"Hunter01" <hunter01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:4832f32a$0$11523$5a62ac22@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Swampfox wrote:
>> "Hunter01" <hunter01@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>> news:4826e240$0$22177$5a62ac22@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>>
>>> Nope, the way I read it it's only going to be
>>> trialed in pretty much the exact same places
>>> Howard was going to implement it. Howard also said
>>> it would also be later rolled into other areas if
>>> the same problems were seen to be present. Rudd
>>> has not really clarified exactly where-else he
>>> will roll it out yet, other than that it could be
>>> rolled out in cases where the Child Protection
>>> Agency makes a recommendation, not really far off
>>> Liberals stand at all.
>>
>> Not a quantum leap, but substantially different
>> nonetheless.
>> Macklin stated categorically the other day that the
>> same system would be rolled out Australia wide
>> later this year, not a "maybe, if the need arises"
>> that Howard proposed.
>> Labor has also done the nuts and bolts work that
>> was lacking from anything Howard proposed.
>
>
> Yeah we'll see, I heard Australia wide "where
> appropriate", eg. skipping the semantics the general
> meaning of "if the need arises" is really no
> different at all. As for the nuts and bolts, yep
> agreed, and I already said so myself, but that's no
> different than any system already put in place at a
> change of govt, the govt that follows either adopts
> and attachs the wheels to a new scheme, or they shun
> it and can it. Obviously Labor in this case like the
> idea (as much as they said otherwise) and shaped it
> to their design (and no complaints there, Liberal
> did the same with certain Labor schemes way back on
> the last change of govt, only a fool would not take
> the good and drop the bad, and of course they will
> always reshape, to leave it as is is as good as to
> say it was right in the first place, and no side
> will ever do that).
>
>
>>> Personally I think that it should be universal to
>>> welfare recipients, but with some latitude, if
>>> said recipient needs to spend the dosh on
>>> something that is not a part of the program but is
>>> still reasonable that flexibility should be there,
>>> in the form of Centrelink evaluating the situation
>>> and making the payment for the recipient if deemed
>>> to be fair enough, or some such other form. If the
>>> recipient is willing to live on Maggi noodles for
>>> a period of time to try to get a vehicle which may
>>> help to get a job, or to pick up a suit for
>>> interviews, or whatever else, that latitude must
>>> be there.
>>
>> Sounds good in theory, but it will need another
>> layer of bureacracy to administer and could become
>> just another work for the dole type white elephant.
>> It'll give the punters a warm inner glow though so
>> it's politically irresistable.
>
>
> Agreed entirely, but you can't implement a scheme in
> a half-arsed manner which is more likely to cripple
> rather than improve the chances of building the
> workforce. It needs to be done properly, and the
> only way to do that is to include that latitude. I
> reckon a much simpler approach would be to do the
> Austudy loan idea without the payback reasoning
> behind it (that in itself negates the attractiveness
> of doing it). 50% again on the dole for those
> willing to go into training, assistance in getting
> the first job, and if employment is successfully
> obtained no payback, it was worth the investment.
> You might say what about all the bludgers who don't
> get a job and just do it for the extra dosh? Well
> welcome to now-land, that's already the case with
> those who take up the loan scheme, no payback
> required providing you don't get a job, sort of an
> incentive not to get a job really isn't it... Take
> the payback out of it and you might find people who
> are actually after a job are much more keen to take
> the offer as opposed to just those seeing it as a
> free paying lark with no likelihood of ever having
> to make repayments, and then given a few years for
> these people to emerge into the workforce we
> wouldn't have to im****t labour at the same rate
> we're currently forced to.
>
> Personally it saddens me that people in Aus now need
> to be bribed to get an education and get a job in
> many cases. I personally work with a number of
> im****ted workers who are much more Australian in
> their attitudes than a lot of the younger homeborn
> people, and are also damn good friends. It saddens
> me that our own people are much less interested
> today in getting a trade or a profession than they
> were when I was a youngun, but I spose who really
> gives a **** in the end, I'd rather knock around
> with people who are as Australian in attitude as it
> comes, with the full mate****p ethic, work ethic and
> love their partying than any of the gen-c mob (c for
> ****) coming up these days that think the world owes
> them a living and would rather be ****ing yanks than
> Aussies. I'd love to see things change and see
> homeborn pride restored, but it's not looking good
> with the greenleft influence destroying our local
> population, so maybe the influx of good people from
> overseas is exactly what we need until Australia can
> grow some balls, kick the greenlefters in the head,
> and restore some pride to this country. Perhaps
> these people from overseas who have seen life can be
> hard are what we need, because the younguns of today
> don't seem to have a ****ing clue for the most part,
> and that taints their morals, ethics and everything
> else. My apologies to the good up-and-comings out
> there, but I'm sure they also see that a lot of
> their age bracket these days truly are just ****s.
