The Role of Government? Which areas should spending be cut from?

lakemac · 4 January 2008

Sprinter79 said:
If you totally withdraw the welfare system in order to get families to look after their own, you will have a massive increase in crime... and that will bring all the associated consequences.

Unfortunately, you can't look to the past for this kind of thing, we may well have had an industry based on this in the past, but we ain't got one now. So who is going to look after those with no family assistance? Charities are already crying poor as it is, and do you reckon people are going to be more inclined to give to charity if they have more money? Like ****.

To most people, karma is non-existant. There is no reincarnation for this karma to act on. Unless you follow the Buddist teachings, the whole karma thing is bollocks.

Point 1: do you have some research that backs up your claim of increased crime? I know rampant grannies can be a traffic hazard but... Where are the facts? Funnily enough welfare tends to increase crime (see ACOSS website - some research they did a few years ago pointed to a direct correlation between welfare rates and crime areas). But maybe you have some more detailed facts that can back up your hypothesis?

Point 2: Using the past as a guide. Have a read of Henry Hazlitt's book "The man verses the state". Written 150 years ago (1850 approx) it sounds like it was written just yesterday. The past is what (some) of us learn from. It shows the astute what did and didn't work well. Where should I put my efforts. You say that there is no industry now. You give private enterprise too little credit. Remove all welfare and without hesitation you would have an industry within a week. My wife used to work in a not-for-profit organisation and yes they always cry poor - that is because it is learned behaviour - please sir (mr government) can I have some more. If they don't have the ability to raise funds by their own efforts they should not be in existence. I point again to the Salvos. They existed well before government handouts - why because they are efficient. Take away the centrally planned handouts of your tax money and those that can generate donations efficiently will survive. Those that don't (usually the ones who spend 50% or more on their own foibles rather than getting it out to those in need) will cease to exist. Why should I pay for inefficent aid? Does not make sense.

Point 3: Karma and philantrophic intent: Ok pop quiz: who gives more money to charity, the rich guy or the guy struggling to pay the rent? When you have hard facts to answer the question then lets discuss that some more. I am not implying karma will strike them down or anything, I am just pointing out that what goes around comes around. Those that have a loving family will get back what they give. Those that don't get what they get.

chops_a_must · 4 January 2008

lakemac said:
So simple answer to Q2: get rid of ALL welfare. Make people responsible. Make the family worthwhile again. All these handouts only break families apart. No government is "family" friendly. Add to that the removal of child support and spousal maintenance. Cuts down the divorce rate drastically.

As someone who has lived with serious mental illness for most of my life, I find what you are saying incredibly offensive.

Without "welfare" I wouldn't have been able to get an education, to start my own business, to begin to look after myself. I wouldn't be alive without it.

It's not my fault I was born, or grew up in a ****house family, but as someone that has battled functionality and unemployability throughout my adult life, it is seriously hurtful to read such mean spirited rubbish.

After all, if you don't want welfare, it's only fair you get a life long disability that you have to live with without a safety net. It's only fair if you want to take away people's right to life, that you have yours taken away.

Julia · 4 January 2008

Lakemac, Chops has just beaten me to saying how offensive I find your comments. You speak as someone who has never faced chronic illness, whether physical or mental, adversity in any form, or unexpected setbacks.

The notion of a society where we refuse to care for people who need help is one I hope never to see. Certainly, there is middle class welfare which should be means tested but to suggest all welfare should be abolished is simply heartless and completely unreasonable.

Under your "utopia" what would happen to people who had no family?
How would people with severe mental illness look after themselves without support?
I doubt from your comments whether you have ever encountered people who are genuinely disadvantaged and in absolute need of support from those of us who can cope. If you did, I imagine from your disparaging comments that you would simply term them "losers" and ignore their plight.

Just to clarify, I have no personal stake in needing welfare. I've been fortunate enough to be able to provide for myself. Not everyone can do this.
But for many years I have worked with e.g. people with mental illness, victims of domestic violence etc, and understand that there is a whole other sector of society out there which we simply need to support. I gather you would just cast them on the scrap heap.

wildkactus · 5 January 2008

lakemac,
maybe i didnot go deep enough for you,
what i mean about letting government look after the big picture stuff is we need a central entity to look after it, if we left it to private enterprises to build major roads/ highways, water projects (like snowy) they would never get done, not enough return straight away in them. the only entities that could do these project without flinching are governments as they don't have shareholders to please, i know you'll say they have us the public, but they would have our support if they put the money and time to look at and manage these projects. and they would not need to just go out and vote buy, as they do now wasting money on projects that have no real imput into the future of the counrty(some do some don't).

