Just down the road from me....
-
Blaming the government for the values a kid has does nothing. I am NOT saying that most current welfare systems( I won't dare speak for other countries as I do not have any experience with thier systems) do a good job at promoting self dependence. It is obvious in the US that there needs to be reformation in this area, but the artical in question deals with kids throwing rocks at policmen. How does that have anything to do with the endless loop of welfare? This problem isn't confined to the welfare centrers. You only hear about these occurneces because of where they took place. I live in a very nice area, and know some VERY well off people. Thier kids are , with a few notable exceptions, some of the most spoiled brats that society has ever produced. Why? has nothing to do with welfare in this case. Its because Of what I said before, bad parenting. Of course its not Pc to bring this up, nor does it do anything to berate the government of (insert country here) so its not cool.
mnvkng76 wrote:
Blaming the government for the values a kid has does nothing.
Nobody is blaming the government for kid's bad values here. Likewise, no one is saying that bad parenting isn't a problem. The issue is that, after several generations living in such dependence, sometimes the parents themselves have no concept of what is right and wrong. As for the rest, Christian said it very succinctly.
-
Form a UK perspective - a country with free health care - I agree with Christian. If people don't have money to spend on beer their perspective changes! We have a situation here where you have generations on the dole and we have to import skilled people (at a higher cost the local ones when you add everything together).
Trollslayer wrote:
free health care
There is no such thing. Not even in your country. Someone is sure as hell paying for it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Trollslayer wrote:
free health care
There is no such thing. Not even in your country. Someone is sure as hell paying for it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Yes, there is a levy which adds 1% to our taxes. Nothing is free. But, I do approve of the idea of society working together, rather than every man for himself. Apart from anything else, I'd rather pay the 1% than have someone rob my house to raise money for medicine.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
Christian Graus wrote:
The government at one point stupidly decided to CREATE a suburb of long term unemployed people. So, in the absence of any positive role models, you have third and fourth generations now of people who have never worked, and don't intend to.
The EXACT SAME THING happened in the US throughout the 70's, 80's & 90's. Usually it was high rise tenements rather than suburbs but the effects were identical. Most states have started new programs in the last decade in an effort to make these chronic welfare cases become responsible for themselves - the jury is still out. That's actually one of the reasons I fear free national healthcare here, I'm thinking it will actually cause some of these folks to slide back into a perpetual state of need.
"Part of the inhumanity of the computer is that, once it is competently programmed and working smoothly, it is completely honest." - Isaac Asimov
Mike Mullikin wrote:
That's actually one of the reasons I fear free national healthcare here, I'm thinking it will actually cause some of these folks to slide back into a perpetual state of need.
It's much too late to worry about that. Medicaid[^]has provided essentially free healthcare to low income families since 1965. Free national health care isn't about the poor (as much as Democrats would have you believe so) it's about coverage of that part of the middle class that doesn't get employer sponsored health insurance...a group that is too well off to qualify for medicaid, but can't afford the full cost of health insurance.
-
I disagree - it's the welfare payments and free housing that makes these people dependant on the state, not free health. You can't live on health care. You know they had career day in Bridgewater Primary ( so, girls of around 10 or 11 ) and they asked the kids what they wanted to do. The boys said 'go on the dole' and the girls said 'I'll have a baby in a few years, then I'll get money from the government'. They know they get a one of payment and regular income for breeding. The money goes up for each child they have. It's pathetic.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/57/1851366.pdf[^] is an interesting document dealing with healthcare and education in poverty. <quote> The poor are the principal beneficiaries of universal access to social services. ● Instead of thinking in terms of supply, we need to meet the demand for services from the poor. ● Policies should be judged by their outcomes rather than by the amount of resources employed. ● Coherent, long-term and participatory policy are needed to escape from the poverty trap. </quote> And some worthwhile objectives are stated here http://www.pdhre.org/rights/poverty.html[^]
-
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/59/57/1851366.pdf[^] is an interesting document dealing with healthcare and education in poverty. <quote> The poor are the principal beneficiaries of universal access to social services. ● Instead of thinking in terms of supply, we need to meet the demand for services from the poor. ● Policies should be judged by their outcomes rather than by the amount of resources employed. ● Coherent, long-term and participatory policy are needed to escape from the poverty trap. </quote> And some worthwhile objectives are stated here http://www.pdhre.org/rights/poverty.html[^]
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Coherent, long-term and participatory policy.
AKA "Capitalism".
