A subject that fills the air with butter flys and birds.
As the nice folk rush to protect the sad victims.
Haveing as I said many times done it hard as a child, been hungry often.
I think too we must protect the victims.
Some times those victims are the tax payers.
Looking at the unemployment numbers,some have been unemployed for? 5 years!
Some shifted in to the too hard basket are on shifty disability payments, or long term sickness benefits.
The birds and butterfly's are by now assaulting me.
BUT who amung them, has eaten pumpkin and spuds for tea,ONLY, and the skins for breakfast ONLY.
I will and have gone hungry to help the true needy.
And will oppose forever the red neck blindness behind pay them in food stamps.
But we have many who never intend to work feeding on our good will.
Many sitting at home this morning unable to keep warm, because we seem to fear stopping the fraud so we can give more to those who truly need.

Belly, my lady works for one of the large national charity employment agencies. She has done for a few years now. She was so successful with our P & C association efforts at organising in school apprenticeships for the less academic students at our local high school, they came looking for her.

She is a bit of a bleeding heart, which has sometimes caused a little friction between us, always seeing "hardship" before laziness.

They thus gave her the dead head case load, all the very long term unemployed. She has been remarkably successful at getting some quite talented folk, who had just given up, back into the work force, some in quite good jobs, & many others self supporting again. In fact she just won an award for getting the highest percentage of such folk back in work.

However she now admits that something over 30% of her cases are either work shy, or working cash in hand, part or even full time, & collecting benefits on the side. There have been more than a few threats when she has "breached" I think it is, some who don't turn up for courses or job interviews. They don't like loosing part of the benefit, although they won't comply with the requirements.

Perhaps not food stamps, but how about a card that could not be used to withdraw cash, or pay for tobacco, grog, gambling & such. Things we should not have to fund from taxpayers who often can't afford these things themselves. Such restrictions would not have to be obvious, until such purchases were attempted.

Yes I know, I'm a red neck, but names won't hurt me.

I agree hasbeen, with your wifes views and that you are a red neck.
On every occasion we have talked about this subject I get swamped by the *nice folk* flogged by the butterfly's and colorful birds.
But we just must understand, in my view, 20% minimum of that 4.5% never wish to work.
And that we are complacent, in ignoring that fact/those fraudsters.
I target too the few employees of social security who are harsh, needlessly so,with honest unemployed,and by being so build fences around true investigation of welfare fraud.
Privatization, even at the costs, often,of higher price for worse results has taken life time jobs we could have placed some unemployed in, some need help to get started.
Tough love is often best.
I got jobs as a union official for even some who could not write their name.
But had to confront a fact,some wanted only to go surfing or drinking, some, face it, need a hand,to get the very courage to go to work.
We frail everyone by not investigating new ways to help.
PS your feeble childish parliamentarians are building, half hour into question time for yet another motion, this time Gina's workers, it may not win but motions are being passed as a result allover Australia.

Should this restriction on taxpayer generosity and largess be extended to those other idle non-productive burdens on our economy - the disabled and the elderly?

Some of those pensioners may have gone from a lifetime on the dole straight into the aged pension and I often see them feeding our hard-earned taxes into the pokies every Pension day - or am I just generalising?

What about those professional corporate fraudsters who scam people out of their savings, leave swathes of unpaid bills behind for their victims and enjoy their ill-gotten gains because of some legal technicality - or are we only going for the easy targets here?

Wobbles a bit naughty, we are talking about welfare, if you want to include pensions ok.
But aged pensions are hardly the home of fraud.
And fools play pokies broke or rich.
Am I being cruel in demanding we pay the true needy?

Dear Belly,

Of course there are people who abuse the
system. What I find disturbing though is that
there seems to be a common entrenched belief
in this country that the poor are in poverty
because they are idle and prefer to live on
"handouts."

This view is fervently held, even by
heaps of Australians who don't know poor people,
have never tried to raise a family on welfare
payments, and haven't the vaguest idea what
poverty is really like.

Opinion polls repeatedly show large sec tions of the
population favouring cuts in welfare spending, or
favouring plans to "make welfare recipients go to work."

These attitudes bear little relationship to reality,
More than half of welfare recipients are
aged people, or disabled; most of the rest are mothers
with young children, and less than 5 percent are able-
bodied men, most of them unskilled workers in areas of
high unemployment.

There are many myths that abound
about welfare recipients. That they have many children
(most have two or fewer); that they are on welfare
indefinitely (most receive it for less than two years)
and that welfare is a terrible burden on the taxpayer
(welfare represents less than 2 percent of the federal
budget).

Why do these curious myths about welfare persist?
I guess it's the same ideology that believes that
those who get ahead can claim credit for their success,
those who fall behind must logically be blamed for their
failures. The poor are therefore supposed to need
incentives to work, rather than help at the expense of
the taxpayer.

There are few complaints, however, about
governments paying far more in "Handouts" to the
nonpoor than to the poor. This fact generally escapes
attention because these benefits take the indirect
form of hidden subsidies or tax deductions of all kinds,
rather than direct cash payments.

If we're going to look at welfare - lets look at all of it -
including middle-class welfare and tax cuts to the rich.
After all - it's only fair.

I have said it for years and will continue t say it, unless some can change my opinion tha being, STOP THE CASH!

Also, the time has come for all but the extreme cases, to work for their dole, or go without.

Free lunches MUST be a thing of the past.

Belly there is another aspect of this seldom touched on. That's the part where we are held responsible for the costs of running society, of funding the basics that those who deliberately minimise their taxable income don't contribute to.

If a wage earner does some overtime to help pay expenses he or she gets assumed to be even more responsible for the cost of running society and are taxed accordingly. Someone who chooses to keep their earned income to a minimum avoids that responsibility.

The tough bit in this is realistic ways of separating the genuinely needy from the lazy. Whatever rules or reviews we will put in place are likely to be distorted away from the intent.

R0bert

The only fair welfare system is where we ALL receive equal welfare, unconditionally.

This also cuts under all fraud as there is no incentive not to work: you got your dole in any case, then why not work and earn some more?

Yes, it is possible. It's called negative income-tax.

I find the dollar-numbers on the links below too small, probably not up-to-date with inflation, but the principle is good in many ways.

http://ldp.org.au/policies/1164-taxation
http://ldp.org.au/policies/1167-welfare

Lexi I see nothing in my thoughts and posted words that offer evidence I think that way.
I stand tall and firm, against the stated thoughts of Rechtub Hasbeen, and some others here.
Let me make this clear, I am ALP FOREVER, BUT WAITING, SOME TIMES IMPATIENTLY, FOR MY PARTY TO CATCH UP.
My youth was far worse than just hunger.
It was twisted and torn by true poverty.
Just being so poor,in 1955 was far worse than today, Social welfare was far different, my dad,a man who worked himself to death at age 54 to feed us, had to humble himself at the local police station, and it was that humbling, to feed us
A loving man he went without food for days he worked menial jobs for very little.
Lexi, we got an education in working, some at age 8, to feed ourselves.
How could I not feel contempt for those saying food stamps are the answer?
I am repulsed by the statements from well fed never been hungry folk.
BUT TOO lets remember, open our eyes to the birth of welfare,to feed the true poor, not sustain a life of crime for some, not keep folk remote from the rest of us.
IF we cut the fraud, stop protecting true crime in the name of true victims we can pay more.
Australia need not leave everything as it is,we need not fear change.
We can give a job of last resort instead of dole, we can end paying the true bludgers, Lexi they exist!
If we consider new paths, not a useless non productive job one of worth to workers and taxpayer.
The charge Labor and Liberals are one is idiotic ranting, but we did forget to put fences around Social Security in fact we let the true needy down by not stopping fraud.

Belly, no decent person would deny welfare to the genuine needy.

The problem is, how do we determine who the genuine needy are.

What I do know is that these GN people don't waste their welfare, so, if all welfare was quarantined, it would stop the waste, while at the same time, not effect the GN as they are not the ones wasting it on grog,cigs and gambling.

So, what's the problem with quarantining all welfare and managing the waste, as it will ensure that the limited resources would benefit more of the genuine needy, as the billions currently wasted would be better spent than is currently the case.

A system like this (linked to a debit card) would also allow recipients to bettknow a person who at the time of the first $20,000 first home owners grant, had a personal wealth (held in trusts) in excess of 40$ million, yet was still able to secure the grant to buy his first house in his own name.

In my view he was entitled to the grant, but he was hardly needy.
er manage their dollars, as there could also be a monthly statement issued, that provides an accurate account of where this money has been spent.

So in essense, it would be a budget aid for all welfare recipients, large or small, as they could see where their dollars go and identify potential savings in certain areas, that may be better spent elsewhere.

I know I am like a broken record, but if you stop the cash, you address the waste, and that is the real problem here, is how to better provide for the genuine needy, from a limited resourse.

I throw my lot in with Belly and Lexi on this one.
About once a fortnight I get one of those circulating emails with wild stories about these people who supposedly live the high life on the dole.
I think very few people subject themselves willingly to poverty, or willingly subject themselves to the humiliation of what government departments put them through. Not intentionally but simply in getting the job done.
I can't remember who said it, but I put great value on a quote that goes something like, "The true test of how civilised a society is, is how it treats the weakest among it."
We in Australia are among the wealthiest per capita in the world.
I think we can afford to give a decent leg up to those who need it.
And if I have to pay a little more tax to cover it, well it's a helluva lot better use of the money than some things our taxes get spent on.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anton, the problem is, welfare is all about a 'hand up', not a 'hand out' which is often the case.

As for people living the high life, on the dol, well, some do, as they either work for cash, or, they deal in drugs.

So what's the problem with controlling, to some extent, where welfare dollars, provided by tax payers, are spent.

If they don't like it, get a job, because according to some here, that's not a problem cause we have full employment.

Now on the other hand, if someone is unemployable, why then should they be allowed to waste our money.

