Sink, or Swim?
By grandpa_lash
@grandpa_lash (5225)
Australia
August 14, 2012 11:52pm CST
I heard a comment last night on the show I mention on another thread in this category which was to the effect that you can assess a nation's maturity and wisdom from the way it deals with its most vulnerable citizens. This probably means, in today's reactionary climate, no more than not actually removing health care and income support from the aged, mentally ill, disabled, and other particularly vulnerable folk, but the commenter, and I fully agree, would see that as a sign of social immaturity, say adolescent standard rather than childish standard. The ideal, of course, would be adult standard. We would like to see the degree of support greatly increased for this sector of society.
Note: I am not talking about mere unemployment, although certain sections of the chronically unemployed would likely fall into the highly vulnerable category. I can even understand, to some extent, the right wing abhorrence of welfare for the unemployed, even though they often seem to have little understanding of the difficulties facing unemployed people in societies where business is increasingly taking its operations to Third World countries because the wages bill is infinitely cheaper there. With a small proportion of long-term unemployed there is also almost certainly a degree of deliberate manipulation of the system, and that, I can see, would annoy many on the right side of the divide; I consider the number to be too small to be concerned about.
So, which approach do you consider to be the most mature: significant support for the highly vulnerable, or the Darwinian survival of the fittest approach that is taken by the extreme right wing?
Lash
1 person likes this
8 responses
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
15 Aug 12
Being the right winger that I am, I'd have to go with the Dawwinian approach. Having seen enough Vulnerables make something of themselves, I don't see that those who choose not to have any excuse.
@scorpiobabes (7225)
• United States
16 Aug 12
I am a Vulnerable person who hasn't always made the best choices, but can't always get ahead because the REASON I'm vulnerable. I have a chronic, potentially debilitating illness that makes my working the kind of work I'm currently qualified for nearly impossible. BUT I'm trying to make a change to make things better for myself by taking the steps necessary. I'm tired of taking care of those deadbeats that complain that "they can't find a job". There ARE jobs out there, but those folks all want to earn $100k. I can't work a regular job, so I'm making my own job to fit me.
@bestboy19 (5478)
• United States
16 Aug 12
"I'm tired of taking care of those deadbeats..." That is it. When you see someone with a handicap working through it to become successful, you can't help but think of those who won't try, times may be hard now, but what was your excuse before?
@vandana7 (102698)
• India
15 Aug 12
It is about aged people. Life is about a lot of unpredictable situations. Health being one of them. Responsibilities being the other. Some people are happy enough shirking their responsibilities and as you put it "make something of themselves". Others labor under them and pay taxes even though they took those responsibilities while the other person evaded them. Surely, those taxes that were paid should at least be reimbursed with interest? Then again, no two persons are alike. You are not a doctor like my cousin who earns fairly decent amount. So if Darwinian approach were to be considered, why arent you paying as much of taxes as he, as you would not have an excuse, right? :) At times calamities affect. There can be scores of different reasons. Darwin was no god. He is not infallible. We could well be aliens who landed here and forgot our origin.
@AidaLily (1450)
• United States
15 Aug 12
I would have to go with significant support for the highly vulnerable.
The fact of the matter is the survival of the fittest approach tends to kick aside the highly vulnerable and yet they rely on the highly vulnerable for their money. If the highly vulnerable can't survive and spend, the "fittest" are going to lose a lot.
Now most extreme right wing people do not realize this. They believe that if the poor wanted to make something out of themselves then they could all just magically pull out funds to get a high paying job or start a high profile business. I have noticed the extreme right wing is very disconnected with how things work and thus they believe in survival of the fittest.
Most of the highly vulnerable can't afford their own health care or to work. Elderly people can't work or would need special accommodations that most companies do not want to give. People who are trying to make something of themselves are again shot down by extreme right wingers who want to take away their only options of going to school.
I consider the American unemployment number to be too small to worry about. The fact is that there are jobs, but everyone needs a degree for the majority of the jobs. Retail stores, fast food places, and other such small jobs can not hire everyone because right wingers want to get rid of options for those people because they do not need the services at this moment.
1 person likes this
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
16 Aug 12
"I have noticed the extreme right wing is very disconnected with how things work and thus they believe in survival of the fittest."
You have a real talent for going to the heart of it.
Lash
1 person likes this
@JenInTN (27514)
• United States
25 Aug 12
If the strong have their way, the weak will never evolve. The weak have no chance at evolving.I think that, as a society, these areas have just as much importance as any other. They do just what society needs them to do by creating institutions and income for the strong. Keeping people in their places has great significance for the people with a higher status. What would happen if these people were all gone? Would everyone be strong? No..they wouldn't allow that. I think that you have to care for the weak. We are only as strong as the weakest. It is childish to think that these people should be ignored. The issues they face and present define everything.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
26 Aug 12
The swing to the right all over the world, explicable as it may be in sociologoical and psychological terms, heralds a major round of attacks against the vulnerable. Our far rightists here in politics and religion are trying desperately to put women back where they belong, that is, beating a path in the carpet between the bedroom and the kitchen, they are talking about legislation to cap university places, increase university fees, reduce the funding to public schools, to destroy every piece of legislatioon currently in place to protect the environment because they don't believe in climate change, and so on. The list is endless. It's just as bad as the extremist Republican views on the same subjects in America,
Lash
@RawBill1 (8531)
• Gold Coast, Australia
19 Aug 12
Q&A again! At least you are getting some great discussion topics from the show. 
I think it depends on the region when it comes to the balance of those unemployed who genuinely need help compared to those who just want to rort the system. The Gold Coast has the highest unemployment in Queensland I think from memory. Why? Because it is a great place to be unemployed due to the awesome beach lifestyle that is popular here. Byron Bay is similar. There are plenty of people out there dole bludging just because they can and for those, I agree with the survival of the fittest approach. Stop supporting them and let them take care of themselves.
But I also know of some very mentally challenged people who just find it difficult to not only find work, but hold onto a job once they get it. For those I am fully for supporting them so that we do not end up with mass homelessness as you see in the USA. the problem is though with our system is that they are treated somewhat equally and getting the same payments mostly. There are often fine lines between distinguishing between who is mentally challenged and in need of help and who is just out for a free ride. 
I think it depends on the region when it comes to the balance of those unemployed who genuinely need help compared to those who just want to rort the system. The Gold Coast has the highest unemployment in Queensland I think from memory. Why? Because it is a great place to be unemployed due to the awesome beach lifestyle that is popular here. Byron Bay is similar. There are plenty of people out there dole bludging just because they can and for those, I agree with the survival of the fittest approach. Stop supporting them and let them take care of themselves.
But I also know of some very mentally challenged people who just find it difficult to not only find work, but hold onto a job once they get it. For those I am fully for supporting them so that we do not end up with mass homelessness as you see in the USA. the problem is though with our system is that they are treated somewhat equally and getting the same payments mostly. There are often fine lines between distinguishing between who is mentally challenged and in need of help and who is just out for a free ride. @grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
20 Aug 12
I think Q&A is the best thing ABC have done in years.
The dole bludging bit always confuses me. Yes, I have known the odd person who is working the system, but most people I have known on benefits are genuine, and it leaves me wondering just how big a proportion actually do cheat. If it's a small number as I suspect, well, let's look at how many "productive" high flyers in business and politics cheat, lie, steal, exploit etc., to say nothing of avoiding fair taxes, and ask ourselves whether we wouldn't be better spending our energies on catching them rather than chasing a few miserable dole cheats. The amount of money involved would be miniscule, but for the sake of those few dollars we condemn everyone on welfare to the perception of being cheats.
Lash
@RawBill1 (8531)
• Gold Coast, Australia
20 Aug 12
Very good point you have there Lash. There are most definitely people cheating the system all the way up from the very bottom to the very top. And those at the bottom would be gaining very little in monetary terms compared to those at the top for sure. So how are we going to catch the big cheats when they are able to pay off so many who may be investigating them? 
@vandana7 (102698)
• India
15 Aug 12
Oh Lash, I have been thinking of this for real long. Not that I have come to any conclusions but here is one way to reduce government expenditure.
I would prefer to keep welfare plans intact, and forego Leave Travel Allowances of government employees. I mean, there are not many government employees that the nation has. When an average man has to save up for vacations, why not government employees. If Leave Travel Allowance is given to government employees, it covers them, their children, and their spouse. That is a tall order for tax payer.
I would prefer governments to cut such expenditures which are not essential for survival and pass the benefit to aged and disabled people.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
16 Aug 12
Unfortunately here they are cutting both government employment in massive numbers and programs designed to help the vulnerable. The money instead is going to help big business on the false premise that this business will pick up the slack. Maybe they will, but not in Australia. It's more likely they'll pick up the slack in India or China by outsourcing their labour.
Lash
1 person likes this
@vandana7 (102698)
• India
16 Aug 12
Oh no..out here, it is the politicians who are siphoning it all away. Those of us who are paying taxes after hard work know that we get virtually nothing with all that struggle, while our politicians have Swiss bank accounts. You are not losing for our country at least. You are losing those allowances for those politicians, and those wars in these parts of world that will never cease. Get real, take back your jobs so that when money is not coming here, there will be uprising and we will make politicians accountable for their embezzling.
@grandpa_lash (5225)
• Australia
16 Aug 12
I am a rabid isolationist - I would love to take back our jobs, put punitive tariffs in place, and delink from the global economic system completely. It won't happen.
Lash
@crossbones27 (52949)
• Mojave, California
16 Aug 12
While I personally would take the support the vulnerable approach. I do realize that we pretty as a human species have used the survival of the fittest approach, since the beginning of time. Then through time we have slowly evolved into trying to put a system in place to help the people who can't seem to find their way. The problem is now it looks like we are starting to go backwards.
Instead of trying to improve these systems, and make them better, more efficient, we are starting to tear them down. Which is going to be a major problem in my opinion, with the planet going on 8 billion people. The more poor people you have, the more people feel that the cards are rigged and stacked against them, makes more problems for the society as a whole. Which is what the far right can't understand with their everyone for themselves mentality.
I find it funny that the far right likes the survival of the fittest mentality, but many of them do not believe in evolution. Why get caught up in the details though? It is just a lot easier going through life being ignorant, that way you do not have to care about anything. Its also seems to me, the reason why so many of them are so miserable. Some may be materialistically happy, but I think most of them are not spiritually happy.
@scorpiobabes (7225)
• United States
16 Aug 12
I guess you could say that I'm somewhere in the middle of those two views. I do believe Darwin's survival of the fittest to a certain extent, but I also believe that we should care for our sick and elderly, just not EVERYONE'S sick and elderly (like we do now).
I happen to have a disease that has the potential to cripple me at any time (multiple sclerosis), so I'd like to keep programs in place to be there should I ever need them. I am also the granddaughter of an immigrant who resided with us in his later years, as was expected.
I intend to get back out there and make one more go at achieving the American Dream. All I need is my real estate license and some additional education-I've even got a partner lined up. I've sank enough the last five years, I'm choosing to SWIM!
@MsTickle (25180)
• Australia
22 Aug 12
If we go with the theory of survival of the fittest, over time, there would be no-one left to survive.
As for significant support for the highly vulnerable, the standards need to be re-written and then each individual case based on it's merits or lack of same. The "vulnerable" tend to get lumped together and this is just impractical. I feel there should be more training across the board a) for those implementing the system and b)for those utilising the system. Some folk need total support, some need support to achieve self sufficiency.
