Pelican... you can deal with Col, but I am interested in this line you wrote here, 'Programs like Work for the Dole or the new Green Corps are some of the ways I think governments try to seek this balance and reduce the possibilities for those who would try and rort the system'.

Like many others, you highlight only the bottom end of society as rorting-central, and make no mention of corporate rorting, both the legal that passes as assistance to badly run businesses, like the entire car industry, the legal tax avoiders, their close cousins, the tax evaders, and all the others. Or the convenience of the old economists trick, a bigger rort than all the others put together, the invention of 'externalities' that never have to be accounted for by private industry but are passed directly to the taxpaying public.

Is there any bigger rort than giving tax free status to religions? Or turning the general field of 'education' into a commodity, so we end up with shonky private trainers who essentially steal from their clients with the official seal of approval from national training bodies? And, I have to be cruel here, many of our universities are in the same boat here, along with TAFE colleges.

Thinking that only the 'deserving poor' are capable of rorting is part of 'the joke' that our wealthy, and their sycophantic supporters, Gillard et al., like to keep telling so they are relieved of ever having to tackle anything that might threaten their power base.

Of course, Rudd likes to pretend he was never a neo-liberal, another form of rorting, while all the evidence shows that he has never been anything but one, never mind he is doling our tax cash out to dunderheaded voters who refuse to look towards, never mind beyond, the not-so-distant horizon.

This is rapidly becoming the scene of the next vast rort, the carbon trading scam, to be run by the same dangerous fools who run our stocks and shares industry, who have just brought the global trading system to the brink of disaster.

On other OLO subjects I have made similar comments to yourself BlueCross and agree wholeheartedley.

I was speaking more in the context of Col's comments and I don't think Col was referring to rorts at the big end of town. But I could be wrong.

Pelican “I agree with that particular statement Col but it should not be held up as the slogan for reducing social support infrastructure.”

You agree with what I said.

My post never attempted to address the level or degree or extent of support infrastructure.

To bring it up now is like you trying and add a caveat to what I said and, to be honest, that does not constitute a valid reason to disagree with what you have stated you already agree with.

So you I can only conclude, agree with me, which is sensible of you.

Blue Cross “you can deal with Col,”

Are you too grand to get your hands dirty?

To “shonky private trainers”… stealing from clients?

Maybe you could supply details because I know a private trainer and the stealing (demanding certificates despite failing courses and throwing acid over cars in revenge, is more the role of thieving clients than trainers).

Although I would agree with you, carbon trading will go the same way as European olive oil lakes and butter mountains.. .the source of criminal incomes from fraudulent documents.. and all courtesy of stupid governments and ineffective bureaucrats.

Pelican “I don't think Col was referring to rorts”

I was not referring to rorts at all…

Regarding rorts, I believe heavy gaol penalties and full restitution (even from family members where extorted wealth might have been hidden) are the appropriate response, be the “rorter” regardless they are from the top end of town or the more modest suburbs

RobP “My problem is not with the content of what you say, it is with the DEGREE to which it is held.”

That is, as you state, your problem,

So stop trying to make it sound like it is mine..

I suggest you go away and deal with your “problem” and come back with a clear mind.

As to the “degree” again I fail to see where any “scale of increments” has ever been a content of any post by any poster on OLO.

So if you are having a problem with the “DEGREE” to which I hold certain things to be true and right, you must hold similar problems with everyone other post on OLO… your own included.


I suggest you go an unmuddle your reasoning before bothering to post again


Such as “Achieving balance, which was what I was on about,”


Well “balance” is a toughie.


Especially when you walk around with a 45 degree list to starboard…

your intellectual and reasoning skills, such as they are, see the horizon as skewed, not because the world is uneven or unfair but because of your own personal, twisted perception.

PS there is something sad and pathetic when someone tries to be sarcastic and then goes to great length toi explain the basis of the sarcasm (re Hans Grüber ).

It seems to defeat the purpose… but I suppose you are used to comments like that and other like “over-extending your smart-arse ability”.

Col Rouge,

Well, there's not much point debating with you because you constantly move the goalposts. Never answer the question, but forever throw dust in the eyes of your opponents. That's not helping anyone at all or getting to the truth, but purely protecting your comfort zone. That, BTW, was what my Hans Grüber explanation was all about making clear.

Now, how about giving us a direct rebuttal. But only if you're good enough, that is. If you don't, I'm sure we'll all understand why.

Col
You are playing semantics. I agreed that there are spongers - fact of life unfortunately - but it does not mean that we should abandon support structures altogether.

You asked how far do we go? The trick is ensuring there are no, or less, loopholes for the spongers and rorters without harming those with legitimate claims. This is not always easy. Often you tweak one end of a problem creating an unforseen problem at the other end.

One example is those on disability pensions who are now required to enter into the workforce for an agreed number of hours per week. Not a bad goal given it also enables the disabled to be able to participate in mainstream life. The tricky bit is to ensure that those who are totally incapacitated are not forced to do work that they are legitimately unable to do. Or that the work suits the particular disability including travelling to work issues and the like.

One case I know of where an employment agent specialising in disability found a job for a few hours a week for a client but it turned out the client could not get to the place of employment. They could not use the bus and the cost of taxis outweighed the earnings they would have received for those few hours per week.

There has to be some commonsense.

The other aspect which governments forget is that many employers won't take on disabled employees without incentives or on a trial basis despite the lip service paid to equal opportunity employment - even in the public service.