>
> Off-tangent tirade ended, had a few tonight, and
> personally couldn't give a **** if the above offends
> people. I see my country going down-hill as far as
> our local mob are concerned, and that ****s me.
>
>
>>> Of course this will all cost the tax payer money,
>>> but with the ****e the current state and federal
>>> govts are blowing money on (and the previous govt
>>> as well, that's a problem common to all govts) I
>>> think this may be a worthwhile investment, and the
>>> ROI would be high even if intangible, these people
>>> would have food, would find it much harder to blow
>>> our tax dollars on drugs and alcohol, etc.etc.
>>> ****, if they want to drink and smoke they just
>>> might go out and get a job! 8]
>>
>> The types of people likely to blow their cash on
>> piss and dope and neglect their kids are highly
>> unlikely to get a job.
>> Sounds good though.
>
>
> Other than neglecting kids (got none and want none,
> would conflict with my lifestyle!) I blow the bulk
> of my income on partying, but I work ****ing hard
> for that, and reckon that's perfectly within my
> rights, so bad call to say that those types aren't
> the types to get jobs,
No it's not.
I presume you're single and have no direct obligation
to any children, so that's a different matter
entirely.
Suck as much piss as you like so long as you behave
yourself and there's no harm done except to your
health.
Pisspots or junkies who also neglect or mistreat their
kids are far more likely to be unemployed than the
average punter.
>in fact plenty of my mob (and we ain't kids any more)
>are the same. Some with the wife and kids baggage,
>they just attend less pissups! 8]
>
>
>>> It's not like there's a shortage of work in this
>>> country...
>>
>> Doesn't matter how much work's about, there will
>> always be dropkicks.
>
>
> Agree entirely, the totally useless will always
> exist, the beauty of this nation is that we don't
> let anyone starve. If we gave the right incentives
> to get work though we'd have only those that truly
> can't be employed, not those that vaguely can't be
> bothered, which is the current situation. Need to
> make it hard for those that don't want to, but
> compassionate to those that have true problems, a
> fine art of brinkman****p which ain't likely in a
> public service sort of area, but hey, the world will
> never be perfect.
>
>
>>> I don't agree with you, and neither do the likes
>>> of Noel Pearson, who made the same point you make
>>> above about the welfare quarantine, he couldn't
>>> give two ****s about who does it or who gets the
>>> credit, all he gives a **** about is Australia has
>>> known about the problems (kiddy rapes, violence,
>>> disease, poverty, lawlessness, these great
>>> so-called communities only have criminals enjoying
>>> life there, everyone else lives in fear) for a
>>> very long time, but has been too gutless due to
>>> greenleft kneejerk activist reactionaries to ever
>>> previously do anything about it.
>>
>> Howard did **** all about it for over a decade, and
>> since when has he worried about greenleft kneejerk
>> activist reactionaries?
>
>
> All govts have and always will be buddy, that's the
> problem. Howard I think realised he was going under
> and thought he'd try something reactionary for a
> final sink or swim reaction, it didn't go well for
> him.
Howard is reactionary by nature.
>
> Unfortunately it was for the purposes of politics...
> Noel Pearson was dead right, he said he didn't like
> Howard but at least he did something, and he didn't
> care what the reasons were or who did it, he just
> wanted someone to do something. That help has been
> lacking for far too long, forget the politics of it,
> at least the ball is now rolling, I just pray Labor
> keeps it rolling, and drops the politics long enough
> to get it right despite whatever negativity they may
> attract from their traditional core voting greenleft
> crowd, they'd earn a lot of respect from people like
> myself if they had the balls to help the victims in
> these communities...
>
>
>> The bald truth of the matter is that to actually do
>> something constructive will cost a **** load of
>> money, far more than we've ever spent on abo's, and
>> the average city living Aussie doesn't give a stuff
>> about blackfellas living out in **** creek, and
>> they don't want a bucket load of their taxes spent
>> on them.
>
>
> Nope, neither do I. Treat them like everyone else.
> Abuse/neglect your kids then lose them, no more of
> this stolen generation part II stigma. If the
> community ain't working close it down, like anyone
> or anywhere else. It ain't rocket science.
And do what with the people?