There are even option for people to earn money from home, but that cuts into their hand outs, so many don't.

Dear Belly,

I wasn't accusing you of anything. I was speaking
in generalities about how welfare is viewed by
some people - whereas in actual fact it only
constitutes approx. two percent of the federal
budget - and as Anthony stated - I also would rather
we spend that two percent on welfare than on so many
other things that our society can do without. The fact
remains that although there are some who abuse the
system - overall - our system works quite efficiently.
But of course the myths will continue to abound.

It is sad that so many do abuse the system and take so much for granted, and then ruin things for others doing it tough and doing the right thing. Having said that in terms of Welfare and how much it can help those in need, especially single parents and those with a disabilty, I'm curious to know what others think of the governments welfare to work policy that came into affect in 2005? So once a person's youngest child turns 6 parents are forced to undertake a min 15 hrs work per week, and are shifted to a lesser rate of payment. As a single mother who is currently studying for higher education this policy has great impacts. The government encourages people to obtain higher education to better themselves and get into the workforce, but such policies can greatly restrict this. Does anyone else feel the same? Or do people think the policy is fair? I am really curious of people's views on this one :) thanks so much..

In my view, people who are studying in ways that will increase their employability and their productivity should be supported while they study, particularly if they have children.
This is a sensible investment of government money on behalf of taxpayers.
The returns on the investment are:
> Lower likelihood of the student, once graduated, being dependent on welfare in the future
> Increased probability that the student will be able to make a greater contribution to tax revenues in the future as the graduate usually earns more than if the study was not undertaken, and much, much more than if the unemployed person had not sought further education at all and had remained unemployed;
> Increased probability that the student, once graduated, will be able to contribute to Australia's international competitiveness, (the successful economies of the future will be those with an educated workforce);
> Statistics tell us that the children of educated parents are more likely themselves to become educated, so the benefits of education tend to be multi-generational.
For all these reasons, I think unemployed people who undertake further education should be well supported.
It's the same as companies funding cadetships and so on - it just makes good business sense to invest in education.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Oh, those horrible bludgers on welfare! Those terrible people! Militarism, racism, international and intranational conflict, destruction of the environment and a million etceteras are real problems. Oh well, it somehow seems to me that welfare is not a real concern except to make sure that all Australians have access to decent education, health care, opportunity for employment and decent living conditions.

I wounder how many understand it was the ALP who fought for welfare.
The Child welfare payment was proceeded by the Church of my birth joining the Liberals in naming it, Communism.
It is undeniable truth the ALP is the party of welfare.
These two terms have seen rises higher than any in pour history.
IF Labor does not reform welfare Liberals will.
Two very different results are the end result.
I think Daidf is expressing the nice persons view,hecklinging me for mine.
My posts show my rising from true welfare, until now no evidence of how much I gave and still give,to those in need.
Who knows a family of three generations,17 in all, on the dole,all working their way from there to sickness benefits then pensions?
Some are there others various stops on the way.
No intention to ever work.
What has the overall percentage of costs got to do with fraud, do we care that these family's, the one I speak of, steels cars, any thing?
Is targeting the fraud unkind, many Rechtubs exist, food stamps!
Australians know some fraud takes place, separate the fraud, it is that I target, from the true needy.
Now consider this, always some need help to find a job? once not very long ago we gave them one councils roads all gave such people work.
NOW? we create whole generations of forever poor, casual workers never to have a paid sick day a holiday working for contractors charging us more for less.

Belly, casualization of the work force is curtiousy of the previous labor government.

As for a paid sick day/holiday, that's what the loading is for, but you already know that, but hey, why let the truth get in the way of a good story.

As for food stamps, I dont supper these, never have, never will.

Do you understand that this time!

People who don't waste welfare would have few issues with quarantining it

It's the blugers and wasters that have a problem with it.

Dear Belly,

Yes, I express the nice person's view. I think it is also the realistic person's view. There will always be some who rort the system whatever system there is. Focussing attention on those who rort the welfare system rouses people to ignore the good things that Labor does and encourages them to support the reactionaries.

Meanwhile the rorting of the system by banks, advertising agencies, pols, manufacturers, the mining industries and other experts at rorting gets ignored.

Sears Roebuck in the United States had a problem with employee theft. They studied the problem and the cost of the security system to fix it. The security system would have cost bigger bucks than the employee theft. Since Sears is sensibly interested in making money they opted for letting matters continue as it was.

I feel the same thing is true for the welfare rorts. It would cost more money to fix it then it would save by fixing it. Meanwhile attention is diverted from the big rorters in our society.

*Belly* I wanted you to know, as you may expect, that I am very pleased that your ALP has indicated its intent to release the Indonesian children from unlawful and unconscionable detention. There remains in my view a lot more to be done in this area generally but it is a step in the right direction.

..

As for this thread, I do wish that some of you would step up from unsubstantiated, unfounded opinion to substantiated and well informed opinion and fact. For example, if, as some of you are, of the opinion that there is rorting, where is your evidence? How exactly is the system being rorted and what changes would you put in place, say to the Social Security Act, would you put in place to rectify the situation?

..

In the absence of so called welfare, it is likely that we would end up with far more crime, far more social ills, far more medical tragedies and even children begging on the street, amongst other things. The cost of that of course is likely to far outweigh the cost of welfare.

..

I am opposed to racial discrimination thus if you want to continue to micro manage the BlakFellas, then in my view you must also do it to everyone else.

..

I would like to see the welfare to work system expanded, so it becomes a real ladder to address educational deficits from the legal/guvment system of Australia at one end, to micro financial management at the other, and constructed such so that it does not end up being a second class work force.

..

I have a person in my occasional care with a disability, and so as to inject a bit of substance into this debate I will put up their fortnightly budget into this debate to provide something additional for people so desiring to cut their teeth on.

BUDGET of Mrs X as @ 13 April 2012:

($AU15,000 per year income for "Family Tax Benefit" purposes - the Disability Support Pension is a tax free pension though she is still required to lodge a tax return.)

FORTNIGHTLY INCOME: ($AU)

1. D.S.P. $524.10 (partnered rate)
2. Pension supplement $45.40

less Centrelink debt: $20:00 (now subject to ongoing review)

3. F.T.B. part A $164.64
4. F.T.B. part B $ 42.98

TOTAL: $757.12

FORTNIGHTLY EXPENSES:

1. Credit card debt $ 20:00 (negotiated by the Ombudsman)
2. Credit card debt $ 20:00 (negotiated by the Ombudsman)
3. Bank account fees $ 5:00
4. Personal loan $ 50:00
4. Kitchen $200:00
5. Petrol $ 50:00
6. Rent $100:00
7. MediBank $ 91.54
8. Mobile phone $ 15:00
9. Pocket money $100:00

SAVINGS $155:58

Additional variable expenses (which usually reduce her savings to zip)

Primary school fees and excursions, chemist, clothing, car rego, car maintenance (the worst of the expenses and reason for the personal loan,) driver's license, parking fees, specialist medical ( very limited access)

She lives in the home. (undesirable but necessary)
She has an honourable bulk billing G.P. and consumes heavily.
She mostly shops at Op shops
She cooks from scratch and very rarely eats out, except regular picnics with family and friends.

ASSETS:

1. Personal $2,250
2. Car $3,500

LIABILITIES:

1. Centrelink debt $ 430:64 (originally a $2,321:29 overpayment)
2. Credit card $3,740:00 (originally $4,800)
3. Credit card $3,740:00 (originally $4,800)
4. Personal loan $1,350:00 (originally $1,500 - int free)

..

Points to consider is that she is fortunate to be able to live in the family home. Not all people in her circumstances do.

..

Comments?

Rechtub pleased to hear you do not eat food stamps.
Dream On pleased we can communicate.
Davidf, well I admire your heart, if not thought patterns.
I would bet not one of you has suffered as a child as I have.
The experience helped me! always bought up as a WASP work was a plank in my home education, always work, be proud of your work, be a needed and wanted worker.
That childhood bought me my home, no castle but my pride, it told me never to go hungry, never to let another,if I could help it be so.
Both extremes are of little use in this debate, both stand in the way of progress, not all change needs to be feared.
Rechtub looks for parasites every place.
Other concentrate on the true victims,who WE ALL THIEVE FROM, by ignoring the fraudsters!
Australian figures say half of one percent of the whole welfare budget is fraud,England 2%
We are duty bound to help the needy and starve the greedy.
Or see both suffer as the Rechtub like Conservatives put a bull dozer in to every one on welfare.
The Draw back is on the drawing board!

Welfare is not provided by government, it is administered by government, but provided by the tax payer.

Surely the tax payer, as a bare Mimium, is entitled to have measures that minimize the waste of this limited resourse.

I used to see customers turn up with vinies food vouchers, yet have a carton of smokes and a slab in their trolley, obviously paid for by welfare.

I say this because they would have not been provided with the food voucher if they were not seen as needy.

I would often see these same people in the pub, playing the pokies while I was doing deliveries.

All paid for by the tax payer.

I used to wonder what the kids ate, because after all, if they had no kids, they would get minimum welfare.

On the other hand, I had a great young bloke, a single dad, who bought a meat pack every week.

He always had his three kids with him, they used to chat to me and he was obviously trying hard to raise him family with the limited funds he had.

I used to wonder that, if he struggled, how did the families get on that wasted their welfare on smokes, grog and gambling.

Sorry, THE KIDS WELFARE!

Welfare has been a farce for as long as I can remember.

I remember when I left school, aged 16.

I went on the dole (for three weeks) no questions asked.

I can remember thinking, how good is this, not only don't I have to get out of bed, but I get paid to do nothing. Fortunately, my parents had other ideas.

The fact is we are in trouble with regards to tax revenues and welfare is just one of the areas that is straining the cookie jar, so it makes more sense now that ever, to stop the waste, so this limited resourse can assist more of the needy that it was intended for.

A debit card system will go a long way towards stopping this waste.

Persons living in high unemployment remote areas merely for lifestyle should be assisted to move to where work is found or loose their benifits. The Cocos Islands is a case in point, population 600 persons living in public housing and 90% receiving welfare from homeland Australian citizens. Those employed are fishermen, in tourism industry and Governmet employment. The populations future is not sustainable on the Ireland. The future of welfare lies in paying taxes and productivity to sustain welfare.

Josephus wrote: Persons living in high unemployment remote areas merely for lifestyle should be assisted to move to where work is found or loose their benifits. The Cocos Islands is a case in point, population 600 persons living in public housing and 90% receiving welfare from homeland Australian citizens. Those employed are fishermen, in tourism industry and Governmet employment. The populations future is not sustainable on the Ireland. The future of welfare lies in paying taxes and productivity to sustain welfare.

Dear Josephus,

How do we determine whether a person is living in a place merely for the life style? There are 600 people on Cocos Island. 500 people of Malay origin on Home Island, and 100 people of European origin on West Island. I think it’s safe to assume that the 500 probably are not from mainland Australia and are probably native to the island. To bring some of them to Australia would mean separating them from their families. This could increase the possibility of mental illness and might cost more than if they were left on the island. It would probably be hard for them to find jobs since there is probably limited training facilities on the island. Since you brought the matter of sustainability we have to consider the cost.

Possibly a fairer solution is providing the people with advice and equipment for birth control and possibly even offering a bonus for not having babies. The world is rapidly filling up with people having nowhere to go.

David F nobody should be forced to leave their island, however, if they choose to stay, then do so with sponging off the tax payer.

Hunt and gather all you like, but don't expect to live the dream at others expense.

Furthermore, people who continue to bare children in these remote location, knowing full well the prospects for employment are grim, need to take a good look at themselves.

I doubt a subject exists, any single one we can think about, that can not bring out the worst in us, or some of us.
I remain grateful it is not us who judge who will get help and who will not.
I once took my annual leave mid year, while shopping, it was a long time ago, red neck Granny's selected me as a DOLE BLUDGER! loudly insisting I should be ashamed.
I took little time in demolishing them, with far more class than their insulting attack.
My follow up story in a news paper further humbled them.
It was never my intention to hurt or harm those in need, a blind defense of every receiver is unhelpful.
In fact accountability in this area would be first step in better incomes for the true needy.
We MUST confront the costs of welfare.
I have before, and always will, support work not dole for unemployed.
Work with returns to tax payers helping the elderly, true honest work.
We must monitor every thing we do, welfare defense transport, every thing, often to ensure we get value for our dollars.
Why instead of defending the status quo do we not look at new ideas ?
A job, poison for some, is a matter of self confidence for others ,some thing to build a life on.
Rechtub, ok yes a symptom of the problem is as you say, harsh? true too!

Posted by rehctub

" ... I can remember thinking, how good is this, not only don't I have to get out of bed, but I get paid to do nothing. ... "

My understanding of the system is such that unemployed people have to actively seek work and evidence the fact, and when offered employment, and with very limited exceptions, MUST take the work or otherwise be cut off.

..

However, this really is a ridiculous furfy of a debate as the real parasites are those in the guvment and public service, who get paid grossly excessive amounts of tax payer's money to do far too little. That is where the real problem lies in my mind. And not only are some of these people grossly overpaid and underworked, thus being insufficiently productive, they are consuming so much in excess that it has created a problem of insufficient employment, homelessness, inadequate medical and dental treatment and inadequate and inappropriate legal representation.

In my mind, there needs to be a minimum standard, which includes the above in generous measure.

I tell you *RehTub* for myself, as someone like you has has almost without exception worked in small business all my life, I find these cretins to be mostly lazy, stupid and overpaid.

As one example, we have that disgusting little Ferengi from the noalition in W.A. who can't seem to manage to get the Perth hospital renovations done, but apparently he can find $AU25 million to renovate his office, and that's just the tip of the ice berg.

It is the obligation of guvment to create an economy with more than enough living wage solutions for everyone, and when there is excess, maybe some temporary work permits for foreigners.

But, successive generations of the mainstream simply refuse to do this because they would have to give themselves a serious "haircut"

Corruption is common place throughout the world whether it is "legal" or otherwise, and invariably results in situations where the minority control the majority of the wealth to the extent of draining the base of everything that it has.

DreamOn wrote:
However, this really is a ridiculous furfy of a debate as the real parasites are those in the guvment and public service, who get paid grossly excessive amounts of tax payer's money to do far too little. That is where the real problem lies in my mind.

Yeah like getting paid 180,000 a year for three days work to tell us we need to pull peoples mercury fillings out before cremating them to prevent the globe from warming and telling us it was never going to rain again and that W.A would be a ghost town by 2012 and now Sydney will be a ghost town and we're all going to drown from rising see levels while buying up waterfront properties.

Those types, DreamOn?

I've just been reading these posts and having a chuckle.
If one were to take all the people who've had a bucket tipped on them in the course of this thread, and move them out of the country, there would be nobody left.
Except maybe a few contributors to The Forum...
Just kidding!
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Fair enough Anthonyv, but look at Raw Mustards post, and too at the intention of Rechtubs, or my perceived thoughts on both.
Do we turn the other cheek, not say it like we think it is?
What results from that action?
I do not support Rechtubs view, but are ANY OF US able to say his customers did not, [SOME NOT MOST] come into the shop beer and cigarettes in cart to present a Vinni's or salvos food card?
We deceive our selves if we do not think it happens.
In my life, I have never known so many Children in Foster care.
So many in careless care too, some times that Foster care is care for cash, not kids.
Do we claim it is untrue?
Or face it,we can do better.
The fact is my claim is true, good reform comes from Labor,harsh from Liberal/Conservative,and their red neck pup Nationals.
We should be proud of our achievements here and look for further progress.
Last it is the nature of debate to be different, it too is human nature to claim our views are the right ones.
I and others fled a thread on drug reform.
It became a difference of drug use, side tracked to discuss alcohol a subject unrelated.
Such acts kill threads.
Reform is never easy but never unneeded
As always Anthony my regards and respect.

Greens Senator Rachel Siewert spent a week trying to survive on $17 a day, $244 a week the equivalent of the Newstart Allowance, This is about one-fifth of what the average single person under 35 spends a day.Senator Siewert found it very tough trying to survive on $17 a day.
Senator Siewert is pushing for a parliamentary inquiry to examine the adequacy of welfare payments. The issue will be referred to the Senate Committee on Education, Employment and Workplace Relations for inquiry, when the Senate resumes in mid June. Senator Siewert wants the inquiry to examine whether the 'jobseeker' system helps or hinders people's abilities to overcome barriers to employment.

Senator Siewert said "The income support system was designed for a different labour market and no longer meets the needs of the unemployed or underemployed, The 'welfare to work' mentality of recent governments has led to reforms based on the flawed assumption that unemployed people simply have a poor attitude towards work. This is old fashioned thinking that does not take into account the massive gaps in skills and education faced by many unemployed people. How can you look for work when you can't afford a train ticket, a haircut or a telephone? At the moment people are being let down by the system and in many cases are being forced into poverty and debt."

The Greens, welfare organisations and business groups have campaigned for the Newstart Allowance to be lifted by $50 per week to $294 to help people falling below the poverty line

Perhaps the Greens Senator should try a few years working hard at a stressfull job with a mortgage, maybe an over inflated child support assessment, no Commcar or other perks, no prospect of a set for life parlimentary pension on an workers pay and see what its like with so much of your pay being grabbed to fund other peoples priorities and life choices.

There is a balance, we do need to take car of the genuinely needy but we should not do so at the expense of harm to those who pay for it all. Wage earners are far to easy a target for governments and well off people with a social conscience and the ability to minimise their own taxes.

R0bert

You can have all the enquiries into welfare that youmlike, but the reality is, the country simply can't afford any more for welfare, so, that simp,y means, find a way to better spend what we do on welfare, and controlling waste is the first step.

Now it is said that $17 per day is the amount of job start.

Well that simply means for every $17 of welfare not spent on grog, gigs and gambling, will provide for one more person on welfare.

I just fail to see what the issue is with quanteening welfare, after all, it's not their money, it's the tax payers, and surely the tax payers have a righ to know that as little as possible is being wasted.

After all, welfare is provided to support families and it's usually the kids that miss out because they don't get to share the cigs, grog or gambling.

*RawMustard*

I think you may be on to something there mate visa vi the $180,000 a year for 3 days work, but as you have not provided relevant details, it is difficult to take it into account.

..

*Paul*

In my opinion, the *Greens* and others do themselves a great political disservice if they do not concurrently advocate for a reduction in costs in other areas in order to pay for a huge increase in overall welfare payments. Of course, if you do it for NewStart, you'd have to across the board.

However, whilst I note that some commentators are in favor of structured deficits and maintaining current cost structures, I for one most certainly am not. I want a reduction in costs and fat and in the black.

To that end, I would do away with middle class welfare in its entirety. For example, no family tax benefit or baby bonuses except for those eligible for welfare payments, though I note additional measures are likely required to take into account the working poor.

Additionally, with limited exceptions, the doctors and lawyers would be remade members of the regulated classes - i.e. fixed price, means tested sustainable funds. To that I would add dentists and vets. Further, no public service member or contractor would receive any more than say 75% of the base rate of his or her Minister.

An implementation of a program like this though would perhaps need to be cap-exed in so as not to shatter the existing indebted, particularly as regards property and mortgages.

*RehTub* I believe that your gross generalisations do not do anything to further your argument and I have had quite a bit to do with this area of administrative law.

In my *Mrs X* example, I can tell you that she neither smokes nor drinks.

Now that she has been taught, she cuts the families hair herself with her own clippers and has purchased a cool $5 hair curling wand and accessories kit from the car park market.

