Friday, December 14, 2012

Advocating parental responsibility is a "crass" opinion

Yesterday I blogged about an unusually sensible editorial from the DomPost.

Today back to collectivist, failed, ideology in the letters column. (I wrote in support of the editorial but wasn't published.)


Mark Hubbard said...

One shouldn't generalise, but bloody academics. Most wouldn't know a freedom if they exercised one.

alwyn said...

He is labelled as Professor Emeritus, which implies that he is required. As such it probably means that he is in receipt of a TAX-FREE pension. Perhaps he should tell us how much tax he personally pays, and how much he would pay if he was to pay income tax on any pension he receives.

Anonymous said...

Of course you chould not have children if you can't afford them. If we weren't taxed so much to pay for everyone else's children we could afford to have more ourselves!

thor42 said...

"Advocationg parental responsibility is a "crass" opinion."


These people think that it is *MY* responsibility to pay for the upkeep of tens of thousands of children?

I have two words for them and those words rhyme with "duck cough".

Anonymous said...

my grandmother raised five children in the depression era, an era of no welfare and no jobs. She stretched food and cooked and sewed etc. Knew how to budget well. They all turned out fine, sturdy, able, intelligent and successful people.

Where have we gone wrong? More welfare than ever and still the worst results for decades. No personal responsibility anymore?

Anonymous said...

Fact is the minimum wage is way too small.And no the world would not function if we all had Business Degrees and such like.Manual labour,caregiving,cleaning are very underpaid.
Back in your grandmothers day she may have worked hard at home but did not go to work.What an absolute luxury that must have been in hindsight.Sure she may not have had an auto washing machine or a car.But she could put her efforts into growing food,slow cooking,being creative.What bliss!
I know I would have relished this support role myself.
Now the women need to find jobs to support families even at a basic level.
Also to everybody out there:Lord help us when only the wealthy breed.There will only be righteous,uptight people in the end.HELP!

thor42 said...

@Anonymous 2.58am - "Lord help us when only the wealthy breed."

Actually, that'll *really* be something to look forward to.
Why? Because the "wealthy" - in fact, *anyone* with common-sense - only has children when they KNOW that they can afford to have them.

Very many of those on benefits keep having child after child, and to heck with whether they can afford to look after them.

Anonymous said...

And your wealthy children will dig roads,clean toilets,look after you in the old folks home?You are not thinking are you?

Johnny said...

Ha ha ha Anon, so who *will* dig roads, and clean toilets?

Remember that the children of beneficiaries will all be in prison or on the dole. You are not thinking are you.

Anonymous said...

And so who looks after old folks,cleans toilets and digs road now?
Yes people on the minimum wage.
You are not thinking.

Manolo said...

Another academic and Mrs Homan, both do-gooders and (il)liberals to boot.

Anonymous said...

You can divide women into 2 categories -those who don't have a problem having kids on welfare and those who would never consider it. The latter will be employed,hard working, and find a partner who wants to become a father. Together they will make a nest/home before they even get pregnant. The former however... well the first copulation will do and the govt can supply the rest. Guess whose kids have a better chance of success? Why the govt encourages the first model as viable is beyond me.

Anonymous said...

Hey there lots of women that have children with their husbands and then for whatever reason end up bringing up children alone.Sometimes the benefit is a stop gap.Have you tried bringing up 3 children ,the youngest a baby on your own?The benefit is excellent when there is no support from family and so forth.Solo mums seem to attract a lot of unwanted and negative attention from every direction.What about the many couples with children who opt out of work in favour of smoking/growing dope on the benefit?

Anonymous said...

I can only respond to the above person that you have attempted to muddy the waters -I'm surprised you didn't go on about all of them being victims of domestic violence. You say "Solo mums seem to attract a lot of unwanted and negative attention from every direction" -and they deserve it! You will find people respect divorced women who work jobs to put the food on the table. Having kids on welfare is a lifestyle choice and a selfish one at that considering that study after study proves that these kids are not success stories, despite the fact that the tax payer paid for mum to be a stay-at-home mum. And then the tax payer gets hit again to support the multi million dollar departments needed to "look after" these welfare women -housing, child support agency, DOCs, special school programs etc etc. And then hit again for their grown up kids to be useless on the dole or off getting pregnant or legal aid... You breed them then you feed them -no exceptions, no excuses. And it would help if these women actually made themselves employable before having kids on welfare.

