Rudd's $10.4bn cash giveaway (1 Viewer)

[sam04u]

Let's not and say we did.

Why not?
I'd really like to know more about it. If infact I am ignorant on this issue (which I assure you, I am not) I would like to know more about it.

Just as a point of contention. I'm assuming you do know that the jobnetwork agency runs a website, to which all the various locations connect to, and to which anyone can view the number of jobs currently available to the accessible systems at any point in time, right?

You claimed that if everyone who was unemployed and of an abled body were to look for work, they could all get one right away, right?

 

[Hollieee]

By the way, speaking of the health insurance thing, I'm not 100% on this, but I'm relatively sure my parents had some sort of health insurance, but they couldn't afford it anymore, so were obviously no longer covered.

People who can barely afford food can't exactly afford insurance. I'm not sure if that's what you were talking about, so forgive me if I took it wrongly.

 

[sam04u]

Alright, this was fun, but I've had enough of toying you for more information Captain Hero, lets deal with the pathetic arguments you made in this thread head on.

Firstly, we'll start at the point at which I became a participant in this debate.
You said:

Yeah caring about property and wanting people to keep the money that they've rightfully earned is really selfish isn't it. Wanting to not rip people off because scumbags rort the system is really selfish isn't it.

Your justification for being opposed to the benefits people receive were because you claimed "scumbags rort the system", and I argued that point was utterly fallacious. I argued people receive benefits because they are either incapable, or unable to find work.

You retorted:

That job agency has over 2,000 jobs, I guarantee you. The people that walk home without a job simply don't want one

But lets look at the facts. Even in the biggest online database, the one which works with the agency you purport to work with, it's clear for everyone to see.

Australia's largest free online jobs board
Jobs available: 80,442
http://jobsearch.gov.au/default.aspx

The number of unemployed is atleast 6 times that number. So even if they all managed to have degrees, or the neccessary experience to apply for those jobs, there would still be 420,000 without a job.

But you, being an economic guru, well versed in the concepts of NAIRU, and the benefits of unemployment still had the audacity to make that argument in an attempt to protect the dismal argument that welfare should not be supported because "scumbags rort the system". You're an utter failure of a person, and your ideas are as flawed as your own personal character. What are we to have? The unemployed 5% which you say is healthy, without any money at all? What are we to do? Support a broken system where government money is wasted, when it can be used to produce something valuable to our economy, and produce a better quality of life for our people?

Ofcourse the 5% who are unemployed and working in government manufacturing jobs would still seek jobs and maintain the healthy capatilist system you support. I think the only reason you oppose this is probably because you have a vested interest in it. You did purport to work with the agency after all.


Again, if I'm wrong, prove me wrong. I don't pretend to know everything, and I'm not afraid to lose a debate. But don't slander people who are incapable or unable to find work.

 

[shakky15]

.

But you, being an economic guru, well versed in the concepts of NAIRU, and the benefits of unemployment still had the audacity to make that argument in an attempt to protect the dismal argument that welfare should not be supported because "scumbags rort the system". You're an utter failure of a person, and your ideas are as flawed as your own personal character. What are we to have? The unemployed 5% which you say is healthy, without any money at all? What are we to do? Support a broken system where government money is wasted, when it can be used to produce something valuable to our economy, and produce a better quality of life for our people?

Ofcourse the 5% who are unemployed and working in government manufacturing jobs would still seek jobs and maintain the healthy capatilist system you support. I think the only reason you oppose this is probably because you have a vested interest in it. You did purport to work with the agency after all.

good points.

i dont really understand why captain hero even brought up the idea of the NAIRU.... what are you trying to say? that the fact that we are at 'full employment' means that the 4.?% who are actively seeking work (doesnt even include those who havent worked for over a year or those who arent actively seeking employment) dont need/get a job because we are at full employment?

oh, so those hundreds of thousands of people who are actively seeking work but not finding it:
- are just unlucky because we have reached the NAIRU, and
- we elitist wankers dont want to support them either because that would be 'rorting the system'.

im glad your not running the country.

 

[zstar]

Rudd had an opportunity to be better but he has proven to be as clueless as insane as his American and European counterparts.

What he could've done was given tax cuts across the board and encouraged Australians to save and get out of debt but instead he gives some cheque that will be barely enough to survive for a week let alone a month or a year.

He is encouraging the same sort of Spend, Spend, Spend mentality as Bush.

My concern isn't that the money will end up in struggling families who need to pay off this debt but idiots like these. Here's a quote I got from another forum.

