John Spong is wrong
Regular Member
I agree you can't censor the internet, but surely you agree inappropriate content is very harmful and child inappropriate content in particular is despicable?
Upvote
0
The General Election
- Thread starter tgg
- Start date
They want to pay parents over $10k for having more than 2 children. Not a good idea IMO. Especially when you listen to the FF's comments..and their hidden agenda; keeping women at home
Well maybe this is something to discuss here. Just think about it, we need desperatly more children (yes, NO Migrants which get old soon). 2 children to replace the parents and 2 for the country. The children suppose to pay the pension for their parents.
Now the second part about women at home, I think lot's of women would like to stay home and enjoy their 'little ones' to grow up, but our economic is geared for a two income family. Here BOTH parties are a failure. Also maybe a thought wert is the women in 'proverb 31' was more sucessful and much more free then todays women. So this is a great subject to discuss.
Well maybe this is something to discuss here. Just think about it, we need desperatly more children (yes, NO Migrants which get old soon). 2 children to replace the parents and 2 for the country. The children suppose to pay the pension for their parents.
Now the second part about women at home, I think lot's of women would like to stay home and enjoy their 'little ones' to grow up, but our economic is geared for a two income family. Here BOTH parties are a failure. Also maybe a thought wert is the women in 'proverb 31' was more sucessful and much more free then todays women. So this is a great subject to discuss.
Upvote
0
DavinMochrie
Well-Known Member
Where's the child inappropriate content mate?
IT's not like that stuff is freely available. You'd have to be a pedo with a network of pedos to get it and they do it all hidden. They would name the files something else.
Child inappropriate content is not an issue for the general populace, as the AFP are already doing their job to stamp it out.
Adult inappropriate content on the other hand..........
I agreed with teh idea of the DOT XXX domain. Think about it, restirct all inappropriate content to those domains only, then simply use filter software to blovk all access to that domain. Easy! But for some unknown reason it was stopped.
Upvote
0
I do agree. I have no interest in inappropriate content, and child inappropriate content is of course despicable.
That said, the Government has wasted a lot of money on trying to do the impossible; censor the net. Then a high-school kid got around the filter anyway. Hee hee....
Child inappropriate content aside, inappropriate content is actually legal (disregarding the obvious such as inappropriate behavior with animals, underage, etc) we as Christians cannot force our views on people who don't feel the same way we do about inappropriate contentographic images.
Filtering at an ISP level is also dangerous...once the Government has the power to censor- they won't stop at kiddy inappropriate content....We'll be as censored as China is.
Upvote
0
DavinMochrie
Well-Known Member
This is just my opinion:
I would strongly disagree with that.
I think we need less children and less population.
Frankly I have no sympathy for baby boomers and their high house prices. Let them fund their own retirement.
I'd be happier if the Aussie population halved and we lives simpler lifestyles and treated each other better.
Somewhat like the Kingdom of heaven on earth.
Upvote
0
Why is it a problem that Family first was founded by a pastor? At least it's mostly Christian (or that's the impression I get anyway)
Also I am a little unsure about giving out $10,000 for having 3 or more children. However if they did, I would be in 7th heaven because it means we could afford well and truly to have a larger family (which is the desire of my heart believe it or not)
Also what is wrong with staying at home. Most women I know with children want to stay at home more than anything, I do know a few that go back to work, but ask them if they really want to go back to work and most that I know say "no" they do it because they feel they have to.
I know that when my youngest goes to school, (if we don't have any more) I will probably go back to work, but hopefully only part time. There is more to life than work, children are only little for such a short time and I don't understand why some people seem to think it's a "bad thing" that mothers want to stay at home to take care of their children.
For me it's a calling in my life at the moment, not something I despise, but something I find very rewarding. My children won't remember how much money we had or didn't have as much as they will remember how much time and care was spent with them.
Upvote
0
Unfortunately someone has to take care of the older population. It's not just about money, but who is going to staff the retirement homes, who is going to staff the hospitals, who is going to provide the food to feed the aging population, unless someone kills them off now.
I agree, I wish people could live simpler lifestyles and treat each other better, but I am not sure that halving the population would achieve that.
Upvote
0
DavinMochrie
Well-Known Member
I just don't think bringing more human beings into this world is the answer.
We will find a way.