As with the make up of the government we would need to pay more so they could attract the top people in the country to apply for these jobs (department heads), the candidates would need experience in their choosen role not just be elected. at the moment all we get is political hacks that are breed to be pollies.
the federal government needs to be looked at as the largest company in this country not just a slush fund for people to spunge off.

As with the defense of the country i would like to know it is there all the time not just on a contract basis and not been run for a profit, but for the benefit of the country, plus it should only operate within our borders, we don't need to be running around the world policing other peoples backyards when ours still need looking after first.

The major problem now is for all this to happen we would need to skip a generation of people to totally clean out current thinking and change the way we think about politics and government. and that's not going to happen! as so many people now count on this current system for their way of life.

Superfly · 5 January 2008

chops_a_must said:
As someone who has lived with serious mental illness for most of my life, I find what you are saying incredibly offensive.

Without "welfare" I wouldn't have been able to get an education, to start my own business, to begin to look after myself. I wouldn't be alive without it.

It's not my fault I was born, or grew up in a ****house family, but as someone that has battled functionality and unemployability throughout my adult life, it is seriously hurtful to read such mean spirited rubbish.

After all, if you don't want welfare, it's only fair you get a life long disability that you have to live with without a safety net. It's only fair if you want to take away people's right to life, that you have yours taken away.

Comrade chops, what Lakemac is alluding to is if taking away welfare completely, you then find out those who really just starve on the street, whom will then receive welfare, and not the parasites that feed of the tax payer now.
When studying many moons ago I was a p/t guard in a major city hospital keeping watch on the physc patients that had just been admitted...saw a lot and learned a lot listening to the doctors ,nurses, the drugs...yes yes most of those I saw will never be 100% and in such a case then I believe in welfare, but only in such cases.. as for single mothers, Lakemac is so correct, but again girls will always get into trouble with that and its a hard one. Unfortunately there are so many in Australia that would be affected if such measures where taken that it would be political suicide to attempt such vast reforms. Look at how Rudd got in, he really had nothing to go on except to create the perception that the Howard government was not thinking about the future, ie not signing Koyto.. by not signing they are not thinking of the future etc etc... now that we have signed, whats really happened...only really that the US are alone in trying to make China & India curb their huge output of gases..Australia's bargining power to make that happen is greatly reduced... yes a million agruements on that one which I have not the time to go there...
I do not argee with Lakemac on the defence side of things, yes we do not need an F-18 to protect our fish stocks, but we have a crack Airforce capable to putting bombs in windows as far north as Thailand, the most powerful Airforce in the region and that keeps our huge northern neighbours heads down and our voice in regional matters loud. You do not put the power in the hands of private armies who listen to the highest price.
I agree with 90% of what Lackmac is saying so far... wish I had more time to spend on this I do not just now....

chops_a_must · 5 January 2008

Superfly said:
Comrade chops, what Lakemac is alluding to is if taking away welfare completely, you then find out those who really just starve on the street, whom will then receive welfare, and not the parasites that feed of the tax payer now.
When studying many moons ago I was a p/t guard in a major city hospital keeping watch on the physc patients that had just been admitted...saw a lot and learned a lot listening to the doctors ,nurses, the drugs...yes yes most of those I saw will never be 100% and in such a case then I believe in welfare, but only in such cases..

Well, as it reads, those people would not be given help.

And there are many people on the streets, going hungry as it is, even with welfare. But you can't let people starve to see who needs welfare. You'd get charged with animal cruelty if you treated a dog in that way.

I don't think people realise, but you can't live on welfare, and it's not designed that way. People who have been lucky enough not to have had exceptional circumstances in their lives, who have grown up in well off, or relatively well off families, would have absolutely no idea what it is like.

Superfly · 5 January 2008

lakemac said:
Why stop with one...

Also what big picture stuff? You mention defence, infrastructure etc. Lets take a look at those in turn.
1. defence - ok so why are we paying for defence? Consider this: most, if not all major wars are started by governments or rulers (despotic or otherwise). Rarely are wars started by people per se. Remove the ability of the government to wage war and you get rid of the offensive side for a start. (I am open to anyone who can refute this claim. Currently my research on this topic has not reached anywhere near as deep as it needs to be to give precise information on the topic). But then you say what about "protection"?

Ah yes - different topic. For example - fishing boats from other countries working our waters. Yes we need protection - but not by the government - let private firms (also known as mercinaries) do that job. So if you are a fishing co-op that wants to protect your fish stock from predators then you hire private protection. Yes the cost of that seafood is higher but is it. Take out the cost of government taxes for "defence" and lets see how much the price of seafood changes. When was the last time you needed an F-18 to protect your fish? Again central planning vs local need. We just don't need government. FULL STOP. So lets say you are Poland and have nasty neighbours. What then? Surely you need a defence force. Well no actually because those neighbours are probably being driven by their government and or despotic ruler. What you really need is a private assasin (yes I know that is the pointy end of a gun...) to go and remove the threat. Have you ever considered why our government has never put forward that idea? Of course they wouldn't - Howard or Rudd would become targets. The cease to be targets if they cease to be a government.

2. Infrastructure - ah yes I remember it well - the Sydney Cross City Tunnel, the Lane Cove Tunnel, the cash back scandal for the M4/M5. Yes lets let the government stuff up infrastructure too. They can't do that efficiently either. If you take away the kickbacks and political crap, the figures for things like the Cross City Tunnel just don't add up - they would never be built. On the other hand the M7 ring road is a beacon of success. Why because there was less not more government meddling in the project. Look at any government infrastructure project and it has cost overruns. That is not to say private ones don't, it is just the money "it" in my previous rant will level them very very quickly - and not from my pocket either (unless I invested in them of course - but that is another discussion about learning how to invest wisely). When private enterprise gets it wrong someone else will come in with better ideas or better management and build a better project. And most importantly not at my expense. When government gets it wrong the first thing we get is a royal commission (more waste) then more money poured into a poorly planned project - using my tax money. No thanks. Give me private enterprise all the time. But what about roads, hospitals, police? When was the last time you had to deal with a public hospital? Central planning again - stuffed up beyond belief. Let private run the health system. Go back to private health insurance. Remove the con that is Medicare. Make people responsible again. But what if I am injured. Better hope you have a hospital that has a philantrophic set of doctors... Or get responsible for your own life. Need the police - don't try ringing 000 - they just can't make it (SMH article about a guy bashed at a beach party - six calls and no police). Private security and private detectives are better. Now the only limited role of the government is to enforce the law of contract. You have the right to your own protection and well being. Someone breaks that contract - you get to lock them up. Private goals. You have to love it.

Although am 90% on the welfare, disgree with defence entirely, disagree with taking away so much government, but agree that Medicare needs to be looked at. Sure maybe reduce state governments and concentrated direct control from Canberra would hopefully produce better results in hospitals and other state issues. We need a strong judicial system, police force and military...and a lot less anti-Americanism...

Superfly · 5 January 2008

chops_a_must said:
And there are many people on the streets, going hungry as it is, even with welfare.

When in that hospital, the doctors there told me that there were around 800 people sleeping on the streets of that city. Most were males, mental health problems and all had enough welfare payments to stay in a dorm, but all choose to sleep on the streets / parks, so they could spend all there welfare money on booze. Another trick they do is make a scene outside the hospital so they get admitted to hosptial over night or over the weekend is their favorite, coz they know that on a friday night they have a good chance of not being fully evaluated by a psyc doctor until Monday morning, there by getting food, drink, shower etc for days... shame the tax payer has to pay for it, and filling up hospital beds and making more work for the nurses.. but this was sometime ago, work / live o/s now and have not been near an Australian hospital for years..I accept that things may have changed.

chops_a_must · 5 January 2008

Superfly said:
When in that hospital, the doctors there told me that there were around 800 people sleeping on the streets of that city. Most were males, mental health problems and all had enough welfare payments to stay in a dorm, but all choose to sleep on the streets / parks, so they could spend all there welfare money on booze. Another trick they do is make a scene outside the hospital so they get admitted to hosptial over night or over the weekend is their favorite, coz they know that on a friday night they have a good chance of not being fully evaluated by a psyc doctor until Monday morning, there by getting food, drink, shower etc for days... shame the tax payer has to pay for it, and filling up hospital beds and making more work for the nurses.. but this was sometime ago, work / live o/s now and have not been near an Australian hospital for years..I accept that things may have changed.

Another crock.