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Yes, there is a levy which adds 1% to our taxes. Nothing is free. But, I do approve of the idea of society working together, rather than every man for himself. Apart from anything else, I'd rather pay the 1% than have someone rob my house to raise money for medicine.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, there is a levy which adds 1% to our taxes.
I find that hard to believe unless: a) Your health care is not universal, b)Your taxes are already incredibly high, or c) Your population is very young, and extrodinarily healthy. Otherwise, somehow, someway, you must be paying more than that.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, I do approve of the idea of society working together, rather than every man for himself. Apart from anything else, I'd rather pay the 1% than have someone rob my house to raise money for medicine.
I have no problem if Australia wants to follow that principle. As an American, however, I am very uncomfortable being part of any government regulated and managed social initiative unless my country is under attack and I'm needed to defend it. The very thought of it is a violation of the core principles our government was founded upon. What I want is to be given every opportunity to provide for my own care (health or otherwise) in a free market society and to provide whatever I can in personnal Christian charity for those very few who cannot do likewise.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
Coherent, long-term and participatory policy.
AKA "Capitalism".
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, there is a levy which adds 1% to our taxes.
I find that hard to believe unless: a) Your health care is not universal, b)Your taxes are already incredibly high, or c) Your population is very young, and extrodinarily healthy. Otherwise, somehow, someway, you must be paying more than that.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, I do approve of the idea of society working together, rather than every man for himself. Apart from anything else, I'd rather pay the 1% than have someone rob my house to raise money for medicine.
I have no problem if Australia wants to follow that principle. As an American, however, I am very uncomfortable being part of any government regulated and managed social initiative unless my country is under attack and I'm needed to defend it. The very thought of it is a violation of the core principles our government was founded upon. What I want is to be given every opportunity to provide for my own care (health or otherwise) in a free market society and to provide whatever I can in personnal Christian charity for those very few who cannot do likewise.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
I would have thought that a core principle of a government is the care and protection of its citizens. The provision of good quality education and healthcare should in my opinion be a core principle. It is no doubt a matter of honour and principle to offer some charitable donations as long as governments are not expecting charities to assume the exclusive role of provisioning of welfare.
-
I would have thought that a core principle of a government is the care and protection of its citizens. The provision of good quality education and healthcare should in my opinion be a core principle. It is no doubt a matter of honour and principle to offer some charitable donations as long as governments are not expecting charities to assume the exclusive role of provisioning of welfare.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I would have thought that a core principle of a government is the care and protection of its citizens.
Again, I have no problem with those nations where people want to be cared for as if they were the helpless children of an all benevolent 'fatherland'. But I want to see the US remain committed to its core, founding principles. Politically, the US should always err on the side of 'rugged individualism'. That is what sets us apart as a culture and as a people. Anyone who doesn't like that, shouldn't live here.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I would have thought that a core principle of a government is the care and protection of its citizens.
Again, I have no problem with those nations where people want to be cared for as if they were the helpless children of an all benevolent 'fatherland'. But I want to see the US remain committed to its core, founding principles. Politically, the US should always err on the side of 'rugged individualism'. That is what sets us apart as a culture and as a people. Anyone who doesn't like that, shouldn't live here.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
A passage from http://www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins16.htm [^]states "The Founders clearly understood that economic freedom is necessarily linked to political freedom. Competition turns self-interest toward efficiency, fosters voluntary social cooperation through mutually beneficial exchanges, and thereby maximizes social welfare." How do you equate the social welfare as it now applies [^] to how it was envisioned by your founding fathers. And what of its future?
-
A passage from http://www.quebecoislibre.org/younkins16.htm [^]states "The Founders clearly understood that economic freedom is necessarily linked to political freedom. Competition turns self-interest toward efficiency, fosters voluntary social cooperation through mutually beneficial exchanges, and thereby maximizes social welfare." How do you equate the social welfare as it now applies [^] to how it was envisioned by your founding fathers. And what of its future?
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
The Founders clearly understood that economic freedom is necessarily linked to political freedom. Competition turns self-interest toward efficiency, fosters voluntary social cooperation through mutually beneficial exchanges, and thereby maximizes social welfare."
Absolutely. Couldn't have said it better myself.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
How do you equate the social welfare as it now applies [^] to how it was envisioned by your founding fathers. And what of its future?
Social Security is a repudiation of every principle the US was originally expected to promote and provides yet another perfect example of why such schemes never work. People expect to live off of the government once they retire, therefore save very little of thier income, but at the same time, the government is taking that money and using it for purposes having nothing to do with the needs of the actual individuals who provided it. Its rediculous. We would be a much wealthier nation today if all the money that has been wasted by the social security administration for the last 70 years had been left circulating freely in the economy and far more people who have much more comfortable retirements than they are now.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, there is a levy which adds 1% to our taxes.