There are too many humans on this planet. Too much war, too many corporations looking for slave labour.
The solution is to collectively change the way we live. The solution is for us to stop making corporations our masters.
I know that sounds idealistic, but having more children as a cheap source of labour is not the answer. In my opinion.
Upvote
0
The problem is; a political party should not be cohercing women into staying home. It is a very important decision, but not the business of any pollie.
Also, the statement made by FF in regards to the $10k '3rd baby bonus' refers to dual parent households. What if it is a single parent family in question? Are they to be discriminated against?
Upvote
0
DavinMochrie
Well-Known Member
The baby bonus should be abolished in my opinion.
Not because I'm some of conservative or whatever, but he sends all sorts of wrong messages.
My drug addict brother has a nice plasma television though.
The baby bonus and first home owners grant has done a lot of harm to our society, and it was designed as a political bribe.
A political bribe.
If they wanna give back to the people, they can start with lowering personal income tax for the working folk.
Not because I'm some of conservative or whatever, but he sends all sorts of wrong messages.
My drug addict brother has a nice plasma television though.
The baby bonus and first home owners grant has done a lot of harm to our society, and it was designed as a political bribe.
A political bribe.
If they wanna give back to the people, they can start with lowering personal income tax for the working folk.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
I didn't hear the part about single parent families, if it does get approved then they should be eligible for it.
In fact I am not so sure about the 10,000 baby bonus at all, I don't see how the government can afford it.
Upvote
0
Do you have children? I resent the idea of children being referred to as a cheap source of labour. The fact is that children are essential to the future of humanity - If no-one has children then we will die out.
Upvote
0
There will always be some who abuse money from the govt.
However we are one family that used the baby bonus for it's rightful purpose and were very thankful for it. It wouldn't be fair to take it away just because of the people that abuse it.
Upvote
0
Hey I pay tax, I look at the baby bonus as a refund (for all the years I forgot to do a tax return, lol) JK. Not that I have kids yet. I do see yur point though. I am from Logan originally, a low income, high welfare-dependance area. It's pretty pathetic. Welfare cycles are less likely to break when each new bub means new mags on the bommodore, or big TV...etc
Like anything though, the baby bonus is abused by some, and used effectively by others. For some it means an extra couple of months off work after baby's birth, safety check on car, hospital fees/excess (in the case of private cover) and the sort of purchases that have a positive effect on the bub's life. Unlike plasma TVs...lol. It'll be a good 5 years before the kid can appreciate that
The solutions for the abuse of the Baby Bonus are simple.
1. Means test it. The thought of millionaires getting the bonus makes me clench my teeth...
2. Police it. What I mean by that is; when applying for the bonus, intented purchases must be submitted. I'm not talking about getitng quotes for prams and hoping the Gov agrees with your choice of a Peg Perago. I mean if the family intends on upgrading their car, then say that...if they wish to take more time off work....and so on. If a parent is stupid enough to spend the baby bonus on a Plasma, chances are they're also dumb enought o tell the Gov.
Also the possibility of payments should be considered (compulsory) this would dissuade unsavoury people from buying that $3000 TV (a lot harder to do when you only get $100 extra a week or whatever, and more likely to be spent on the welfare of the child)
Like anything though, the baby bonus is abused by some, and used effectively by others. For some it means an extra couple of months off work after baby's birth, safety check on car, hospital fees/excess (in the case of private cover) and the sort of purchases that have a positive effect on the bub's life. Unlike plasma TVs...lol. It'll be a good 5 years before the kid can appreciate that
The solutions for the abuse of the Baby Bonus are simple.
1. Means test it. The thought of millionaires getting the bonus makes me clench my teeth...
2. Police it. What I mean by that is; when applying for the bonus, intented purchases must be submitted. I'm not talking about getitng quotes for prams and hoping the Gov agrees with your choice of a Peg Perago. I mean if the family intends on upgrading their car, then say that...if they wish to take more time off work....and so on. If a parent is stupid enough to spend the baby bonus on a Plasma, chances are they're also dumb enought o tell the Gov.
Also the possibility of payments should be considered (compulsory) this would dissuade unsavoury people from buying that $3000 TV (a lot harder to do when you only get $100 extra a week or whatever, and more likely to be spent on the welfare of the child)
Upvote
0
Where's Logan? I have heard of it, but just curious where it is?
