k7bQ~~60_7.JPG "the_hawk*"){kind=avatar}
@the_hawk* wrote:Icy posted a link else where for people to make donations
I will be brave and post that link here and hope the mods have some compasion and not remove this post or edit it.
and they take Paypal
and here is me putting my $$ to back up my mouth
You sent a payment Transaction ID: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear Darrell Lxxxxxxxx,
You sent a payment for $50.00 AUD to Uniting Church Frontier Services.
I agree with your post about aid abroad, I do wonder if we could have cut that back without too many repercussions for us as a country (I have no idea how it is tied up and promised etc) But if possible, I do agree that we need to help our own first.
I've sent money too.
My sentiments however stand about government dependency, If the public wish to help, then that is good, but I don't believe that a business should be reliant on government support, especially in instances such as this.
One off, surprise catastrophies, perhaps, but not just as a result of poor business management or the desire to prolong the life of one that is ultimately unviable.
@the_hawk* wrote:
@lloydslights wrote:I had this drafted but didn't post 4 hours ago. I was a little afraid that I would be deemed a "hard b...female"
I'm sorry to see the plight of the farmers. However, what can any of us do, if there is no water?
In the article, it is mentioned that a whole town may close down because of the lack of water.
There was no forethought by the local authorities or some farmers for alternate sources of water, i.e. bores.
The farmer delayed in moving his stock sooner (this may have been due to mental issues in decision making). Was he waiting for assistance in fuel rebates, etc. Assist yourself!
Farming is a business. To have 400 head of cattle is quite a large property.
I'm sorry, but I agree with Tony on this one, the "age of entitlement" is close to being over.
DEB
its not about entitlement, its about caring for those that are less fortunate
Is the so called "Age of Entitlement" over or is just that welfare for those who need it is over but for the rich it just keep's going -
from Independent Australia
When Joe Hockey says "the age of entitlementโ is over, writes James Wight, he really means welfare for the disadvantaged is over โ the entitled will continue to be so under the Coalition.
LAST WEEK, the Government refused to provide $25 million of assistance to struggling cannery SPC.
According to Treasurer Joe Hockey:
โ... the age of entitlement is over, and the age of personal responsibility has begun."
This opposition to โentitlementโ is an emerging narrative of the Governmentโs, with Abbott stating โwe donโt believe in corporate welfareโ.
Hockeyโs choice of the word โentitlementโ is a prime example of right-wing spin. It sounds almost like it belongs in a left-wing critique of privilege, power, and big business.
Donโt be fooled.
Dig deeper and youโll find the Governmentโs real intentions are the opposite of what the spin suggests.
Dig deeper and youโll find the Governmentโs real intentions are the opposite of what the spin suggests.
Employment minister Eric Abetz spruiks the Coalition party line when he says that SPC is โover-generousโ to its employees (and more reasonably, that it is owned by a huge multinational โ Coca-Cola Amatil).
However, Liberal Party backbencher Sharman Stone, whose electorate includes the cannery, points out that SPCโs problems are not caused by extravagant wages and working conditions, but by unrelated factors such as extreme weather, the supermarket duopoly and increased imports.
So, it can be concluded that Hockey is not taking a principled stand against corporate welfare, but instead he is using the withdrawal of government assistance as a stick to punish employees for standing up for themselves.
Parliamentary Secretary for Water, Simon Birmingham, says the Government:
โ... wonโt be pursuing policies that prop up unsustainable policies or bad business practices.โ
This would be very welcome news if โsustainableโ meant living within the Earthโs natural limits. However, unfortunately, the Governmentโs idea of sustainability seems to end at cutting costs.
The Government is pursuing policies, including corporate welfare, which prop up unsustainable business practices.
This yearโs budget is set to spend $9.83 billion subsidising fossil fuels (excluding measures made redundant by the carbon price repeal bills). Thatโs 393 times the subsidy denied to SPC in one year alone. These subsidies were mostly instituted under the Howard Coalition Government and continued by the previous Labor administrations of Rudd and Gillard.
Across many policy areas, the Government subsidizes the already affluent. Examples include superannuation concessions and paid parental leave favouring high-income earners, negative gearing and bank borrowing guarantees.
The overall effect is an awful lot of welfare for the rich.
Similarly, the Coalition has voted for repeated increases in politiciansโ salaries, to the point where Australia now has some of the worldโs highest-paid politicians. Treasurer Hockey receives $366,000 per year from taxpayers, while PM Abbott gets $507,000.
Are they entitled?
When Hockey says the age of โentitlementโ is over, he really means welfare for the disadvantaged is over.
Welfare for the privileged lives on.
Hawk, I don't suppose there will be much complaining when we have to start importing all of our meat - me, i'll go vegie.
@crikey*mate wrote:
@the_hawk* wrote:Icy posted a link else where for people to make donations
I will be brave and post that link here and hope the mods have some compasion and not remove this post or edit it.
and they take Paypal
and here is me putting my $$ to back up my mouth
You sent a payment Transaction ID: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Dear Darrell Lxxxxxxxx,
You sent a payment for $50.00 AUD to Uniting Church Frontier Services.
I agree with your post about aid abroad, I do wonder if we could have cut that back without too many repercussions for us as a country (I have no idea how it is tied up and promised etc) But if possible, I do agree that we need to help our own first.
I've sent money too.
My sentiments however stand about government dependency, If the public wish to help, then that is good, but I don't believe that a business should be reliant on government support, especially in instances such as this.
One off, surprise catastrophies, perhaps, but not just as a result of poor business management or the desire to prolong the life of one that is ultimately unviable.
They probably tried to save money for the dry times but the dry times are more frequent and the intenstity more damaging.
I don't think they realized just how much the trees contributed before they bulldozed virtually the lot.
The farmers who have replanted green strips don't seem to be affected as badly as those who've cleared all vegetation.
