People Against Live Exports & Intensive Farming
Many, many thousands of migrants come in Australia every year because we need more and more working hands. Instead to bring migrants it is better to have our local people! Do you disagree with it?
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

In my opinion we are far better off bring SKILLED migrants into the country than to encourage our miss-fit youth to have children of thier own just for money.

I also belive, and I am generalising here, that as a society we are raising limp wristed panzies as oppossed to the men we raised a few generations ago. All we are doing is encouraging two missfits to have another miss-fit or two. It's a joke, but then we knew that.

Another problem is that society for decades has rewarded the weak and forgotten the strong.

Take a bully at school. He goes to school, plays havok on the teacher all day, does practicly nothing all day but! he gets a 'good behavour certificate' just becasue he didn't bully anyone today. The well behaved, hard working kids get little recognition for thier efforts.

Anyhow, I'm off track again but god help us if our country gets attacted and we have to rely on generation X for our survival.

As for your comment on 'it's the government who will foot the bill'

They can't even run our hospitals, water, roads ect so how on earth can they run this scheme.

I say again, be very carefull what you wish for as the fall out may bite you in the but!

Col Rouge
"The only purpose of “society” is to support the individuals who comprise it"
haha! at the end you found the society and its only purpose is to support the individuals! What about the pregnant women, the individual pregnant women? What about the babies, the real, individual babies?
How a society could support the individuals when individuals avoid to support the society?
Col Rouge
"no society has a “dream”" What is the American dream? Why most Australians dream the ourteam to win the most gold metals in next Olympic games? Do you think the conservatives will win in the next elections or only they dream it? Many dreams from many societies, from many communities etc.
"a selfish bastard you really are" Usually you are more careful and control yourself. It is not for me personally, but for Australian mothers, for Australian children, for Australia!
"What you support is a system which ultimately leads to the horrors of a Lenin or a Stalin"
What do you say Col Rouge? Stalin and Lenin have more common with neoconservatives and corporations than with me! All of them ignore, underestimate and violate people's rights, all of them prefer to promote their interests with the stick than with democracy. If ever they speak or follow the democratic roles they do it when they have no other choice. Do you see corporation's relations with communist china? with Cuba's communists? Why do you close your eyes when one after the other all American corporations start business in China?
I WANT FROM YOU TO BE A BRAVE AND HONEST MAN, I DO NOT SAY THAT ALWAYS I HAVE RIGHT, I DO NOT SAY THAT YOU ALWAYS ARE WRONG, I AM HAPPY WHEN I FIND YOU ARE RIGHT AND I SHOW IT PUBLICLY.
I SUSPECT THAT YOU UNDERSTAND HOW USEFUL IS PAID MATERNITY-PARENTAL LEAVE BUT YOU AVOID TO RECOGNIZE IT PUBLICLY BECAUSE YOU DO NOT LIKE TO SHOW THAT YOU AGREE WITH ME!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

rehctub
You are not racist! you want to benefit from migrants, I understand that but employers, any employer must respect the basic rights of migrants and do not discriminate against them.
DO YOU KNOW THAT WORLDWIDE THE LEFT PARTIES, MOST EMPLOYERS,MANY UNIONS AND WELL EDUCATED PEOPLE AGREE FOR MORE MIGRANTS BUT THE RIGHT PARTIES, LESS EDUCATED PEOPLE AND MOST OF THE UNIONS DISAGREE FOR MORE MIGRANTS?
I AGREE WITH YOU UNDER ONE CONDITION: NO DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MIGRANTS!
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaid

You can't cherry-pick, Celivia.

>>As I explained before, women’s participation in the workforce becomes greater wherever PLM (paid maternity leave) exists, as we can see from the example of the Nordic countries and others, so the argument that women will be pushed out of the workforce is moot when leave is paid by the government because the opposite happens to be true.<<

Unfortunately, these luxuries go hand-in-glove with Nordic-style taxation. I for one don't believe the Australian public are ready for that level of involvement of the state in their lives, nor that level impact on their hip-pockets.

We as a country have chosen to keep the government at a certain distance, and are taxed accordingly.

My challenge still stands. If a political party believes that this level of intervention is what the public wants, they should say so, honestly and clearly, in their election manifesto. The reason they don't do this is because they know how the Australian public will respond.

Unfortunately, because politicians are card-carrying cowards, the only way this legislation will occur is through stealth and dishonesty, and outside the democratic process whereby the parliament is the servant of the people.

Did some OLOers simply drop onto planet earth as fully formed adults? That must be the explanation. Because they sure didn’t have parents who sacrificed much of their lives and livelihoods for them.

Having children is fact of life; NOT luxury.

Parental Leave offers the following benefits:

• Enables parents to spend time bonding with their children
• Retains links with workplace and facilitates return to workforce
• Children gain benefits of long term breastfeeding (this is not as straight forward and easy as some would think).
• It is vital for mothers to look after their babies for the first few months and for babies to have intimate care for at least 12 months.
• The economy benefits if parents are able to maintain their skills and also the employer benefits by not having to train and find new staff.
• That government assists as paid parental leave leads to discrimination against women and parents in the workforce.

Therefore, assistance that encourages people back into the workforce has benefits for the economy as a whole, assuming that it is a worthwhile objective to have more people working. Any arguments here?

Further economic benefits (seeing as this is the only thing SOME people understand) are, women will pay more tax and increase their own super funds. This also establishes a pattern of work that children will follow their parents into the workforce, rather than remain welfare dependent.

Both government and potential parents could contribute to a Maternity Benefit Fund – along the lines of our super funds. On a voluntary basis, men and women, planning for children, could contribute to this fund in early working life. Taking the pressure off employers, contributions could be matched by the Federal Government.

Hey CELIVIA and ANTONIUS

Thought you should know that Col is quite capable of going ‘socialist’ if he directly benefits, see below:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1859#37221

“…….. I recently bought another car and had it immediately converted to LPG, all on the government.”

Modest isn’t he? Not the slightest bit interested in giving ALL children the best possible start in life, just wants to save money on fuel. If he was really concerned about environmental sustainability you’d think he’d buy a hybrid.

Col, a single tree does not a forest make.

PALE – you receive funding from the Queensland government via the RSPCA and I do believe that Wendy herself is in receipt of welfare benefits. Or was.

Either way, there is clearly a load of hypocrisy when people are happy to insert their own snouts into the trough for personal advantage, but deny opportunities for a good start in live for our most dependent people – children.

REHCTUB

Just repeating that someone is wrong over and over doesn’t make it so. You need to supply some evidence why preventing more women from joining and continuing to contribute to the work force is bad economics.

Women who work pay taxes, taxes pay for government services, government service benefit everyone, including Col Rouge as he has demonstrated above.

Everyone wins