Before you jump to conclusions and 'oh you must be an ignorant fuck because you've never actually starved yourself' insults, maybe actually listen to what I am saying?
--
Yeah, fuck the poor! Cut them off welfare when they have no means of purchasing goods. I'm sure that'll be good for social cohesion, social progress, crime and it's certainly full of compassion. There will always be people, who, for whatever reason, cannot find jobs. It's not that they're not motivated in all cases, there is something else going on. In poorer countries, these people have to result to any number of horrible outcomes - crime, prostitution or simply starve. Are we to believe that starving African families simply lack the willpower? Are we to honestly believe all or even most on welfare honestly enjoy it? That they simply lack the will to get a job? How are we to prove that?
I never said to cut poor off my welfare. All I said is that linking social progress to 'economic progress', which sounds like your insinuating increasing taxation and increasing spending, is unsustainable and doesn't actually address the real social issues.
And yes, I know there will always be people for one reason or another which cannot work, I'm not dumb. Where have I said welfare should be cut? All I've said is that 'economic progress' is unsustainable. I support limited welfare to those that actually need it, but I don't support it as a means to address issues which have nothing to do with finances.
And thanks for pointing out to me captain obvious that not all people on welfare want to be on welfare, but really how does that detract from the fact that 'economic progress' as you call it, is just a means of not actually addressing underlying issues while, increasing spending and taxation.
Has government spending grown significantly as a part of GDP though? Either way, the average person, especially from lower socioeconomic backgrounds, is far better off today than in any other time in Australian history. Money well spent i say.
Are they better of because taxation has increased and spending has increased, which you seem to call 'economic progress'? No, they are not. They are better off because of economic development which has increased efficiency, and brought down the cost of new technology to help them live their lives. Living standards have improved not just because people now get a welfare check linked to inflation which is below a livable wage anyway, but because that's what the free marker has done for the most part. Thereby we shouldn't undermine the free market by disguising socialism as 'economic progress'.
Tell me, how much do your parents make, what is their profession, what kind of house do you live in? Have you ever really experienced poverty yourself? If you have, i will withdraw my remark. If you haven't, it's oh so easy for you to say this from your position of financial privilege.
How is that relevant? I'm not going to tell you my family's finances, because it's not relevant, rude of you to ask and they're not as high as you seem to think, so you wouldn't be able to use it as a means to insult me regardless. I'm intimately aware of the struggles of people in poverty, I haven't said anything which attempts to downplay that. Before you jump to conclusions and a holier than thou attitude, maybe listen.
Also how does one need to experience something before they can make a comment about it anyway? - most politicians setting welfare haven't experienced poverty either but they seem to be quite aware of it, or should their opinions not be valid because they haven't actually starved before? or do you only use that ridiculous argument for people that agree with you? because everyone that agrees with you has a valid opinion and everyone that disagrees with you is an ignorant fuck which has no idea?
I think an (at least) middle class person making arguments about government welfare dependence that are neither sound not have any empirical backing is pretty hilarious.
Here we go again. Snap judgments and invalidating my opinion because you stereotype all those on the economic right as billionaires. I'm hardly as well of as you and slothpomba seem to be insultingly insinuating.
The real value of just about every single government handout in Australia has either declined or remained constant thanks to automatic adjustments. None have been increased via the government's discretion. Attitudes to those receiving handouts (especially New Start) is disgusting.
Government spending as a whole, as a proportion of GDP, has stayed pretty constant around the 25% mark throughout Australia's history. While there are alternative macroeconomic theories, experience has shown us that increased government spending during times of recession does alleviate them and is sustainable. Generally, quality of life is higher in countries with higher government spending than lower ones, as it plays an important role both in setting up regulatory schemes to protect most people, and shifting wealth around from those who sit idly making it to those who've actually toiled for it.
Where have I denied any of those facts? All I've said is that
increasing spending and taxation as a percentage of GDP isn't 'economic progress' and doesn't actually resolve social issues in the long term, while harming the economy.
[quote
But yeah sure, please do let me know where you think gov't spending should be cut. Maybe defence? Shame on soldiers for becoming reliant on gov't to fund their wages, and the Australian people on a military (user-pays!). Maybe education? It's teachers' fault for not choosing a more prestigious occupation, and those who can't afford private tuition for expecting gov't to fund their kids' education. Health? Infrastructure? Criminal justice? Pensions?
[/quote]
Where have I said government spending should be cut? All I've said is that it is bad social policy to constantly increase spending whenever someone has a problem.
What ridiculous arguments about government funded wages, when have I said anything about them? Instead of putting words in my mouth actually listen to what I am saying.
If you want to know some areas I think are able to be cut, it's the amount the government contributes to HECS, there's no reason why more proportion of the course cost can't be paid back in the future by the user. Also, there's no reason why people not on FTBA or FTBB can't pay more for healthcare, such as by paying a small fee whenever they get bulk billed doctor's appointments? See, I've said nothing about cutting welfare to people who would starve without it, and in fact my ideas would probably decrease inequity by creating more costs on people who have higher incomes. Look at the world outside of class-war rich want to destroy the poor ideology and you'd realise the world is much less black and white.
Home
Help
Search
Login
