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.