Is the Xmas bonus good for the economy?

[freediver]

Frankly, I'd rather we imported them. Immigrants tend to be harder working anyway. Any poor person is going to be harder working, because they didn't grow up soft. Plus, you don't contribute as much to the global population that way, especially if you import them from places with already low birth rates liek China, Europe or the US.

[mantra.]

Well there's your problem. This cash isn't being doled out to "children in need" (OMG, won't someone think of the children!).

This baby bonus bullshite is being doled out to every fucking mother, regardless of need.

This Xmas bonus crap is making me see the wisdom in Tom's attitude to politicians. I'll probably be voting for John Lennon next time.

In a lot of cases this is very true - otherwise in a country where welfare is given so prolifically, we wouldn't have so many neglected, starving and dysfunctional kids. The Rudd government is going about it the right way by not only limiting welfare payments to aborigines, but all families who neglect their kids by taking away 2/3 of their pension and giving them food & clothes vouchers.

We have thousands of complaints a week made to DOCS, but only a small percentage are followed up - so unfortunately all slack parents won't be caught under this extended scheme.

[TomB]

This Xmas bonus crap is making me see the wisdom in Tom's attitude to politicians. I'll probably be voting for John Lennon next time.

Another convert

[Jovial Monk]

Hmmm that Christmass bonus 'crap' was designed to stimulate the economy and so, perhaps, save your job. It was done with the best economic advice from inside and outside Treasury.

More should have been done for the unemployed and Uni students, Rudd would have been able to do it even tho the Fibs would have decried helping these two "bludger" groups. Of course after 11 years of the Rodent, who split and wedged and blamed the unemployed for their predicament etc and introduced 'paint a rock' Work for the Dole scheme because it was popular with his support base, the press would likely raise a hue and cry about helping bludgers etc. I think Rudd should have done it anyway.

Starting next year, infrastructure spending will take up the fight against recession.

If anyone was wailing about a deficit in the Budget, that would have happened anyway with the global economic meltdown, esp the meltdown in China. None of Tip's budgets were really in surplus: they were in structural deficit, with cash surpluses originally from asset sales and then the commodities boom. Posted plenty about this in Deepshit's forum, search for Access Economics and the DFAT figures I posted there.

[White Indigene]

It calls to mind sober Bob Hawkes' pogrom that by the year 1990 no Auslund child shall be living in poverty (received in oblivious Rapture by the brainwashed public).

Now saint Kevin Rudd makes a similar pogromatic claim, that by 2020, no person shall live homeless (this too received in like vain by the duplicitous public) of which no good shall come.

I lodge a petition here and now, that a new organisation be formed in the country. I want to call it the- "Society for the Prevention of Socialism".

Long live the SPS.

[Jovial Monk]

Hmmm except Rudd has started a program to house the homeless.

Socialism, WTF is that? Oh yeah, a view held by some of the Greens

[skippy]

Hmmm except Rudd has started a program to house the homeless.

Socialism, WTF is that? Oh yeah, a view held by some of the Greens

Ya gotta laugh, wi thinks the most conservative Labor gov in history is socialist, I wish.
Are you south african wi?

[Jovial Monk]

hehehehehe I think it is fucking hilarious!

Cling on to your delusions WI!

Will keep giving us lots of laughs that way

[Rainbow Moonlight]

I saved about a quarter for costs I know are coming. A bit less than half went on debts. The rest is spent on Christmas presents. You notice retailers had a much better Christmas and post Christmas here than in the US?

[cynik]

Frankly, I'd rather we imported them. Immigrants tend to be harder working anyway.

I think you mean they do worse jobs, and complain less.

Any poor person is going to be harder working, because they didn't grow up soft.

This theory explains why africa rules the world.

Plus, you don't contribute as much to the global population that way, especially if you import them from places with already low birth rates liek China, Europe or the US.

I should have thought importing people from one place to another would not have an immediate impact on the overall population.

But how many children the imports have, and whether they teach them physics or religion at home, could have huge implications for the societies future.

Of course, we can't talk about that, because religion is WONDERFUL. And every culture is EQUAL. And all work has the same value.

I am reminded of an anecdote about a German office worker in Zurich, working next to some English wet ends. He would turn up at 10 am and leave at 3 pm. Never spoke to anyone, just did his job, and left. The English would turn up at 8am, always in fancy clothes, and they would chat and drink tea and chat some more, and try to get other people to do there jobs, until 6 or 7pm.

Eventually they turned on the German and asked him why he sent so little time at work. His reply was "Get a job you can do."

If you don't get what he means, you don't understand the immigration debate. Work is NOT turning up to a place and talking about the news. Work is getting things done. Specific things. Sometimes these things are difficult.

The great weakness of socialism is that it systematically fails to recognize the different value of different workers, based on what they can do. Socialism is based on the idea that skill does not produce wealth, that simply turning up is the same as putting in and getting results.

"From each according to is ability, to each according to his needs." does not work as a philosophy over time, simply because tomorrow may produce more if I am disciplined and train hard today. Abilities change, depending on culture and application of effort. When everyone gets only what they need, those who improve their abilities at work are punished. Those who slack off and talk all day, these are supported by those who train themselves to have more ability.

Not only is that a morally worthless scenario, it can't sustain itself over time. If the lazy and the chatty keep stealing from the diligent and ambitious, social conflict will result.

At the heart of the debate is whether you believe humans fall from grace, or rise to reason. If you are 30 years old and you don't know what that means, you are hoping like hell that god was in a good mood when you were born.