Additionally, she has been taught to cook courtesy of the "Golden Wattle Cook Book" and a copy of "The Country Women's Association Cooking and Household Hints" book, and is now well away when possible from the likes of Coles & Woolworths (what a joke, how many people do you want to pay for your apple?) and into the local and farmers markets.

As well as other mentioned contributions, I assisted her to get off credit cards and onto debit cards and gave the in the service of the banks wig parasites the long stave of the "Financial Services OmbudsPersons."

Could she have lifted herself up without assistance? Possibly not, but how many of us make a modest contribution to assist others pro bono?

..

Bare in mind, that once you deduct time for tending her kid, traditional cooking, severe departmental red tape obligations and requirements, regular medical appointments and of course her limited energies on account of her psychiatric disability (not to be confused with an intellectual disability) and she is for the most part spent.

However, inwardly she wants to do more for her family and she is currently being assisted to do some casual work hemming garments for a bit of supplementary $, though she can't make much before the department will start docking her pay, though admittedly she is far better off than those on AusStudy.

Of course, if she didn't have accommodation, her family would be screwed.

I am baffled, honestly, how did the thread divert to current payments value.
Or thoughts that it is my intention to target other than fraud?
I too want us in the black, no reasonable person should propose getting further in debt, at such a time as this.
Reform, it will come and it must, can any one,at all? defend not acting against fraud.
Can some one tell me why we should not return to regional support, a thing known as pork barreling but used by both sides.
To employee in local government and such, rather than pay welfare.
Every cent we save,every job we reserve, is a step toward a more usable welfare.
We need reforms.

I am baffled, honestly, how did the thread divert to current payments value.

Belly!....now this is the first time I agree with you:)

Iam not saying another word.

I have a lot of reading to do;)

cc

Dream on, if Mrs X was to have her welfare quarantined, it should not other her at all, as she is one who sounds deserving of the benefit.

Any list I put together, telling of true fraud, crime, in this area, will be seen by some as unfair targeting of those in need.
Take the we don't eat much family,mentioned earlier.
All on social security, even the kids.
A daughter, wed with 3 kids found two ways to increase income.
Find some one to say she had Aboriginal blood [whole family, BOTH SIDES! followed].
Then go home to mum! leave husband in the house alone, until night fall.
Kids get carers leave, for Gran, but live far away.
PO box numbers? no such thing! mail gos to one part of family false home address, then distributed.
Side tax free car repairs, car re birthing, paid annual leave after police take action.
Shop lifting,yes kids learn early and uncles take the goods.
Radical? an exception? yes true,but not in small numbers such folk exist, on the SS.
Would it not be great if the old lady down the road rugged up because she is cold and can not afford a heater had one, bills paid by the savings!
What if long term unemployed had a job, community based, mowing her lawn, cleaning the trees out of creeks and making back packer/tourist camping areas around the country?
Reform is not bad, truth not to be avoided,my worst times in my life can be seen looking back as those brief times I was not working.

Belly you say: "I am baffled, honestly, how did the thread divert to current payments value.
Or thoughts that it is my intention to target other than fraud?"

There are those on here who through their dislike of social welfare, these people are basically individualist who's attitude is "I worked for what I get, its all mine." They fail to realise that in our society we all benefit from 'social welfare' it may not be in the form of a direct payment like a pension, which is the most visible kind of welfare, but could not it be argued that government spending of company tax for the benefit of all, is also a form of welfare spending.
To justify their stance against direct welfare recipients, the individualist will refer to a specific instance like "the young bloke who spends his day surfing the waves while collecting the dole." then generalise that all welfare recipients are 'bludgers' and should be dealt with accordingly. This rational gives the individualist the comfort knowing that only the bad welfare recipients are being targeted.
I agree many welfare recipients have 'issues' often suffering from dis-functionality, through excess drinking, the taking of drugs,which results in the neglect of children etc, "but cutting them off" in the way the hard line individualist would have would do nothing to fix the problems these people cause in society but most likely exacerbate them, more crime, increased anti social behavior etc.
Society could wheel the big stick. introduce draconian laws, more jails, more public institutions, all to deal with the under class. In fact we could load some of them into ships and sail away to the South Pacific and set up a penal colony.

The pubs and clubs will love you Paul.

Keep the waste gravy train coming, they say.

Paul "I worked for what I get, its all mine." more to the point there are those who say "You worked for it but it's mine to take and use for my priorities"

Those ones who are always keen to make other pay for what they think is of benefit seem to have an insatiable thirst.

I wonder how many of them send some extra to the tax department even when they don't have enough left to cover what's important in their own life? Not to a preferred charity where they can be sure their money is used on what's also important but to the tax department where they want my pay taken. My guess would be very few.

R0bert

Paul, sorry but it is such as you from our side and Rechtub, from so far right he can not be seen.
Who ALWAYS stand in front of reform.
No doubt you are aware Socialism NEVER worked.
Far too many would not make an effort.
It became failure lead by failure.
Yet still, it had dreams we all should admire.
It wanted to feed the hungry.
I think, true, we now are bound and can not act, by folk like you two.
That welfare fraud, is theft, from the true poor from taxpayers.
Some sit at home with higher income than others get for working.
Our economy, the whole world economy, is when you look at it, no different than the weekly budget the wisest of us set out each week.
Paul 1405! if only! if we could kill the fraud, get some returns in the form of truly paid and earned work.
Just maybe we could spend part of our savings helping those in true need.

Belly, we are talking about 2 different aspects of welfare. The first one, my understanding of social security fraud, an example would be, a person working at a full time job, for cash in hand, and at the same time collecting a pension. This is fraud and such people are robbing not only the tax payer but also robbing genuine people who deserve social welfare. These fraudulent people should be caught and prosecuted.
The other type of person, who some see as being fraudulent, would be for example, a single mother, on benefit, uses the money not to look after her kids so much, but on grog, fags, drugs etc. This example is not fraud as such, but rather an undesirable use of taxpayers money. You don't achieve very much with these people with a simplistic 'big stick' approach, it has been tried and failed over and over again.
Social welfare goes hand in hand with education, work sills, health services, housing, etc. People on welfare with issues are in that situation because they are not educated, they don't have the life skills necessary to cope with our society, they have little self worth. These people are very much victims of society and not criminals as some would have it. Through education and opportunity I believe we can break the cycle of welfare dependence.
I must add the vast majority of social welfare recipients do the right thing, they are not thieves or social misfits and do not deserve to be attacked the way they often are by those with an axe to grind and a separate agenda.

You 'do gooders' have to understand one thing, welfare is a 'gift' it's not a given right and, those who give, the tax payer have the right to know it is not being wasted. Paul gives a fine examp,e of a single mother wastingnher kids welfare.

A simple debit card arrangement will stop this waste in it's tracks.

What is your problem!

Thank you Paul, you have taught me something.

It had never before even occurred to me that there were people in the world who could see some useless bludging single mother as a "victim of society". I would have thought society was the victim of such people, & people like you who want us to give our hard earned income to them.

I think it's about time that after 6 months support, all such people be assigned top a work gang, cleaning up national p[arks, starting in the far north. Living in a tent city in the bush, with no access to their vices for a few months at a time, with real food, from a bulk kitchen, may just clean them up.

This would save the rent assistance, & their kids would eat better.

Hasbeen,

Just when I think it's impossible for you to come over more odious than in the past, you excel yourself.

Are we going to send the males who assisted in the production of these children to chain gangs as well?

Grotesque!

Hasbeen, A few questions about your tent city.

1. Will all welfare recipients be eligible for tent city?
2. Who will run tent city? A commandant.
3. Will there be guards? If so will those guards be armed?
4. Will guests be free to leave? Will there be barbed wire?
5 Will guests bring their belongings with them?
6. Will guests arrive by train?
6. Will there be showers for new arrivals?
7. Will there be ovens?
8. Will guards be able to plead "I was only following orders." when they are brought to trial?
9. Will guests be able to use the rehctub 'debit card'
9. Last but not least. Will there be TV on Tuesday nights?

You people are a joke. You must be making a quid out of the welfare spend to be so happy with it.

One of my grandfathers was a railway fetler. He & his family of 7 lived in a tent camp, where ever rail work was required. I guess there wasn't too much entertainment at night, & all that physical exercise made him too fit & healthy, or he had insomnia. If those who built the country had to do it, why not those who want to sponge off it.

I guess the tough life was why he made sure all his kids had a decent education, & could avoid having to do the same. Then guess what, my father ran into the depression 2 years after graduating.

He spent 3 years living in a tent ring barking trees, & clearing country. This earned him 10 shillings a week, plus keep & tobacco.

He was working for a living, not voting for it, like our single mothers do. I can see no reason to keep them in a city, when it is not required to bring up kids.

Poirot, I can see no reason why not, if the ladies in question know who the father/fathers was/were. If they do, they are probably living quite well, & he's the one having trouble finding the necessary for a tent to live in.

Paul a good mine field should do. Then we could send half the population of the Canberra office blocks to do a bit of work for a change as cooks.

Nothing wrong with training these recipients to do the cooking child minding etc for themselves. They might even gain a skill that would get a job, when they come back. Most of them would be busting a gut to get a job after a few months.

Meanwhile we should also cycle all welfare workers through these places, so they get to do something useful for once in their lives.

I thank the last 4 posts, for giving evidence in favor of my thoughts
While as many Rechtubs exist, using generalizations and damning the Innocent majority.
So too the Paul 1405,s exist in about equal numbers, hasbeen fits best in Rechtubs count.
Some think no wrong is done, come how many think fraud is ONLY FULL TIME WORKERS GETTING THE DOLE?
And that no fraud is worth following up?
And who on behalf of the middle Liberal/Labor middle, think it evil to provide a job, not life time hand outs?
Yes, rightly put the boot in to dads who do not pay, but how about, please do not say they do not exist,single mums with a different dad for each child.
Why should we pay them.
Why should the needy go hungry or cold because some infer sainthood on every receiver of SS?
Single mums are neither evil or saints but many both lie and steal from the fathers DNA tests please!