I find that hard to believe unless: a) Your health care is not universal, b)Your taxes are already incredibly high, or c) Your population is very young, and extrodinarily healthy. Otherwise, somehow, someway, you must be paying more than that.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, I do approve of the idea of society working together, rather than every man for himself. Apart from anything else, I'd rather pay the 1% than have someone rob my house to raise money for medicine.
I have no problem if Australia wants to follow that principle. As an American, however, I am very uncomfortable being part of any government regulated and managed social initiative unless my country is under attack and I'm needed to defend it. The very thought of it is a violation of the core principles our government was founded upon. What I want is to be given every opportunity to provide for my own care (health or otherwise) in a free market society and to provide whatever I can in personnal Christian charity for those very few who cannot do likewise.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
I find that hard to believe unless: a) Your health care is not universal, b)Your taxes are already incredibly high, or c) Your population is very young, and extrodinarily healthy.
We're also incredibly good looking :P Seriously tho, we have a private health system as well, we pay $200 odd a month, to private funds, which then gives us a better standard of care than that offered by public hospitals. This is then claimed on our tax, so I end up paying $100 odd a month for private health.
Stan Shannon wrote:
to provide whatever I can in personnal Christian charity for those very few who cannot do likewise.
'very few' ? You must live in a different world to the country I live in, and the USA that I've visited 5 times now. You probably mean 'very few in my sphere of influence'. I have a problem with our government increasingly NOT caring for those who cannot care for themselves, because they assume the churches will do it. It makes basic sense for the government to help people who are in difficulty, and I see that as a return on the taxes I pay, if I ever need it. If they don't do that, the poor won't just happily starve, although a proportion of them may well find jobs. They will be mugging me and robbing your house.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
-
The point I was making is that the welfare system encourages people to stay jobless, encourages people with no interest in parenting to breed, and encourages enclaves of people with no positive role models or opportunities to do better than their parents did.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
yes you're on the game there Christain (you sure you're a leftie?) I dotn have a problem with those in need getting some help from the state - but eternal handouts and state housing etc breeds contempt for traditional values and those receiving it find it all too easy to fall into a dependency trap - why should i work when i get money etc for free? As far as the kids are concerned i reckon there needs to be responsibility taken and applied - if you're on welfare and your kids are a mess (referring to the schools you mentioned) then you lose your benefit. I reckon nothing would sharpen people's mind faster than the free money coming to and end. Again i ask - you sure you're a leftie? u sound fiscally conservative for a start ;) Bryce p..s "i don't want to talk about facts, i know what i saw" ;)
--- To paraphrase Fred Dagg - the views expressed in this post are bloody good ones. --
Publitor, making Pubmed easy. http://www.sohocode.com/publitorOur kids books :The Snot Goblin, and Book 2 - the Snotgoblin and Fluff
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, there is a levy which adds 1% to our taxes.
I find that hard to believe unless: a) Your health care is not universal, b)Your taxes are already incredibly high, or c) Your population is very young, and extrodinarily healthy. Otherwise, somehow, someway, you must be paying more than that.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, I do approve of the idea of society working together, rather than every man for himself. Apart from anything else, I'd rather pay the 1% than have someone rob my house to raise money for medicine.
I have no problem if Australia wants to follow that principle. As an American, however, I am very uncomfortable being part of any government regulated and managed social initiative unless my country is under attack and I'm needed to defend it. The very thought of it is a violation of the core principles our government was founded upon. What I want is to be given every opportunity to provide for my own care (health or otherwise) in a free market society and to provide whatever I can in personnal Christian charity for those very few who cannot do likewise.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
Christian Graus wrote: Yes, there is a levy which adds 1% to our taxes. I find that hard to believe unless: a) Your health care is not universal, b)Your taxes are already incredibly high, or c) Your population is very young, and extrodinarily healthy.
It's actually 1.5% and you get healthcare that is probably a bit better than you get from HMO's over in the US. Dental, specialists and hospital stays/surgery are extra. The unemployed do get some of these things for free but not those who can afford to pay. If you make your way to the top of the very long waiting list for non life saving surgery specialists and surgery can often be done via medicare without paying extra.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
I would have thought that a core principle of a government is the care and protection of its citizens.
Again, I have no problem with those nations where people want to be cared for as if they were the helpless children of an all benevolent 'fatherland'. But I want to see the US remain committed to its core, founding principles. Politically, the US should always err on the side of 'rugged individualism'. That is what sets us apart as a culture and as a people. Anyone who doesn't like that, shouldn't live here.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
But I want to see the US remain committed to its core, founding principles. Politically, the US should always err on the side of 'rugged individualism'. That is what sets us apart as a culture and as a people. Anyone who doesn't like that, shouldn't live here.
Gotta be proud of them ghettos. Luckily all who live there do so by their own choice.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
-
Trollslayer wrote:
free health care
There is no such thing. Not even in your country. Someone is sure as hell paying for it.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
We have "National Insurance" which is ~12.5% of pay. Part of that goes on the state pension - You can opt out of part of that, but the government still collects the same amout of money, it just puts some of it in a pension plan that I specify.
Upcoming events: * Glasgow: SQL Server 2005 - XML and XML Query Plans, Mock Objects, SQL Server Reporting Services... * Reading: Developer Day 5 Never write for other people. Write for yourself, because you have a passion for it. -- Marc Clifton My website
-
Stan Shannon wrote:
But I want to see the US remain committed to its core, founding principles. Politically, the US should always err on the side of 'rugged individualism'. That is what sets us apart as a culture and as a people. Anyone who doesn't like that, shouldn't live here.
Gotta be proud of them ghettos. Luckily all who live there do so by their own choice.
Michael Martin Australia "I controlled my laughter and simple said "No,I am very busy,so I can't write any code for you". The moment they heard this all the smiling face turned into a sad looking face and one of them farted. So I had to leave the place as soon as possible." - Mr.Prakash 24/04/2004
Michael Martin wrote:
Gotta be proud of them ghettos. Luckily all who live there do so by their own choice.
The ghettos are a direct result of dependency upon government, not capitalism. They are needed in order to have large concentrations of dependeble voters enslaved to the democratic party in key areas of the country.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
-
http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,21839614-3462,00.html[^] The background story - Bridgewater is public housing, mostly full of long term unemployed people and single mothers. It's not uncommon to see 14 year old girls with their babies at the local shops. My wife's aunt, who works in the primary school, says they have lowered school suspensions from 35 a month to about 8, by giving the kids a reward for behaving in a manner that's reasonably close to how my kids are expected to behave for no reward, in a normal school. My wife is called often by someone who lives there and regards her as a friend ( Donna is polite to her, so she keeps calling ). She recently had her kids taken away by child protection. That's what sort of place it is.
Christian Graus - Microsoft MVP - C++ Metal Musings - Rex and my new metal blog "I am working on a project that will convert a FORTRAN code to corresponding C++ code.I am not aware of FORTRAN syntax" ( spotted in the C++/CLI forum )
Bogans, they're everywhere. Some of the government housing around inner sydney in now worth millions and the local councils are trying to get the people to move to new houses way out west. Did you see the series on SBS a few years ago about Plumpton High school? They followed the lives of a few teenage mothers living on welfare and trying to get through school at the same time. Much as these people deserve better there are some opportunites for them to improve their own lives. Many many remote aboriginal communities suffer far more, have little or no opportunity and are pretty much ignored by the media and the rest of Australia
-
Christian Graus wrote:
Yes, there is a levy which adds 1% to our taxes.
I find that hard to believe unless: a) Your health care is not universal, b)Your taxes are already incredibly high, or c) Your population is very young, and extrodinarily healthy. Otherwise, somehow, someway, you must be paying more than that.
Christian Graus wrote:
But, I do approve of the idea of society working together, rather than every man for himself. Apart from anything else, I'd rather pay the 1% than have someone rob my house to raise money for medicine.
I have no problem if Australia wants to follow that principle. As an American, however, I am very uncomfortable being part of any government regulated and managed social initiative unless my country is under attack and I'm needed to defend it. The very thought of it is a violation of the core principles our government was founded upon. What I want is to be given every opportunity to provide for my own care (health or otherwise) in a free market society and to provide whatever I can in personnal Christian charity for those very few who cannot do likewise.
Modern liberalism has never achieved anything other than giving Secularists something to feel morally superior about
Stan Shannon wrote:
I find that hard to believe unless: a) Your health care is not universal, b)Your taxes are already incredibly high, or c) Your population is very young, and extrodinarily healthy.
There is a "Medicare levy" but it doesn't come anywhere near funding the cost of Medicare (which in Australia, unlike the US thing of the same name, offers universal coverage). Most of Medicare is funded from general taxation revenue.
John Carson