far more useful definition. Of course, this social or emotional version of poverty does few favours for the author’s contention, which appeared to include a suggestion that increasing welfare benefits may help alleviate the alienation of the disenfranchised.

It wouldn’t. The problem with the welfare state is that it provides a huge degree of negative reinforcement to those on the economic and societal fringe. Whilst discussed by the mainstream of politics in the dry, purely financial terms of effective marginal tax rates (EMTRs) there has been little to no acknowledgement of social democracy’s core failing. Essentially, the ability to obtain welfare support indefinitely creates and reinforces a permanent welfare underclass. It will do that howsoever any benefits are structured.

Unless, that is, time limitations are placed on recipients’ ability to access welfare support. This is never discussed as an option. Rather both the right and left, to varying degrees, support measures to demonise and humiliate welfare recipients with punitive “mutual obligation” regimes.

Risk is a natural part of human existence. When it comes to poverty, there is no point apportioning blame, either to the unfortunate victims of society or society itself. Sure, life’s unfair, but we’re not adolescents. We are supposed to know that already.

WOW.! u guys and gals are really going at it ... hmm are there enough body parts left on this verbally blood soaked battle field which can actually comprehend a bit of ‘religious nutter’ input ? :)

I hope so.

Poverty, is when you cannot get food and shelter.

It seems that the article is attacking the government utopian and damaging ‘neo liberal’ approach to poverty.

I observe Molly makes some valid points, and so does Col. Even though they are kinda polarized. Poor trinity is whacked this way and that.. don’t worry girl.. deep down we all lub ya :)

The problem as I see it, ‘entrenchement’. Col is unsympathetic to the very real situations Molly raised, and Molly is adamant the other way.

For all, I don’t think it is avoidable that there will be elements among us who through no fault of their own do in fact need social support without any onerous demands on them to ‘make it worth our while’ in any other way than to be grateful. I’m referring here to the extreme situation of being overwhelmed by circumstances, not the lazy or self inflicted type.

The Biblical picture in ancient Israel was always that those who prospered, were to not ‘clean sweep’ their fields, and leave enough for the orphan and widow and alien to scrounge out a bit of survival.

But they were not the recipients of ‘land/wealth re-distribution’ as socialism seems to suggest.

The world owes no-one a living, but your FAMILY does. So, I come down very firmly on the better approach for government to emphasize values and structures which enable ‘families’, and the more extended the better. At the same time, they need to teach values of justice and selflessness, so that families don’t become mini ‘states’. This is a bit utopian also, I admit, but in reality, every ‘solution’ scenario is, because human nature is selfish.

So, again, my affirmation of new life in Christ as the only real solution, yet Churches are not perfect either, but renewed people are still our best shot at a just society.

David_BOAZ – your point regarding the Jewish farmer not clean-sweeping his field and socialism is this

The action of not clean sweeping was a suggested act of compassion. Such values are uniquely human. Such values do not transfer to any social organisation in which all the participants are not on a first name basis.

Essentially “contemporary society” cannot be “compassionate” all it can do is be “equal” thus the continual drivel that some politicians whine on with about “compassion” is a complete “furfie” designed to seduce and gains the votes of the simple minded.

Compassion as a human virtue is always with us and dispensed by many. It is not “counted or quantified” nor is it given with sense of what is “fair”.
Which is where the state is disqualified, by legislative need to account for the resources at its disposal and be seen and measured to be “fair” and not showing individual favour to anyone.

As for the backlashing attempted by the rabble –

They whine and moan and use base invective – then complain like brats when someone challenges their ignorant and bigoted ways.

It does not bother me –I have always taken great comfort in the view that “There is dignity in standing alone when right”.

OF course - what all these posturing pansies have ignored is I have, no where suggested any curtailment or denial of welfare payments.
I did make some practical suggestions to Davo

But the invective commenced when numbat described my agreement to something Atman said as “Col Rouge: What arrant nonsense you spouted in your donation to this discussion.”

I guess the numbat finds it difficult to deal with people he/she cannot bully and control.

So be it

I am not his/her playingthing to be shoved around and made to kowtow to his/her banal and pompous utterances and I never will be

- or anyone elses.

Col

Did you take a look at your posts before writing the last one? You have been extremely nasty under no provocation at all. You would be aware from being a regular contributor that numbat likes to stir. For my part I have not said the things I would like such as you lack compassion, are intolerant of other POV's, are unable to empathise, having been self employed you do not know what it is like to be bullied by the boss nor been the recipient of unwanted sexual advances. There are a variety of reasons why people end up on welfare - calling them losers and demeaning them is the act of a bully, Col. No-one on this forum as treated you as a "plaything" you are as far from playful as Komodo Dragon - and about as caring.

There I have fired off an insult or two - based entirely from the invective you have fired at me.

Poverty is not being able to place food on the table, clothes on your back, a roof over your head, the lack of a job where you are able to make a contribution and the lack of esteem that results. Anything else is philosophical chatter, until basic needs are met you can rant all you like that wealth is a state of mind - well it is a state of mind I can't afford right now. At least my situation has brought out your true colours Col. You posted 'em - you are revealed as the narrow minded, intolerant person I always expected you were.