I know a family that were welfare dependent most of their lives, raised five kids, four being girls.

Of those four girls, one got married, had two kids, another married, one kid and the third, not married with two kids.

All three are now single mothers.

One of the fathers was and still is a looser, while the other two are very successful and providing mum with a nice little earn thank you very much.

If I were the recipient of welfare,i would be so great full, to think someone earned a wage, paid taxes so I could at lease have somewhere to live and food for my children.

If they asked me to keep receipts for what I spent THEIR MONEY ON I would be only too happy to, as I would appreciate their generosity.

Of cause, now our government, in all it's wisdom, has decided to means test the baby bonus.

So they somehow feel it's better to encourage these people to populate our nation and discourage working mums to have children, as many of them can't afford to have them, let alone afford child care if they continue to work and remain less of a burden on the welfare system.

Go figure!

Come and listen to a story about a man named Jed
A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed,
Then one day he was shootin at some food,
And up through the ground came a bubblin crude.

Oil that is, black gold, Texas tea.

Well the first thing you know ol Jed's a millionaire,
Kinfolk said "Jed move away from there"
Said "Californy is the place you ought to be"
So they loaded up the truck and moved to Beverly.

Hills, that is. Swimmin pools, movie stars.

Well now its time to say good by to Jed and all his kin.
And they would like to thank you folks fer kindly droppin in.
You're all invited back a gain to this locality
To have a heapin helpin of their hospitality

Hillybilly that is. Set a spell, Take your shoes off.

Y'all come back now, y'hear?.

What is the point of these anecdotal stories about railway fettlers and tent camps. About as relevant to the problems of our modern society in relation to welfare as some story about a bunch of hillbillies. You cannot solve complex problems with a simplistic approach. "Ship them up north to tent city." Without going into the details of the how's when's and why's this is going to be done. That is not to say we should not tackle these complex problems and find solutions

Don't worry, Paul,

If all of Australia's welfare recipients were egotistical clapped-out braggarts obsessed with cars, they'd have Hasbeen's wholehearted approval to live amongst the rest of us.

Posted by Belly, Saturday, 2 June 2012 4:46:19 AM

" ... and Rechtub, from so far right he can not be seen. ... "

That gave me such a giggle *Belly* so I just had to repost it.

" ... Paul 1405! if only! if we could kill the fraud, get some returns in the form of truly paid and earned work. Just maybe we could spend part of our savings helping those in true need. ... "

How do you know that we are not *Belly?* A mate who was at one time with the Aust Feds for an extended period also worked as the liaison to Centrelink and I have heard a yarn or two about some of the busts. Rest assured, that they may not have caught out everyone, as in most areas of crime, but they are working on it, and increasingly with data matching between departments, the net is getting spread wider and wider.

..

It is impossible for me to take some of the red knecked commentators seriously as they offer nothing other than distorted, ill founded opinion. Clearly they have not read the law and nor do they understand the mechanations of the system.

..

If you consider this issue more broadly, then to me one of the important things that must be done is to get rid of the tongue tied, genocidal, tourist muppet, bludging head of state.

(I've just been reading the account of some poor soul with a serious condition who has had her medication taken away from her, who has been provided with something else which isn't working, who is now freaking out and her filthy pom doctor won't put her back on it on the account of cost, (a standard practice in england I'm told) whilst currently we have to put up with watching millions if not more been blown on that wretched old hag and her pitiful little party.))

No, I am not in favor of "work for the dole" per se and a second class work force, but would prefer sucking the fat out of the ass of the establishment/top end of town and making sure everyone has a job with a living wage, except for those among us who do truly require special consideration.

..

I was on the p!ss with the boys last night. One mate, a building surveyor, only worked a half day yesterday, as usual, and for that, received a cool $AU10,000.

A vote for the noalition will only further entrench this sort of parasitic behavior as they appear to think that it is right that some should have $ in gross excess for doing very little, whilst others should have not much for doing a whole lot.

Its human nature!
We have circled the verbal wagons.
Sent scouts out to bring back prisoners, to support our views .
No compromise here! no solutions to the problems.
We in fact would rather fight about if its a problem or an epidemic!
Rechtubs troop, Hasbeen, maybe Dream On? not sure what he thinks, say it is every day practice for every one on SS.
Paul/Poirot, seem to defend the good, and Dennie the existance of the bad and the very ugly.
How dare I! a product of a hungry childhood, a kid who wanted so much, but asked for treasure, a job!
Ask that council jobs, Forrest jobs, new economy jobs created for cleaner air, be reserved, and given to unemployed rather than dole.
And dare I? a trade unionist! say the jobs should be meaningful, product, paid properly, living changing , and no safety net for those un willing to take them?
Out side any city, even town ship fibro cottages exist hopeless unemployed live in them.
We can, if we wish, do better.
Sorry to re enforce the sexism subject, it was not me that put it on the table.
But yes bad men exist, face it so too do bad women, some openly tell husbands of many years they are not the father of the children
Sexism in this country is two sides not just men.

Belly......No compromise here! no solutions to the problems.

Belly, a huge part of the problem is waste. Like it or not, millions, if not billions of welfare dollars gets wasted each and ever year, dollars, that were intended to help those in need, mainly children, not intended to provide entertainment for the parents, many of whom are simply irresponsible, which is often why they either can't find a job, or, can't hold one.

Many don't want a job as it means making a commitment, or even getting off the drugs.

Many work one or two days for cash and in the end are better off than many workers, most of whom don't get rent relief, don't have a health care card, and dont get Ted travel.

The who system is upside down if you ask me.

Welfare is a helping hand, not a lifestyle choice.
We in fact would rather fight about if its a problem or an epidemic!
Rechtubs troop, Hasbeen, maybe Dream On? not sure what he thinks, say it is every day practice for every one on SS.

Many don't want a job as it means loosing their benefits, or at least a portion of them.

It's a sad sad world, when one, by simply having children, or shaking up with a person who has children, can weigh up the odds between finding a job, or staying at home.

Now I don't blame them, as much as I blame the system.

Continued

But the reality is, welfare dollars are not a bottomless pit of money and, as someone said earlier, $17 a day is new start allowance.

So, for every $17 that is not wasted, thats another of your needy that can get a hand.

Now the really sad truth behind all this waste, is thanthe government doesn't really mind, as for ever dollar wasted on grog, cigs and pokies, they get a hefty slice of the action, in the form of tax, collected for them, by unpaid business owners, placing yet more strain on the relationship between workers and non workers.

So, as for no solution, a debit card, which restricted goods can not be purchased with will stop most of this waste,

Please, for the last time, tell me why this is wrong, rather than just making some riddle about how far right I am.

I work for my money, pay my taxes and deserve the righ to complain when they are wasted.

Now while not every welfare recipient is a cheat, or a waster, they do have one thing in common, that is, the money they receive was earned by someone else and should be respected for what it is, a helping hand.

If one dollar is wasted, then that's one dollar too much and more importantly, one dollar that could have provided assistance for another needy person.

Quanteening of welfare is a must in my view.

If,you don't like it, get a job as according to gillard and swan, that's easy with our wonderful 4.9% unemployment.

What a load of crap!

" ... Paul 1405! if only! if we could kill the fraud, get some returns in the form of truly paid and earned work. Just maybe we could spend part of our savings helping those in true need. DreamOn could not agree more.

Belly you say "Paul/Poirot, seem to defend the good, and Dennie the existance of the bad and the very ugly."
Yet I posted "This is fraud and such people are robbing not only the tax payer but also robbing genuine people who deserve social welfare. These fraudulent people should be caught and prosecuted." Belly, "CAUGHT AND PROSECUTED" come on mate! How is that statement denial of welfare fraud.
I repeat there are people in our society who rip off social security, there are people in our society who are happy with a lifestyle that many would term lazy and these people are collecting newstart or a disability pension, and not genuinely looking for work, or do not have a genuine disability. In our society there are 'ugly' welfare recipients, people with neglected children, people with major issues in their lives, drugs, alcohol, violence etc.
My answers are the fradsters, jailed, the lifestylers cut off, the ugly helped.
Government has a duty to tax payers to ensure all tax payer money is spent wisely and well, be it dollars spent on the military or dollars spent on welfare all dollars spent.
What some on here with an axe to grind, these I call individualist, see no obligation to support other members of society. These self centered individuals point to waste in 'visible welfare' and use that as the excuse to attack all on visible welfare. These very same people quite happily partake of 'invisible welfare' do they only drive their car on that part of the road they paid for, or do they also drive on all the road, those parts that others have paid for.
In our society We all receive invisible welfare. No state from the primitive to the modern could exist without 'welfare' in some form.

Paul one of your best ever posts, one I agree with every word, BUT.
Shame the one before spoke about fraud being full time workers on the dole, a very minor part of the problem.
Let fraud stay un answered, leave it, if you must.
Is reform worth while? needed? a good thing?
Rechtub ,breath deeply, you are turning quite pink.
Your post history shows every symptom of a rare tropical illness, Red Neck fever.
Not everyone fits your description, not every single parent unemployed, pensioner, disability receiver , smokes uses drugs drinks, votes Labor.
You start thread after thread mining dislike for the underdog, workers wages earners Unionists Labor voters welfare recipients.
Breath deep, its turning red!
Reform could include Superannuation!
A third of EVERY WAGE INCREASE put in to super, and a portion must be used to live on before SS.
I will just get back under my rock.
crap? interesting use of the word, suppose you would know.