The only thing I would find a problem with it paid in installments, is I wouldn't see it lol. Not joking - it would probably go on extra groceries!
Also once you have had a baby, (we had our first in 2001, where you got around $800.00 up front, not means tested, then an extra bit added on when you did your tax until your child turned 5 - unfortunately I've claimed all that now- that amount was based on the mothers income the year they had the baby) and seriously it was great lol, but... I must admit that $3,000 was handy after the birth of number 2, not to go and buy baby gear, we had most of it already from no.1, we had most of the big items, and most of the clothes are pretty cheap to get 2nd hand (most babies grow out of their clothes before they've worn them out)
It helped because I have to have caesareans, - there is a 6 week period where the mother cannot drive or lift anything heavier than the baby - basically all you are supposed to do is lift the baby and you really can't do much for yourself or your family after a c-section. so my husband had to take 3 weeks off work, then my mum came and took care of us 2 days a week after that until I got to my 6 week mark.
So it did help because he took leave without pay. To have that money in installments next time around will make it quite hard, especially when all the bills come in (like I said I have to have caesareans and those bills are not pretty)
The only thing I would find a problem with it paid in installments, is I wouldn't see it lol. Not joking - it would probably go on extra groceries!
Also once you have had a baby, (we had our first in 2001, where you got around $800.00 up front, not means tested, then an extra bit added on when you did your tax until your child turned 5 - unfortunately I've claimed all that now- that amount was based on the mothers income the year they had the baby) and seriously it was great lol, but... I must admit that $3,000 was handy after the birth of number 2, not to go and buy baby gear, we had most of it already from no.1, we had most of the big items, and most of the clothes are pretty cheap to get 2nd hand (most babies grow out of their clothes before they've worn them out)
It helped because I have to have caesareans, - there is a 6 week period where the mother cannot drive or lift anything heavier than the baby - basically all you are supposed to do is lift the baby and you really can't do much for yourself or your family after a c-section. so my husband had to take 3 weeks off work, then my mum came and took care of us 2 days a week after that until I got to my 6 week mark.
So it did help because he took leave without pay. To have that money in installments next time around will make it quite hard, especially when all the bills come in (like I said I have to have caesareans and those bills are not pretty)
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
Could you imagine the amount of big government that would be needed to approve peoples purchases? Its bad enough handling employee receipts and deductions in a business scenario, let alone for the entire country. And Im not sure that I would want a public servant deciding what people can and cannot buy.
Of all the govt handouts, I find the baby bonus one of the least objectionable. It fulfils a good purpose, it is easy to administer (hence why there isnt a means test) and it doesnt force price rises elsewhere in the economy (like the first home buyers grant).
Frankly, we need to make people more responsible for themselves. So the stereotype drug addict parents who blow five grand on the plasma TV and then cant look after their kids should have them taken away to foster homes or adopted out. Just not giving them money wont make them suddenly responsible.
Upvote
0
DavinMochrie
Well-Known Member
Children become adults. The adults I was referring to as cheap source of labour.
Cheap as in, 'let's have more kids to solve the problem of looking after the baby boomers'.
I meant cheap, as in we don't want to come up with another solution.
Upvote
0
DavinMochrie
Well-Known Member
Having children is a priviledge and luxury.
It's not something that other people should pay you for.
We live in a world with overpopulation and massive poverty, but in Australia we are paying people to have kids.
And now....the baby bonus is seen as some sort of entitlement?????
I have no doubt that it's a financial struggle to raise families. So therefore we should encourage people to have less children.
It's not something that other people should pay you for.
We live in a world with overpopulation and massive poverty, but in Australia we are paying people to have kids.
And now....the baby bonus is seen as some sort of entitlement?????
I have no doubt that it's a financial struggle to raise families. So therefore we should encourage people to have less children.
Upvote
0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
DavinMochrie
Well-Known Member
I would just like to say that sometimes I like to argue, and then afterwards it's like......okay what was I huffing and puffing about!
I consider everyone's opinions here as improtant.
God Bless!
P.S. I have been to logan, lovely place!
I consider everyone's opinions here as improtant.
God Bless!
P.S. I have been to logan, lovely place!
Upvote
0
Similar threads