Anonymous said...

Well Anonymous!What a righteous fool you are.It happens that my children are sucessful.No special programmes except for the 'gifted' one required.No government housing or legal aid.Also I have a business and have supporterd my family for years as a solo Mum.Suck on that!
However I really appreciate the two years of welfare i recieved after a marriage break up.I did work also as the benefit was very insufficient for any participation in society.The world isnt the same as the one where families supported each other.Get with it!

Anonymous said...

Its very hard to take this blog seriously.I agree with so many of the views Lindsay has and that most contributors support.However I really find the generalizations about different groups of people, hard to accept.The only conclusion I can come about this lack of balance,understanding,compassion and humanity is that the people for some reason are very angry to the point of being one eyed.
I believe in people supporting themselves as much as anyone writing in supporting Lindsay.But I also know the other side which is some peoples reality.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

"Its very hard to take this blog seriously"

The blog or the commenters?

I try to avoid generalisations at all cost.

BTW my unpublished response to the editorial was:

"How refreshing to read some sense on the matter of child poverty, Prime obligation lies with parents, December 13. At the crux of the child poverty problem is the habit of producing children with no wherewithal to raise them. Of all the babies born in 2011, 22 percent were relying on a benefit by Xmas. Most were born directly onto a benefit. Only potential parents can change that eventuality by, as your editorial pointed out, putting off having children until they are in a position to provide.

The report from the Children's Commissioner essentially condones this long-standing pattern of behaviour by failing to identify or address it. Instead we are subjected to many unaffordable recommendations that are little more than sticking plasters."

I identify one significant cause using fact. No generalisation about all sole parents.

And I put my name to it.

Anonymous said...

Q. Why do dogs end up at the pound?
A. Because of irresponsible pet owners.

No! You can't generalize! There can be many many reasons. Everybody's different! For example
* maybe the owner got cancer and couldn't look after the animal anymore
* maybe the owner's sick elderly mother had to move in, and she is allergic to dogs
* after a car accident the owner was confined to a wheelchair and could no longer walk the dog
* The owner lost his job and can no longer afford dog food
* a truck knocked down the fence in the backyard but the landlord refuses to fix it

As you see by my brief example it is important to see each dog's reason for being at the pound individually so you can understand the big picture -NOT.

Anonymous said...

Shit Happens!
We are not all perfect.Sorry but not you either.

James said...

No matter how the dog gets to the pound it does not impose a moral obligation on anyone else to feed and look after it....under state duress.

Anonymous said...

Yes but we are not dogs.Well I sure am not.What makes us different from dogs?I sure hope you know?If you dont well that explains everything.

Anonymous said...

FACT When women have kids on welfare they not only consume the tax dollars of working families and single people, they also take money that the working public would rather see spent on hospitals, schools, roads, infrastructure, services for the disabled, aged care (eg respite), medical research, universities, pharmaceuticals, -the list is endless. They hold the responsible members of society hostage -"you HAVE to feed/clothe/house us or you are inhumane!" Working parents so often stop at 2 kids (a miracle!) for financial reasons. Dad or mum's pay doesn't increase when a baby comes along, but welfare dollars do. There is a finite bucket of government cash and the more people who become parasites then the less value the workers get for their tax dollars while at the same time there is the demand to pay even taxe! Does that seem fair? I hope this explains the resentment to anyone with welfare babies who just can't understand!

Anonymous said...

correction to above
pay even taxe!
should be "pay even more tax!"


Anonymous said...

Well this is true.
However I would not like to see a return to for example:-Mother of six living in a shack without power or running water.No income except what her children could earn by leaving school too early.This is pre DPB 1940s.Father refused to support them.This is why this type of welfare was invented.
That is what I call uncivilized.