>
>
>> By average city living Aussie I mean Aussies of
>> Anglo, Greek, Viet, Lebanese and every other ethnic
>> mix that makes up our society, not just your
>> stereotype white bigot.
>
>
> Plenty of Anglo, Greek, Viet, Lebanese and everyone
> else bigots too. Especially so in the Aboriginal
> community. Being a bigot is certainly not a
> colourblind affliction.
>
>
>> None of them give a stuff about blackfellas, and
>> the politicians know it.
>
>
> Some of us actually do. Some of us have actually
> spent a lot of time knocking around with, working
> with and dealing with them. They're not another
> species, they're just other people. Some are good
> people, some are ****s. The biggest ****ing problem
> is the greenleft mob do effectively want them
> classified as a seperate species. The elders are
> sick of this approach, but these ****s know better
> than the elders... The Nyungar elders in Perth
> begged for the gloves to be removed some years back,
> and to be given the ability to discipline their
> kids, and for the courts to ****ing do something
> about their s***bags, and they were totally ignored.
> Last I heard on it is one of the elders had died and
> the other got headlines saying he'd divorced himself
> from the Nyungar community, because as far as he was
> concerned it was now dead and unsaveable, and blamed
> it entirely on the welfare greenleft **** mentality
> that had destroyed his people. That makes me sick,
> but that's the reality of what has happened.... That
> elder was dead ****ing right, hope he's keeled over
> and not had to see how even further down the slide
> they've gone here. Thank **** there's communities
> out there that have retained their pride and
> strength, because where-ever the greenleft have
> become involved their communities have become broken
> and been destroyed.
You're way too paranoid about the Greenleft.
Rednecks do just as much harm.
>
>
>>> Thank **** something at least is finally being
>>> done. Perhaps it could be done better, but at
>>> least the women and children of these communities
>>> are no longer copping the usual "leave it to them,
>>> it's the way they live" that they've been victims
>>> of for decades, most notably recently by the QLD
>>> state govt which seems to have been caught out
>>> trying to bury child abuse records in these
>>> communities.
>>
>> I have no idea what motivated Howard, and I
>> wouldn't even guess as I wouldn't believe a word he
>> said, but Brough struck me as a decent man who was
>> committed to making a difference, and when he lost
>> his seat it was a loss both for the parliament and
>> the Coalition.
>
>
> The only difference that is going to be made in some
> of these communities is going to take boots, not
> arse-kissing. It's gone well beyond that..... Hiding
> reality from the public is only compounding the
> issue, and is also criminal in my opinion.
>
>
>>> Agree completely, and if any non-Indigenous
>>> (forget White, we're all Australian) communities
>>> have the same problems I'd want the army sent in
>>> post-haste to round up the ****s responsible and
>>> lock them up and throw away the key, and return
>>> some semblance of law and order to the place.
>>>
>>> In fact if the same treatment was applied
>>> universally we wouldn't be blowing untold amounts
>>> of tax paying dollars to try to sup****t these
>>> communities in the first place, they'd be
>>> considered unviable and the people would have to
>>> move somewhere viable, just like happens in any
>>> other town in Australia that ends up unable to
>>> sup****t itself. I'd have absolutely no problems
>>> with that either, 2 birds with one stone.
>>
>> And you're not alone.
>> I heard a blackfella from Cape York on radio a few
>> months ago saying that many remote communities are
>> simply unviable due to the exhorbitant cost of
>> providing services and that they can never produce
>> sustainable employment.
>> The catch is that no one else in Australia has been
>> told where they have to live or forcibly removed
>> from their homes.
>> There were thousands of hippies living in ****
>> creek in the 70's collecting the dole and with no
>> chance whatsoever of doing a day's work, and
>> nothing was done about them so it's gonna be a cute
>> trick to sell the idea when it comes to abos.
>
>
> Nothing to sell, stop wasting money on the
> communities, nothing spent at all on them. Become
> self-sustaining or give up and move, the same as
> would happen with anyone else (much like those
> hippies).
>
> I'm sure those hippies managed to get to the nearest
> dole office to put their forms in, let these guys do
> the same.
The hippies were in the main white, educated, had
drivers licences, cars and new the system back to
front.
Abos living 1000k from the nearest decent sized town
are a different matter entirely.
Give up and move you say, but move where exactly?
Are you gonna put them up in your spare room, or is
the government gonna build 50,000 houses in population
centres, pay to relocate them then sup****t them
anyway?
Not as simple as you seem to think I'm afraid.
|
