The Forum > General Discussion > Saving the economy... or the people
Saving the economy... or the people
- Pages:
-
- Page 1
- 2
-
- All
Posted by Gibo, Saturday, 24 May 2008 9:12:28 AM
| |
Yeah gibo it is a good question
lets see pm pledges 150 million for waiting lists pm pledeges 4 million to reduce child drownings but the pm will not touch petrol prices. So in reality he is giving a little bit while riping the hearts and wallets out of everybody. They will much prefer us starve, lose our jobs before they would do anything. That way the people would be thankful even though it was them who did nothing to start with. Our governments are there to ensure that we the people who work pay tax and those who are unable to have a safety net. The only safety net there is , is for the states who spend and sell state assets which have cause this housing problem and homelessness. Like i have said before this government, this party and these unions only care about one thing. THEMSELVES and until we the people decide that we want real and proper representation ingovernment and not corrupt and unconstitutional representation we have nothing but poilitical and party dictatorship doing there own thing. When people and some do start saying what they should be saying and not just spin we get what we are given, and the people will just keep saying "PLEASE SIR CAN I HAVE SOME MORE" Stuart Ulrich Independent Posted by tapp, Saturday, 24 May 2008 3:27:49 PM
| |
Gibo, you ask
"Do they go to shelters already vastly overcrowded because of our focus on "the economy"... and not on-hearts-towards-others? Or do live with relatives? Or do (some) simply sleep in their cars? Or do (some) end up just camping in Hyde Park?" The answer is ...all of the above. They also sleep in tents in other peoples back gardens and break into perfectly servicable derelict buildings that stand empty sometimes for years - and then they get arrested for utilising the vast empty spaces that are around in every city and town. It is not just the particular government that happens to be in power that refuses help - it was the same under the last government as it is under this. While the solid citizens talk smugly about such people bringing it all upon themselves, and accuse society generally of being greedy or counter arguments concerning relief for the marginalised with inane comments about flat-screen t.v.s and private schools there is no validity in putting all the blame on government, either. Posted by Romany, Saturday, 24 May 2008 8:12:01 PM
| |
Well, I'll have to disagree with the basis of what you're saying there Gibo. You're stating the success of the 'economy' tends to be the first priority, and that the welfare of citizens is placed second.
This quandary is at the heart of socialist versus capitalist thought. I'd argue, Gibo, that if the economy was to collapse and we hit a nasty recession, we wouldn't be able to help anyone. Yeah, we like to criticise the government for the problems our country has, but as Romany points out, you can't lay it all at the feet of the government. I also think we're damn lucky in Australia to have it as good as we have, so in regards to 'saving' people, putting that in perspective, ask yourself this Gibo - if we had a Mugabe-style economy (the only economy that hasn't experienced some form of growth in the last decade), how many people would we be able to 'save' then? So, we're hit by the first quandary of socialist and capitalist debate - at what point do we decide that the economy has to take a back seat to common decency? Unless you're proposing we convert to a communist system, which given your suspicion of certain communist countries, I sincerely doubt, what you're effectively arguing for, is a higher degree of government intervention in what remains a capitalist economy. Economic libertarians would argue that government intervention in economic matters is almost always a failure, and that ultimately, scaling back taxes and reducing government to the smallest artifice possible should be our goal. Unfortunately, I've yet to see any realistic pure-free-market models that do sufficiently care for the disadvantaged. I've heard some say it should be devolved to charities, in fact I seem to recall reading an OLO piece to this effect, however I don't see how that could fill the necessary requirements. In any case gibo, consider what form of government it is you prefer. Seeing as communism in a purer form is very rarely considered a legitimate form of government these days, consider these two alternate propositions: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democrat http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarian_socialism Posted by TurnRightThenLeft, Saturday, 24 May 2008 8:43:48 PM
| |
Gibo! I am impressed! Real issues from a real man. Top stuff!
I will get back to this latter. All the best. EVO Posted by evolution, Saturday, 24 May 2008 9:10:02 PM
| |
What Romany said.
Posted by Ginx, Saturday, 24 May 2008 10:23:25 PM
|
Do they go to shelters already vastly overcrowded because of our focus on "the economy"... and not on-hearts-towards-others?
Or do live with relatives? Or do (some) simply sleep in their cars? Or do (some) end up just camping in Hyde Park?
Mr. Rudd says he has done all he can to lower fuel and food prices?
Is he giving in because he have to protect "the economy"?
What is this giant thing we call "the economy"... that people in trouble become second rate in relation to it?
Is all we see, "the economy"?
What is so great about "the economy" that we allow people to live poor and begging?
What happened to caring about folk in need?
Isnt life about loving others and not about economies?
Would we destroy Australia if we allowed "the economy" to take a major hit and poured our time and effort and the nations stored up wealth... into helping people in need?
I doubt it.