The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Moving away from paternalism > Comments

Moving away from paternalism : Comments

By John Tomlinson, published 14/3/2008

2020 summit: the existing system of social security is inadequate, unjust and maintains people in poverty.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All
For years Indigenous people living through out Australia had agreed to work for the dole as away of restoring pride in our society doing what was neccessary on the communities to keep them running. It wasn't perfect but it kept people busy and out of trouble and included the unemployed the aged, those on disability and veterans pensions and the young..

Then some white dude in Canberra decided that this was not a good thing to encourage and promptly stopped its operation, possibly because white's might be made to follow and that would not be a vote winnner in an election.

So what happens, we now have all these social problems associated with our young people thinking like european children, who believe that the world owes them a living. Now our communities essential services maintained by these people have broken down as has the social structure and chaos rules.

As a taxpayer I do not believe that any person should be given a free ride on my taxpayer funded handouts, so I believe that the intervention in the north should be applied to all Australians especially those in public housing like my neighbours in the flats.

Mutual obligation should be the corner stone of any financial support from the taxpayer and I would like to see these bludgers made to work for their money by cleaning the streets or something similar now before any increases occur
Posted by Yindin, Friday, 14 March 2008 10:38:10 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm not holding my breath that the Rudd Government has the will to implement any meaningful changes to the delivery of welfare services.
I have brought to the attention of Ministers of Federal and Territory Governments,examples of imposed hardship on recipients due to the intervention that have been ignored. I feel sure they have heard of hardships directly from Community people themselves.

Federally, the responsible Minister appears to have slipped comfortably into the shoes of Mal Brough and does not appear to have the initiative or ideas as to how to address the problem of dealing with those parents who require quarantining of benefits whilst exempting the responsible ones.

The means testing of benefits also employs unfair criteria where people on allocated pensions are denied health benefits forced to draw down on their Super principal in order to meet medication costs because they are deemed to be too wealthy from inaccessible joint assets.
Posted by maracas, Friday, 14 March 2008 12:26:09 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My God, a socialist dinosaur in the wild! Thought they were extinct.

Yes, yes, let's re-introduce no-strings attached welfare. After all, it's worked so brilliantly for the Aborigines.
Posted by grn, Friday, 14 March 2008 1:23:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yindin
Your non-condescending comments can best be described in the Euphemism “downward envy”. And in that attitude lies the whole problem to a sensible solution of the huge disjointed complexity; the current welfare system.
Posted by diver dan, Friday, 14 March 2008 1:34:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author of this article clearly is out of touch with the unemployment situation in this country at the moment.

The vast majority of people who are unemployed when unemployment is at 4% are those who will find work in a few weeks, those who are unemployable and those who don't want to work.

The first group will find work very soon, because they are only out of work temporaily. They will benefit very little from increasing the dole because they will only be on it for a few weeks.

The second group will have less incentive to become employable. Since many have drug-addictions, the extra money will make them buy more drugs. Hence they will become more unemployable, to the detriment of the rest of society.

The third group will have virtually no incentive to find work if their payments are increased. They would essentially be rewarded for being lazy and not contributing to society. Hence they will never find work again, again to the expense of people who work.

The author claims his proposal is fair and decent. In fact, it would represent an injustice for those who do the right thing and work.
Posted by AJFA, Friday, 14 March 2008 4:13:14 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The emotional pandering this article contains is enough to make one want to vomit.

Phrases like “The existing system of social security is inadequate, unjust and maintains people in poverty.” It is not designed to lift them out of poverty but to maintain their level of poverty between any notion of a minimum wage and above nothing.

AJFA “The author claims his proposal is fair and decent. In fact, it would represent an injustice for those who do the right thing and work.”

I would wholly concur.

The only way to produce a fair social safety-net is to keep it to such a low level that it does not become an attractive alternative to working for a living.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 14 March 2008 4:44:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
For the life of me, I can't understand why able-bodied people of roughly normal intelligence who are unemployed shouldn't be required to either study for specific occupations, or take the first job which comes up, fruit-picking, highway rubbish collecting, whatever - preferably the study path, to get into TAFE or Workskills or other study ASAP after they become unemployed, and train for jobs which are or soon will be in demand.

Of course, I'm not suggesting compulsory education or low-grade work -only if they want to be paid out of taxpayers' contributions. If they don't want any of that, of course they should be as free as the birds or the lilies of the valley to look after themselves.
Posted by Loudmouth, Saturday, 15 March 2008 9:30:53 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John,

Another fine piece. Pity many here who have commented have not read it or if they have, don't appear to have the basic historical or policy knowledge to understand it.

They espouse to believe in equality for all but refuse to recognise the inequality of the existing welfare system.
Posted by Rainier, Saturday, 15 March 2008 8:54:13 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I know it shouldn’t surprise me that there are people out there who still believe in socialism/communism. Yet you would think that the obvious and demonstrable failure of socialism as a motivating principle for a society had made some impression on the left. Humans have a keen and inbuilt sense of fairness. The failure of socialist society to reward those who work hard and succeed leads directly to the enervation of that society. We don’t need more welfare. We need less welfare. The very idea of untargeted welfare is to redistribute wealth to those who have done nothing to earn it.

Don’t get me wrong, I believe in quality public education and health care as a way to ensure that everyone gets a fair start in life. But the idea of ensuring equality of outcome is dangerous and self-defeating. If you are assured your salary no matter how hard you work what likelihood is there that you are going to work hard? Some of the poorest and most deprived countries on the planet are ex socialist paradises. Societies which were organised by command economies for the most part couldn’t even feed themselves.

Providing income indefinitely for anyone is not only unfair and a waste of money it’s undoubtedly bad for the recipient in the long term. The passive welfare given to aborigines has been at the root of their suffering. I’m not wild about work for the dole but I agree it’s a damn sight better than the do-nothing alternative.

Diverdan >” Your non-condescending comments can best be described in the Euphemism “downward envy”. And in that attitude lies the whole problem to a sensible solution of the huge disjointed complexity; the current welfare system.

Whatever that means, the reason for the huge disjointed complexity in welfare is that there is far too much of it. Middle class families earning well above average wages are still pocketing gov’t handouts. The focus has moved too far from the original intent of workmans insurance which was to help out workers during times of downturn. It was never meant to be a lifestyle
Posted by Paul.L, Sunday, 16 March 2008 1:54:42 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
John is right. There does need to be a better way to ensure an equal footing for all Australians. A comment was passed regarding those on welfare identifying three categories - transients on their way through to work,drug addicts, and those who like being on welfare. Forgotten in that comment are those whom Government finds it economically sound to keep dependent on welfare payments. I refer to unpaid family carers of people with a disability or frail aged. You see it would cost ten times more than the paltry Carers Payment to replace the work they do and properly support those for whom they provide care and support. This cohort actually saves the Australian economy in excess of $36billion annually thus governments can give the poor oppressed taxpayers $30billion tax cuts. This group of Australian citizens don't make it on to unemployment figures as they are on pensions. Are you aware that carers on a carer payment can only work or study 25 hours/week including travelling time and that due to the very nature of their role this means they are expected to work 143 hours per week. A Fair days pay for a fair days work, How much do you think we are worth now?
Posted by scorpio, Sunday, 16 March 2008 5:01:24 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
scorpio, I was referring to thoise who are offically unemployed. I don't think full time carers are included in this.

You seem to have taken this a little personally I might also add.

Finally, there are many people who do unpaid work in society, including parents, volunteers and others.
Posted by AJFA, Sunday, 16 March 2008 6:30:46 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
A fine article. Our current 'welfare system' needs a bomb underneath it. Sooner rather than later. It is unbelievably archaic.

Those with silly comments in the cliche ridden 'dole bludger' style have not the faintest idea what they are talking about. Obviously have no direct experience of Australia's 'welfare system'. Just mouthing off so that others are left in no doubt that of course they or theirs would never ever be in a situation of debilitating financial hardship.

You are all physically indestructible with indestructible partners all holding secure employment or successful businesses impervious to factors beyond your control.

The money spent on copious, and I mean copious, forms, letters, duplications and more letters with the left hand patently not knowing what the right hand is doing is farcical. A disgraceful waste of money and of no benefit whatsoever to anybody. Not the taxpayers and certainly not the recipients who have negotiated their way through this degrading maze to get a payment that is woefully inadequate.

Just by doing away with 50% of paperwork, which is mainly duplication and through inefficiency would save a veritable forest.

As a taxpayer I'm incensed at my tax dollars wasted on maintaining this archaic, inefficient, degrading poverty inducing system. It creates and maintains poverty.

Don't worry too much about the recipients, worry about how this service is delivered and how employment agencies are milking taxpayers dollars. Notice how their buildings are getting fancier and fancier?
Posted by yvonne, Sunday, 16 March 2008 7:47:19 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul L “I know it shouldn’t surprise me that there are people out there who still believe in socialism/communism.”

Oh just hang around, you will have lots of opportunity to shred the regurgitated Marxism and allied drivel which the left around here vomits forth.

The usual emotionalized economics motherhood statements and weasel words based on small-minded envy and hate of anyone who can do better than mediocre.

Agree in general with your post and as you adroitly observe of welfare “It was never meant to be a lifestyle”

Scorpio “A Fair days pay for a fair days work, How much do you think we are worth now?”

I recall some dumb study which reckoned that mothers were worth a heap, one I found is representative of what I mean, a UK study which suggests UK pound 26,000 (A$65,000) for the work they supposedly do.

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/displayNode.jsp?nodeId=132384&command=displayContent&sourceNode=242846&contentPK=20058610&folderPk=110183&pNodeId=242845

If mothers are worth that much and carers and others are worth that much, they would be able to command the same from the “market”.

Problem, the “market” is a fluid place in which not all on the “demand” side can afford the pay the sorts of rates prescribed by the “Supply” side.

Pretending a government should step in and underpin a “theoretical economic wage” is the hard end of the Nanny-state, in which everyone ends up better off drawing welfare than working

and when that happens the proverbial brown stuff really does hit the fan and we all end up experiencing the lavish lifestyle experienced by the average Rumanian peasant under Ceausescu
Posted by Col Rouge, Sunday, 16 March 2008 7:47:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for the article John. I agree with you Yvonne. Yes Scorpio, carers save society a lot of money by leaving you to care for your relatives, its time for better respite and better carers payments.

Amongst my acquaintances those who are most stridently against "dole bludgers" received sickness benefits from age 50 because there wasn't any suitable employment locally.

A letter in todays Sydney Morning Herald describes the plight of middle class country kids looking for work in Sydney. These kids are not counted as unemployed, as are students, people in training, those on mutual obligation, volunteers - so this calls into question the really low unemployment figures.
Posted by billie, Monday, 17 March 2008 12:06:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I absolutely endorse getting away from the blame shame approach to social security and the need to restore a system which assists people in crsis, those with disablity and chronic health problems, those who are undertaking unpaid work caring for others (including their children)as well as those who cannot get employment due to stigma, location, lack of suitable skills.
Those who think social security claimants needs punishment and control will clearly never get hit by a bus, get cancer, get divorced, have a child with a disability, or if they do, they will enjoy get harassed by Centrelink while recovering from surgery, or attending the 3rd medical specialist appt that week for their child. Those who imagine they need to micro-direct others' lives should be willing to have their own lives controlled by others.
Posted by mog, Monday, 17 March 2008 4:54:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Speaking of a “safe net”, one should clear understand that a system is being run and functioning by and for protecting of keeping most of a national product in pockets of privileged “thoroughbreds”.

In Australia, non-Anglos, non-whites and non-Christians denied employment routinely to keep a pool of less disadvantaged from Anglo-Celtic/Saxon background to think of what should they and their children suffer if even a shadow of dissent against Howard-style IR to be demonstrated as registered in the net need, one could say, “yes” from government-sustain computed system potential employer to take a person on.

