Why do we put so much emphasis on "the economy" when people need help? Im thinking, of course, of all of the people displaced from their homes by the higher interest rates... and what happens to them.
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.

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

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.

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

Gibo! I am impressed! Real issues from a real man. Top stuff!

I will get back to this latter.

All the best.

EVO

What Romany said.

Very poignant Gibo.

It is always disappointing to keep hearing about 'the economy' when what we really need is more emphasis on 'the community'. I am dubious of many of the monetary measures that governments keep insisting are for our own good when we can see with our own eyes that things are not all that good for many people.

The biggest downfall of the Budget, which was otherwise fairly neutral in substance, was the lack of real improvements for those on pensions and for carers. Raising the rate of pensions or providing other support is not inflationary. These are not the people who will be consuming at morbid rates and forcing prices to rise.

What good is 'the economy' if it does not work for the people. We are the economy.

True Tapp the focus of the present day government does seem to be on itself.
Its like theyve lost a thing they once did with going out to the ordinary, working people.
John Howards government had some of the same problem.
Maybe there are not enough hours in the day to consider "ordinary man and ordinary woman" any more or maybe the pollie work load is now too great.
It seems politicians, somewhere, have decided its all too much bother to go and look at things like "the house we just lost to interest rates etc and look at how we are now suffering".
I think people in general are getting cold in the heart towards other people.
So whats the answer?
A general day of outrage by the recently dispossessed?
A day of protest against apathetic, distracted government?
A call for Australians to love Australians?
I dont want to see "the economy" coming first while my fellow man starve, or live on the streets.
Whats happening today is a breeding ground for anarchy...and they will never put in enough police to cope with it.

Romany. Youre right about the solid citizens. The attitude can be poor. That gulf between the bottom dwellers and the citzs/upper classes does seem to be widening and in its attitudes towards the bottom dwellers.
In France the poorer people started a revolution once because of those type of attitudes.
Hate to see that happen here one day because we lost a love towards others in need.
I think if you asked upper level cops what was going on... they would shake their heads and shiver.
Only through going back to heart caring are we going to stop a world that looks very much like becoming "Escape from New York".
May the rich and the politically powerful be wise enough to lead the way.
TRTL.
Wouldnt want a communist style government for anything. Men doing their thing outside of Gods Control dont work so well says me remembering long-gone civilisations that had a bit of the right stuff in them, some noble stuff, but couldnt get over the fallen heart and its carnel lusts. Us christians are stuck TRTL with a vision of the Messiahs' Return and with the Confirmation in The Holy Spirit that it will be the best type of global government. We gotta go with that. Its not an unpleasant thought.

Not exactly, Gibo.

>>In France the poorer people started a revolution once because of those type of attitudes<<

The causes of the French Revolution were far more complex - and interesting - than simply a Marxist dash for freedom by the masses.

For a start, there was a significant "middle class" element involved, that was actually the first group to break ranks and storm the Bastille. These were shopkeepers, carpenters, tailors - skilled workers, at any rate. They opened the door for the truly poor to vent their collective spleen against the upper class.

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/REV/FIRST.HTM

Another element was the position of the church at the time. They formed the uppermost class (ahead of the nobility in fact) on the estates-general, whom Louis turned to to solve his financial dilemma - predominantly caused, interestingly enough, by his support of the Americans in their Revolution against the British.

Ah, karma.

There's more, of course, but I simply wanted to point out that to describe this significant world event as merely the reaction of poor people against rich oppressors, is to trivialise it.