Belly the fraudsters we can deal with, we have laws in place to deal with them. How do you deal with the alcoholic, how do you deal with the kids of an 'ugly'. A heart wrenching story, many many years ago, my 2 boys were small, it's a hot day, 110 in the shade as they say. The kids hear the 'Mr Whippy' van "Dad can we have an icecream" "Sure you can" all run for the van, at the van there is my kids, lots of kids and parents, this woman with a small boy about 4. In those days 'Mr Whippy' also sold fags. By the way she spoke you could tell she was 'uneducated' she's being served, orders a pack of fags, the little boy asked "Mummy can I have an icecream?" " No you F en can't, I got no F en money!" The kid began to cry. I said to Mr Whippy, "Give that kid an icecream, I'll pay for it." Its 2 bob no big deal. Well, WW3 broke out between me and this woman. She ended up dragging the kid away, with him balling his eyes out.
To the 'individualist' the most important thing is taking the $5 of welfare money away from her, that is important, but how does that get the kid an icecream, which to me is more important. To me there were 2 people there with issues, the mother and the child.

Paul what would you have thought if there had been someone there demanding that the solution was that you hand over $10 to the mum?

You did charity that was targeted to where you though the need was, you maintained some choice in where it went and how it was used. Not too different to Rehctub's card.

There are those on the right who are selfish but I suspect for most it's a motivation similar to what I think drove you when you tried to buy an ice cream for the kid rather than making a donation to the mum's next pack of cigarette's.

It's all to easy to misrepresent those who disagree with you with a comment such as "To the 'individualist' the most important thing is taking the $5 of welfare money away from her, that is important, but how does that get the kid an icecream, which to me is more important" but that's more to do with spin than the reality for many.

R0bert

Paul I am sorry, your comment avoids the subject, diverts it to poor parenting.
We CAN NOT DEAL WITH FRAUD or there would be none!
I have said the thread, one I put up, is about reform, fraud is only a part of it.
The woman you talk of, is not.
She is a problem, so was the Mr whippy van selling cigarettes.
Paul in my view, SS IS AN OPPORTUNITY, it is said one in six can read only average,or not at all.
Work for these, if long term unemployed,would be learning to read and write.
Some could progress to learning carpentry, many of todays carpenters earned that title on the job,as bridge carpenters /formworkers with our once biggest trainers government enterprises.
Open you mind and heart to those kids you spoke about, that mum today, should be told no matter what her race, you MUST take parenting skills training or will not be paid.
The kids are my concern, mate I could tell you , and congrats for buying the ice creams, of hundreds of such acts.
We change nothing about that mum by our generosity.

R0bert. There are people who 'see' direct welfare payments as being noting more than an unjustified 'gift' to undeserving members of society, person they perceive as being lazy parasites living off their hard work . People who 'see' one case of a 'dole bludger' and then extrapolate that to encompass all on welfare, this extrapolation is their way of justifying the bigotry they harbor within, it gives them peace of mind.
Belly maybe I worded it incorrectly. What I should have said, its more clear cut as to what is the best course of action to deal with the fraudster when caught, jail or cut them off from payments. We have mechanisms in place to try and catch the fraudsters and I believe Centrelink are working at catching fraudsters, it is a battle to catch all, at any given point in time there are those out there defrauding the system.

Paul in this matter you are not expressing your self well.
In addressing RObert you name a small minority.
One we should not ignore but not give much credence to.
A larger number are also a problem,I think on your evidence you come from that group.
One unable to see reforms are needed.
We know,if our eyes are open, and our brain, constant reform takes place.
I thought we could use this opportunity to put our plans for that in place.
A bit of leg pulling has taken place here.
I am both the guilty party, and quite serious about it.
My ideas and thoughts are near Socialist, do not faint hasbeen and Rechtub!
Queensland, under Labor Liberal and National rule did it.
After storm tempest trouble, even price crashes FARMERS got first go at council jobs.
My whole thought pattern is paid, honestly paid honestly earned work, when ever possible, not hand outs.
We are 12 months more, from an election removal of carbon tax, even under an Abbott led government, is not assured.
Just as 50 years ago some jobs we do today never existed.
And we can not avoid new work as new ways come.
We can avoid the death strangle hold public servants put on past government jobs.
We can do anything, including true worth while reform, in any thing!

Belly, good morning, here again I agree with you, welfare reform is needed. Just making cash handouts, although these payments are required, they are a band aid, a much need band aid for many, fortnight to fortnight and in some cases long term and for others short term. The government has to ensure every welfare dollar is put to the best possible use. The cycle of welfare has to be broken, that is welfare from the cradle to the grave. The cycle of family welfare has to be broken where whole families depend on welfare. this kind of welfare has to be broken.

How! The big stick, cut them off, force them to work approach has been tried and failed countless times. The answer is in education, life skills, work training and opportunity, particularly aimed at the young, to break the welfare dependent cycle. These things are not well addressed at the moment. they take time and effort. As people move off welfare and into a meaningful self relent existence, we free up more dollars for worth while long term projects, education, training etc always working to reduce the welfare dependent cycle.
What do you see as needed, to do better with welfare?

There a couple of different variants of what a lot of us would think of as fraud at play. The legal version of fraud, that can be dealt with by the law. The other is the ethical variety which is much harder to deal with, if the system is tightened up enough to stop those who play the system then we hurt those who really need help, leave it loose and some will abuse it. If we try and manage it closely then admin costs go through the roof or the personal prejudices of those reviewing cases sneak in.

I don't know that there are any easy answers to some parts of the issue.

R0bert

Belly, poor parenting is the cause of most of the welfare that is wasted and, although it may not be considered fraud, it actually is, as a portion of that $5 wasted on the cigs was indeed intended to buy that ice-cream.

You see, parents, not kids, are entrusted with the sensible distribution of the kids welfare.

You are also failing to acknowledge the fact that ALL WELFARE is a 'gift' not a given right.

If one dollar is wasted, then that is one dollar too much.

This is why a debit card is needed, not just for single mums, not just for new start allowance, all welfare payments.

If one wishes to buy cigs, grog, or gamble, do it THEIR MONEY not ours.

Remember, welfare is a 'hand up', not a 'hand out' to be wasted by some.

As for welfare, about 42% who work, and all that dont are on welfare.

So the potential waste is huge.

If you don't believe me, just park yourself outside the local newsagent when there is a mega Loto draw on.

Then you will see where a lot of the kids food money goes, chassing that elusive dream.

How about, instead of trying to continually put me down, with your little mi d games you play, how about you explain to me how a debit card won't help welfare fraud.

It won't stop it, but it will help, as one can't buy drugs with a debit card.

*RehTub*

I think that there are a couple of points that you need to consider:

1. You appear to be mixing together welfare misuse and fraud. They are two very different things.

2. As already stated, Centrelink is as savage as a junk yard dog. They also have Aust Feds posted with them and the ever growing data matching systems to discover fraud such as multiple identities and undeclared cash payments for casual work. They have no problems for example opening up people's bank accounts and having a good old look, whether people want this or whether they even know, and often times, unless there is a concurrent legal action, often people don't even know that they have been ivestigated. Thus, you ought not be concerned that criminality is not being addressed in this area much as it is being addressed across the board.

3. What you appear to be attacking is what you consider to be welfare misuse and mismanagement AND you propose a blanket solution of quarantining all payments, via debit cards and micro-management. I actually agree with you to a limited extent however, I think that what this matter turns on is "legal capacity." That is to say, people of legal capacity have the right to manage their own affairs, and this in reality is expected in this society. I would agree that there are grounds to limit or withdraw legal capacity from individuals. This could be say on health grounds, such as dementia or other illness, or could be because of a demonstrated lack of willingness to provide appropriately for their own medical needs or the needs of their children. In these instances, I would agree that limiting legal capacity, enforcing education programs and regulation via debit cards could be appropriate. This could also include an unwillingness of individuals to work.

4. As said though, I am not in favor of discrimination or the creation of a second class work force, which is to say that all people must be provided equivalent pay for a fair day's work.

t.b.c.

5. Re: another comment, all payments including D.S.P. are subject to regular and ongoing review, and snap inspections are common place. In the case of the D.S.P. there needs to an exhaustive medical examination and the individual needs to be certified to be unable to do anymore than a maximum of 15hrs a week from memory and all bar the most extreme cases are streamed into education and training programs.

6. The reality is is that successive guvments have not created a legislative/economic system that generates sufficient living wage jobs, and that is the primary reason for un and underemployment. In turn, the reason for that is that the the parasites at the top of the chain sucking on the tax payers purse are draining the system beyond its means, and why I advocate for giving them all a serious haircut. You would do well to consider that amongst the ranks of the guvment employees are also druggies, substance abusers and people who neglect or abuse their children.

7. I am surprised that you would advocate for middle class welfare, as I personally would take the axe to that straight out and use it to bolster the base.

RObert you are an insightful intelligent person, and quite right.
Nothing can change without an understanding that what you say is true.
But every journey starts with the first step.
Paul, nothing is impossible, I like to think, mate I like to hope, those you and I took over the fight from, never intended welfare to be a gift for the un worthy.
Rechtub,in time, even now for many cash is not in use, in that respect the card is not my concern.
It is your wide sweeping intention ALL SHOULD BE MONITORED.
The NT system can/should be in place for ANY FAMILY not truly looking after the kids.
What evidence do you have every one of those who dream are on SS do you understand how a dream can lift a poor man/woman?
Why do you think the poor are bludgers?
We pay couples or singles to have children,then to feed those kids, sometimes it is Forster parents doing the feeding and being paid.
Good folk can re charge welfare, is it evil to say to kids in their third year of no job today cut wood and mow the lawn for the old folk down the road?
Would putting a fence around some of our super, as pension be evil? we milk the cow to death if we stay as it is.
Or flog its skin from it if we take your path.

The comments about legal capacity and managing our own affairs are interesting.

I've recently gone back to being a child support payer after a change in child residency. I have no rights in that to manage my own affairs in regard to what's spent on my own child or even any say that the money that's taken from me is actually used on my son. I'm not talking there about money that's being earned by others and given to me being quarantined, rather money I've worked for and earned being taken from me at about double the cost of meeting the real costs of keeping him housed, fed, clothed, educated, entertained, presents etc and given to someone who chose not to contribute at all to those costs when my son was in my care.

Just why is it such a big issue to consider quarantining welfare money when as a society we have a large government agency dedicated to far worse to the earnings of others?

Two wrongs don't make a right but I suspect that many of those most horrified at the idea of quarantining welfare money for the care of kids would also be some of the strongest supporters of the current farce passing itself off as a child support system. Perhaps that's an area to start with the cards, the money is clearly supposed to be for the children not the adult but there is no current provisions in place to ensure that is how it's used.

R0bert

Well a huge thing, not closely related in my view to welfare but just as you say quite wrong.
In my youth fathers disappeared, just that rather than pay.
It has swung too far, just saying that will see me convicted.
But it remains the truth, courts hearing evidence the wife has said the kids father is not the bloke paying, have refused DNA tests.
Re married mums, much better off than the dad get cash and often keep the kids away from their dad.
I often think, unpalatable as some will find it, SOME women know the rules inside out and farm men milk them dry.

Dream on, while I accept some of your points, to me, a person who is on long term benefit, gets a job start, turns up with crap in their face, purple hair, that's if they turn up all, then looses that job, on purpose, is as much a welfare fraud as any other.

Unfortunately, to stop the waste, others on welfare get caught up in the state amd while I accept that's a shame, the money was not theirs in the first place, so just be happy to have it provided for you.

The least they can do is have no problems with how it's to be spent.

Every welfare dollar I'll spent, is in a way, fraud in it's self.

Robert, I have long held the view that ALL CHILD SUPPORT should be paid directly to the government and, the carer should have to go to Medicare, with ligit receipts to receive the refund/re enbursment.

This would stop the waste and address much of the anguish that comes from child support, as few contributors feel their dollars are being well spent on their kids.

And belly, for the last time, I don't think all welfare recipients are bludgers.

Get it!

*RehTub*

I think that the example of the sort of individual that you describe is of the kind that ought be subject to micro-management.

As to how the system currently deals with such individuals I am not sure. I suppose I could look it up and see if there is anything published on their site or in the act.

*RObert*

I believe that if there is any reasonable basis regarding a question of inproprietory visa vi how your hard earnt child maintenance is being spent then that would constitute grounds for a family court action. They appear to be quite well set up for self represented parties and there is a significant amount of information on their web site.

*RehTub*

As you may be aware, the fact that the likes of *RObert* have to pay child maintenance ensures that "F.amily T.ax B.enefit" direct payments are limited.

*Belly*

As to why your ALP chooses not to micro-manage everyone and continues to administer the racially discriminatory policies (for which we have been rightly criticised by the U.N.) introduced by the guvment of that foul and loathsome little troll j.howard is no doubt a political one, though I'd be happy to be corrected, and indicates to me that they are more concerned about their potential voters than they are about ensuring kids aren't neglected by parents who misuse the bulk of their welfare payments on substance and the like or something equally irresponsible. That of course is one reason why I prefer the *Greens* and begs a question or two regarding your loyalties to them given you profess to be so concerned about the welfare of kids does it not?

;-)

*RehTub* you too ought consider why the noalition didn't do the sensible economic thing in this regard and again, I will defer to *Belly* and others on this one, but suspect that it may have something to do with swinging voters.

..

*Paul* as for the *Greens,* what exactly would they do? As said, its all very well to advocate for bolstering the base, but from where in the budget will the $AU come from?

Will they go so far as to spook the ranks of the many educated bureaucrats that vote for them? So far, I suspect not, which is perhaps why they leave the details open ended, but again, I would be happy to be corrected on that.

In the real world the one we all live in such folk as that painted fool Rechtub talks about exist.
Put your self in the bosses shoes,let me play that roll.
First thought? no way I want this bloke working here.
Now do I start him, let him fail report him and face endless unpaid hours explaining myself?
Do I send him away as unsuitable and receive a visit from the painted fools avoiding work legal team? charged with discriminating against painted fools?
May be fined!
Best say sorry bloke jobs gone.
Ring the Church that sent him, we farm it out now, sorry no good to me think I will run an add send no more thanks.
Or we could actually re think the whole system, start to understand ALMOST EVERY PERSON wants a job.
And almost every taxpayer wants a return for welfare.
In defending our personal opinions,fighting against ANY CHANGE we let every one down.
In the end even inflicting pain on the few idle for life we are better served by the safety net being work.
PS Belly would give painted fool a few days, to prove himself he may well be the best worker I ever had.

"I believe that if there is any reasonable basis regarding a question of inproprietory visa vi how your hard earnt child maintenance is being spent then that would constitute grounds for a family court action. " - that is dream on material.

The point though that's relevant to this topic is that my income is being quarantined, that's after a long history of proving that I'm willing and able to support my son. On the other hand a mum who has consistently chosen not to financially support her son is given uncontrolled access to around double what it should be costing to keep him (state high school, no significant extra-curricular activities, no special medical needs).

I'd like to see the so called child support scheme dumped, I chose not to use them when I had the care of my son because I really think the scheme is destructive. On the other hand I'm more than happy to support my son, two different issues. I've got some similar sentiments to parts of welfare, I'm more than happy to support those who can't help themselves but object strongly to being forced to give to those who chose not to support themselves.

R0bert

"to me, a person who is on long term benefit, gets a job start, turns up with crap in their face, purple hair, that's if they turn up all, then looses that job, on purpose, is as much a welfare fraud as any other."

rehctub
No, they will be turning up in the stripped pajamas with a shaven head they got from 'tent city.'

I don't see why there is all the fuss about 'undesirables' applying for jobs. A simple job application form is all that is need to weed them out.

After asking

Question 1: Are you non white?
Question 2: Are you Jewish?
Question 3: Are you a homosexual?
Question 4: Are you a member of a trade union?
Question 5: Have you ever voted Labor?
etc etc

Question 497: Do you have purple hair?

It so easy to weed out the undesirables.

Ah yes, keep up the good work *Paul* I do so enjoy a good giggle first thing in the morning, in this case courtesy of your well placed anti-redneck sarcasm. <snicker, snicker>

..

*Belly* you big chicken. What's really going on inside the ALP re: the intervention and this associated welfare issue? Surely you can titillate us all further with your insider's acumen?

..

*RObert* oh come now, a little legal action is not so difficult is it? And there may even be a simpler remedy direct with the department. Of course, any action against your ex may have repercussions for your son - ie destabilise mum and there may be knock on effects. Thereafter, I am wondering how it is that you know your ex is misusing the funds that you provide for your son's maintenance? One hopes that you have not been cross examining your kid, which in my view is a terrible thing to.

I know from personal experience, and suffice to say that I have less than zero interest in having anything to do with my biological father as a consequence of those experiences when I was a young-ling.

In fact, there is an outstanding court order against him for payment of maintenance more than 20 years old which he has to date treated with contempt. Unfortunately, it was issued under an earlier legal framework such that the current department purports to not be able to do anything about it, but I look forward to a future day and private legal remedy if possible (I may not have standing) to jam the proverbial hot poker right up him with much relish.

As said previously, there are legal circumstances whereby you can be compelled to provide financially against your will, as is the case with child maintenance. One of the historical issues is of course that some individuals would get there partner up the duff and then just walk leaving her dependent on the state and thereby on other people.

It is of course a common catch cry of some who seek to obviate themselves from responsibility that their ex partner is misusing their funds. That is not to cast aspersions upon you though,as I simply do not know the facts of the case, but nonetheless, if not in your case, there certainly are plenty of people who need to be coerced into doing the right thing. Of course, if your ex re-partners and you consent to your son's adoption, then you are off the hook, but also likely to be cut out of his life. That though of course, is entirely a matter for you.

DreamOn that mostly seems like the same tired old excuses for an utterly unjust system. Most of the payers I've known who object to the CSA scheme are happy to support their kid's, they are being hurt badly by a massively unbalanced system.

You are still apparently missing the bit that's relevant to this thread.
Many of those who are horrified at the idea of welfare recipients with a history of not providing for their kids having some of that welfare quarantined so that it can only be used on the kid's seem to have no trouble with quarantining someone's earned income and then giving it to someone else with no checks and balances in place.

I'm not trusted to provide adequate finances for the care of my son but someone with a known of history of failing to do so must be trusted - what a strange logic that becomes.

R0bert

Ar belly, just can't help yourself can you, just had to hit me with another insult.

I must remind you, my father was as much a unionist, labor lover as they came, so I have the heads up on brain washed unionist, labor supporters old mate.

As for welfare, is say again, it's a 'gift' not a given right and one dollar wasted is simply one dollar too much.

Rechtub self assurance in the wrong hands can be counter productive.
Show me my insult to you in my last post, I referred to your description and agreed they exist.
I went on to point out some times looks are no measure of worth.
Now you claim your dad was brain washed or knew little compared to you.
You may be wrong.
You have launched some shaky ships here of late.
Nearly blaming our carbon tax and NBN for an international firm laying off 15.000 workers.
Mate no hard feelings, but get a grip, you put your views here,I do too, do you want assurance I agree with you?
Your recent unloading of the shops will take time to settle in to, but this is a debating forum.
Would your father, or mine want to change SS so much it is punitive?
Leave your food cards out of it what is the answer if not a return to tax payers for at least unemployment benefits.
Why do we pay parents to have children but restrict European migration?
At what stage do we put P-C away and put the kids first.

Belly, ...In the real world the one we all live in such folk as that painted fool Rechtub talks about exist.

So you're saying this is not yet another insult.

As for my dad, I love him very much, still talk to him, although he's gon, wil never forget him.