"i am currently on a disability pension and have been for years now. idon't work and i have to live on $550 a fortnight. i have to pay rent to my parents. buy food for myself. train/bus tickets. pay my mobile bill and internet. you know, it doesn't go very far and i'm extremely grateful that we will be getting the lump sum.

think about it. how would YOU go if you had to live on $550 a fortnight? no more chanel bags. no more louboutin shoes. no more going to have your acrylic nails retipped every fortnight. and imagine not having enough to go and get your eyebrows/leg/bikini waxed!"

Do you honestly want your money ending up in the hands of people like this?

 

[HisNameIsChris]

What he could've done was given tax cuts across the board and encouraged Australians to save and get out of debt but instead he gives some cheque that will be barely enough to survive for a week let alone a month or a year.

He is encouraging the same sort of Spend, Spend, Spend mentality as Bush.

Yeah, sure, in a time when it was possible we could slide into a recession SURELY its a great idea to encourage saving.

In addition, encouragement to save by word of mouth has been proven many times to be ineffective. Australian savings are negative on average, if I remember right. The economy needed stimulation. Rudd gave the economy some stimulation.

People complaining about the infrastructure can shut up - we still have another $11.3 billion left in the surplus which can still build a decent amount of infrastructure.

I'm tired of this argument, its going around in circles. I'd like to say that Captain Hero is a retard - any educated person understands that unemployment is unavoidable and only a fraction of them are the bludgers you talk of. Regardless, if this minority of bludgers were trying to work it could mean that other people would end up being unemployed anyway.

So what if there's 2000 jobs per center? Many if not most of them would require qualifications beyond those that are unemployed (ie. a university degree, lots of prior experience, and so on)

The government should be spending money to give cheap access to mature age training and education for those who aren't skilled enough to get these available jobs.

 

[aussie-boy]

I cant believe this has degraded itself into an argument on the value of transfer payments. Of course these payments are necessary and provide a basic standard of living to many needy people.

The issue here is that this cash should not be considered as transfer payments. The government decided how much the poor, disabled and pensioners would get in the last budget. It is under this proviso that poor people decided whether or not to pursue job opportunities, and that rich people decided whether they would seek high paying executive jobs, knowing that a certain proportion of their earnings would be heading to the lower end of the economy. Because of this, this level of transfer payments has now been accepted and adjusted to by everyone in the economy = fairness

however, when you take even more cash and throw it at the sick and poor, you are essentially cheating and lying to all the rich people who work extremely hard to pay for these handouts... by not informing them of the full story of how their money would be used

for that reason, it should be spread evenly

if transfer payments need increases, the budget is the only legitimate place to arrange these

 

[sam04u]

for that reason, it should be spread evenly.

Do explain.

 

[aussie-boy]

Do explain.

in july, rudd deemed the appropriate amounts for transfer payments, in accordance with the needs of the recipients and the economy as a whole - hence he has already had maximum scope to address the needs of the sick and the poor and he made a decisive judgment on how much would be appropriate to spend

so you cant use the equality of opportunity argument anymore

rather you have to look at the other arguments - the fact that high income earners have worked very very hard for their money, yet they are not getting any benefit out of it themselves

i know i said it, but i didnt really mean "so it should be spread equally"
as ive said before, I want to see this money going to service needs that will benefit the community as a whole - charities, hospitals and any other organisation that desperately needs to buy new stuff which can be sourced fast

and the argument that its too difficult to judge is bs... not only is that the job of the gov, but it doesnt even have to be fair - draw the names out of a hat if need be. Regardless of which charity/organisation you give it to, at the end of the day (if you include the proviso it must be spent) then it will represent a quick injection into the economy, at the same time benefiting lots and lots of people (rather than the consumerist desires of certain individuals)

 

[Captain Hero]

Are you people that retarded about the NAIRU that you don't understand what it means? Yeah let's fuck the economy completely in the arse to give billy bob joe who doesn't want to work a job.

Great idea.

 

[Hollieee]

Are you people that retarded about the NAIRU that you don't understand what it means? Yeah let's fuck the economy completely in the arse to give billy bob joe who doesn't want to work a job.

Great idea.

A few other people have said this, but it's only a small percentage of people who are actually like this. Most of them CAN'T work. Gosh, bit thick, aren't you?

rather you have to look at the other arguments - the fact that high income earners have worked very very hard for their money, yet they are not getting any benefit out of it themselves

Pretty sure high income earners benefit from their high incomes. Otherwise they wouldn't be classed as 'high income'? Yeah, they still get taxed a shitload and whatnot, but they are earning a lot more. I do think that people who work really hard should be rewarded with higher pay and such, but people who can't work shouldn't just be told to get fucked because some people (captain_hero) think they're all a bunch of dole bludgers who are trying to 'wrought the system'. Pretty sure it's easier to just get a job than live with a disability on a pathetic pension- so if they could, most probably would just get a darn job.

 

[Captain Hero]

A few other people have said this, but it's only a small percentage of people who are actually like this. Most of them CAN'T work. Gosh, bit thick, aren't you?

How does your comment of people who can't work disprove or disagree with my comment about the NAIRU at all?

 

[Hollieee]

There's a possibility I misread it =)

 

[sam04u]

Are you people that retarded about the NAIRU that you don't understand what it means? Yeah let's fuck the economy completely in the arse to give billy bob joe who doesn't want to work a job.

Great idea.

You are without exception the most well educated, and well read, imbecile I've ever encountered on the internet.

Words simply cannot explain the level of stupidity you've displayed in this thread. Even if every "billy bob joe" in this country wanted to work, and went to extraordinary lengths to attain a job, there would still be about 350,000 without any work whatsoever.

Now, in understanding the concepts of NAIRU, one can still arrive to the conclusion that in the system we have there will be people who want a job, but despite their best efforts will be without a job. So considering that's the case, and considering you support that system, you should be in favour of a welfare system which takes care of these people out of a job.

Either accept the current system we have which costs an extreme amount of money through benefits to these people, and through large sums of money through the government sponsored employment agencies which don't work as I've said, people go there, spend the day there, and go home on most occassions without finding a job - because as the figures have shown in this thread, even in the largest online jobsearch database, there are 80,000 available jobs, and about 6 times the number of people without a job.


So we have two options.

1) Support the current system, and expect there to be the number of people receiving unemployment of no fault of their own, and allow them to live decent lives as unemployed ie;(don't expect them to receive a pittance and at the same time slander them as you have been)

or

2) Support a new system which creates manufacturing jobs which pay the minimum wage, and can employ able bodied people who are unemployed and looking for work. It will pay for itself (unlike the current system we have which is laden with wasteful spending) and also the new workers will be able to "earn" a decent living. (the dole is really pathetically low).



Your choice.

 

[Captain Hero]

The system I agree with is the one that Slidey and I discussed; workfare. Decent standard of living provided by the state and serious motivation to work. Our current system verges on this.

Why do you think manufacturing jobs are the answer to this situation? The obvious solution is to expand work for the dole to perform community projects; painting schools, replacing roofs, working in areas affected by disasters, etc. etc.

Having the government subsidise manufacturing jobs at this stage is idiotic. If people are going to be paid to perform government jobs, use them to improve the overall standards of living for everyone else; redo parks, painting things, etc.

Simple as.

 

[Hollieee]

That actually sounds like a half decent idea to me =) Not that I know much about the economy or anything, but still. Sounds fairly logical.

 

[sam04u]

There's a possibility I misread it =)

You wouldn't be the only one.

Just a point because Captain Hero will probably explode after reading my last post if I don't clarify this point.

In the system I proposed, the people working the manufacturing jobs will still act in a way to satisfy the theory which you continue to pedal.

 

[sam04u]

The system I agree with is the one that Slidey and I discussed; workfare. Decent standard of living provided by the state and serious motivation to work. Our current system verges on this.

No it doesn't.

If people are going to be paid to perform government jobs, use them to improve the overall standards of living for everyone else; redo parks, painting things, etc.

Simple as.

Fair enough.
I agree with that completely. As long as the government creates enough incentives and opportunities for all abled bodied people to do work, at a decent wage, then it doesn't matter what industry it's in.

So far though I don't see that. I see a wasteful system that needs to be completely reformed.

 

[Captain Hero]

No it doesn't.


Fair enough.
I agree with that completely. As long as the government creates enough incentives and opportunities for all abled bodied people to do work, at a decent wage, then it doesn't matter what industry it's in.

So far though I don't see that. I see a wasteful system that needs to be completely reformed.

I think that comes from your inherent dislike of capitalism, though. The thing about bringing people back into the workforce that say, have been laid out or retrenched, is that you need to rebuild the habits of working in order to bring back some sense of self-respect for people.

Some people can't physically work, but some method of insurance for disability etc. is, in the long term, a far better strategy than welfare. Just as we're moving from a pension based system of retirement to superannuation throughout the coming decades.

Of course such a system would always exist to prevent people from being completely left by the wayside, but adapting it so that people who are working have a mandatory insurance for disability/inability to work, would substantially increase the overall quality of life of those becoming victims of circumstances.

 

[Hollieee]

That also sounds fair enough =)

I have to say, I feel like a bit of a dick in this discussion, not that I'm really involved. You both know quite a lot, and though I can work out what you're saying, I actually don't know a whole lot about the system and therefore can't really contribute. So sorry about that...