Col: I have never bullied you or tried to control you, I have stated my beliefs. Yes they are different from your beliefs so in your eyes they are wrong. Quote from your last posting,the words of a fair minded humble teachable person : "there is dignity in standing alone when right" I reckon that says it all Col. numbat.

numbat "Col Rouge: What arrant nonsense you spouted in your donation to this discussion.
Many in your position repeat " Help the poor and they will be poor again" This tawdry, unproved phrase is a sop used to cover up your selfishness."

Those are the first words you wrote to me – and those were regarding me agreeing with what someone else wrote.

You tried with that outburst of self-righteous pomposity to bully and intimidate.

I will not accept people like you trying to influence or coerce what I write by attempts to denounce my view with the crass and stupidly pointless drivel as you wrote there.

So give up the whining, grow up and make a fresh start - with an apology.

Trinity – poverty exists as much as a “state of mind” as it is a “material issue”. That is what David BOAZ, TUS, myself and several other posters have been saying.

Poverty of spirit or Poverty of attitude will never be resolved by pumping money at them.
But in Australia today “material poverty” is completely avoidable with forethought, planning and discipline.
My personal belief is finding strength or richness of “spirit” and “attitude” is why we were born in the first place – it is why we are on this journey.
The "material" bit is just part of “the how”, the "spirit" and "attitude" part is the “why”.

As for what you think of me – I am sufficiently “rich” in self-esteem and self belief as to not need your acceptance nor bother with your approval.

Col lives in aberration of good times most people in this world can’t imagine today. Trinity has a grass roots approach to life that is more familiar to many here too. Trinity; my folks survived a depression, some survived a couple of wars and they took the stuffing out of many. Like refugees they sometimes shook and couldn’t speak.

After ww2 we had a lot of catching up to do and we did. But in my own industrial automation routines I saw how we made whole sections redundant and the pace of it all grew and grew. I was one of the lucky ones and could move from factory to factory week to week to do more measurements. As the old complex where I started in a small port city is all closed down now I often wonder how the population copes without those five hundred or a thousand unskilled jobs for mainly female workers depending on the era.

The rhetoric includes deskilling and multi-skilling, competition and market forces. It leads to globalization and lack of control at our end of the market. I used to door knock small businesses set up on someone’s retrenchment or retirement funds. Generally their lifetime’s savings lasted a year or twenty months. More than fifty percent of my old clients were in the hands of receivers every year. Hardest hit were family dairy farms with two kids at high school. Mum and dad’s work never stopped.

Col, Let's begin again. Why don't you answer any of the questions I ask.

Just one eh? Try this one. Where does the sate of mind that allows some people to be happy while poor, come from? How do you get that attitude and how would you know since apparently you are not poor. I do gather that you are quite well-off and au fait with the stock market and all that fancy economic stuff.

Also, why do some people fail to grasp the simple answer that success in life depends on how you play your hand, (ie on one's attitude). It doesn't depend on the hand one is dealt or how shifty the other players may be.

I keep asking you questions but you never answer.

You know almost every thinker back in the 40's (when Maslow wrote his ideas about self-actualisation) was 'a socialist' because the results of free-market capitalism had been so disastrous.

Free market capitalism relies on the idea that human's will behave rationally and reasonably and they do not. Clearly, look at all the foolish people who do not see how intelligent and self-actualised you are.

But, you have ceased to be much fun because it is like shooting fish in a barrell. Too easy and the results are too predictable.

But try answering a question or two (of the many that I have asked) and lets see where you are coming from.

Mollydukes – the ”state of mind” which allows people to be happy yet “poor” is the similar to what allows some people to be given everything yet still be “empty” or “insecure”.

Examples –
small tribes in say PNG or the Amazon Basin who know nothing else.
Priests who find their happiness in spiritual wealth.
Some of us who find “happiness” through personal development, reaching out to push out the limits of our being or find enrichment (humbling) through knowing how much we are loved by others.
Some of us who believe strength and fulfilment is held back and denied by the enforced “co-dependency” imposed through socialist dogma and doctrine.

“Free market capitalism relies on the idea that human's will behave rationally and reasonably” – total bunkum and garbage

People are 99% motivated by emotion, 1% motivated by reason – that given a free choice between spending $10 a week on a tattslotto ticket and $10 a week extra paid off of their house mortgage, 99 will choose the tattslotto option and only 1 choose the “long term benefit” derived from paying down the mortgage – that is a free market choice – and completely irrational.

As for “Clearly, look at all the foolish people who do not see how intelligent and self-actualised you are.”

You just cannot avoid flaming. I will resist sinking to your (psychological) level.

Maslow observed

“Self Actualisers - they resisted enculturation, that is, they were not susceptible to social pressure to be "well adjusted" or to "fit in"
They were, in fact, NONCONFORMISTS IN THE BEST SENSE”

I might fulfill Maslows definition by not complying to your (and the other foolish peoples) ideas of “conformity”.

In other words your opinion of me has no influence. That my attitude confounds your personal need to “control all about you” is just tough get used to being denied, it is all part of the process of developing “self-actualisation”.

As for “shooting fish in a barrel” I doubt you have the stature to see over the lip of the barrel let shoot down into it.