Comments on: QoTD: Brendan Nelson http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/05/14/qotd-brendan-nelson/ where we're going, we don't need roads... Sat, 20 Feb 2010 06:58:05 +1100 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: jdub http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/05/14/qotd-brendan-nelson/#comment-3156 jdub Wed, 14 May 2008 23:56:49 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1062#comment-3156 @Dave: My world is bigger than "Linux" and the topics I cover in my blog reflect that. :-) @Dave: My world is bigger than “Linux” and the topics I cover in my blog reflect that. :-)

]]> By: Nick J http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/05/14/qotd-brendan-nelson/#comment-3155 Nick J Wed, 14 May 2008 23:44:47 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1062#comment-3155 Nice strawman. Nobody is saying the babies aren't equal. What they're saying is that the PARENTS are not equal. Parents who jointly earn $200K are LESS in need of a few grand for raising a kid than a family on a joint income of $60K. What's so hard to understand about that? Oh, and I know your original post was in sarcasm, but gee I wish the Federal Libs would get their act together, but not as much as I wish the NSW Libs would, because debate and discussion works a whole lot better when you have a coherent opposing position. Nice strawman. Nobody is saying the babies aren’t equal. What they’re saying is that the PARENTS are not equal. Parents who jointly earn $200K are LESS in need of a few grand for raising a kid than a family on a joint income of $60K. What’s so hard to understand about that?
Oh, and I know your original post was in sarcasm, but gee I wish the Federal Libs would get their act together, but not as much as I wish the NSW Libs would, because debate and discussion works a whole lot better when you have a coherent opposing position.

]]> By: Dave http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/05/14/qotd-brendan-nelson/#comment-3154 Dave Wed, 14 May 2008 22:16:23 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1062#comment-3154 In actual fact the baby bonus was created to encourage people to have children in order to try and counteract our aging population. What was the quote: "Have one for mum, one for dad and one for the treasurer". Or something like that. I much prefer the linux posts to be honest. In actual fact the baby bonus was created to encourage people to have children in order to try and counteract our aging population.

What was the quote: “Have one for mum, one for dad and one for the treasurer”.

Or something like that.

I much prefer the linux posts to be honest.

]]> By: Anthony http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/05/14/qotd-brendan-nelson/#comment-3153 Anthony Wed, 14 May 2008 17:15:44 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1062#comment-3153 except ugly babies. there should always be an exception for ugly babies, they don't deserve a baby bonus. except ugly babies. there should always be an exception for ugly babies, they don’t deserve a baby bonus.

]]> By: jdub http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/05/14/qotd-brendan-nelson/#comment-3152 jdub Wed, 14 May 2008 14:05:01 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1062#comment-3152 Wow, I seriously thought the quote was preposterous and ridiculous enough that I didn't need to add further clarification or obvious sarcasm. :-) Wow, I seriously thought the quote was preposterous and ridiculous enough that I didn’t need to add further clarification or obvious sarcasm. :-)

]]> By: Chris Sherlock http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/05/14/qotd-brendan-nelson/#comment-3150 Chris Sherlock Wed, 14 May 2008 12:56:13 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1062#comment-3150 Don't feel too stupid, I was feeling somewhat surprised by Jeff's blog also. At least you prevented me from looking stupid as I was about to write something similar... oh, wait. I just negated that. I suspect my sarcasm detector is somewhat broken today also. Or maybe it's just plain hard to detect sarcasm in text. Don’t feel too stupid, I was feeling somewhat surprised by Jeff’s blog also. At least you prevented me from looking stupid as I was about to write something similar… oh, wait. I just negated that.

I suspect my sarcasm detector is somewhat broken today also. Or maybe it’s just plain hard to detect sarcasm in text.

]]> By: Paul http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/05/14/qotd-brendan-nelson/#comment-3148 Paul Wed, 14 May 2008 07:53:32 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1062#comment-3148 Doh, now I feel stupid. The trouble with the web is that it's not exactly rare to stumble across people who would say such things seriously. Doh, now I feel stupid.

The trouble with the web is that it’s not exactly rare to stumble across people who would say such things seriously.

]]> By: jdub http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/05/14/qotd-brendan-nelson/#comment-3147 jdub Wed, 14 May 2008 07:40:37 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1062#comment-3147 Please turn your sarcasm radar back on. :-) Please turn your sarcasm radar back on. :-)

]]> By: Paul http://bethesignal.org/blog/2008/05/14/qotd-brendan-nelson/#comment-3146 Paul Wed, 14 May 2008 07:37:10 +0000 http://bethesignal.org/?p=1062#comment-3146 Raising the level of political discourse? I think that's a rather unhealthy statement. I'd rather not see the "baby bonus" as anything at all to do with the "value of the baby". That's disgusting on a rather obvious level. The "baby bonus" is in fact assistance for people having a baby. I (despite no longer being eligable for it) don't see any moral objection to changing that to "assistance for people who need it and are having a baby". However I did see an article somewhere that mentioned that the levels of infant neglect had gone up since the baby bonus. While that's no proof of causality perhaps offering a fist full of dollars to people to have babies doesn't necessarily attract the best candidates..... Perhaps the money should be be restricted so it can only be spent in areas having to do with raising a child. Raising the level of political discourse?
I think that’s a rather unhealthy statement.

I’d rather not see the “baby bonus” as anything at all to do with the “value of the baby”. That’s disgusting on a rather obvious level.

The “baby bonus” is in fact assistance for people having a baby. I (despite no longer being eligable for it) don’t see any moral objection to changing that to “assistance for people who need it and are having a baby”.

However I did see an article somewhere that mentioned that the levels of infant neglect had gone up since the baby bonus. While that’s no proof of causality perhaps offering a fist full of dollars to people to have babies doesn’t necessarily attract the best candidates…..

Perhaps the money should be be restricted so it can only be spent in areas having to do with raising a child.

]]>