But, he, like some here could see no wrong in labor or the unions.

rehctub, I think Belly was talking about Mr Tatts and purple hair when he refers to the painted fool.

That's how I read it anyway.

R0bert

*RObert* your comments remind me of those of *AntiSeptic* whose writing also was characterised by a distinct poverty of content.

You see, its all very well to claim that the system is unjust and unbalanced but without explaining why that is so, you leave the ignorant none the wiser.

As for your reference to your wife as having a known history of squandering your money, assumabley on her own personal interests and not your kids, again, you have thus far neglected to substantiate it.

I suspect that you would do well to have a good read of the departments web site, its guide and if required, have a look at the act, and if things are as bad as you claim them to be, you may be pleased to find that there are remedies, which go all the way to the power of taking custody away from your wife.

Alternatively, well, you wouldn't be the only person in your circumstances who is disaffected, all the more so in those cases where custody is restricted and the ex has a new partner.

Thereafter, in those instances where a divorced or separated parent with custody is neglectful or similar, then I would be in favor of the responsible parent regaining custody as opposed to the irresponsible parent being micro-managed.

Of course, if both parents are irresponsible, then they should both be micro-managed or alternatively in the worst of cases, then the kid/s gets put up for adoption or fostered out.

In any event, I think that upon examination that you find the system already has in built mechanism to deal with these types of situations, irrespective of the fact that you do not appear to be aware of it.

*Belly*

What's best for the kids is not to vote for either of the main stream parties.

Belly, if I miss understood your comment, please accept my apology.

I thought it was aimed at me.

RObert thanks bloke
Rechtub all is forgiven mate.
Dream On within both party's live good and indeed great people.
Our hung Parliament, the need to win, at any cost has seen the, best not use that word, -wrong- folk rise to the top.
We all suffer because of that.
Rather than institutionalize this disruptive hung Parliament the task we can achieve,the easiest one, is reform both party's.
This subject *highlights*
Opposition to reform.
The need to win is a symptom of our current illness.
I am for reform, for new ways in welfare education ,new ways to fix environmental issues.
And think my party can not win the next election,is NEEDLESSLY planning only to preserve its achievements.
I include carbon tax mining super tax,NBN education reform,major pension increases in those achievements.
It is my view, my party thinks too it can not win.
And has given up trying,hence Gillard remains in the roll she never should have held
WHY?
My party has convinced its self ! out standingly silly.
Abbott will be so bad we will be swept back into office like flotsam and jetsam!
Now you see why I am a reformist! 20, from each side should be sent to the knacker's.

I think alot of speak and knowledge about welfare and those who are on is such a sterotyped and stigmatised area. I fully understand and am aware there are many individuals who take advantage of the system and who have no desire to get off welfare and get a job or a degree or anything to better themselves or better the lives for thier children, but such actions of a minority should not speak for the majority. There are so many sole parents who work their butts off and spend years at home with heads in books and laptops trying to study for a degree or other qualifications..don't you think its such people like this that people should think of when they think of welfare?? People doing the right thing, not because they are being "forced" to. Welfare to work policies just take away the extra finanical securities such sole parents require, and place extra barriers in achieveing their dreams.

Young mum let me have a say here.
I did not start the thread to verbally flog those on welfare.
I do not look down on the subject from am ivory tower.
You may have seen recent claims we should extent the retirement age.
Today and yesterday that came along with a wish to increase GST, to fund something or other.
Do not picture me as an old fuddy duddy,I put my hope and trust in younger generations.
But learned long ago, this country's welfare is out standing, some,America for a start, go no place near us, some country's give nothing.
My childhood, from about 6 to 11 was blighted by hunger, real true hunger,Social Security had to be fought for.
It exploded in the 1970,s.
My working life began before 13 years of age, but was full time from 13 to 65 plus a bit.
Yet we know,changes must come, must, or our whole welfare system will fail.
I will not question your right to receive welfare, some will, but to try to say investigations of our system, constant reviews,are uncalled for is madness.
Some boat people have never worked from the day they came here,AND HAVE HAD KIDS IN DOUBLE FIGURES in that time.
Single mum, know, in my family some females have had kids for currency!
No love no care no hope for children our greatest treasure just dole dollars.

Looking back at my last post it could be seen by some as cruel.
Never intended it that way, but here in that two lines lays a very real problem.
In offering any subject, any.
AS ONE FOR POTENTIAL REFORM, we first must take on the thought we are being cruel to some one.
25 years ago, I had in shared care with their grand mum 4 kids.
A new law came in work for the dole.
Three of those kids, boys , had long before been lost to me, only link was my wages.
One, the eldest got extremely angry ,at the, his words *unfairness of working for the dole*
No point in me saying who do you think pays the dole.
No point in reminding him his mum, for years, got the SS for him while we fed them.
Can I now ask those my childhood was spent with, the Socialists, or those as I am still today, Social activists who want better for the true poor,is ignoring fraud not thieving from those in need.
Is wrong ever right?

Belly you say "some,America for a start, go no place near us (provision of welfare), some country's give nothing."

America, much of their social problems are brought about by their poor welfare system. I would hope you are not proposing a US type model as ideal for Australia. the "some country's give nothing", yes indeed little or no government sponsored welfare in the third world. I do not see that as justification to cut welfare.

Paul! you know better than that!
America may how ever be our future, both greatness and the opposite live in that country.
The street people, have you any idea how many are ex service men and women?
The hungry and down trodden are, in my view evil.
But I know current Australians, bar a few, would never except it here.
I do not want to cut the over all budget for welfare, in fact increase it IF POSSIBLE.
Will you admit majority's should direct changes?
I have asked this question in threads here.
Not the threads titles but my intentions.
DRUGS can we do better in both law enforcement and distribution.
Education do we need to ask why some can not read or write.
Here can we do better with welfare?
To me of first order Aboriginal living standards in SOME parts of Australia, law and order problems and total lack of education for some.
Every subject has to confront the no change mobs.
From the bleeding heart blind left.
T slightly or totally bigoted right.
is progress possible?
How did you find support for Americas failure to care for its own in my words?
Paul I would truly starve, die, without remorse, rather than see any human go hungry.

Belly you ask: "How did you find support for Americas failure to care for its own in my words?"
What I said was "I would hope you (Belly) are not proposing a US type model (welfare system) as ideal for Australia." How is that suggesting you support the US system of welfare.

You say: "The hungry and down trodden are, in my view (Belly's view) evil." What a strange thing to say. Can I assume you believe the well fed and uplifted are good?

You say "DRUGS can we do better in both law enforcement and distribution."
I believe the crooks do a very good job with (drug) distribution now, so I don't think the rest of society (we) should get involved in drug distribution at this stage.

You say "I (Belly) would truly starve, die, without remorse, rather than see any human go hungry. But are that not the "evil" people?

Paul 1405,

I believe Belly may have meant that in his view the fact that the U.S. system allows their predicament to exist is "evil"....not the hungry and downtrodden themselves. I'm assuming he didn't put it very well.

Belly?

Poirot,

Your interpretation was the same as mine from the start. I could not resist the opp to stick it up my old Labor alley, Belly with his verbal slip. Sorry Belly I apologise unequivocally.

Thanks Poirot thanks Paul 1405.
Well I did it, bit down hard on that Paul, nearly walked out.
I always get in trouble with my English and grammar.
Remember my back ground.
But yes it is evil, purely evil, that America a country based on so much good, lets its poor go hungry.
It concerns me frightens me, how did this great country, so proud of its being the new home for the poor and down trodden, turn in to the one we some times see today.
Claims universal health care is communism!
We see wishes we work longer, we will, GST is raised, one day it will be.
I plead for welfare reform, one day we will get a version not unlike Americas.
See us left of center people, get in the way of reform as we squabble about fairness and equity, seemingly unaware our opponents care little for both.
Profit and wealth drives them.
Paul I can see a difference in Aussie stirring and taunting, can you?
Never mind mate shame we could not have faced this subject from the point of view if we do not fix it conservatives fix will frighten us all.

Belly, A few thing about America which I believe has contributed to how the US treats welfare. Although Americans like to see themselves as the 'home of democracy' it is not quite as clear cut as that. Study their history of expansion and servitude. The elite in American society have always commanded the real power. Americans through their interpretation of religion which is very much a 19th century protestant type interpretation. Protestantism very much holds that being poor is some how ones own fault, the will of god. religion plays a far bigger part in American society than it does in ours, again the elite have controlled religion for their own self interest. making it dove tail into capitalism all so nicely. Add to this the notion that government intervention is socialism, which leads to communism, and the American elite rightly see communism as the ultimate threat to their position, hence the paranoia and hatred by Americans of communism. Now you have my explanation why welfare in America is as it is.

We will differ often Paul.
America is both the hope and promise and the unquestionable fact we are far from perfect.
An ego problem exists there, in my mind the jingoism is often no better than Nazi Germany, yet without them we are doomed.
And yes the anti communism is extreme,shared with almost all the world, but over done in America.
We you and I live in a different world, our country even if some do not know it, is in part socialist.
But we too fail,and in doing so get nearer the edge of the cliff, others will re craft our SS and so much more.
As we chase dreams that died forever, in the first 20 post ww2 war years.

Belly, I was not being judgmental of the US this time. Although I often am. I was merely offering a view as to why I thought the US embraces the social welfare policy that it does. To support welfare reform I, and I think you as well, would find little value in the US model, correct me if I'm wrong. Although I think there are those on here (not you) who would happily adopt the Bangladeshi model when it comes to social welfare, seeing the US model as far to liberal (liberal in the true sense of the word).

Paul ok understood the first time.
Sadly we did not promote reform, a day will come,have little doubt about it,others will push reforms on us.
I speak of the world, we humans seem for the most part strangled by our freedoms.
Stunned in the light of change as a rabbit is in the spotlight.
Increasingly I see multiple views go to war, all looking for different out comes.
And all feeding a one day, imposed outcome.