katie_tully said:
We will only forge close ties with Indonesia if we keep pandering to their tantrums. The latest tantrum being over the fact we gave asylum to 41? PNGuinians who feared for their lives after their vocal protests over Indonesia's control of PNG.
I merely get angry at the way people conduct themselves in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Why is death a pre-requisit for aid? Who determines what disasters are more worthy of aid than others, and why do people seem to care less when it happens in their own country?
Innis is only a remotely populated location, but the extent of the damage is overwhelming if you consider the proportions.
Perhaps we also pander to the tantrums of farmers? "we need telecommunications/banks/etc".......
I don't think death is a pre-requisite for aid - if people had died it would not change my position. As far as what is aid-worthy it is something where the benefit to us from giving aid outweighs the cost of giving it, and importantly I view this in a long-run scenario. eg the long term benefits of giving aid must outweigh the long term costs.
As far as preparation it does not always have to be the physically tangible of barriers (though water storage in advance of a drought is an example of the physical), I am more referring to measures like insurance.
If my house burnt down tomorrow I would be relying on my insurance to bail me out - not the government.
Which neatly brings me around to another prime (and non-'bush') example of this welfare mentality, the christmas fires of several years ago. They directly effected me, one of the sydney fires began behind my house (my parents house is on a 22acre block and backs onto the wollemi national park they in the national park less than 300m in a straight line from the end of their block). Somewhere in the region of 5-6 houses on my street were destroyed including those of people I went to school with and family friends. So understand that this was very close to me.
However as the fires ended and relief packages went what basically happened was those who had failed to take out insurance or where drastically under-insured recieved government hand-outs while those who were insured recieved little. I would count this as clearly unfair - why then did we (the insured) bother with insurance, why not just save the money and rely on government handouts? This ammounts to rewarding irresponsible behaviour and punishing responsible behaviour.
That the typical recievers of these handouts are so anti 'dole-bludger' is blatant hypocrisy. This is a classic example of the 'aussie battler' - they (or maybe we) like it when we get tax cuts and handouts and resent it when others do, we want governments to tax us less but equally to give us more money.