The fact is most public mental hospitals wont take you in unless you are an immediate threat to your self, or others, no matter how sick you are. Usually the only way to get the doc to do anything is by threatening them outright.

Sad but true.

Superfly · 5 January 2008

chops_a_must said:
Another crock.

The fact is most public mental hospitals wont take you in unless you are an immediate threat to your self, or others, no matter how sick you are. Usually the only way to get the doc to do anything is by threatening them outright.

Sad but true.

Comrade chops, stop watching M Moore and put your "how to be a good communist" book down....

They create a scene was what I posted...all they have to do start walking in front of cars on the main road outside the hospital ( traffic lights so the cars are just starting off ) and the police have to take them in to emergency ward of the public hospital to be evaluated, before they are released or transfered ( by ambulance at more tax payer expense ) to a mental ward or hospital... its not hard, and the police can not just pull them off the street and let them go, coz if something really happens to them or to a person driving an on coming car... then the police maybe in a world of trouble....

Now back to your " only worry and protest about wars if America is involed" book...

chops_a_must · 5 January 2008

Superfly said:
Comrade chops, stop watching M Moore and put your "how to be a good communist" book down....

They create a scene was what I posted...all they have to do start walking in front of cars on the main road outside the hospital ( traffic lights so the cars are just starting off ) and the police have to take them in to emergency ward of the public hospital to be evaluated, before they are released or transfered ( by ambulance at more tax payer expense ) to a mental ward or hospital... its not hard, and the police can not just pull them off the street and let them go, coz if something really happens to them or to a person driving an on coming car... then the police maybe in a world of trouble....

Ummm.... I'm speaking from experience here... And the experience of a lot of people I've met in the same situation. You'd only have to ask my brother.

People just have no idea.

Superfly · 5 January 2008

chops_a_must said:
Ummm.... I'm speaking from experience here... And the experience of a lot of people I've met in the same situation.
People just have no idea.

So am I speaking from first hand experience... saw this day after day...you even get your regulars...they know how to play the system. Yes there are also many that have just been normal for years, then thinking that they do not need their drugs anymore, stop taking them and then soon after have a massive psychotic episode ending in the emergency ward of the public hospital. As a guard back then, be it part time and having to watch them for 12 hours climb walls and carry on.. I'am speaking from experience....

chops_a_must · 5 January 2008

Superfly said:
So am I speaking from first hand experience... saw this day after day...you even get your regulars...they know how to play the system. Yes there are also many that have just been normal for years, then thinking that they do not need their drugs anymore, stop taking them and then soon after have a massive psychotic episode ending in the emergency ward of the public hospital. As a guard back then, be it part time and having to watch them for 12 hours climb walls and carry on.. I'am speaking from experience....

Then why are you blaming the patients?

If the system was good enough, you wouldn't have to behave like that. You wouldn't have to deliberately put other people in danger to actually get treatment.

Giving the doc lip was actually a strategy that has been told to me by several private doctors. "If you are at a public hospital, and they aren't doing anything for you, not taking you seriously, and you know you need help, give them some lip." And it works a treat. I've never been refused treatment since then.

To give some sort of perspective, I walked from Perth city, to my house, which is effectively the same distance as to Freo (20-25 k's or something), barefoot. I had no skin left anywhere on me feet etc etc. But were the folks at Freo hospital going to do anything? Noooooooooo....

Superfly · 5 January 2008

chops_a_must said:
Then why are you blaming the patients?

If the system was good enough, you wouldn't have to behave like that. You wouldn't have to deliberately put other people in danger to actually get treatment.

Please put down your "only worry & protest about a war if it involes America" book....

These people are not seeking treatment, they are seeking a warm bed and food by abusing the hospital system. They are on the street coz they choose to spend all the welfare payment on booze and not stay in a dorm. Get it!!

Superfly · 5 January 2008

chops_a_must said:
To give some sort of perspective, I walked from Perth city, to my house, which is effectively the same distance as to Freo (20-25 k's or something), barefoot. I had no skin left anywhere on me feet etc etc. But were the folks at Freo hospital going to do anything? Noooooooooo....

Comrade chops...

Barefoot... some of us wear shoes, or where you reading something on "Mao's cultural revolution" and got caught up in the whole communist thing...

Next time may I suggest you take of your "All doctors are fascist pigs" t-shirt and your Che Guvara cap before you enter the hospital...

Hmmmm

chops_a_must · 5 January 2008

Superfly said:
Comrade chops...

Barefoot... some of us wear shoes, or where you reading something on "Mao's cultural revolution" and got caught up in the whole communist thing...

Next time may I suggest you take of your "All doctors are fascist pigs" t-shirt and your Che Guvara cap before you enter the hospital...

Hmmmm

Obviously I was dissociating fairly horrificly...

Doctors aren't fascist pigs. Most professionals in the mental health industry are amongst the most compassionate and caring individuals I have ever met.

However, doctors in the public mental health arena are not there for you, very reluctant to help, work against you, and don't really give a toss if their patients live or die. Which is a bad indictment on them.

Sprinter79 · 5 January 2008

Jesus tap dancing christ!!!!

Superfly, you'd think that with a bit of experience, you'd have got a bit more compassion, but obviously not... Try living with a person with significant mental illnesses 24 hours a day and it might change your perspective.

This is getting much much too personal, and I would suggest that a mod get involved.

Welfare payments are below the poverty level, there is countless evidence to show that the highest crime rates are in lower socio-economic areas, and to take away any payments that they might receive means that they'll have to turn to crime to live.

Also, there is plenty of evidence to show that those people on middle to low incomes contribute disproportiately more than the higher income earners to charity.

Superfly, i find your comments grossly offensive, particularly to women, and those who are less well off than you. For your sake, I hope that you never have to rely on the system that you are so heavily against.

Superfly · 5 January 2008

Sprinter79 said:
Jesus tap dancing christ!!!!

Superfly, you'd think that with a bit of experience, you'd have got a bit more compassion, but obviously not... Try living with a person with significant mental illnesses 24 hours a day and it might change your perspective.

Superfly, i find your comments grossly offensive, particularly to women, and those who are less well off than you.

Only about the people who abuse the hospital system, not ones in genuine need, I have never said otherwise.

Do not know where you get the offensive to women from...may I suggest you re-read the thread again. Single mothers cost the welfare system a lot, it's a hard situation"...whats so offensive about that.... anyway..lets keep on the thread issue..which is where government spending can be cut from...surely single mothers can be given a mention...hmmmmm

Sprinter79 · 5 January 2008

My apologies regarding the women comments, that should be directed to lake mac.

lakemac · 5 January 2008

chops_a_must said:
As someone who has lived with serious mental illness for most of my life, I find what you are saying incredibly offensive.

Without "welfare" I wouldn't have been able to get an education, to start my own business, to begin to look after myself. I wouldn't be alive without it.

It's not my fault I was born, or grew up in a ****house family, but as someone that has battled functionality and unemployability throughout my adult life, it is seriously hurtful to read such mean spirited rubbish.

After all, if you don't want welfare, it's only fair you get a life long disability that you have to live with without a safety net. It's only fair if you want to take away people's right to life, that you have yours taken away.

First up chops_a_must I am empathetic to your situation. My wife has a mentally disabled sister, my brother-in-law has an adopted sister who has schizophrenia and a friend in a similar situation to yourself. I all to well know the issues involved. I do detect some touchiness about the subject which may be induced from your past. This discussion is not a direct attack on personal situations, it is about why would you want the government to help you rather than either family (impossible in your case) or private assistance (the alternative if no government help existed).

So lets discuss your situation. I am sure you have had numerous battles with government departments (as my friend has done) just to prove you need assistance. This is central planning - you either fit the rules or you don't. What if you were borderline (as my friend early on was)? You may have been able to jump through the right hoops. Trouble is with government rules if you don't fit the hoop - tough luck. Want proof just listen to the TV current affairs programs, read the newspapers. Always someone fighting the rules to get assistance.

Could you be cared for without the government? Of course. It is the system doesn't make it viable. In fact given the current government mandated mental health system is in a shambles. There are shortages everywhere. That is a sure sign of government planning and involvement.

The Role of Government? Which areas should spending be cut from?

lakemac

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

Julia

In Memoriam

wildkactus

Superfly

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

Superfly

Superfly

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

Superfly

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

Superfly

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

Superfly

Superfly

chops_a_must

Printing My Own Money

Sprinter79

Superfly

Sprinter79

lakemac

Similar threads

The Role of Government? Which areas should spending be cut from?

Printing My Own Money

In Memoriam

Printing My Own Money

Printing My Own Money

Printing My Own Money

Printing My Own Money

Printing My Own Money

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency