Page 145 of 803 FirstFirst ... 4595135144145146155195245645 ... LastLast
Results 5,041 to 5,075 of 28098

Thread: Oz Politics.

  1. #5041
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    According to any sense the ALP should have sorted it's factions, empowered branches and gotten rid of stacking, democratised the party structures and been recruiting new candidates from outside the corrupted centralised administrations.
    According to any sense that is. They should be in full cry with an eye to the next election and the senate situation. Instead, as far as I can see zilch. Comfortable in the expectation of it just falling into their hands by default.
    I refer you to #6430.
    Abbot is Labor's best friend and worst enemy by the highlighted reason.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  2. #5042
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Voters reject Tony Abbott's 'year of achievement'





    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...82001339,d.dGc


    When the economy was booming, John Howard and Kevin Rudd said they could afford to significantly cut taxes for the rich. Now that the economy is slowing, they say they have no choice but to cut spending on the poor. Welcome to Team Australia.
    The economic survey of Australia, released by the OECD shed stark light on the biased commentary dominating the debate about our nation's finances. The OECD made clear that Australia is a low-taxing country spending far less than average on essential social services.

    OECD data highlights that Australia's rate of corporate tax is below average, our superannuation tax concessions are incredibly expensive and ineffective, and our unemployment benefits are incredibly stingy.

    Of course, you wouldn't know it from the media coverage of the OECD report, which somehow focused instead on the apparent need to cut income taxes on the wealthy and increase the GST. Peter Costello spun advice that we're a low-tax country that spends too little on essential services and spat out his own translation, calling for Australia to cut taxes further. "If all you did was increase the GST it would be a negative for the economy," he said, "and if we don't get cuts in income tax, company tax, and other efficiencies, then it's not worth doing."
    At least he is consistent. In government he cut taxes on the rich and spending on the poor and he is still pushing for the same.

    There are alternatives. If the Abbott government collected the average taxes levied by other OECD countries, it would have an incredible $139 billion more revenue this year. If it only collected the average taxes levied by the Howard government, it would have collected an additional $22 billion. Instead, the government says Team Australia has a spending problem. The "fiscally responsible" thing to do, we are told, is to charge sick people to visit the doctor and cut investment in universities while charging students more to attend.


    The argument for increasing the GST hasn't got many friends but those in favour of it are loud and powerful. Business lobbyists love the GST for the simple reason that businesses don't pay it. Owners of foreign companies love it because, by definition, their shareholders consume primarily outside of Australia. So it's really no surprise their spruikers would lobby for a cut in company tax, funded by an increase in GST.

    For politicians, though, the determination to shift the tax burden from people who can't vote for them and onto people who can is one of the most remarkable features of modern politics.

    While increasing the GST is not the only way to collect more revenue, a chorus of commentators are barracking for "base broadening". Normally, that means including the GST on food but business groups supportive of base broadening are much less vocal when it's suggested the GST be expanded to include private school or health insurance fees.

    While poor people paying more tax on food is considered fiscally responsible, asking rich people to pay more tax on their premium services is apparently not.

    http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comm...18-12aggc.html
    Last edited by boat fan; 01-02-2015 at 02:15 AM.

  3. #5043
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    61,217

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    I can agree with much of that, though being wise in hindsight isn't hard. I also note this para:
    "In separate interviews, Mr Hawke and Mr Keating also criticised the quality of MPs from both sides of politics, arguing that today they lacked a diversity of work and life experience.

    "It's a problem on both sides," Mr Hawke said. "In some ways it's more of a problem for the conservative side of politics because Labor still has people who are ideologically driven and are prepared to go in and make sacrifices. On the conservative side, you're not surprised that they don't want to go in and subject themselves to this increasing intrusiveness of the media into their private life."


    "I think the experience pool was much broader (in 1986-87) than now," Mr Keating said.
    "We have seen a big change in parliamentary staff becoming ministers. Some are really good, like Chris Bowen, but there are a lot of very ordinary people who have never quite had that broader experience. In the end it's going to sap the vitality of the government and its wisdom."
    "

    And then that's presuming that the present government has the welfare of the nation, and of it's wider population in mind. And in my opinion that is a very big presumption. And, as if anyone needed reminding, there's the matter of Tony's broken promises. It may be that Tone's and Joe do not have the credibility to carry the matter through because of their own baggage.

  4. #5044
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    All that is needed is to reverse the Howard tax cuts. They were introduced during a time of temporary affluence, that time is now over thus reversal of the tax cuts and taxing super at income tax rates would balance the budget.

    Easy... if Hockey was interested . Swan could have done the same, if he was interested .
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  5. #5045
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    61,217

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    "Easy... if Hockey was interested . Swan could have done the same, if he was interested ."
    Yes…………………...

  6. #5046
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    I'm a bipartisan critic .
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  7. #5047
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    News.co.au MAY 14, 201312:00AM

    TODAY'S Federal Budget would be in surplus by at least $25 billion, with an estimated $40 billion in extra revenue, if income tax cuts introduced between 2005-2008 had not been put into place.

    Independent think tank The Australia Institute has released modelling that shows the state of the federal finances would be in much better shape if governments had thought more about the long-term structure of the budget.

    It shows income tax cuts, the majority of which were delivered in the last few years of the Howard/Costello government during the pre-GFC mining boom, were "having a big influence on the present federal government's budget".


    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&u act=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.news.com. au%2Ffinance%2Feconomy%2Ffederal-budget-2013-howard-era-tax-cuts-keeping-budget-in-red-independent-modelling-shows%2Fstory-fn84fgcm-1226641523508&ei=8FGnVNavHofi8AWGzoKQBg&usg=AFQjCN GbDwGj_iZfqWWjRyUuf9U_SVgPow&bvm=bv.82001339,d.dGc




    According to the LNP and their old media campaign team, Howard and Costello were brilliant economic managers; Alan Austin debunks this obvious furphy decisively.

    Six serious blunders cost Australia dearly.

    The first was selling off productive assets. These included airports, the National Rail Corporation, Dasfleet, Telstra, the remaining share of the Commonwealth Bank and many other valuable enterprises.

    The second serious failure was failing to invest in infrastructure needed for future development. The funds were certainly available, especially as the mining boom accelerated.

    The third was failing to lift compulsory superannuation savings to strengthen retiree security.

    The fourth was selling 167 tonnes of Australia’s gold reserves at near rock bottom prices just before the price rose spectacularly. According to one assessment, the fire sale returned just $2.4 billion. Had the gold been sold in 2011, when the nation needed cash during the global financial crisis, it would have fetched about $7.4 billion.

    The fifth disaster was losing more than $4.5 billion gambling in foreign exchange markets between 1997 and 2002.

    The sixth was
    squandering
    the proceeds of asset sales and the vast rivers of revenue from booming industries by handing it out to middle and high income earners as election bribes......................

    Constant crowing by the cocky Coalition about the strong surplus it left is laughable. Even Algeria [20.9%], Bulgaria [10.2%] and Kazakhstan [14.4%] had better books in 2007 than Australia.


    Australia’s economy strengthened remarkably through the Hawke-Keating period. The world watched in awe as Paul Keating deregulated the banks, floated the Aussie dollar, reduced tariffs on imports, “snapped the stick” of inflation, moved from centralised wage-fixing to enterprise bargaining and privatised publicly-owned non-monopolies.


    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...w6drtDaGzwS5VA

  8. #5048
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Is that all you got ?

    Pffffffffff........
    ........

    NEWS.COM BTW

  9. #5049
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    61,217

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Aus is a satrapy of several states at the moment, the US, Japan, China……………… You'll have to ask Tony who his his preferred overlord at this moment as it seems to change depending on whose here and whose' paying and how much.

  10. #5050
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Hell yes ...just like I thought , you got nothing.

    The LIE-berals don`t train their parrots all that well it seems.

    Australia's most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found.
    The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies.
    It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...110-2cj32.html

    Facts are facts. And yes , The IMF analysts DO have more credibility than you could ever hope for.

    But you never let mere facts get in the way now do you ?

  11. #5051
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Aus is a satrapy of several states at the moment, the US, Japan, China……………… You'll have to ask Tony who his his preferred overlord at this moment as it seems to change depending on whose here and whose' paying and how much.

    Heck yes !

  12. #5052
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    The very simple fact is that reversing the tax cuts and taxing super as income....which it is, would solve the problem. The huge problem for Hockey though is that such a simple and rational act would hurt primarily Liberal voters an that is just unacceptable .

    I wonder how long it will take him to reach a rational conclusion ?

    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................................................

    Sooner or later Joe Hockey is going to do what's needed. He is running out of other options. In opposition he said returning the budget to surplus would be easy: "Based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night, we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term," he promised just 18 months before the election.

    As the election came closer he became more cautious, refusing to set a date. And then in his first budget, in May this year, he said he would deliver a surplus in 2018-19, a deadline now a mere memory.
    Many of the things he thought would be simple turned out to be difficult. He was going to axe 12,000 public service positions before discovering Labor had already set in train processes to axe 14,000. He hemmed himself in with promises not to cut health, education or pensions, each of which he has had to honour in the breach.
    Some of his promises made things needlessly hard. Axing the carbon tax (while keeping the associated compensation measures) will cost the budget $7 billion.

    And the iron ore price collapsed. It'll rip $14 billion from the budget over the next four years. It's a truly massive problem, yet rather than find a massive fix Hockey has so far used piecemeal measures such as shaving foreign aid, indexing petrol excise, penalising job seekers, giving less to universities and trying to charge for previously free visits to the doctor.
    Each doesn't save much, and each arouses so much opposition as to make it scarcely worth his while, even if it gets through the Senate.

    What he needs instead is one really big tax hike (spending cuts won't raise enough), but one won't rip money out of wallets and purses. It needs to be easy to justify (attractive to Labor), invisible on a day-to-day basis, and simple. And it needs to raise, say, $12 billion. Per year.

    Labor's own tax review has already pointed the way, but at the time Labor was too scared to take any notice.
    What Hockey needs to do is to tax compulsory superannuation contributions as income, which is what they are. At the moment after the employer pays them they are taxed from the fund at 15 per cent, which is a very good deal if you are on a marginal tax of 37 per cent, quite a good deal if your rate is 19 per cent, and an appalling deal if you earn so little your tax rate is zero.
    Instead of being paid by the fund the tax would be paid by the employee at the same time as all their other tax, in the same way as other tax and at the same rate as other tax. Nothing could be simpler.

    The Treasury says the present tax arrangement will cost the budget $17.8 billion this financial year, $19.15 billion next financial year and $20.7 billion the following year. The figures exclude the incredibly generous concessions for the income earned within super funds, which needn't be touched. But they do include the tax concessions on extra contributions made over and above what's compulsory. To the extent that they are made merely to avoid tax they will vanish, cutting the benefit for the government to about $12 billion a year – which happens to be about what's needed.

    Former Treasury economist Steven Anthony of the Canberra consultancy Macroeconomics has come up with the $12 billion figure, from taxing wages paid as super in the same way as wages paid as wages. He says it's extremely conservative and it would climb each year.

    The thing about compulsory contributions is that they are compulsory. They can't be cut. The government would lock in an extra $12 billion per year (and climbing) at the stroke of a pen. It shouldn't dent household spending in the same way as would an increase in income tax, but it might make households more wary of spending, believing they've less tucked away for when they retire.

    Which is where Hockey's just-completed financial system review comes in. It's come up with a plan to boost retirement incomes by between 25 per cent and 40 per cent, largely by the simple expedient of cutting the other "superannuation tax" – the fees imposed by fund managers for performance that's usually no better than ordinary.
    The plan is wonderfully simple. The market would cut the fees all by itself. All the government would do is conduct an auction every three or so years for the right to manage all new default accounts. With a huge business up for grabs, the fund managers would fight among themselves to bid the fee down. Right now fees range from 0.48 per cent 1.84 per cent. When Chile adopted the scheme it got the fees for new accounts down to 0.4 per cent and customers in other schemes switched over. The Grattan Institute reckons it would save around $10 billion per year, which coincidentally is close the $12 billion extra the government would take from them by properly taxing their super contributions.

    As it happens the Coalition is in a good position to blame Labor when it grabs the $12 billion. It is Labor that set up compulsory super in 1992. It is Labor that taxed all contributions at 15 per cent regardless of the taxpayer's rate. It is Labor that was prepared to leave the woefully deficient scheme in place until right near the end when budget pressures forced it to take limited action against high earners – action that it didn't have time to put through parliament.
    If anything it is the Coalition that has a better track record. Peter Costello introduced a 15 per cent super tax surcharge for high earners (they paid 15 per cent plus 15 per cent) which he later removed after it led to "enormous complexity and compliance costs".

    This wouldn't. There is nothing simpler than taxing all income as if it is income. And the pay-as-you-earn tax system is set up to collect it.
    It's over to Joe, and the tax inquiry he is about to commission. He could solve his problems in one hit.
    Peter Martin is economics editor of The Age.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...15-1272tu.html
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  13. #5053
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    The huge problem for Hockey though is that such a simple and rational act would hurt primarily Liberal voters and that is just unacceptable . I wonder how long it will take him to reach a rational conclusion ?
    How can he ? Ever ? He`s bought and paid for.

  14. #5054
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    But he's committed himself to balancing the budget, the Senate has refused his more stupid suggestions so if he wants to balance the budget , not just talk about it he's going to have to come up with some proposals acceptable to the majority , not just "sponsors".
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  15. #5055
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    I think they would have to dump him.....

    Highly likely that Bishop will take the chair before election time , will be interesting to see what happens then.

  16. #5056
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    They need a new leader and new Treasurer, Bishop and Cormann ?
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  17. #5057
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Yes indeed that is what I thought too , but , as has been mentioned here a while back , there is the " Sydney Push " , that would likely exclude Cormann.

  18. #5058
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    I hope they stick with their current team ! Really I do !
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  19. #5059
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,534

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Reaally? Martin is doing circle j*** economics. A more reasonable approach would be to set the tax impost on super at the second highest individual rate as it would benefit the lowest paid and shift the post retirement benefits to decrease the social security budget/burden impost long term. As GST is a regressive tax on lower incomes then leave it at the current rate and scope. (currently excised on health care, food, and Qual: education of Oz residents)

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    The very simple fact is that reversing the tax cuts and taxing super as income....which it is, would solve the problem. The huge problem for Hockey though is that such a simple and rational act would hurt primarily Liberal voters an that is just unacceptable .

    I wonder how long it will take him to reach a rational conclusion ?

    .................................................. .................................................. .................................................. ..................................................

    Sooner or later Joe Hockey is going to do what's needed. He is running out of other options. In opposition he said returning the budget to surplus would be easy: "Based on the numbers presented last Tuesday night, we will achieve a surplus in our first year in office and we will achieve a surplus for every year of our first term," he promised just 18 months before the election.

    As the election came closer he became more cautious, refusing to set a date. And then in his first budget, in May this year, he said he would deliver a surplus in 2018-19, a deadline now a mere memory.
    Many of the things he thought would be simple turned out to be difficult. He was going to axe 12,000 public service positions before discovering Labor had already set in train processes to axe 14,000. He hemmed himself in with promises not to cut health, education or pensions, each of which he has had to honour in the breach.
    Some of his promises made things needlessly hard. Axing the carbon tax (while keeping the associated compensation measures) will cost the budget $7 billion.

    And the iron ore price collapsed. It'll rip $14 billion from the budget over the next four years. It's a truly massive problem, yet rather than find a massive fix Hockey has so far used piecemeal measures such as shaving foreign aid, indexing petrol excise, penalising job seekers, giving less to universities and trying to charge for previously free visits to the doctor.
    Each doesn't save much, and each arouses so much opposition as to make it scarcely worth his while, even if it gets through the Senate.

    What he needs instead is one really big tax hike (spending cuts won't raise enough), but one won't rip money out of wallets and purses. It needs to be easy to justify (attractive to Labor), invisible on a day-to-day basis, and simple. And it needs to raise, say, $12 billion. Per year.

    Labor's own tax review has already pointed the way, but at the time Labor was too scared to take any notice.
    What Hockey needs to do is to tax compulsory superannuation contributions as income, which is what they are. At the moment after the employer pays them they are taxed from the fund at 15 per cent, which is a very good deal if you are on a marginal tax of 37 per cent, quite a good deal if your rate is 19 per cent, and an appalling deal if you earn so little your tax rate is zero.
    Instead of being paid by the fund the tax would be paid by the employee at the same time as all their other tax, in the same way as other tax and at the same rate as other tax. Nothing could be simpler.

    The Treasury says the present tax arrangement will cost the budget $17.8 billion this financial year, $19.15 billion next financial year and $20.7 billion the following year. The figures exclude the incredibly generous concessions for the income earned within super funds, which needn't be touched. But they do include the tax concessions on extra contributions made over and above what's compulsory. To the extent that they are made merely to avoid tax they will vanish, cutting the benefit for the government to about $12 billion a year – which happens to be about what's needed.

    Former Treasury economist Steven Anthony of the Canberra consultancy Macroeconomics has come up with the $12 billion figure, from taxing wages paid as super in the same way as wages paid as wages. He says it's extremely conservative and it would climb each year.

    The thing about compulsory contributions is that they are compulsory. They can't be cut. The government would lock in an extra $12 billion per year (and climbing) at the stroke of a pen. It shouldn't dent household spending in the same way as would an increase in income tax, but it might make households more wary of spending, believing they've less tucked away for when they retire.

    Which is where Hockey's just-completed financial system review comes in. It's come up with a plan to boost retirement incomes by between 25 per cent and 40 per cent, largely by the simple expedient of cutting the other "superannuation tax" – the fees imposed by fund managers for performance that's usually no better than ordinary.
    The plan is wonderfully simple. The market would cut the fees all by itself. All the government would do is conduct an auction every three or so years for the right to manage all new default accounts. With a huge business up for grabs, the fund managers would fight among themselves to bid the fee down. Right now fees range from 0.48 per cent 1.84 per cent. When Chile adopted the scheme it got the fees for new accounts down to 0.4 per cent and customers in other schemes switched over. The Grattan Institute reckons it would save around $10 billion per year, which coincidentally is close the $12 billion extra the government would take from them by properly taxing their super contributions.

    As it happens the Coalition is in a good position to blame Labor when it grabs the $12 billion. It is Labor that set up compulsory super in 1992. It is Labor that taxed all contributions at 15 per cent regardless of the taxpayer's rate. It is Labor that was prepared to leave the woefully deficient scheme in place until right near the end when budget pressures forced it to take limited action against high earners – action that it didn't have time to put through parliament.
    If anything it is the Coalition that has a better track record. Peter Costello introduced a 15 per cent super tax surcharge for high earners (they paid 15 per cent plus 15 per cent) which he later removed after it led to "enormous complexity and compliance costs".

    This wouldn't. There is nothing simpler than taxing all income as if it is income. And the pay-as-you-earn tax system is set up to collect it.
    It's over to Joe, and the tax inquiry he is about to commission. He could solve his problems in one hit.
    Peter Martin is economics editor of The Age.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...15-1272tu.html
    Xanthorrea

  20. #5060
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,534

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Do try to keep up eh? This has been discussed prior.
    Quote Originally Posted by boat fan View Post
    Hell yes ...just like I thought , you got nothing.

    The LIE-berals don`t train their parrots all that well it seems.

    Australia's most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found.
    The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies.
    It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.
    http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...110-2cj32.html

    Facts are facts. And yes , The IMF analysts DO have more credibility than you could ever hope for.

    But you never let mere facts get in the way now do you ?
    Xanthorrea

  21. #5061
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by purri View Post
    Reaally? Martin is doing circle j*** economics. A more reasonable approach would be to set the tax impost on super at the second highest individual rate as it would benefit the lowest paid and shift the post retirement benefits to decrease the social security budget/burden impost long term. As GST is a regressive tax on lower incomes then leave it at the current rate and scope. (currently excised on health care, food, and Qual: education of Oz residents)
    As you choose, but it's solvable without Hockey's hysterics .

    Ian seems to be living in a parallel universe , suits me .
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  22. #5062
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,534

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    ^ Basic res ipso...
    Xanthorrea

  23. #5063
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Do try to keep up eh? This has been discussed prior.

    It was a response to Ians false claim , made by the " fella " post # 6447

    Critic isn't the appropriate word.... given that it was Rudd and Swan who introduced those tax cuts.
    So it`s you who needs to keep up ......and ....who actually asked you eh ?

  24. #5064
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    I know its a bit difficult for you to understand, but give it a go....

    Australia's most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition governmentrather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found.
    The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies.
    It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.

    THERE IS YOUR FUNDAMENTAL , UNDERLYING PROBLEM ...............understand ? ....give it a go.......

    AND .....labor did NOTHING TO WIND IT BACK ......AND ....there was an incident .....Wall street cowboys caused the GFC



    Last edited by boat fan; 01-03-2015 at 07:40 AM.

  25. #5065
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Sydney OZ.
    Posts
    13,534

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    In short, the debate (or otherwise) has a looooooooooooooooooooooooong history of partisan and outright "bigrotry". I believe many here are happy to debate or promote agendas. OTOH there may be four or so exceptions...
    Quote Originally Posted by boat fan View Post
    It was a response to Ians false claim , made by the " fella " post # 6447



    So it`s you who needs to keep up ......and ....who actually asked you eh ?
    Last edited by purri; 01-03-2015 at 07:46 AM.
    Xanthorrea

  26. #5066
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Aus is a satrapy of several states at the moment, the US, Japan, China……………… You'll have to ask Tony who his his preferred overlord at this moment as it seems to change depending on whose here and whose' paying and how much.

    Of course we have to AXE THE TAX!


    That’s a great line we borrowed from the Canadians.
    The transaction costs alone should turn most people off the idea, and the bankers won’t have a bar of it.And just to be sure, we better make sure we cut the funds. Come up with a silly name like Direct Action,or something. That will confuse them, and find someone who can pretend we accept the science.
    If the carbon price stays and companies are encouraged to factor it into their business models and investment decisions, there will be hell to pay.Better to set up some fund, so that these jokers with some do-good projects have to put together a big package and submit it for review by a bunch of public servants.


    We can`t foster too much informed debate, so best to get rid of theClimate Commission and the Climate Change Authority, get rid of a couple of hundred scientists at the CSIRO and put a bomb through the department of Environment.
    We mustn’t allow any international agreements to get too far down the track, so let’s make sure our boys are throwing the spanner in the works at the UNFCCC.
    We got to do something about this ACT government plan too.


    They want to build wind turbines and solar stuff — and they will probably do it cheaply too. It will make the rest of the country look backward. Might have to get some of the senior boys to compare turbines to mushrooms, people will think poison. And maybe call them hideous, or offensive or something.
    This divestment thing could be a problem. And we’ve got a banking inquiry, which is supposed to look at systemic risks and all that do-gooder mumbo jumbo, so let’s make sure there is someone who can rubbish the science and keep control of things.
    While we are at it, better to have someone in the key business advisory position too. If too many business people start talking about climate change, emissions control, supply chains, and international trade,we’re just not going to be able to get our agenda through.
    The environmental changes are good too. Giving environmental controls back to the states (Camo and Bazza are already competing to be the coal state – can we get them on number plates, sunshine state send sall the wrong messaging).


