As it stands the YL model for community service is crap. As if schools have enough time in the curriculum to organise 'community service'. They'd have to dump something from the secondary curriculum. LIKE WHAT? Maths? Science? Health? History? Citizenship? It's already full enough.erawamai said:http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...ational-service/2006/01/06/1136387627993.html
It's community service and it will be voluntary.
Yeah because war, greed, consumerism and environmental degradation make society such a dandy place to live.TerrbleSpellor said:.. because then society will be so shit, everyone will be needing to receive welfare, not participate in it.
Ah I still don’t get the point of it, I read the words down the side, how does that relate to my original post? (Educate Me Please )Ah, yes, it does, and there is no need to roll your eyes. Try clicking on the actual link that calculon posted rather than the corrupted line of text that is contained within your post.
My school managed as above. Although one thing that is unclear to me, how long is this community service going to go for? Surely it wont be all year for each student, has it actually been stated yet or are people just jumping to conclusions and whinging about having to help the community?As it stands the YL model for community service is crap. As if schools have enough time in the curriculum to organise 'community service'. They'd have to dump something from the secondary curriculum. LIKE WHAT? Maths? Science? Health? History? Citizenship? It's already full enough.
Okthere is no need to roll your eyes
Why do you want higher wages for workers when 99.99% of them can already afford the basic neccessities, when more disposable income would only fuel the consumerism that you so despise?absolution* said:Yeah because war, greed, consumerism and environmental degradation make society such a dandy place to live.
:rofl:
Are you confusing the Labor Party with the Greens? The last time I checked worker's wages were not a core policy of the Greens. However, workers rights are. When it comes down to it, the Greens arent not so much in favour of negotiating higher wages as Labor is, rather, they believe in redistributive practises (as evident through their stance on corporate taxation) that diminish corporate greed. Essentially, following Marx, they believe in granting wages which equate to utility served and produced. If this means higher wages, given the widening discrepancy between wages and corporate profits, than so be it.withoutaface said:Why do you want higher wages for workers when 99.99% of them can already afford the basic neccessities, when more disposable income would only fuel the consumerism that you so despise?
Yes, but you see, the Liberal Party makes no effort to disguise the fact that they are the party for business in Australia. Whilst this comes at a disservice for the Australian people, it keeps the economy strong! :rofl:gerhard said:I thought Liberal party policy was that more money for the rich would fuel the economy better than more money for the poor.
Keep in mind that I know little about economic workings.
And I suppose high unemployment and theft of people's earnings are doing a service to the Australian people?absolution* said:Yes, but you see, the Liberal Party makes no effort to disguise the fact that they are the party for business in Australia. Whilst this comes at a disservice for the Australian people, it keeps the economy strong! :rofl:
Not touching my other response eh? you = :burn: ??withoutaface said:And I suppose high unemployment and theft of people's earnings are doing a service to the Australian people?
The aged in future should contribute to their own retirement through super, and not expect any safety net from the government because they mismanage their funds during their working life.absolution* said:Not touching my other response eh? you = :burn: ??
Not exactly sure what you mean here though. Theft of people's earnings can quite clearly come under the core policy of the Liberal party who actively and continuingly keeping the minimum wage as low as possible. Sure a 13% increase in real wages is great. But what is not outlined is that the minimum wage certainly doesnt not follow this upward trend.
Regarding unemployment, forcing disableds and aged people back into work through decreasing assistance is sure to bring down the unemployment rate. As is decreasing family and unemployment assistance rates. But it sure will put in a dent into that large mass of current account deficit which has increased substantially since 1996. So well done. And dont even get me started on super-annuation... :rofl: