Australian Politics Forum - Socialism for the uninformed.

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #120 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:38pm

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

Quote:

It's about dehumanising and disemboweling recipients and further entrenching the gap between classes.

Tell me, how do pay for your kids excursion without cash? Their raffle tickets? Clothes at the local op shop?

Farmers markets?

Roadside vendors?

And there is the point and the list is endless...take the grandkids to the movies, the amusement park etc etc etc etc etc.

it isn't the point at all. The point is that if you are the recipient of benefits, then it's not the taxpayer that should be paying for your little excursions to entertain your spawns offspring.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #121 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:39pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:17pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:58pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:53pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

That's rather a personal question for a publi forum.
Is there a point to it?

No it isn't and yes there is.

Ok whilst not getting to exact between 2 & 3 million.
I'll have your point now.

You employ 67 people on a turnover of 2-3 million?

Bump a dump.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #122 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:43pm

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:31pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:22pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:10pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

So you propose a rise in the crime rate.

And unemployment benefits are a very long way from attractive.

Why would there be a rise in the crime rate if staples can be bought and the cost is less to taxpayers?

Why would the cost be less to the cost to the tax payer be less if only basics are covered. It would need to be raised for that to happen.

You don't understand economics, do you.

Tell me ... where is the saving to the tax payer if basic needs are met?

You're not proposing a decrease in benefits are you?

I'm proposing the govt uses its purchasing power to reduce costs the the taxpayer. If it results in some inconvenience to benefit recipients, too bad.

So ... government t run super markets then? Or do expect the government to do rock solid deals with no room for price gouging with already existing vendors?

For no less money to the tax payer?

Again, you don't seem to be able to fathom purchasing power, bulk buying, commodities of scale or other basic economic terms. I'm not sure how to more simply explain it to you.

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39715
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #123 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:49pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

Quote:

It's about dehumanising and disemboweling recipients and further entrenching the gap between classes.

Tell me, how do pay for your kids excursion without cash? Their raffle tickets? Clothes at the local op shop?

Farmers markets?

Roadside vendors?

And there is the point and the list is endless...take the grandkids to the movies, the amusement park etc etc etc etc etc.

it isn't the point at all. The point is that if you are the recipient of benefits, then it's not the taxpayer that should be paying for your little excursions to entertain your spawns offspring.

Oh....I see, so a Pensioner Grandparent cannot shout their grandkids a visit to a movie theartre. for example. Perhaps you'll be so benevolent in your total control, you'll let them hire the dvd? Hang on.....what DVD?

You seem to want the people who fought Wars in the name of Australia, created the wealth, laboured to do the construction....(etc etc etc) to later become absolute prisoners of Government. That ain't ever gonna work in this Country, Troll.

Perhaps North Korea would suit you better?

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36384
Gender: female

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #124 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:50pm

It I already significantly more appealing to be removed than not. The experience does not require further disincentive. Making life even more miserable for the unemployed will not positively effect our coffers.

Everything you suggests just drives a wider cavern between classes. It will negatively effect poverty levels. It will disadvantage children.

One bad idea.

What if you go over your chemist allowance and you've got a sick kid at home?

What if you don't use your entire budget for any one of your "cards" and you want to save up for something?

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36384
Gender: female

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #125 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:52pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:38pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

Quote:

It's about dehumanising and disemboweling recipients and further entrenching the gap between classes.

Tell me, how do pay for your kids excursion without cash? Their raffle tickets? Clothes at the local op shop?

Farmers markets?

Roadside vendors?

And there is the point and the list is endless...take the grandkids to the movies, the amusement park etc etc etc etc etc.

it isn't the point at all. The point is that if you are the recipient of benefits, then it's not the taxpayer that should be paying for your little excursions to entertain your spawns offspring.

If you've budgeted for it, why shouldn't you?

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #126 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:54pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:13pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 3:52pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 3:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 3:44pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 3:43pm:

John Smith wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 3:41pm:

Socialism for the uninformed.

ahhh ... that explains where IQ gets his information from

Just trying to educate the buffoons. Maybe you are dumber than a buffoon?

do you talk in the mirror often?

Only when I'm doing your mum in front of it. She thinks you're dumber than a buffoon too.

you often do 80yr olds?

Any more of this and I will suspend the pair of you.

Well, it seems that there are those who didn't pay attention, to what Andrei said.

I'll leave it to Andrei, whether he wants to suspend anyone, But I think it is time to have a rest & think about what is being said!

It's time for this thread, to have a NAP!

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36384
Gender: female

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #127 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:55pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:43pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:31pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:22pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:10pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

So you propose a rise in the crime rate.

And unemployment benefits are a very long way from attractive.

Why would there be a rise in the crime rate if staples can be bought and the cost is less to taxpayers?

Why would the cost be less to the cost to the tax payer be less if only basics are covered. It would need to be raised for that to happen.

You don't understand economics, do you.

Tell me ... where is the saving to the tax payer if basic needs are met?

You're not proposing a decrease in benefits are you?

I'm proposing the govt uses its purchasing power to reduce costs the the taxpayer. If it results in some inconvenience to benefit recipients, too bad.

So ... government t run super markets then? Or do expect the government to do rock solid deals with no room for price gouging with already existing vendors?

For no less money to the tax payer?

Again, you don't seem to be able to fathom purchasing power, bulk buying, commodities of scale or other basic economic terms. I'm not sure how to more simply explain it to you.

You're not that enigmatic. I understand your suggestion and dismiss it as draconian.

And one I don't think you've thought all the way through.

Anyway, you're just repeating yourself now,ignoring everything that's put to you.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: Socialism for the uninformed. Reply #128 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:55pm .
Back to top	IP Logged

perceptions_now Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 11694 Perth WA Gender:	Re: Socialism for the uninformed. Reply #129 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:55pm .
Back to top	IP Logged