Col Rouge... the fact that you even bothered to reply to my pathetic post might say a little about your inadequecies don't you think?

In the case of crime, I think that certainty is always more crucial than severity if we are looking to solve the problem. In one of my earlier posts in the capital punishment debate I put forward the suggestion that a drug traficker is probably more likely to risk a 'possible' death sentence than a 'definate' 10 year sentence.

In my profession as a teacher I see that certainty is far more important than severity when applying behaviour management (by the way Liz, I know what you mean about EQ - you might try the non-government schools).

As for the parenting initiatives, I think that the certainty issue applies to a very similar degree. Certainty and consistency work well so if people know where their support is coming from and that it's going to be accessible then it's a lot easier to plan a family and provide for them, especially in single parent households.

Unfortunately this is all very difficult in politically turbulant environments.

Col tubley simply points out you gramatical errors, the political errors you make for yourself, nobody need comment on those, your post saddened me because if you are/have been a single father, it means you have been able to reproduce your arogance and stupidity.

Tasman, I wasn't disagreeing with your post, quite the contary, I was only pointing out the benefit level from my own experience which is $150 -$200 p.w.

Liz you are right on the money, as is Tinkerbell1952 and many others, we need to be making sure that everyone pays their correct amount of tax, as in wre Mum's case 48%, not 48% minus deductions for this and that which brings the actual rate down to less than 20%.

Let's make sure the wealthy are paying their fair share before we start attacking one of the most marginal groups in society.

Shonga,

To suggest that wre's Mum pay 48% tax without allowing any deductions is illogical and irrational. That statement serves only to confirm my suspicions that your posts are an elaborate exercise in 'bashing the wealthy'.

Liz “Do not blame single mothers for the stupid decisions of men in government.”

Were those the “men” who enacted the payment to mothers or the socialist ratbags who set out the unequal custody rules of the early 1990’s?

Liz, if you dislike the actions of those “men” you could stand for parliament, get elected and replace one of those “men” with your "woman's" perspective.

Then we could all sit around and moan about your “decisions”.

As for “I ended up a single mother through divorce” - Well so what!

I ended up a single father through the same process. I initially had limited access to my children, who were placed at the beckon call of their mother who used lies and faux emotion to corruptly exert her position of power in separation.

I bet every government has paid you more than it ever paid me.

I bet no government has forced you to pay your ex for the privilege of maligning your role in your children’s lives.

Then you whine on about how some State labor leader has failed to enshrine your rights and expectations as his first priority in his state.

Well ain’t that sad – I suggest get another job – I have had to do that when unhappy with my employment circumstances or needing to make maintenance payments in the past.

Tubley - Col Rouge... the fact that you even bothered to reply.."?

Not really – I was just filling in the overrun of words following my previous comments to others – and here you are wasting another of your daily posting allowance (of 5) on 24 words to me.

Shonga “Col tubley simply points out you gramatical errors,”

Shonga please Note:

you have omitted the comma which should separate “Col” from “tubely”
You have yourself used an ungrammatical statement “simply points out you gramatical”
And of course, you misspell “grammatical”.

Three errors in an eight word sentence.

Not the “stuff” to write home about. If you did, I doubt they would understand anything you wrote.

You are confirming you status as an intellectually challenged buffoon.

Shonga, I gather from your previous posts that you could quote the whole range of welfare statistics and allowances yet you show absolutely no sign of appreciating how wealth is generated. Wealthy by your standards, I imagine, is anyone that drives a car less than five years old and buys a new dress more than once every two years.
You have one of the most enviable jobs in the realm, Shonga. You are a critic of the world. You contribute nothing of substance, create nothing of value but spend your time tearing down the efforts of others. You think that the benefits that you get you deserve, yet others who have earned much more are predators that are beneath contempt.
There are those that are wealthy that abuse the system just as there are those on welfare benefits that do the same. These people are thieves. Nothing more, nothing less.
Perhaps we could have a perfect world where everybody is on welfare and we can spend our time tearing down those that wish to risk everything to achieve more. We could admonish those that are willing to go an extra mile to get what they want. We could cut down those dream and plan. Would you be happy then, Shonga?
There are many out there that are willing to risk failure at their own hand rather than succeed at the hands of others. Many people do fail but they are not the ones that moan at other peoples' success. That is left to the sanctimonious nobodies to whom welfare is a right and the success of others is denounced rather than be a benchmark against which their own mediocrity is measured.
Perhaps you could sit down and discuss this with all the people that you have employed, surrounded by all those things that you have created and all the families that have benefited from your willingness to risk what you have.