    Let’s suggest we allow the dredging, this environmental offset stuff doesn’t have to be scrutinized too closely, and maybe we can even give a royalty holiday to allow some of those coal projects to go ahead. Their finances are looking dodgy, but if we get them started,they’ll be hard to stop.
    And while we are on environmental stuff, could someone please stop these silly requirements to make houses efficient.

    We need the heaters and the air-con to be running full bore to make a quid.And, look, let’s make sure we got the media covered. Most ofthe tabloids will publish anything as long we give them a day’sbreak.So if there’s another report on rising prices due to network costs or soaring gas prices, give them a heads up and blame it on green energy. They’ll never read the actual reports.And lets make sure the IPA boys and all those in their orbit are included every policy on discussion panel on radio and TV. Even the ABC. We justcan’t allow people to have sensible conversations about this stuff.You never know where it will lead.So much to do, such a small mandate and so little time.Look, Deutsche Bank has pulled funding from theAbbot Point port development! Somebody, do something!* Editor’s note: We should point out that any similarity to actual events is entirely coincidental. Surely, that could never happen in Australia?What? Oh


    This article appeared in RenewEconomy on 23 May 2014

    Sandi Keane’s ‘The fossil fuel industry and who really runs Australia’.
    Last edited by boat fan; 01-03-2015 at 08:48 AM.

  27. #5067
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    victoria, australia. (1 address now)
    Posts
    61,217

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Technology has, and is and will make quite a few old technologies obsolete. But those technologies employ a lot of people, have an enormous capital investment and much political clout. It's another industrial revolution if you will, there will be casualties, resistance, stupid decisions and political decisions in democratic states. It'll take a while to work through, though I think not as long as we might imagine. But new technologies are unlikely to employ as many as the old, we've seen that before. That is another problem for societies that we will have to work through.

  28. #5068
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Technology has, and is and will make quite a few old technologies obsolete. But those technologies employ a lot of people, have an enormous capital investment and much political clout. It's another industrial revolution if you will, there will be casualties, resistance, stupid decisions and political decisions in democratic states. It'll take a while to work through, though I think not as long as we might imagine. But new technologies are unlikely to employ as many as the old, we've seen that before. That is another problem for societies that we will have to work through.
    Roof top solar has already chopped huge holes in the profitability of coal powered generation Jeff. The cream used to be a very hot sunny day, demand would go up and the spot rates go through the roof. ..... and of course that's just when over a million mini solar generators come up to speed.

    The sweet spot has gone and coal power generation has become a very poor investment.
    http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...trillion-euros
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  29. #5069
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by PeterSibley View Post
    Roof top solar has already chopped huge holes in the profitability of coal powered generation Jeff. The cream used to be a very hot sunny day, demand would go up and the spot rates go through the roof. ..... and of course that's just when over a million mini solar generators come up to speed.

    The sweet spot has gone and coal power generation has become a very poor investment.
    http://www.economist.com/news/briefi...trillion-euros

    And what have the libs done about it ?

    Dinosaurs from a bygone era.

    No political will or drive . No leadership.

    Take a look at countries like germany for example :

    On Sunday, Germany’s impressive streak of renewable energy milestones continued, with renewable energy generation surging to a record portion — nearly 75 percent — of the country’s overall electricity demand by midday. With wind and solar in particular filling such a huge portion of the country’s power demand, electricity prices actually dipped into the negative for much of the afternoon, according to Renewables International.
    In the first quarter of 2014, renewable energy sources met a record 27 percent of the country’s electricity demand, thanks to additional installations and favorable weather. “Renewable generators produced 40.2 billion kilowatt-hours of electricity, up from 35.7 billion kilowatt-hours in the same period last year,” Bloomberg reported. Much of the country’s renewable energy growth has occurred in the past decade and, as a point of comparison, Germany’s 27 percent is double the approximately 13 percent of U.S. electricity supply powered by renewables as of November 2013.
    Observers say the records will keep coming as Germany continues its Energiewende, or energy transformation, which aims to power the country almost entirely on renewable sources by 2050.

    https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&r...82001339,d.dGc

    Makes us look positively stupid doesn`t it ?

  30. #5070
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Leadership??? No, they're trying to keep their mates profitable but it's going down the gurgler with world coal prices .

    Don't expect leadership from the Libs , Labor, a bit on some subjects but not this one , they're just as tied as the Libs.

    Labor + Green is a good combination .
    Ian will agree I'm sure.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  31. #5071
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by skuthorp View Post
    Technology has, and is and will make quite a few old technologies obsolete. But those technologies employ a lot of people, have an enormous capital investment and much political clout. It's another industrial revolution if you will, there will be casualties, resistance, stupid decisions and political decisions in democratic states. It'll take a while to work through, though I think not as long as we might imagine. But new technologies are unlikely to employ as many as the old, we've seen that before. That is another problem for societies that we will have to work through.
    Yes indeed.

    Imagine what this country could look like if the right decision had been made.

    Instead , we have to endure lame , lying , and spineless fools who have sold their souls to the new world order.

    Happy days !

  32. #5072
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    It's all about old money and old industries hanging on and trying to manipulate the market and society to their ends. They seem to be loosing the battle.
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

  33. #5073
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war, corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.” –
    Abraham Lincoln - In a letter written to William Elkin


    Issue of currency should be lodged with the government and be protected from domination by Wall Street. We are opposed to…provisions[which] would place our currency and credit system in private hands.
    Theodore Roosevelt


    Despite these warnings, Woodrow Wilson signed the 1913 Federal Reserve Act. A few years later he wrote:-Woodrow Wilson

    I am a most unhappy man. I have unwittingly ruined my country. A great industrial nation is controlled by its system of credit. Our system of credit is concentrated. The growth of the nation, therefore, and all our activities are in the hands of a few men. We have come to be one of the worst ruled, one of the most completely controlled and dominated Governments in the civilized world no longer a Government by free opinion, no longer a Government by conviction and the vote of the majority, but a Government by the opinion and duress of a small group of dominant men.
    Woodrow Wilson



    "We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis and the nations will accept the New World Order."
    David Rockefeller

    We are grateful to the Washington Post, The New York Times, Time Magazine and other great publications whose directors have attended our meetings and respected their promises of discretion for almost forty years... It would have been impossible for us to develop our plan for the world if we had been subjected to the lights of publicity during those years. But, the world is now more sophisticated and prepared to march towards a world government. The supranational sovereignty of an intellectual elite and world bankers is surely preferable to the national auto-determination practiced in past centuries
    David Rockefeller, June 1991 Baden, Germany


    "In the next century, nations as we know it will be obsolete; all states will recognize a single, global authority. National sovereignty wasn't such a great idea after all."-
    Strobe Talbot, President Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State, Time Magazine, July 20th, l992



    " Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have. "
    Richard Salent, former president, CBS News


    "The business of the New York journalist is to destroy truth; to lie outright; to pervert; to vilify, to fawn at the feet of Mammon; to sell his country and his race for his daily bread. We are the tools and vessels for rich men behind the scenes. We are intellectual prostitutes."
    JohnSwinton, editor of the New York Tribune.

    Last edited by boat fan; 01-04-2015 at 12:06 AM.

  34. #5074
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,106

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Really ?

    What exactly is " nutty '' about these people ?

    But then again , this appears to be more your " style ":LOL



    Last edited by boat fan; 01-04-2015 at 12:55 AM.

  35. #5075
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Northern NSW Australia
    Posts
    73,749

    Default Re: Oz Politics.

    Quote Originally Posted by boat fan View Post
    Really ?

    What exactly is " nutty '' about these people ?
    At a guess they don't support the Liberal party "worldview "?
    '' You ain't gonna learn what you don't want to know. ''
    Grateful Dead

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •