Belly “Poor old Col, truly bloke you are an offensive beggar no other way to describe you.”

As Belly, from the left of the pendulum proving what I said

“…….expressing their contempt and loathing of anyone who had the foresight, character and ability to fund at least part of their own future.”

As well as trying (feebly) to castigate anyone dare cast a spotlight on the manipulative nature of socialism.

No sour grapes… I make my own way.. and these days, offshore environs are looking good… then I can just pop back to partake of the “socialist freebies”.

As to soarer grapes… mmmm…. I have heard of diamonds which ring and pigs which fly … but never a soaring grape…

maybe they have been developed by some entrepreneurial horticulturalist/vintner to put more of a “lift” into champagne.

“I think we need a lot less Govt and more individual repsonsibility.Once you take from individuals reponsibility,they don't try as hard to secure their own futures,thus we have whole generations of dysfunctional people who are a burden to themselves and the tax payer.”

Exactly

As dearest Margaret said….

“I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first.”

Instead, those who have avoided the reasonable expectations of “self-care” are set up by the socialists as a tax burden on those who were wise, prudent, self-responsible and industrious.

As rehctub said “I say again, they must stop rewarding the 'under achievers' at the expense of the 'achievers'.”

But that is the first rule of socialism, rehctub, -

level the just returns due to the wise and prudent and force them to subsidise their incompetent socialist brethren

The problem with rash generalisations is one size fits no one in particular.

My point earlier was that there are many and varied valid reasons why :-
a. People are the way they are;
b. Therefore in the circumstances they are in, many are reasonably beyond their control.
c. Public housing is difficult to get. Long delays (years in some cases). Hardly something to bank on.

Returning(?) grey nomads tend to live in Caravan parks until they go into old aged homes... or die. Where's the public housing there? Show me the statistics in stead of green eyed drivel.

I also suggest some look up the superannuation rules about early retirement withdrawals.

True getting a place in an awful block in an unsafe area is quicker but....

Then there's the disabled, those unable to work, those who can't get jobs and those that had to spend their immature super on surviving. etc. Let's not forget those that haven't got the skills to get permanent jobs and therefore haven't been able to save. Oh yes there are single mums but not all of them are dead beats.

Fact...The elderly use the greatest part of the social security budget.
Next. Super is a relatively new concept especially for casuals.
Some casuals have long forced breaks between jobs. So their super is simply inadequate.
A case study...
Take my sister in law (please?) worked from 18-49 as a nun in a church run old folks home then had to leave. No super, no payout nothing just her dowry ($4000) back.
Who was going to hire her no real qualification skills etc...
finally another 10 years as a lackey in a privately own Old folks home (her super $28000) but she can't get it until she's sixty five.
She now has many physical (job) related issues.
While she is but one case there are other reasonable tales.
So I say look beyond your bias, green eyed nonsense and re think. The reasonableness of this horrible stance. News paper and political parties feed on this type of sensationalised tripe. Think don't just follow.

Examinator,
You referred to 'butchers that sell direct from farm, meat' and implied it was cheap.

Last I heard, all meat sold HAS to be from animals killed in a licenced abitoirs, so it cannot come direct from farm. After slaughter the carcase has to go to another facility for breaking down.
That facility would most likely have to be licenced as well. It is a marketing ploy and simply implies that it is cheaper, or better, than a shop. Very few farms could supply the range of meat cuts consumers demand. I do not know of any.

I also have a feeling that the sale of milk is also regulated. Eggs used to be regulated as well but not any more. How 'free reange' is free range. My guess is very little and a marketing ploy as well.

I am sure rehctub would know the exact laws here.

Banjo,
They bill themselves that way and claim that they avoid wholesalers.
According to mum and eAnt they interviewed on TV the grazier who's property they come from. eAnt says it was on Ch 7 or 9.

My experience with a/the shop in question at the GC is that the meat and bread are cheaper than the super markets by a fair way.
However the point made Hasbeen was that there are ways in Qld Gold coast to counter his BBQ guests claim they were so poor and disadvantaged that they were justified (sic) in their spray.

NB I didn't point to mum who owns her own home and is doing nicely enough not to need help from me, although offered. I don't know the details of the BBQ guests other than they were spraying public housing tenents unjustly.

Ebenezer Scrooge (aka Col)
As I have said before, you, clearly value/judge people by their wealth, value and proximity to you.

The trouble with your dog eat dog philosophy is that you simply leave cleaning up, (victims, vulnerable) to others. They're still there regardless perhaps more of them because of those of your mind set. The outcome of your philosophy can be seen in the back streets of most Philippine cities....slums. Personally I prefer our way.

Life is made up by various shades of grey not Black or White and a philosophy to be relevant contextually valid.(Maggie' extreme perspective were political and less that perfect/humane. But definitely out of context and relevancy today. You would have been at home with Joh and his antediluvian views )

BTW. There IS a difference between Socialism and socialised welfare.
Never let facts get in the way of a self serving myopic rant

Examinator, for one who is so proud of their literary ability, you show little comprehension of simple english.

If you had understood, you would have seen the "spray" was for Swanny, & Julia, trying to get greenie points, pushing for a state paid for, advantage to pensioners in public housing.

Now I know math is not a speciality of our lefty, bleeding hearts, but I would have thought anyone, with just simple arithmetic, would be able to see, that these folk are the best off of all who are totally dependant on the age pension. This is a fact, not a bitch.

The only possible reason to be unable to see this would be a case of ideology getting in the way.

However, at no time did I mention any complaint of this, although, some others perhaps did.

What I did complain of, was that our two sharpies wanted to give them a special advantage, available to no others. This appears to be for the political advantage only, & of no other use. Reading your last post, it worked very well, with it's target audience.

Don't you feel even just a little manipulated by this type of smartarse politicking?