As understood, in a case of those from non-Anglo-background this “yes” is very much grounded on “recommendations” from migrant course form completed on graduation of any course established by government again…

The more unemployed-the more work for so-called “job network” and its case-managers paid for simply providing police-style service for being guilty-not-to-be-taken-on for simply socio-political reasons mostly-if any real job places exist in Australia but selling coffee each to other.

Perhaps, being humiliated and discriminated needs in addition “a reciprocal approach” of additionally denigrating in “work for dole” programs designed to keep really looing for work under an individual control of government-paid supervisors to make them even less intelligent than those under-castes supposed to be in Australia by foreign-crown lickers.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 18 March 2008 4:43:34 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, there's lots of drivel vomited on OLO. Not least by the Left. You vomited a bit of drivel of your own: 'If mothers are worth that much and carers and others are worth that much, they would be able to command the same from the “market”'.

Are you seriously so convinced of the objective goodness and benefit of a pure capitalist society? If you hadn't noticed it is humans with all their foibles, prejudices and little morals who create the demand or lack there of.

Funny not many men doing this kind of low paid work either, though the 'market' is demanding many more bodies to fill the vacancies. Now why, if there is such a demand are wages not much higher than say, what a business consultant asks to be paid for information that can be had with a bit of effort and modicum of intelligence by anybody connected to broadband?

There are people who are demanding better wages for carers of children and disabled. There are still too many bleeding hearts who think that thanks and gratitude is enough, much to the delight of resentful taxpayers like yourself and PaulL who think that any money spent on areas such as this reeks of socialism and marxism.

Incidentally, not everybody who you disagree with is necessarily 'marxist/leftist' or anti libertarian principles.

Paul has suggested once to me to go to India to get raped in order to get the point on the necessity of certain laws. I think that both of you would appreciate India's pragmatic approach to tax. It's largely voluntary and virtually nothing is spend on 'socialist' issues.
Posted by yvonne, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 7:51:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
please explain why paternalism is a such dirty word. I know there are many people who deserve and require on-going help and I do not begrudge any such person this financial assistance.
The one price I ask them to pay is an understanding that there are a lot of scabs that will lie and contort any such system for their own selfish purposes. So please help us sort you from such individuals. It is not a reflection on the genuine recipient, but a fact of life that not everyone is honest.
Anyone who does not understand that there are a lot people that will abuse welfare, does not live in the real world.
As for the original author's "free money for everyone" concept, none the anti-marxist rhetoric that I have read thus far has even come close to labelling what a nonsence that sugestion is. For those that do like the "free money for everyone" concept, please have another choof and go to sleep
Posted by Earll11, Tuesday, 18 March 2008 8:22:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yvonne,

I would like you to produce the quote where I suggested you should be raped. Of course you won’t be able to because I never said it. However I am not surprised that you would be so confused. You’re inability to see the difference between Australia and Nazi Germany is a basic pointer to your difficulties with comprehension and analogy.

Since I didn’t mention carers in my posts I’m wondering how it is you know my views on this topic. Since I also mentioned my support for proper gov’t funded healthcare and education I am doubly surprised.

Maybe you should read my posts and stick to what I actually said before you start to beat me over the head with what you think I believe in. Of course maybe that’s asking a bit much of a drama queen like your good self.
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 19 March 2008 12:53:26 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Just wondering from what standpoint those who disagree with the author are coming from? Australia is not very kind to those in its own community who are suffering, not in contrast to some European nations anyway. With the beginning of the feminist movement and beyond, those who have been marginalised have been fighting for the opportunity to exercise their own autonomy. Is it only those who come from at least a middle class background who should have the right to determine their own future? Who has the right to force their own values and moral standards on others? With the system that is proposed by the author the taxpayers would also benefit, and while I agree human beings offten act with self-interest and sometimes prefer leisure over work, the proposed system would offer a means to enable those who would otherwise have been unable to pursue a better life
Posted by acass2, Thursday, 20 March 2008 11:07:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
To those in the forum who beleive they are being clever by dismissing others in the forum with such comments as 'drama queen'(Paul) and implying others are drug users ( Earl) you are doing no more than denigrating your argument by committing Ad Hominem fallacies. I suggest you may strengthen your arguments by simply not reverting to the use of such fallacies.
Posted by acass2, Thursday, 20 March 2008 11:28:24 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yvonne “Are you seriously so convinced of the objective goodness and benefit of a pure capitalist society”

I acknowledge that individuals are (to use your words)“humans with all their foibles, prejudices and little morals who create the demand or lack there of.”,

Thus, whilst a “pure capitalist society” in an impractical expectation, when I consider all of the tested alternatives, a libertarian-capitalist society remains the best option for the vast majority of the population, in terms of the delivery (or freedom) of the life-quality attributes which we live for, rather than the economic attributes required to exist.

Re “Funny not many men doing this kind of low paid work either, though the 'market' is demanding many more bodies to fill the vacancies.”

The elasticity of demand, relative to the economics of supply will always converge to meet at the right price for any product or service.

The problems are where one of the parties can excerpt an undue influence.

Undue influence, such as monopolistic power, is most commonly observed when government gets in on the act to protect or promote (often its own). commercial interests in the name of “the greater good”.

I have checked out this “ greater good”, he is not listed in the white pages and I have never ever met anyone who has met anyone who has actually met him. I am left to believe the “greater good” is a lie, invented by those who lack the imagination to think up a better excuse for corrupt behaviour.

Re “demanding better wages for carers of children and disabled”

“Demands” invariably degenerate into intimidation and blackmail when they are not met. No one should expect to demand anything,
Respect of the other party to the transaction requires the most forceful approach possible can only be “negotiation”.

“not everybody who you disagree with…”

my libertarian principles respect their right to disagree.
The bit which concerns me is the socialist inclined, (bearing in mind Lenins maxim “the goal of socialism is communism”) tend not to respect my right to disagree with them.
Posted by Col Rouge, Thursday, 20 March 2008 12:02:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Earll11,

Perhaps, “paternalism is a such dirty word” because it institutes a kind of a guardianship over adult persons mentally capable to undertake own decisions.

“Dirty”, perhaps, is a very polite word covering the de-facto illegal activities of introducing the paternalist programs beneficial because of the state funds' redistributing by and for themselves/their peers, by intentionally denying basic human rights of people because of their belonging to different social/racial groups in post-Howard Australia.

Hopefully, it is in correct, plain, understandable English.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 20 March 2008 7:49:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael K,

You can only be affected by gov’t paternalism if you are reliant upon them for you living. What gives those who live on the dole the right to argue that they should be able to spend the money we give them on whatever they see fit?

If you had fallen on hard times and asked your family for $500 a fortnight to live on would you tell them it was none of their business if you were spending most of it on alcohol and drugs? The right to spend all your dole money on drugs and alcohol to the neglect of your children is not a basic human right.

In the communities covered by the Howard intervention there have been significant increases in the purchase of fresh food and attendance at school has improved dramatically. If that is the effect of paternalism then there needs to be more of it. I have no problem with this program being extended to white dole bludgers as well. And just for those bleeding hearts, a dole bludger is, apart from a few exceptions, anyone who has been on unemployment benefits for more than two years. These aren’t people who have fallen on hard times, these are people who have taken up unemployment as a lifestyle choice. I’ve been on Austudy and I have spent a lot of time in Centrelink. The vast majority of customers are lifestyle recipients. Those who aren’t should absolutely be treated differently but those who can be identified as bludgers should cop the same rules as the indigenous communities. My understanding is that the minister is working to introduce this as policy very soon.

Acass2

1. Mind your own business
2. Yvonne’s despicable attempt to pretend I had wished she was raped is worthy of far more than “Drama Queen”
3. Anyone who thinks that free money is a good idea is either smoking drugs or doesn’t have the sense god gave a wombat.
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 21 March 2008 12:48:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paull,

I am not an Anglo-Sax but internationally acclaimed, accepted, skilled professional, with VALID Australian registrations, no second employed locally but upon years eating off YOUR(?) money because my biology does not allow being employed by local Anglo-lickers of their London-masters.

And I know of racist paternalistic Anglo-Saxon/Celtic neo-feudal, neo-nazi case-manager job-network-style local welfare-covered raping of inferior population not theoretically.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 25 March 2008 10:56:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MichaelK,

Before assuming that any negative feedback you get might be racially based maybe you should understand that your written english is very bad. I don't know whether your spoken english is just as bad but if it is then I am not surprised you have had many difficulties in Australia. Between people who speak perfect english there is often room for misunderstanding. With english as bad as yours, misunderstandings are inevitable.

Grow up. We have a number of well integrated migrant communities in Australia which are not anglo saxon in origin.

You need to use smaller words that you actually understand to get your point across though I fear that even that might not be enough.

But good luck with it anyway.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 11:54:58 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
paull,

My "bad English" is published in scientific and general magazines round a globe, an English-speaking world, and it is exactly-an attitude to English-as-second-language-people-, what Anglo-racism is, in Australia surely.

By a way, spell-checking is working well here.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 25 March 2008 8:01:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Paul,

you actually make a good point here. I once had an Asian friend who was quite bitter and thought he was always being discriminated against, but I knew that the real reason why was because his written English was poor and he spoke in broken English.

He couldn't work out why after finishing a Masters he was still working as a security guard. I actually can't work out how he ever got a Masters, but I guess that shows how seriously university standards have declined in Australia.

When you are Asian or Black, and you have difficulties, its udnerstandable that its very easy to blame in on racism. But that's the easy way out because it avoids you having to be self-critical and take responsibility for yourself. It's easier to be a victim than to actually be honest and help yourself.

Anyway, here's a nice story abt what happens when welfare is unconditional: http://awesternheart.blogspot.com/2008/03/behold-rise-of-parasite.html
Posted by AJFA, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 9:08:36 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
so, I'm black, well qualified, perhaps more than you, whats your excuse?

not bright enough?
Posted by Rainier, Tuesday, 25 March 2008 10:32:20 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Col Rouge, liked your answer. Not much I disagree with.

I agree with you that the notion of 'the greater good' is lovely to bandy about when a gut feeling arises without a proper articulated argument. I can't remember having used that touchy feely idea myself.

From previous threads I also know that you have a horror of 'socialism' and link it directly to Lenin. I think it save to say that Lenin, though embalmed, is dead. So is communism.

In the last 80 years or so, the idea of social justice has engaged many thinkers. Not only the communists. It is something that many hard headed economists also use to justify their arguments.

The article points to the 'paternalism' inherent in our welfare system. It precisely creates all those qualities in individuals so loathed by most of us. Paternalism creates 'children' who constantly need to be cajoled and watched over. It is unbelievably degrading. You are not deemed or regarded to be an autonomous adult.

It is just enough to survive, but is still better than nothing. It's like treading water, having a go and swimming can be petrifying. Especially if you are responsible for children.

Is it reasonable that in a country like Australia there is no such thing as financial assistance of citizens who for a variety of reasons need it? Why do we see it as 'welfare' or 'handouts'? Why not financial assistance, until whatever the issue, is resolved? Why not have real practical assistance in place that will help recipients change or improve skills?

The paternalistic welfare system we have reduces recipients to financial poverty and creates childlike dependents.

Capitalism (with capital C) is on the opposite end of Communism. Both extremes and both inclined to favour the few who get in first with the right mob. The few will create monopolies and give plausible sounding arguments why their monopoly is preferable. Government monopolies or Business monopolies. The end result for most working tax paying people is the same. Negotiation is a romantic fantasy.
Posted by yvonne, Wednesday, 26 March 2008 10:12:36 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The social security system should provide a safety net for citizens experiencing an incapacity to earn due to health/disability/unpaid care provision/lack of jobs and/or skills.
Are the rabid anti-welfareists happy to be excluded from access to social security? Would they apply their bile to their own lives when they get a terminal illness diagnosis or a child with a disability and high needs to care for? Those who generally do the poor old taxpayer rant are typically in the heyday of their earning capacity and would yell and scream if they had to swap places with those they are quite happy to judge and order around.
Posted by mog, Thursday, 27 March 2008 12:38:17 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Perhaps, “Asian friend” is being penalised on a public transport in situations where simply Anglo-Celtic/Saxon folks just take their foot from the benches-an end of story for them.

Surely, “xenophobia” is a better expression to use in this topic than “racism” linked usually with skin-appearance in Australia.

Country where people are paid for who they are rather than what they do, where speechifying particular accent rather than a sense of speech are the most is rolling straight to hell, and no paternalism helps to stop this Anglo-regression.

P.S. Spelling and grammar are checked as usual. Enjoy.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 27 March 2008 6:04:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael K,

The fact that you cannot even acknowledge that your english is not very good is an obvious pointer to why you want to blame Anglo Saxons for all the world's difficulties. You have no capacity for self examination or at least no ability to express it. I honestly can't even reply to your last point as I'm not sure exactly what you are getting at. All I can really tell is that you're angry and that it's somehow our fault.

Ask anyone who speaks english well for an honest appraisal of your written english. I don't think I am being unfair when I say that there is an awful lot of room for mistunderstanding.

As for being a published scientist, so am I and to tell the truth a lot of scientific literature is very poorly written. Maths is the only truly universal language. What is your first language?
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 28 March 2008 11:46:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paull,

I do know that my English is far-from-perfect, and it is anyway much better than one of a million plus native speakers not able to read and write their native language at all.

A problem is that English is a tool for communicating, not a ground for already existing intellectualism, knowledge and professionalism Anglo-Saxon/Celtic institutional xenophobes deny in all outside their tribe, deploying a biological background as a very merit for elementary opportunities, employment is among them, in English-crown-overshadowed neo-feudal world.

However, your primitive, Dark Ages islander-style mentality hardly allows understanding of an issue properly because, in addition, some children that are born wealthy and privileged do not lord their advantages over others and believe that what is really a matter of chance was somehow their due.
Posted by MichaelK., Friday, 28 March 2008 12:55:25 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yvonne thanks for your affirmative statements

Regarding welfare“It is just enough to survive, but is still better than nothing. It's like treading water, having a go and swimming can be petrifying. Especially if you are responsible for children.”

It is sufficient then. The danger of providing more would encourage some to forego work for welfare. My ex wife threatened that and I told her she was stupid, for planning to structure her life around a poverty trap.

“Why not have real practical assistance in place that will help recipients change or improve skills?”

My understanding of unemployment payments (distinct from pensions) is they can be tied to undergoing training but it depends on the willingness of the recipient too.

“Both extremes and both inclined to favour the few who get in first with the right mob.”

Wrong. Communism presumes central ownership and management of all productive resources. Capitalism makes no such presumption. When most people are employed in small to medium businesses (as in Australia, Japan, USA etc) you can understand how capitalism devolves ownership of resources, decision making and avoids the inertia which comes with centralized power and control, including the sort of absolute power which corrupts absolutely.

I do and always have, favoured devolved authority and responsibility, I believe it produces better outcomes than centralized systems and works to spread opportunity and reward around, rather than favour the few.

Capitalism, through many smaller businesses, rather than monopolistic government run entities, reflects those attributes

“The few will create monopolies and give plausible sounding arguments why their monopoly is preferable”

We have anti monopoly statutes. It is up to government to enforce them. I was appalled when (socialist) Keating allowed the Myers / Coles and the Woolworth / Safeway mergers and relieved when Myers/Coles devolved again.

In
“Negotiation is a romantic fantasy.” Not in my reality.

I negotiate every contract I undertake.

PaulL “blame Anglo Saxons for all the world's difficulties.”

Advise, of your adversary, who I will decline to name, since I vowed never to demean myself by acknowledging him,

Ignore the ignorant.

It is as pearls before swine.
Posted by Col Rouge, Friday, 28 March 2008 3:07:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MichaelK,

You may be annoyed at Paul, but believe me when I say he has done you a favour by telling you what others haven't because they know you and/or don't want to hurt your feelings. Whilst you may not know it yet, Paul has been very kind by pointing out your weakness.

While it's hard to understand what you are saying, you appear to be downplaying the importance of being able to write English well. The truth is that in most occupations, high level writing skills are vital. If you ever have to write a formal letter, how is anyone going to take you seriously if it's poorly written? If you have to write memos, reports, emails, articles etc, it is highly important that you write well.

That's the reality. Someone who cannot write to a legible standard is not suitable to work in any professional capacity.

Another reality is that due to such a tight labour market existing today, employers simply cannot afford to discriminate on the basis of ethnic background. Indeed, the evidence is that the vast majority do not one single bit. The places I have worked have had Asians, Indians, Arabs and many other backgrounds.

Please don't think we are being nasty or cruel. We are simply being honest enough to tell you the truth. I know its easier to blame others for your lack of successes, but you have to seriously consider what we are saying, because it's the truth.

I hope that in time you are able to see this
Posted by AJFA, Friday, 28 March 2008 7:04:25 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Welfare is not an alternative life-style. Your ex-wife clearly had no personal experience. It is a poverty trap par excellence. To my mind not at all an assistance to help anybody through a situation.

Some 2 years ago my husband had a serious accident. I could tell you, a tax payer, stories that would make your hair curl.

If if I tell you the left hand does not know what the right is doing, that is a polite euphemism for a totally shambolic set up.

We've been tax payers for 25+ years. I'm appalled at the system we have here. Paternalism is a very polite word.

It has been shown overseas, like in Sweden, that more than six weeks out of work is very detrimental. The system we have here favours keeping people dependent for one year or more. Employment agencies get more money for placing a long term unemployed person than a recently unemployed person. How crazy is that? It's a gravy train for private 'unemployment agencies', an industry funded with tax payers money.

Anybody who wants to upskill or retrain should be vigorously encouraged, not told they'll need to be unemployed for a year or jump through some other hoops first. Or worse still, explained how much worse financially they'll be. True, true story. You are financially even worse off if you elect to go on Austudy, rather than unemployment, or invalid pension benefits. Even if there is no possibility of you obtaining work in your previous capacity.

We are doing fine now, though starting 'from scratch'. It takes a tough hide though and limitless self-confidence. Maybe I should sell T-shirts: "I was a 'client' with Centrelink and survived to tell the tale!"
Posted by yvonne, Friday, 28 March 2008 7:21:54 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yvonne,

There are plenty of us who have had dealings with centrelink. When I first left school my mates and I bludged off the dole, doing all sorts of things we shouldn’t. I really don’t think society was doing me any favours picking up the tab for my indolent and occasionally anti-social activities. And we were by no means unique. At the dole office you could meet people who used the dole as a lifestyle, all day every day.

I wised up, went back to university and got myself a degree. But I would still see the same types at centrelink whenever I went to talk about my austudy. The largest group of people who get benefits from centrelink are not people down on their luck or accident victims or carers they are lifestylers.

As you say six weeks out of work is very detrimental. How more so then is 1 year out of work. The very idea that the newly unemployed should be given preference over those out of work for longer periods, beggars belief. How exactly is it a gravy train if private employers find a job for someone who is receiving gov’t benefits. Surely they are saving us money by removing these people from the gov’t payroll.

The fastest and easiest way to move away from paternalism is self sufficiency, ie looking after yourself and not expecting the gov’t to bail you out. If you have an accident then you should get insurance not unemployed workers benefits. Same with carers. It’s not the gov’ts fault that some people are underinsured.

I don’t think you actually understand what paternalism means. If you did you wouldn’t be moaning on about it being the gov’t’s job to retrain you.The system we have here doesn’t favour keeping people on benefits for a year. It ensures that there is little incentive to swap work for a gov’t pay check. Then if you haven’t got off your arse after a year you can access FREE training. Maybe there should be free training for everyone, but that is moving towards more paternalism, not away.
Posted by Paul.L, Saturday, 29 March 2008 2:55:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I have been reading with great interest the varying views concerning the relationship between paternalism and welfare in Australia. Before I begin I would like to respond to Paul's comment telling me to mind ny own business. I believe this to be a public forum for debate whereby I have every right to comment on any discussions taking place. Isn't this the whole point of a forum?
Regarding the conflict between welfare dependancy and self sufficiency I have noted a discrepency in what was once the 'living wage' and what is now the 'minimum wage'. The 'living wage' was supposed to allow those workers to support a family, buy a home and enjoy a reasonable standard of living. . I realize there were provisions for aged, disability pensions and deserted wives pensions, but the point I would like to make is that welfare has become such a contentious issue because the minimun wage no longer supports a family in this way. It has become much more difficult to buy a home, feed and clothe your family, educate your children, let alone be able to save for an annual holiday or to cover yourself or your family in case of any future misfortune. People working full-time jobs on a minimum wage are now experiencing a time when their income needs to be supplemented through welfare such as the family allowance and health care cards to help with medical expenses.Where is the self sufficiency when full-time employment still cannot properly support a family? One might say that the market provides the opportunity for workers as a commodity where they may sell their skills, but with the impact of globalisation and the shift in the job market these skills are less saleable. One option is for retraining or development of other skills (which is expensive)and lets face it, there are only a certain amount of higher skill jobs and professions with continuing growth in competition for those jobs and careers. I would like to open this up for discussion and am interested in reading other views.
Regards,
Posted by acass2, Monday, 31 March 2008 10:14:23 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
What level of English proficiency Queen Victoria and dozens of others English monarchs residing too often outside kingdom presented?

And what jobs could Einstein and Oppenheim, a father of a nuke bomb, gain in Australia?

All this deliberations of communism and paternalism are ridiculously stupid because based on pure racism and xenophobia with no knowledge of reality and basics, an Australian approach surely.
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 31 March 2008 11:06:28 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear Michaelk,
Did I imply that I am racist or Xenophopic? I truly hope not, while also recognising my experiences and perceptions extend from life as a white, english speaking, Australian who also happens to be agnostic,female, divorced, raising two sons, one of whom has a disability. I do recognise (while many seem loath to)that Australia is not an egalitarian society with all having equal starting points and possible equal outcomes. I am only in my 2nd yr of studies at une(studying social policy at the moment) while working part-time. Obviously I am a welfare recipient(even when working full-time at my skill level),that is why I decided I needed to increase my opportunities. I feel guilty, less worthy, denigrated.
Posted by acass2, Monday, 31 March 2008 1:18:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Dear acass2,

Globalisation has made manufactured goods much cheaper, and therefore has great for consumers.

The difficulties associated with buying are home today are all connected with govt policies which have resulted in prices pushing up eg: negative gearing, first home buyer's grant, and that tax free savings account Kevin Rudd intends to introduce.

The welfare handouts that govt gives us is merely the money were originally paid in tax. If they really want to help us, they should just tax us less, so less bureaucrats are required to redistribute our money back to us. If Kevin Rudd really is serious about cutting spending, this is the first area where spending cuts will be announced in the upcoming budget.

More details can be found here: www.leonbertrand.blogspot.com.

Click on labels 'welfare', 'welfare for the wealthy' tariffs' etc
Posted by AJFA, Monday, 31 March 2008 7:23:18 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
ACCAS2: "I feel guilty, less worthy, denigrated."

That is what I must perhaps feel according to minders leaving such like me just this sort of existence-because of being not Anglos.

Head up, you can speak English with local accent -at least!
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 31 March 2008 7:58:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul, you irritate me monumentally.

Where did I 'moan' that the government should retrain me for free?

In fact, it sounds like my taxes paid for your single, immature life style for a while when you were stupid enough to think it was a lifestyle choice to be anti-social. How does that give you authority to comment on the meaning of paternalism? You just gave yourself as a prime example of how the system we have creates dependency and rewards immaturity.

Why a kid who finishes school should at any stage go 'bludge of the dole' beggars belief. If a kid out of school cannot get a job, that kid should be trained in something. There's a shortage of skilled employees remember.

So it was OK for you. Why should you get Austudy by the way? Didn't you, or your parents, insure you enough or save enough for further education after you finished being anti-social? Why should my taxes pay to support you through Uni? Can't you get part time work? Supplement your income by joining the army reserves? Can't you live with your parents?

It is not OK that a company is rewarded MORE for placing a long term unemployed to a short unemployed. Speaking of incentives to make MORE money! It is a tax payer funded gravy train. That's why Unemployment Offices are flashier in those areas with lowest employment prospects.

The longer somebody is out of the work force, the harder it is to get a reasonable job. Skills do not improve or keep up to date. Ask any woman who has stepped out for a year or so when having a baby.

If a person cannot get employment within a short period of time, options need to in place to address this. Being 'unemployed' for a year shouldn't be one of them and it certainly should not be rewarding third parties if this does happen.
Posted by yvonne, Monday, 31 March 2008 9:35:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yvonne “Welfare is not an alternative life-style. Your ex-wife clearly had no personal experience. It is a poverty trap par excellence. To my mind not at all an assistance to help anybody through a situation.”

I think this you are addressing me and I would agree with you completely, in the end, despite her threats she did not go ahead with the idea.

As to your husbands accident. I hope he has recovered and is fully functional again.

Hindsight is no comfort but I have, for the past 20+ years paid for income protection insurance (it is tax deductible) and during that time it has paid out twice, when I suffered some grave events.

I got that policy going before “trauma insurance” became available. Either is worth looking into and a better option than relying solely on government.

I like your tee shirt idea.

Acass2 re your post. A couple of things

The welfare which has been discussed on this thread has been predominately the sort designed to relieve some of the hardship associated with acute events which may befall anyone and help them in those periods whilst they find employment.

You said you son is disabled. For him, assuming his disability is permanent and inhibits him from becoming self-sufficient, a different sort of “welfare” is needed which reflects anyone’s natural compassion commonly expressed as “there for the grace of God go I”.

To yourself, developing a plan to move from where you are, through training and study to somewhere better is the best thing you could do.
That you “decided I needed to increase my opportunities.” Is the first step. I wish you well on your plan and path.
Keep taking those bold steps toward self-sufficiency, that is what will help you overcome any feelings of “guilty, less worthy, denigrated.”

I wish you well.

Yvonne, your last post. I agree with you again. The benefit of someone working versus on welfare are multiple

it saves the expense of welfare

they become a tax contributor.

sense of self worth and self esteem and opportunity for social interaction are all enhanced.
Posted by Col Rouge, Monday, 31 March 2008 10:38:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
>> “Anybody who wants to upskill ..should … not [be] told they'll need to be unemployed for a year … first.”

There is where you suggest that the gov’t should retrain you for free. You only have to wait through that one year if you want gov’t funded training. You can do it yourself anytime.

Your moronic suggestion that the gov’t is trying to keep people on welfare is annoying me, when they are so obviously trying to make welfare an unattractive option to all but the most needy. The fact that you would so willfully misquote me with such a nasty little story also annoyed me. ( Ie the suggestion that I thought you should be raped )

I don’t have to defend my Austudy payments. I have already paid back in tax any money the gov’t gave me. In any case I believe in free health care and education as the best way to ensure everyone has an equal opportunity to succeed. I will more than cover my expense to the nation during my career.

As for my dole payments, the story was only offered to counter your nonsense that most of the people on the dole have just fallen on hard times and with a little help will be on their way again. That may be true for you but it is not broadly true of the range of people on benefits.

Welfare should not be an alternative lifestyle but unfortunately for many, many people it is. It might not be to those who have a large mortgage and no income but then that’s their problem.

Last night on Four corners I watched people in huge debt trying to blame the banks for giving them loans they couldn’t afford. But the bank didn’t decide you needed a McMansion on a 100% loan filled with furniture bought on 27.5% store credit. One woman actually suggested she deserved the expensive house she bought on her pitiful $230pwk income. It was her RIGHT to have such a home whether she could pay for it or not.
Posted by Paul.L, Tuesday, 1 April 2008 11:07:32 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yvonne:

“It is not OK that a company is rewarded MORE for placing a long term unemployed to a short unemployed.”

Warm, warm, warm, Yvonne, you are nearly reaching a very core of Aussie economics, “mateship” and paternalism, where funding mates pay their “environmentally aware” ”comrades for
-“conserving a nature” by keeping majority, of non-Anglo-Saxons/Celts predominantly, in a stable pool of unemployment, looked after for simply economical reasons,
-and own financial benefits (JobNetwork is a diabolic police-style national-liberal neo-nazi feudal-UK-copy-cat-style Howard government's legacy, a fruitful piece of a cake for too many “employed” at and paid for).

“The longer somebody is out of the work force, the harder it is to get a reasonable job. Skills do not improve or keep up to date.” Which skills? Which date? Was maths improved dramatically upon last 50 years? Applied science and medicine have their basics-that is what local universities taught only- unchanged neither so dramatically as particular technological processes did in situ.

No job-no upgrading skills because “Experience is mother of wisdom”. And "work for dole" is denigrating humiliation, not skills upgrading. Denying jobs for long-term unemployed just contradicts own postulates.

“If a person cannot get employment within a short period of time, options need to in place to address this. Being 'unemployed' for a year shouldn't be one of them and it certainly should not be rewarding third parties if this does happen.” – they are addressed already by benefiting bureaucrats privileged as anything in Australia does.

Welfare is not paternalism. Taken miserable dole from pockets of needy dole recipients to boom an army of bureaucrats paid for factually making decisions for adult concerned people is paternalism.

Spell checking has shown no discrepancy in this message.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 1 April 2008 5:29:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Michael K,

Please tell me, is where ever you came from better than Australia? I would really like to know where it is you think you would be treated more fairly?
Posted by Paul.L, Wednesday, 2 April 2008 4:21:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

Thank you for your really practical interest intending, to your respondent understanding, to make Australia better.

A question, as I see, is dual at least.

On personal merits, it is not of a place IN GENERAL, but of a PERSONAL place PARTICULARLY in any society / area geographically. Is it in plain English?

And speaking IN GENERAL, under Kennet / Howard rule Australian politics demonstrated such a cynic approach to decision-making, that recently still continuing programs differ a little from traditionally-oppressing, paternalistic practices in so-called communist and simply authoritarian places, where carrots are perhaps little less sweeter on terms of China-made whitegoods brands only.
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 3 April 2008 11:04:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MichaelK,

Let me rewrite what you are trying to say so that we understand each other.

MichaelK >> “Thank you for your really practical interest intending, to your respondent understanding, to make Australia better.”

I think you are saying. Thank you for your practical interest in trying to understand me [your respondent] and therefore make Australia a better place.

MichaelK >> “A question, as I see, is dual at least.”

The question as I see it has at least two parts.

MichaelK >> “On personal merits, it is not of a place IN GENERAL, but of a PERSONAL place PARTICULARLY in any society / area geographically. Is it in plain English?”

I think you are saying here that “ regarding your views it is not the location which you come from which determines how you feel but personal experience or personal ideology which matters. Is that in plain English?

If that is what you are trying to say another way would be “ It’s not where I come from that is important, my beliefs are individual and are result of my learning, observation and experience”

MichaelK >> “And speaking IN GENERAL, under Kennet / Howard rule Australian politics demonstrated such a cynic approach to decision-making, that recently still continuing programs differ a little from traditionally-oppressing, paternalistic practices in so-called communist and simply authoritarian places, where carrots are perhaps little less sweeter on terms of China-made whitegoods brands only.”

That’s a very big sentence.

In general, under Howard/Kennet rule Australian politics demonstrated such a cynical approach to decision making that existing programs differ little from the oppressing, paternalistic practices traditionally expected of “Communist” ( inverted commas indicating so-called ) and simply authoritarian regimes, the difference being that here things are perhaps a little sweeter because of access to cheap Chinese white goods.

Are you suggesting that we are only marginally better off than those who suffered under Stalin or Mao or Pol Pot?

Is there somewhere you think people are better off than in Australia?

Where do you come from, and what is your native language?
Posted by Paul.L, Thursday, 3 April 2008 4:48:13 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

Your playing w i t h English testifies to just your mental abilities to comprehend written English-“What was that, PM?”, an article by. Mr.B. McManus in The Herald Sun, 02 April, is, to one's opinion, a very similar example of playing fool by pretending not understanding own native language, while PM K. Rudd expressed his ideas crystal clear to willing to gauge them.

Back to this forum, if even grammatically plain sentences are out of your grasp, what is a point to broaden topic with things you, maybe,had heard somewhere somehow sometimes marginally anyway?
Posted by MichaelK., Thursday, 3 April 2008 7:33:44 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
MichaelK.

This just reinforces what i have been saying all along. You have twice confused my intentions. The first time two posts back I was criticising you.

In the last post I was actually trying to understand what it was you are saying. I wasn't trying to insult you. When I say your english is poor, I don't mean it as an insult. It is just a statement of fact. Ask anyone on OLO you trust. They'll tell you exactly the same thing.

I don't play dumb or pretend I don't understand.
I honestly can't understand what it is you are trying to say most of the time.

You would do well to write in smaller sentences with words you understand.

Whoever told you that you speak english well was blowing smoke up your arse. I don't think there is anything wrong with not to be able to speak english well. However it does make communication on OLO almost impossible
Posted by Paul.L, Friday, 4 April 2008 1:10:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Understanding plain English is your problem-please, address it synonymously to MP Kevin Rudd directly.
Posted by MichaelK., Sunday, 6 April 2008 5:01:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Paul,

I know you are motivated with the best of intentions, but it appears that our friend doesn't want to understand. It's much easier to deny that fault or responsibility lies with oneself rather than others. It's too easy to blame others for one's failures in life. Unfortunately, that's the road that most people take.

All you can do is point out the truth to someone, and that is far more than most people will, out of politeness. You have done all you can. The ball is now in our friend's court. If he doubts what you have told him, he can, as you have said, ask others for their honest opinion. But it's up to him now. Stop wasting more of your time. I'm sure there are others you could speak to who will actually listen.
Posted by AJFA, Sunday, 6 April 2008 5:57:43 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
AJFA,

Did you read The Herald Sun article I had mentioned above?

Do you intend to explain that imperfectness in writing of even native language or in verbal second/third/fourth languages prevent from performing even intellectual/professional-and in general- jobs well (to some extent journalism and legal activities, perhaps might be only)?

Are you attempting to explain that this is a government welfare-provider task to “recommend” person on request (or even without?) by willing to employ this person?

Really, you hardly understand what you intend saying by yourself, perhaps.

And what is your profession? Sir who writes English at any high paid job because of his right to posses this job in a feudal Australia-a semi-colonial copy-car of England?
Posted by MichaelK., Monday, 7 April 2008 11:56:26 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Your hate gets in the way of any reasoned discussion with you.

Why don't you go back to wherever it is you came from? Surely you would be much better off there, than among us obvious evil people. In fact how can you stand living here at all.

Oh I get it. Someone is actually paying you a lot of money here, and so you'll stay here for the money, rather than abide by your principles and go somewhere that actually suits you.

I think it says something that you are too scared to tell us where it is you come from and what your first language is. Gutless.
Posted by Paul.L, Monday, 7 April 2008 12:14:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
As clear from Australian media, Australians need no advice or suggestions what to do and where they should live. If these suggestions had not been asked to provide.

Perhaps, your last post, PaulL, perfectly testifies to situation where paternalism is a natural constituent of some persons assuming “white man burden” as their natural responsibility by mixing welfare with police functions as in Australia happened customarily.
Posted by MichaelK., Tuesday, 8 April 2008 11:55:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 8
  7. 9
  8. 10
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy