PDA

View Full Version : Johnny's Going Down



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Kevin Bonham
28-10-2007, 06:55 PM
You're not wrong, but as Gunner pointed out, Labor have made even sillier promises like "No Child Will Live In Poverty".

Oh sure, that one was total brain failure on the part of RJLH. But unlike the damage that Howard's may do to his party, Labor never really suffered much other than ridicule over that one. The Coalition was not all that competitive at the time.

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 06:56 PM
I'll have to look into this further. <piffle snipped>

I have suspicions that it is a singular stat (while not good) that falls into the category of one economic indicator reading wrong while the others were either acceptable or even good - the traditional balancing act.
Stagflation is the combination of high inflation and high unemployment. Quite an achievement.

John Coward, Treasurer, presided over high interest rates, high inflation, and high unemployment. Oh, and a recession. Oh, and he lacked the balls to heed expert advice and (1) float the dollar, and (2) deregulate the financial sector. He left those for Keating to do.


James, interestingly (for me), apart from your little list of nothings for which you hang Howard (and not cited 'personal reasons'), you haven't listed any reason for voting Labor as taken from their manifesto
- FTTN broadband
- better childcare arrangements
- no silly proposals to give each hospital its own board of nepotistically appointed buffoons, adding a whole extra layer of administration without funding one extra bed
- Alexander Downer representing my country abroad
- Philip Ruddock running our national justice system
- Helen Coonan running our telecommunications system
- WorkChoices
- a PM who actually believes global warming might be a problem, rather than one who's had an electorally induced epiphany

So, half the country isn't smart enough to know what's good for them, as you do? :hmm: Could this arrogant, born-to-rule, out of touch kind of thinking be hurting the Liberals in their bid to regain government? :hmm:

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 07:16 PM
By "redneck", do you mean those who believe in genuine racial equality, i.e. treating all races equally?
No.


Oh, that suits a "public servant" like you. Again, as per Yes Minister, the bureaucrat stuffs up, yet it's the minister who gets the chop.

Even when the Minister has ignored alarm bells ringing? Good ol' 'plausible deniability...


By only 0.25% each time, unlike the huge rises under Hawke–Keating. Financial advisers for years have advised borrowers not to borrow unless they could cope with a rate 2% more than the current rate. Yet these rate rises you bleat about have totalled less than that.

Jono, you're avoiding the point - that Coward et al misled the public. The quantum of interest rate rises is immaterial (and another issue entirely), especially when Coward has now admitted that rates are not at 'record lows'. But you didn't hear it from his mouth!!


No, only the loudmouth "leaders" who just ride the gravy train at the expense of their people (see Noel Pearson, a real leader who actually cares about their welfare).

Riiiiiight...


About as silly as whinging about what Howard did 30 years ago rather than what he has done over the last 12 years.
Or, say, as silly as bleating about conditions under the Hawke/Keating governments?

Basil
28-10-2007, 07:18 PM
Stagflation is the combination of high inflation and high unemployment. Quite an achievement.
As I said, I'll check it out. I don't know. Your version of events isn't sufficient to round off my education.

Basil
28-10-2007, 07:24 PM
FTTN broadband
- better childcare arrangements
- a PM who actually believes global warming might be a problem
Three policies? Is that it?
One unaffordable and one misrepresentation.
I haven't compared child-care policies.

I'm not going to have the green debate here - it's been done. Suffice to say that Kyoto is rubbish.
It's a headline that sucks you right in (along with your broadband).
Does nothing to attend to the real problem outside Australia and
Ratifies that Australia will meet the objectives it's meeting/ going to meet anyway.

In fact your bloke (Mr Facile Headline) is the one who won't commit to jack-poop on the green issue. Like everything else he just wants to sign a piece of paper and has absolutely nothing to offer on what he's going to do after that.

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 07:48 PM
Speaking of, what is Coward's policy 'vision' for the future? Hmm?

"Aspirational nationalism"? :lol: whatever happened to that? :whistle:

Basil
28-10-2007, 08:12 PM
Speaking of, what is Coward's policy 'vision' for the future? Hmm?
No, not speaking of which at all. I was belittling your half-baked reasons for voting left, which are:
-- few and far between
-- unworkable
-- plus a life time's worth of hate based on reasons best left unearthed.

But as for your question, "Vision Of The Future?" What is that? That's just lefty hope and giggle speak. By all means have a statement along those lines, we can all aspire for better things and better conditions for our citizens.

The question should be what needs doing now to ensure we can achieve whatever sleep-soundly-at-night vision we wish to trot out. ATM, Rudd's answer to that question is 91% of what Costello & Howard suggested :wall:

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 08:19 PM
Which ones? Seem like disgruntled employees years after the events.
Acting Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston (now current Chief), informed Minister for Defence Peter Reith by telephone at around midday on 7 November 2001 that "there was nothing to suggest that women and children had been thrown into the water". You can check the Senate Estimates report if you don't believe me.

Now...

Howard, prior to addressing the National Press Club, contacted Reith on the evening of 7 November to check the facts. Howard admitted this occurred in Parliament (check Hansard, 14 February 2002).

Howard addressed the National Press Club on 8 November 2001, and claimed that children were being thrown overboard.

The election was held two days later.

Basil
28-10-2007, 08:42 PM
Acting Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston (now current Chief), informed Minister for Defence Peter Reith by telephone at around midday on 7 November 2001 that "there was nothing to suggest that women and children had been thrown into the water". You can check the Senate Estimates report if you don't believe me.

Now...

Howard, prior to addressing the National Press Club, contacted Reith on the evening of 7 November to check the facts. Howard admitted this occurred in Parliament (check Hansard, 14 February 2002).

Howard addressed the National Press Club on 8 November 2001, and claimed that children were being thrown overboard.

The election was held two days later.
For the sake of argument, let's just accept Howard as guilty of electioneering and lying and everything.

My question to you (and all leftys) is, on a scale of 1 -10, how much do you rate this event (from 6 years ago, and a mantra for all seasons, and why not) as reason for voting the government out? I would also appreciate a statement providing an issue to which you would attribute a parallel weight, say the 'sorry' issue or the greenhouse issue or the unemployment issue or the Hawke cheating on his wife issue.

My reason for asking is, if in fact Howard was culpable (and for the sake of argument I am), I'm dumbfounded at the store that is rafted to this. I genuinely would appreciate edification.

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 08:44 PM
I was belittling your half-baked reasons for voting left
You were? :eek: Oh, you mean those ambit subjective one-liners that had no substance? Riiiiiight...


But as for your question
I'll rephrase.

Why would I want to vote for Coward?

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 08:49 PM
My question to you (and all leftys) is, on a scale of 1 -10, how much do you rate this event (from 6 years ago, and a mantra for all seasons, and why not) as reason for voting the government out?
You might just find out on 24 November.


I would also appreciate a statement providing an issue to which you would attribute a parallel weight, say the 'sorry' issue or the greenhouse issue or the unemployment issue or the Hawke cheating on his wife issue.
Why, what is this, a Uni exam?? :eek:

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 08:58 PM
Stagflation is the combination of high inflation and high unemployment. Quite an achievement.
Jimmy Carter managed it! Yet the lefty Norse politicians who decide the Nobel Peace Prize gave him one (probably didn't have a terrorist like Arafat or fraud like Rigoberta Mench&#250; that year).


John Coward, Treasurer, presided over high interest rates, high inflation, and high unemployment.
No, Fraser presided over that. Yet the Leftmedia just love him today.



Oh, and a recession. Oh, and he lacked the balls to heed expert advice and (1) float the dollar, and (2) deregulate the financial sector. He left those for Keating to do.
Once Fraser was gone, Howard happily supported these policies that were against traditional Labor.


- FTTN broadband
I.e. picking winners, where political favour rather than customer service determines the provider.


- better childcare arrangements
I've got an even better one: parents! But you limousine lefties confiscate money from single-income families where one parent stays at home to give to wealthier double-income families to dump their kids. If the government must get involved, it should be giving vouchers to parents so they can choose what childcare they want (parent, grandparents, childcare), instead of subsidizing only one type.


- no silly proposals to give each hospital its own board of nepotistically appointed buffoons, adding a whole extra layer of administration without funding one extra bed
But no problem with the current situation where most new staff are bureaucrats? Evidently Eurotrash did watch Yes Minister, but regarded Sir Humphrey Appleby as his model :lol:


- Helen Coonan running our telecommunications system
That I agree with. She is far too left wing, just loving bureaucratic regulations, interfering in what should be the choice of the market.


- WorkChoices
Yeah, choices! Something that the Left doesn't want the unwashed masses to have. They yearn for the days of union control, and the rise in unemployment is no matter, because only the employed pay union dues.


- a PM who actually believes global warming might be a problem, rather than one who's had an electorally induced epiphany
I'd prefer one who stuck to his guns, rather than using a court-discredited film to justify socking the masses with more taxes while alGore's managed fund rakes in the shekels.


So, half the country isn't smart enough to know what's good for them, as you do? :hmm: Could this arrogant, born-to-rule, out of touch kind of thinking be hurting the Liberals in their bid to regain government? :hmm:
Quite the reverse. It's the Leftist Anointed who think they know better than the people who to hire or fire, how much to pay them, how to take care of their kids, how to educate them ... and think that Big Government can spend a person's money better than that person can himself.

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 08:58 PM
Out of interest, why do you guys think Coward has been doing so badly for the last year? :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 09:01 PM
Out of interest, why do you guys think Coward has been doing so badly for the last year? :hmm:
For one thing, he didn't privatise the Atheist Bolsheviks Collective as he should have.

Basil
28-10-2007, 09:03 PM
Why would I want to vote for Coward?
You wouldn't. You're a lifer lefty and no matter how stupid or incompetent the Labor alternative, you would seek to elect it.

However, reasons I offer the swinging voter (who can dig past the mindless mantras) are simple. They are the reasons why Liberals vote they way they do. I broadly encompass my perspective as (and always have):

Broadly all (most) people want the same things for the country and themselves.
It is ridiculous to get caught up in absurd ideas that my party or your party wants a better health outcome for instance.
To achieve these outcomes requires wealth - both in the government coffers and in enterprise.
Liberal policies (almost globally) promote concepts that allow business to flourish.
Liberal policies (almost globally) seek to provide an environment which can sustain social obligation.

Conversely I find Labor policy to be big on "no child will live in poverty" or "handout mentality" or a raft of warm fuzzies which are proven time and time and time and time again to be entirely unsustainable.

There is no rocket science to this. Rudd and Howard are nothing spectacular away from the norm. This has been going on in western models for years. As I have pointed out to Boris previously, Labor governments are tossed because they are useless and Liberal governments are tossed because they are hated.

There is no doubt the Libs are facing defeat because of hatred. But make no mistake, Rudd and Co. will be tossed eventually for gross incompetence and failure to deliver.

And so the wheel turns.

Basil
28-10-2007, 09:06 PM
You might just find out on 24 November.
Why, what is this, a Uni exam?? :eek:

That doesn't answer the question.

Basil
28-10-2007, 09:12 PM
Out of interest, why do you guys think Coward has been doing so badly for the last year? :hmm:
1) The time for change catches up with every long term government, regardless of creed.
2) Kevin is a darling. I've got young girls running round my office with Kevin shirts who haven't the faintest idea why - they just think he's cute. Hawke had the same effect on the blue rinse set.
3) I feel Howard was out of touch (wrong) with the reconciliation affair.
4) Howard's green policy (which I support) has entirely failed to have resonance. He's simply lost that one to a headline. I am having similar difficulty in the publishing business. Fascinating marketing exercise - coz that's all it is.
5) Scare campaign on WorkChoices - another headline.
6) And ultimately, Kevin just keeps his nose clean, doesn't say or do anything of any note - he just doesn't foul up. Kevin has adopted the me-too stance to perfection.A good strategy.

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 09:27 PM
Howard happily supported these policies that were against traditional Labor.
So... Coward was either incapable of persuasive argument, or gutless...


I.e. picking winners, where political favour rather than customer service determines the provider.
I don't really care, I'd just prefer a fibre connection than bloody WiMax! :mad:


I've got an even better one: parents! But you limousine lefties confiscate money from single-income families where one parent stays at home to give to wealthier double-income families to dump their kids. If the government must get involved, it should be giving vouchers to parents so they can choose what childcare they want (parent, grandparents, childcare), instead of subsidizing only one type.
Interesting suggestion, I assume the carer can redeem the voucher for payment from the government? I'm all for recognising the contribution of unpaid child carers.


But no problem with the current situation where most new staff are bureaucrats?
Did I say that?


Yeah, choices! <propaganda snipped>
If it's so wonderful, why don't they refer to it as "WorkChoices" anymore, hmm? :lol:

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 09:28 PM
For one thing, he didn't privatise the Atheist Bolsheviks Collective as he should have.
No, he's destroying it from within by putting right wing hacks like Albrechtsen on the board...

The ABC is now a castrated disseminator of government propaganda.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 09:35 PM
No, he's destroying it from within by putting right wing hacks like Albrechtsen on the board...
I'd rather that he privatized it, so the ABC would have to please the public to survive. Not that this appeals to the Anointed. They might disguise their disdain for the people by nonsense like "we are a society not an economy", although tax-payer coerced funding for programming wanted by bureaucrats rather than the public anti-society as well as bad economics.


The ABC is now a castrated disseminator of government propaganda.
So where is the right wing Phillip Adams then? Where are the conservative commentators with their own programs, instead of token conservatives outnumbere by leftists on alleged "balanced" programs?

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 09:38 PM
You might just find out on 24 November.
Voters should want to find out beforehand what a party plans to do in government, not wait and see what happens afterwards.

That Chairman Krudd has the support of so many lefties is good evidence that he is not the economic conservative he's pretending to be.

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 09:40 PM
That doesn't answer the question.
No, it doesn't. I'm interested to know why I should. Not that I will, regardless.


1) The time for change catches up with every long term government, regardless of creed.
I think there is certainly an 'it's time' factor at play.


2) Kevin is a darling. I've got young girls running round my office with Kevin shirts who haven't the faintest idea why - they just think he's cute. Hawke had the same effect on the blue rinse set.

Perhaps. Not sure this is a big factor.


3) I feel Howard was out of touch (wrong) with the reconciliation affair.
This was definitely 'off message', and I'm dumbfounded as to the logic. Any wet liberals that this may appeal to are probably p'ed off for a number of other reasons anyway. Perhaps it was an attempt to wrest control of the agenda, or perhaps wedge Chairman Rudd. It failed, either way.


4) Howard's green policy (which I support) has entirely failed to have resonance. He's simply lost that one to a headline. I am having similar difficulty in the publishing business. Fascinating marketing exercise - coz that's all it is.
Well, leaving aside my opinion of Coward's green policy, I don't think it was ever going to have resonance because Kyoto is too heavily engrained in the public consciousness. Plus, it's not really a Liberal party issue (unfortunately for them).


5) Scare campaign on WorkChoices - another headline.
Again, leaving aside my personal opinion of WorstChoices (sorry, couldn't resist), I think this is a lemon from a PR perspective - not only can it (regardless of the factual situation, which I am not touching) easily painted as pro-business/anti-worker, but Coward brought it in without a mandate. And yes, the Libs are, and will, cop a flogging on this one. You ain't seen nuttin' yet, wait for the ALP/ACTU advertising campaign in weeks 5 and 6.


6) And ultimately, Kevin just keeps his nose clean, doesn't say or do anything of any note - he just doesn't foul up. Kevin has adopted the me-too stance to perfection.A good strategy.
Well, indeed, and one might say he learned from the best - Coward. Coward ran a small target/policy-lite campaign in '96, and coasted in on the anti-Keating vote. History repeats.

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 09:49 PM
Voters should want to find out beforehand what a party plans to do in government, not wait and see what happens afterwards.

Jono, the question pertained to my (and other "lefties") 'rating' of the children overboard affair, not what Labor intends to do in government.

BTW, Howzer, I would not classify myself as a "lefty". I'm a centrist, with left and right leanings depending on the issue in question.

Aaron Guthrie
28-10-2007, 09:56 PM
So, is anyone convinced by the insulting/branding style of argumentation of anything other than that the arguer is not worth reading?

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 10:00 PM
Who me? Or the forces of evil? :lol:

Aaron Guthrie
28-10-2007, 10:02 PM
Who me? Or the forces of evil? :lol:I'd respond, but... ;)

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 10:15 PM
Lie with dogs, catch fleas?

Aaron Guthrie
28-10-2007, 10:17 PM
Lie with dogs, catch fleas?Obviously I have no way to tell if this is addressed to me or not.

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 10:19 PM
I was suggesting you didn't want to get involved, lest you be dragged down to our level ;)

Aaron Guthrie
28-10-2007, 10:23 PM
I was suggesting you didn't want to get involved, lest you be dragged down to our level ;)Look, I am just going to assume that this is directed at me. I am going to only assume since I am not bothering to read what is written. ;)

Desmond
28-10-2007, 10:29 PM
Look, I am just going to assume that this is directed at me. I am going to only assume since I am not bothering to read what is written. ;)
Yeah me too. I'm going to vote against Liberal for as long as it takes for them to lose because of their erosion on basic human rights.

PS I won't be back to defend this particular point, so by all means, if you have a reason why the thought police can lock you up for something you might have been thinking of doing, keep it to yourself. Just don't think it too loudly.

Axiom
28-10-2007, 10:37 PM
"Puppet Derangement Syndrome"

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Howard Derangement Syndrome is the Aussie equivalent of the American mental illness, Bush Derangement Syndrome, "the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush", as defined by Charles Krauthammer.

Or should , more accurately be called "Puppet Derangement Syndrome"

"the acute onset of paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the presidency — nay — the very existence of George W. Bush",
- the onset of paranoia arises from people in their gut ,knowing something aint right but they have been conditioned to believe that the puppets actually wield power.Hence attack and unload on these disposable figureheads.

Jono, seriously, how much actual decision making power do you think gw bush,howard,brown actually have ?

I have this vision of the masses ripping apart sock puppets in the likeness of their leaders whilst the puppeteer looks on through a one-way mirror from an adjoining room ,laughing maniacally !

For those brave or curious enough to discover where the real power lies,
read on !


From the bottom-up , its the multinational corporations,then organs such as the CFR, Bilderberg group,Carlyle group,Fed Reserve,and at the apex, their owners,the rothschilds,rockefellers,warburgs,du ponts,carnegies.

So im afraid, politicians or puppets are well down the scale in real power terms. And unfortunately far too much wasted energy is spent ripping apart a mere sock.
__________________

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 10:47 PM
Jono, the question pertained to my (and other "lefties") 'rating' of the children overboard affair, not what Labor intends to do in government.
It's not clear that he did lie.


BTW, Howzer, I would not classify myself as a "lefty". I'm a centrist, with left and right leanings depending on the issue in question.
Well, you have the right (Right) leanings about water price controls, but I've not seen anything else that is anything but Left.

Capablanca-Fan
28-10-2007, 10:51 PM
Yeah me too. I'm going to vote against Liberal for as long as it takes for them to lose because of their erosion on basic human rights.
Like a worker and employer being able to negotiate terms without union interference if they so desire, or to keep more of the money you earn rather than confiscate it in punitive taxes?


PS I won't be back to defend this particular point, so by all means, if you have a reason why the thought police can lock you up for something you might have been thinking of doing, keep it to yourself. Just don't think it too loudly.
Hard to believe, otherwise the ABC, the Age and other Leftist propaganda outfits masquerading as news dispensers would have been jailed long ago.

It's quite amusing to see Leftists on the mass media shouting for all the world to hear that they are being silenced! Worthy of another Manga thread like this one (http://www.chesschat.org/showthread.php?t=7032):P

Southpaw Jim
28-10-2007, 11:11 PM
It's not clear that he did lie.
If it was, I doubt he'd still be PM. Gotta love plausible deniability.

If Angus Houston was lying, he should've been sacked, not promoted.

If Houston told Reith and Reith didn't tell Howard, Reith should've been sacked.

If Reith told Howard..


Well, you have the right (Right) leanings about water price controls, but I've not seen anything else that is anything but Left.
It's all a matter of perspective. My centre is probably your bleeding-heart Left.

Anyhoo, this bleeding heart is off to bed. BTW Jono, you haven't told us why you think Coward is doing so badly over the last 12 months? (I'm genuinely interested in views from the Right on this - I think Gunner's points are all on the money, but I think it actually began a fair while before Rudd)

Basil
28-10-2007, 11:51 PM
That doesn't answer the question.

No, it doesn't. I'm interested to know why I should. Not that I will, regardless.
Of course you don't have to answer. I can only iterate the reason for my asking which is that I am genuinely interested to know the store by which you put these things. I hear so much about the overboard affair (6 years ago).

Incidentally, I put in on par with Bob Hawke, on our winning The America's Cup, suggesting that anyone who fired a person for calling in sick was a mug.

Apart from the specifics of that statement (which could be argued back and forth for millenia), I found the comment wholly unsatisfactory for the thousands of small business people who would foot the bill at Mr Ex Trade Union Boss' sublime suggestion that paid sickies that aren't sickies is just dandy. Conversely, the idea of sickie people being docked would have outraged the same clowns whose grin would turn into a hateful march.

That's my version of lefties being wholly out of touch. You see it goes both ways. For every Howard lie, I have a Hawke lie. For every Howard out of touch, I have a Hawke out of touch. Each as valid as the next.

At the end of the day, discussion has to get past the ping-pong rhetoric, and with all pealed away, I find the Labor Party (all incarnations in all societies) moribund and bereft of any (workable) idea (of any substance) at all.

Southpaw Jim
29-10-2007, 08:34 AM
At the end of the day, discussion has to get past the ping-pong rhetoric, and with all pealed away, I find the Liberal Party (all incarnations in all societies) moribund and bereft of any (workable) idea (of any substance) at all.

You say tomayto, I say tomahto! :P :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2007, 11:47 AM
Of course you don't have to answer. I can only iterate the reason for my asking which is that I am genuinely interested to know the store by which you put these things. I hear so much about the overboard affair (6 years ago).
So much "he said, she said" that it's ridiculous.


Incidentally, I put in on par with Bob Hawke, on our winning The America's Cup, suggesting that anyone who fired a person for calling in sick was a mug.
And it's not disputed that Hawke actually said this daft thing (daft for the reasons you put).


At the end of the day, discussion has to get past the ping-pong rhetoric, and with all pealed away, I find the Labor Party (all incarnations in all societies) moribund and bereft of any (workable) idea (of any substance) at all.
Yeah, most of Euro's "reasons" were more of the common Leftist genre of making themselves feel morally superior, while doing nothing practical to improve most people's situations. This applies to this self-flagellation about 'sorry' and the republic. For example, Noel Pearson often says that welfare is killing his people, and Community women back NT intervention (http://www.theage.com.au/news/federalelection2007news/community-women-back-nt-intervention/2007/10/28/1193555531687.html) (unlike so-called "leaders" living off the grievance-mongering, white-leftist-guilt gravy train). Also, fetal alcohol syndrome certainly isn't caused by evil white people connecting aboriginal expectant mothers to IV ethanol drips.

The other common Leftist trait is decreeing that the people are not as good at spending their own money, so more must be confiscated so that enlightened bureaucrats can spend it more wisely. That's why Euro likes the State confiscating people's money to fund the ABC and "art" that can't attract enough people willing to spend their own money. 200 years ago, it was pointed out that a foolish man can put on his own coat better than a wise man can put it on for him. But too many on the Left don't agree (if they did they wouldn't be Left!).

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2007, 12:46 PM
RBA Housing Loan Indicator Interest Rates History (http://www.ultramedia.com.au/posts/home_loan_interest_rate_his.jpg)
Says it all really. Labor means high interest rates. Fraser may as well have been Labor for all his Whitlam-lite policies and the way that the Leftmedia now fawn all over this pompous and senile buffoon. The current whinging over the current 0.25% increases ignores the previous greater rate decreases under Howard–Costello. The last lot never got mortage rates below 9%, so all you leftist home-owners whinging about 7.5–8% should remember that!

For comparison:

1941–1949 Labor (Curtin,Forde,Chifley)
1949–1966 Coalition (Robert Menzies)
1966–1972 Coalition Cont'd (Holt, McEwen, Gorton, McMahon)
1972–1975 Labor (Gough Whitlam)
1975–1982 Coalition aka Labor-lite (Malc. "trouser-dropper" Fraser)
1982–1996 Labor (Hawke/Keating)
1996–present Coalition (Howard)

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2007, 05:54 PM
Gillard’s plan for power (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/gillards_plan_for_power/)
Andrew Bolt – 29 October 07


Comrade Julia Gillard explains her plan to use Labor as a Trojan horse for the far Left’s agenda:


For the Left to make any real advance all these perspectives on the relationship to Labor in government need to be rejected in favour of a concept of strategic support for Labor governments. We need to recognise the only possibility for major social change is under a long period of Labor administration. Within that administration the Left needs to be willing to participate to shape political outcomes, recognising the need to except (sic) often unpalatable compromises in the short term to bolster the prospect of future advance. The task of pushing back the current political constraints by changing public opinion would need to be tackled by the Left through government, social movements and trade unions.

That comes from a document Gillard wrote for the communist-formed Socialist Forum (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/column_more_than_just_red_hair/) group which she helped to run, despite now claiming she was just a part-time “typist”.

It’s clear from Gillard’s writings that she sees the Socialist Forum not as a mere “debating society” (another false claim), but as an activist group that would infiltrate Labor to push its own socialist agenda.

Well, her plan seems to be running to schedule so far. Of course, maybe she’s changed her mind about her far-Left agenda in the past few years, but I’d believe that more if she didn’t tell so many untruths about what she was up to (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/why_hasnt_gillard_been_honest).

As it is, I’m inclined to suspect Labor has a cuckoo in its nest.

See the photograph of Comrade Gillard's article on that site. She also admits that Labor "promises the world" while in opposition, knowing full well that they won't be able to deliver in government.

Garvinator
29-10-2007, 06:15 PM
There is no rocket science to this. Rudd and Howard are nothing spectacular away from the norm. This has been going on in western models for years. As I have pointed out to Boris previously, Labor governments are tossed because they are useless and Liberal governments are tossed because they are hated.

There is no doubt the Libs are facing defeat because of hatred. But make no mistake, Rudd and Co. will be tossed eventually for gross incompetence and failure to deliver.

And so the wheel turns.
Have skimmed over the last few pages as I havent seen a whole lot that is new.

But this I will pick up on. Howard, I think it would be more correct to say that almost all governments get tossed because of hatred. You say that Rudd and co will be tossed because of gross incompetence and failure to deliver, but that Howard and co are facing defeat because of hatred.

So, in a few years Rudd and co will also be tossed because of hatred, just that the reasons for hatred are 'different'.

Howard and co are facing the chop for many reasons, some which have been articulated on previous pages by other posters. You may disagree with their reasons or thoughts, but the fact is still that the Coalition is facing the chop.

In a few years, it will be Labor facing the chop, in both occasions it will be because of hatred from the marginals over certain issues.

And before anyone accuses me of being pro Labor, I dislike Labor just as much as the Coalition. I want both parties gone.

Aaron Guthrie
29-10-2007, 06:25 PM
And before anyone accuses me of being pro Labor, I dislike Labor just as much as the Coalition. I want both parties gone.Anarchist!

Basil
29-10-2007, 06:46 PM
I disagree Garvin. While it may be true to say that some Libs find some of the more unpleasant Labor figures to be loathsome from time to time - it's hardly endemic.

It takes a Labor movement of just about any variation to really hate. You just have to look at the commentary on this board. There is some serious universal hatred. Dig back a few months to the one-off posters, not the self-confessed haters ;) This is nothing new as compared against what one will hear around the country from leftists. This is nothing new in that it was directed at Maggie Thatcher or Bush.

Take the clowns (as considered by my lot) Hawke, Wilson and so forth who fritter away a country's ability chasing some ideal, and my lot doesn't 'hate' - we just try and hang on, while we shake our heads at their faithful.

While your comments may apply to you, I think you under-estimate how many people grow up with deep-seated ideals and conditioning that have hate as their basis which in turn extrapolates into politics. I have more to say, but that would require my psycho demolition of some posters, so let's not.

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2007, 07:01 PM
But this I will pick up on. Howard, I think it would be more correct to say that almost all governments get tossed because of hatred. You say that Rudd and co will be tossed because of gross incompetence and failure to deliver, but that Howard and co are facing defeat because of hatred.
I can't imagine the Coalition ever electing a self-confessed hater like Latham.


And before anyone accuses me of being pro Labor, I dislike Labor just as much as the Coalition. I want both parties gone.
Is there an alternative you have in mind. I don't see any national party that's a decent alternative.

Good sig BTW: "Some people seem to prefer 20% of a small pie, instead of 10% of a large pie." Sums up socialism in practice.:hand:

Garvinator
29-10-2007, 07:22 PM
Good sig BTW: "Some people seem to prefer 20% of a small pie, instead of 10% of a large pie." Sums up socialism in practice.:hand:
I have had that sig for about two years and it is meant to be about the Australian Chess scene, nothing more :cool: The point being that most people seem to be more concerned about their own small self interest.

Axiom
29-10-2007, 07:35 PM
I can't imagine the Coalition ever electing a self-confessed hater like Latham.


Is there an alternative you have in mind. I don't see any national party that's a decent alternative.

Good sig BTW: "Some people seem to prefer 20% of a small pie, instead of 10% of a large pie." Sums up socialism in practice.:hand:
we need an australian RON PAUL !

Capablanca-Fan
29-10-2007, 07:35 PM
I have had that sig for about two years and it is meant to be about the Australian Chess scene, nothing more :cool: The point being that most people seem to be more concerned about their own small self interest.
Sorry, missed that completely :confused: :rolleyes: Still seems applicable to wider economic issues though.

Southpaw Jim
29-10-2007, 09:22 PM
Gillard’s plan for power
REDS UNDER THE BEDS!! My god, that's written on a bloody typewriter!

Would. Never. Happen. Do you really think that after 11 years in Opposition, the Labor Party would throw it all away in one term of radical socialism?

What a load of tosh. If that's indicative of conservative thinking, it's no wonder the Libs are getting flogged in the polls.

EDIT: Oh, and Gunner, for what it's worth, I only hate one person in this world, and he isn't a politician.

Ian Murray
29-10-2007, 09:35 PM
Regardless of the direction we lean, we should all agree on something - a system allowing a regular change of government is healthier than where one party is entrenched.

Garvinator
29-10-2007, 09:54 PM
EDIT: Oh, and Gunner, for what it's worth, I only hate one person in this world, and he isn't a politician.:hmm: Gunner isnt a politician ;) :whistle:

Davidflude
29-10-2007, 10:23 PM
This is nothing new as compared against what one will hear around the country from leftists. This is nothing new in that it was directed at Maggie Thatcher or Bush.

.

Now now now. Maggie Thatcher was genuinly very able and slammed through needed reforms in Bitain till she got a bad dose of hubris and introduced a poll tax. George Bush junior on the other hand is obviously a drongo.

Personally I think that it is time for an amendment to the Australian constitution that no-one can be prime Minister for more than two complete terms. It is not just that Prime Ministers wind up believing their own statements but i think that being Prime Minister puts a great strain on a person.

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2007, 10:48 PM
The other common Leftist trait is decreeing that the people are not as good at spending their own money,

Isn't that pretty much what Howard is doing with income quarantining in the Northern Territory?

Granted, there are many people there who aren't good at spending their own money, or more to the point, are rather too good at spending it on C2H5OH. But Howard's solution doesn't discriminate between them and those who do not deserve such measures.

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2007, 10:56 PM
Anarchist!

If only. Naaaaah, I do believe he's a Greens supporter. Not sure if learning that PhilD707 is also one will be enough to kid him out of it. :lol:

Garvinator
29-10-2007, 11:17 PM
If only. Naaaaah, I do believe he's a Greens supporter.Correct.


Not sure if learning that PhilD707 is also one will be enough to kid him out of it. :lol:Depends on why he is a greens supporter :P

Basil
29-10-2007, 11:24 PM
EDIT: Oh, and Gunner, for what it's worth, I only hate one person in this world, and he isn't a politician.
I believe you.


Regardless of the direction we lean, we should all agree on something - a system allowing a regular change of government is healthier than where one party is entrenched.
Damn straight. Here's to democracy.


:hmm: Gunner isnt a politician ;) :whistle:
:P


Now now now. Maggie Thatcher was genuinly very able and slammed through needed reforms in Bitain till she got a bad dose of hubris and introduced a poll tax.
Disagree. Just a user-pays tax (of sorts / per capita thingo - hardly heady stuff - but enough to wind up the hardcore lefties - the marching militant mealy-mouthed handout ones). That's all. Oh and she was hated. It's just a fact - many lefties are serial haters!


George Bush junior on the other hand is obviously a drongo.
The biggest. But hated nonetheless. Whereas Latham was a prize plonker of the first order, but no hate, just pity.

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2007, 11:28 PM
Depends on why he is a greens supporter :P

No idea. I wasn't aware of it until a post in the other place recently.

Coincidentally that post came only one day or so after I became aware that someone in the Australian chess community (although, I suspect, only tenuously whoever they are) is either inventing or spreading lies extremely bizarre false rumours that I was once sacked by the Greens. (I have never worked for pay for the Greens and have never been sacked by anyone!)

I thank the failed gossip, whoever it is, for the free entertainment.


we need an australian RON PAUL !

Will this do you? (http://www.ldp.org.au/)

Senate candidates in every state and the ACT.

Kevin Bonham
29-10-2007, 11:35 PM
Will this do you? (http://www.ldp.org.au/)

Senate candidates in every state and the ACT.

Check out the name of the second Victorian senate candidate!

Also running candidates in 45 house of reps seats, most of them marginals.

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2007, 12:42 AM
Now now now. Maggie Thatcher was genuinly very able and slammed through needed reforms in Bitain till she got a bad dose of hubris and introduced a poll tax. George Bush junior on the other hand is obviously a drongo.
Not obvious according to his grades at Yale, which were higher than those of both alGore and John "I'm a kept man to wealthy heiresses" Kerry. Sure, grades are not everything, but they are something, and more evidence than the BDS* sufferers have.

*Bush Derangement Syndrome

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2007, 12:46 AM
Will this do you?
It might even do me! Thanx for the heads-up. Our preferential system ensures that it won't be a wasted vote.

So what do you think of their flat tax policy of 30% (PAYG, company, CGT) with a tax free threshold of $30,000 and removing deductions and medicare levy?


Check out the name of the second Victorian senate candidate!
The chessplayer? We had a draw in the Aussie Open 1999. What about the first QLDer?

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2007, 12:50 AM
Isn't that pretty much what Howard is doing with income quarantining in the Northern Territory?
Quarantining welfare money is not quarantining people's own money.


Granted, there are many people there who aren't good at spending their own money, or more to the point, are rather too good at spending it on C2H5OH.
True.


But Howard's solution doesn't discriminate between them and those who do not deserve such measures.
Seems to be a drastic solution to a drastic problem.

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2007, 12:56 AM
REDS UNDER THE BEDS!! My god, that's written on a bloody typewriter!
So? It's actually genuine, unlike Dan Rather's forged Bush documents. :lol: And there is no evidence that Tovarishcha Gillardova has changed her view.


Would. Never. Happen. Do you really think that after 11 years in Opposition, the Labor Party would throw it all away in one term of radical socialism?
Once they are in power, they could impose socialism and unionism gradually. Look at all the lefties who support Labor—they will expect their reward.


What a load of tosh. If that's indicative of conservative thinking, it's no wonder the Libs are getting flogged in the polls.
Gillard typed what she typed, and it certainly wasn't as the typist!

Southpaw Jim
30-10-2007, 07:35 AM
Once they are in power, they could impose socialism and unionism gradually. Look at all the lefties who support Labor—they will expect their reward.
Creeping reds under the beds!!

Maybe Gillard is a raging Trot, but hey, every party has it's political skeletons:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/41/Youngcostello.png
Note the "officebearer" on the left. Seems the Liberal party has a mole in its ranks! And we all know that "Tip" Costello has been actively destabilising Howard.. it's a dirty pinko commie plot! Revolution from the inside!! :lol:



Gillard typed what she typed, and it certainly wasn't as the typist!
<yawn> ancient history Jono. Boring.

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2007, 09:37 AM
<yawn> ancient history Jono. Boring.
Of course, many leftists grow up and realise that the free market works better than socialism. You know, "If you're not a leftist when you're 20, you haven't a heart. If you're not a rightist by 40, you haven't a brain."

Even Hawke–Keating did that to some extent with many of their good reforms, like Roger Douglas in NZ. But Comrade Gillardova is still as leftist and anti-business as ever. And she will have plenty of union comrades to back her up.

Garvinator
30-10-2007, 12:41 PM
Of course, many leftists grow up and realise that the free market works better than socialism.
Could this be because most of the world works on 'free market', so to be going against the free market just doesn't work?

Socialism does not work because humans are driven by self-interest 99% of the time and the other 1% is because they think that co-operating increases their own self-interest ;)

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2007, 01:14 PM
Could this be because most of the world works on 'free market', so to be going against the free market just doesn't work?
It wasn't that long ago most of the world worked (or rather, didn't work) on socialist lines, with the democracies infested with wage and price controls, unionism, loads of regulation. And the "experts" thought that the Soviet Union had a great economy and was "here to stay", and scoffed at President Reagan for saying that its last chapters were already being written.

"Going against the free market" means restricting people's freedom to buy and sell at prices mutually agreed upon.


Socialism does not work because humans are driven by self-interest 99% of the time and the other 1% is because they think that co-operating increases their own self-interest ;)
Exactly right. Socialism ignores human nature. The free market takes self interest as a given, and makes it work to the benefit of society as a whole by balancing competing interests. So scarce resources are most efficiently distributed to where they are most wanted. Conversely, leftist policies don't abolish self interest, but its incentives are perverse, leading to shortages, gluts, poor quality and expansion of political power.

Spiny Norman
30-10-2007, 02:30 PM
Work Choices was an awful mistake by the Coalition, not just because the extent of changes weren't flagged pre-election, but mostly because it has single-handedly made unions relevant again. On that count I think it has set this country back 20+ years. One thing the communists learned about Christianity is this: you don't defeat it by opposing it. The coalition, by opposing unions via Work Choices, have given the union movement a shot in the arm. Very, very silly policy. I write that as a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party.

Aaron Guthrie
30-10-2007, 02:35 PM
I write that as a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party.I love that phrase. Do you actually have a card, and do you actually carry it around?

Spiny Norman
30-10-2007, 02:38 PM
I love that phrase. Do you actually have a card, and do you actually carry it around?
Nah, but I've thought of making my own (I have a card printer at work).

Aaron Guthrie
30-10-2007, 02:47 PM
Nah, but I've thought of making my own (I have a card printer at work).Brilliant idea! (duly stolen)

Basil
30-10-2007, 02:49 PM
Work Choices was an awful mistake by the Coalition, not just because the extent of changes weren't flagged pre-election, but mostly because it has single-handedly made unions relevant again. On that count I think it has set this country back 20+ years. One thing the communists learned about Christianity is this: you don't defeat it by opposing it. The coalition, by opposing unions via Work Choices, have given the union movement a shot in the arm. Very, very silly policy. I write that as a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party.
Disagree it was a silly policy.
Agree it was poorly concepted, executed and followed-up.
Just getting it together now IMO.

That said, the loonies were way OTT on hysteria.

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2007, 03:48 PM
Back to Euro's PC lefty talking points:

It was Labor who introduced the White Australia policy, and built the detention centres. Yet Euro would portray our PM as one who played up to Australia's (virtually non-existent) racists and detaining people. Lefties are good at projection.

Capablanca-Fan
30-10-2007, 04:07 PM
Work Choices was an awful mistake by the Coalition, not just because the extent of changes weren't flagged pre-election, but mostly because it has single-handedly made unions relevant again. On that count I think it has set this country back 20+ years.
It was actually an excellent policy. It stands to reason: if Big Government makes it almost impossible to fire a useless employee, aided by an employment court that regards an employer as guilty until proven innocent, then this employer will be reluctant to hire new staff. Instead, he will offer overtime, not replace retirees, and replace human labour with machinery.

Provided that the threshold size of the company is small, an employer who fires a good employee will lose financially, as he has to re-train a new staff member. The genuine injustices are in big companies where a fascistic middle manager can unfairly fire someone, but bears no financial cost himself.

It's no accident that countries like France and Germany, with lovely laws for protection of existing employees, also have high unemployment.


One thing the communists learned about Christianity is this: you don't defeat it by opposing it.
Apart from the odd few million Christians killed or imprisoned and the odd thousand or so churches bulldozed under Communism. Try to find some older copies of Voice of the Martyrs, or other works by Richard Wurmbrand.


The coalition, by opposing unions via Work Choices, have given the union movement a shot in the arm. Very, very silly policy. I write that as a card-carrying member of the Liberal Party
I fail to see why opposing unions is better than allowing them to interfere between individual employees and employers who didn't want to involve them.

Southpaw Jim
30-10-2007, 06:28 PM
I fail to see why opposing unions is better than allowing them to interfere between individual employees and employers who didn't want to involve them.
That's the way, let your inner unionist shine through! :lol:

Axiom
30-10-2007, 07:12 PM
That's the way, let your inner unionist shine through! :lol:
" The Inner Unionist " by Eurotrash , now out in paperback !

*sample review* :

" Lays bare the inner workings of the very heart and soul of unionism as experienced in the 21st century. The author thoroughly explores the twisted yet elegant rationale of the unionist gestalt, in a savage illumination of blindingly axiomatic insight " -The Herald Sun.

Southpaw Jim
30-10-2007, 08:56 PM
"Fascinating, I couldn't put it down - a real page turner! I now feel a real emotional connection with Trotsky." - Dr J Sarfati.

Axiom
30-10-2007, 09:17 PM
"Fascinating, I couldn't put it down - a real page turner! I now feel a real emotional connection with Trotsky." - Dr J Sarfati.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Kevin Bonham
31-10-2007, 12:52 AM
It might even do me! Thanx for the heads-up. Our preferential system ensures that it won't be a wasted vote.

So what do you think of their flat tax policy of 30% (PAYG, company, CGT) with a tax free threshold of $30,000 and removing deductions and medicare levy?

I'm not really the person to ask; an economist would have a better idea how well it works or doesn't. However, it sounds quite reasonable to me, as with a tax-free threshold a "flat tax" isn't really a "flat tax" anyway, but a simple form of income-graded tax without bracket creep and other nonsense.


The chessplayer?

But is it? Or just someone else with the same name?

I'll have a serious look at the LDP platform and see how much I agree with or don't agree with soon.

Davidflude
31-10-2007, 12:14 PM
The flat tax is a lot more drastic than most people realise.

First the existing system has become amazingly complex. The tax laws are enormous and convulated. Furthermore they hit unevenly. For many people they are regressive due to exemptions, rorts and just plain cheating.

If you set up a flat tax system with no rexemptions or concessions you wipe out heaps of rorts.

1) negative gearing

2) concessions on capital gains tax.

3) concessions on superannuation.

4) franking credits etc.

If you set up a flat tax with increased benefits for the poor then you do not need exemptions (except to avoid paper boys paying tax). If you do all this the tax rate would be closer to 20% than 30%.

The problem is to design a migration path. Imagine the withdrawal symtons of
Sydneysiders if the plug was suddenly pulled on negative gearing and making them pay full capital gains. The property market would go over the cliff.

Even though the flat tax would hurt me i am all in favour of it.

The politicians would hate it. No more bracket creep then giving it back before the election.

As I think some right winger once said. Graduted income tax is immoral. Even worse in my opinion is the situation where income tax is massively progressive
for wage and salary earners and regressive for many others.

Garvinator
31-10-2007, 12:22 PM
Flat tax is so bad David says it twice :whistle:

Southpaw Jim
31-10-2007, 12:56 PM
Tony Abbott turned up 35 mins late for the 60min Health Ministers' debate at the National Press Club :lol: looks like another shambolic day for Monsieur Howard.. :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2007, 12:58 PM
The flat tax is a lot more drastic than most people realise.

First the existing system has become amazingly complex. The tax laws are enormous and convulated.
Also, even if we pay a tax accountant to fill out our tax return form, we have to sign saying that it's true and correct. If we knew that, we wouldn't need the bleeding accountant!


The Furthermore they hit unevenly. For many people they are regressive due to exemptions, rorts and just plain cheating.
I've advocated before a flat tax system with a tax-free threshold, and eliminating many of the deductions.


If you set up a flat tax system with no rexemptions or concessions you wipe out heaps of rorts.

1) negative gearing
Negative gearing could be eliminated in return for a low enough flat rate, since this is really worthwhile only for those on high marginal tax rates.


2) concessions on capital gains tax.
Is that really a concession though? It was compensation for inflation. E.g. if you sold a property that had doubled in price, but at a time when the CPI had also doubled, you would not really have made any money in real terms, but would be liable for a huge tax bill.


3) concessions on superannuation.
Not good for a purist, but it seems to be designed to encourage people to save and invest in their own retirement, thus reducing the national welfare bill. But with a decent flat tax system, this probably wouldn't be necessary.


4) franking credits etc.
This was to avoid the double taxation of taxing a company's profits first with company tax, then taxing these profits a second time on the personal income tax of the company's owners (shareholders). If company tax were the same as this flat income tax, fully-franked dividends could be declared as tax free, which is a good approximation to complete fairness, avoiding the iniquitous pre-Keating double taxation.


If you set up a flat tax with increased benefits for the poor then you do not need exemptions (except to avoid paper boys paying tax). If you do all this the tax rate would be closer to 20% than 30%.
True.


The problem is to design a migration path. Imagine the withdrawal symtons of Sydneysiders if the plug was suddenly pulled on negative gearing and making them pay full capital gains. The property market would go over the cliff.
There could be a transitional period where people could have the option of paying according to the old system.


Even though the flat tax would hurt me i am all in favour of it.
Commendably objective. It probably would not benefit me financially either, except saving the time required to fill out our current convoluted tax return, even though the ATO's e-tax is a big improvement.


The politicians would hate it. No more bracket creep then giving it back before the election.
Another good point.

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2007, 01:02 PM
Tony Abbott turned up 35 mins late for the 60min Health Ministers' debate at the National Press Club :lol: looks like another shambolic day for Monsieur Howard.. :owned:
You mean like Chairman KRudd having to correct his environmental spokesman Garrett? Yeah, great idea, signing up for a carbon agreement which would restrict us but not the far bigger polluter China, an economic competitor. :hmm:

Southpaw Jim
31-10-2007, 01:18 PM
I'll freely admit that Labor had a bad day yesterday, but everyone will forget all about that now... Tony's had a shocker of a day:

1. Forced to apologise to Bernie Banton;
2. Mersey deal delayed and in doubt; and
3. Turning up late for your most important public appearance of the year?

PRICELESS!

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2007, 01:28 PM
I'll freely admit that Labor had a bad day yesterday, but everyone will forget all about that now... Tony's had a shocker of a day:
So is he related to you then?


1. Forced to apologise to Bernie Banton;
2. Mersey deal delayed and in doubt; and
3. Turning up late for your most important public appearance of the year?

PRICELESS!
And next Labor stuff-up will swing the pendulum back. However, I hope most Aussies won't be so short-sighted.

Basil
31-10-2007, 01:33 PM
I'll freely admit that Labor had a bad day yesterday, but everyone will forget all about that now... Tony's had a shocker of a day:


All these days will come and go for all concerned. Rudd succulently supping on his sweet aural cavity offerings will last a life-time!

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2007, 02:58 PM
All these days will come and go for all concerned. Rudd succulently supping on his sweet aural cavity offerings will last a life-time!
Chairman Rudd's cerumenophagy can certainly out-gross anything JH has one. So will our lefties try to get back on topic and explain why they think that the Chairman's "me too" policies will be an improvement, how he will keep Comrade Gillardova and the unionist majority of his front bench in line, and how a return to black armband historical revisionism will solve the actual problems in many sections of the Aboriginal community.

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2007, 04:01 PM
Are the Poor Getting Poorer? (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/WalterEWilliams/2007/10/31/are_the_poor_getting_poorer)
By Walter E. Williams
Wednesday, October 31, 2007


...

In 1971, only about 32 percent of all Americans enjoyed air conditioning in their homes. By 2001, 76 percent of poor people had air conditioning. In 1971, only 43 percent of Americans owned a color television; in 2001, 97 percent of poor people owned at least one. In 1971, 1 percent of American homes had a microwave oven; in 2001, 73 percent of poor people had one. Forty-six percent of poor households own their homes. Only about 6 percent of poor households are overcrowded. The average poor American has more living space than the average non-poor individual living in Paris, London, Vienna, Athens and other European cities.

Nearly three-quarters of poor households own a car; 30 percent own two or more cars. Seventy-eight percent of the poor have a VCR or DVD player; 62 percent have cable or satellite TV reception; and one-third have an automatic dishwasher.

For the most part, long-term poverty today is self-inflicted. To see this, let's examine some numbers from the Census Bureau's 2004 Current Population Survey. There's one segment of the black population that suffers only a 9.9 percent poverty rate, and only 13.7 percent of their under-5-year-olds are poor. There's another segment of the black population that suffers a 39.5 percent poverty rate, and 58.1 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor.

Among whites, one population segment suffers a 6 percent poverty rate, and only 9.9 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor. Another segment of the white population suffers a 26.4 percent poverty rate, and 52 percent of its under-5-year-olds are poor.

What do you think distinguishes the high and low poverty populations? The only statistical distinction between both the black and white populations is marriage. There is far less poverty in married-couple families, where presumably at least one of the spouses is employed. Fully 85 percent of black children living in poverty reside in a female-headed household.

Poverty is not static for people willing to work. A University of Michigan study shows that only 5 percent of those in the bottom fifth of the income distribution in 1975 remained there in 1991. What happened to them? They moved up to the top three-fifths of the income distribution — middle class or higher. Moreover, three out of 10 of the lowest income earners in 1975 moved all the way into the top fifth of income earners by 1991. Those who were poor in 1975 had an inflation-adjusted average income gain of $27,745 by 1991. Those workers who were in the top fifth of income earners in 1975 were better off in 1991 by an average of only $4,354. The bottom line is, the richer are getting richer and the poor are getting richer.

Poverty in the United States, in an absolute sense, has virtually disappeared. Today, there's nothing remotely resembling poverty of yesteryear.

...

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2007, 05:13 PM
I’m against free markets, but my wife made millions using them.
I don’t mind illegal immigrants coming here and living on welfare, but I object to legal foreign workers coming here to do the jobs that Australians refuse to do.
I'm committed to the US alliance but I won’t support them in Iraq.
I think the Prime Minister was wrong to endanger the US alliance by attacking Barack Obama and the Democrats, but Mark Latham was right to attack George W. Bush and the Republicans.
I object to ‘fear campaigns’ but I think Australians should be terrified by the government’s IR policies and the impending doom being brought on by climate change.
I hate the way the Howard government neglected infrastructure, but I canned the Wolfdene Dam project resulting in Brisbane's current water crisis.
I support reducing carbon emission, but I won't threaten any jobs of the coal industry.
I will promote alternative sources of energy, but will reject nuclear power.
I will reduce unemployment, but will repeal the IR reforms that have resulted in the lowest unemployment for decades.
I’m a Christian Socialist but I reject socialism and am instead an economic conservative.
I despise candidates who say: “Vote for me! I’m a Christian.” Instead, people should vote for me because I’m a Christian.
I'm a Christian but won't affirm that Jesus is the Son of God, but I do go to church.
I’m pro-family so I want dads to stay home unemployed, instead of getting a job.
I’m against abortion but I voted to enable RU486 to be legalised.

Southpaw Jim
31-10-2007, 05:35 PM
Jono, you're hysterical!

:lol:

Axiom
31-10-2007, 06:47 PM
I’m against free markets, but my wife made millions using them.
I don’t mind illegal immigrants coming here and living on welfare, but I object to legal foreign workers coming here to do the jobs that Australians refuse to do.
I'm committed to the US alliance but I won’t support them in Iraq.
I think the Prime Minister was wrong to endanger the US alliance by attacking Barack Obama and the Democrats, but Mark Latham was right to attack George W. Bush and the Republicans.
I object to ‘fear campaigns’ but I think Australians should be terrified by the government’s IR policies and the impending doom being brought on by climate change.
I hate the way the Howard government neglected infrastructure, but I canned the Wolfdene Dam project resulting in Brisbane's current water crisis.
I support reducing carbon emission, but I won't threaten any jobs of the coal industry.
I will promote alternative sources of energy, but will reject nuclear power.
I will reduce unemployment, but will repeal the IR reforms that have resulted in the lowest unemployment for decades.
I’m a Christian Socialist but I reject socialism and am instead an economic conservative.
I despise candidates who say: “Vote for me! I’m a Christian.” Instead, people should vote for me because I’m a Christian.
I'm a Christian but won't affirm that Jesus is the Son of God, but I do go to church.
I’m pro-family so I want dads to stay home unemployed, instead of getting a job.
I’m against abortion but I voted to enable RU486 to be legalised.

:clap: :clap: :clap: And , no doubt the same hypocrisy can be seen on the other side ( thats a challege to the lefties out there, shouldnt be difficult )

VOTE LDP !

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2007, 07:28 PM
Jono, you're hysterical!

:lol:
Was an actual argument meant to follow here? Or more of the same "Howard lied kids died" crap?

Southpaw Jim
31-10-2007, 10:19 PM
Oh, you were seeking a response to your hyperbolic exaggerations?


I’m against free markets, but my wife made millions using them.
Bollocks.


I don’t mind illegal immigrants coming here and living on welfare, but I object to legal foreign workers coming here to do the jobs that Australians refuse to do.
Evidence? Probably more bollocks.


I'm committed to the US alliance but I won’t support them in Iraq.
Bollocks. Rudd is proposing to reallocate our combat troops (leaving the others there) to assist the US in Afghanistan because he believes they can be more effective there. The tragedies of the past 2 weeks would seem to give credence to the proposal.


I think the Prime Minister was wrong to endanger the US alliance by attacking Barack Obama and the Democrats, but Mark Latham was right to attack George W. Bush and the Republicans.

Straw man, I don't recall Rudd publicly reiterating or specifically supporting Latham's sentiments. I'd be surprised if he did, since they obviously dislike each other. Hence, bollocks.


I object to ‘fear campaigns’ but I think Australians should be terrified by the government’s IR policies and the impending doom being brought on by climate change.

You're only jealous that your team's negative campaign isn't working :lol:


I hate the way the Howard government neglected infrastructure, but I canned the Wolfdene Dam project resulting in Brisbane's current water crisis.

Out of interest, which Ministry did Rudd hold at the time that decision was taken?


I support reducing carbon emission, but I won't threaten any jobs of the coal industry.

No contradiction here, supported by economic modeling.


I will promote alternative sources of energy, but will reject nuclear power.
No surprise here, since by all accounts it can't be brought online quick enough to make a difference in the necessary timeframe. Not to mention, it's not exactly "clean". Furthermore, ALP policy has been anti-nuclear for many years, so it's hardly an issue of Rudd's credibility.


I will reduce unemployment, but will repeal the IR reforms that have resulted in the lowest unemployment for decades.

Post hoc ergo propter hoc.


I’m a Christian Socialist but I reject socialism and am instead an economic conservative.

Kindly provide evidence of Rudd claiming to be a Christian Socialist. Just something from an ALP website will do.


I despise candidates who say: “Vote for me! I’m a Christian.” Instead, people should vote for me because I’m a Christian.

Evidence of both statements please. Otherwise dismissed as propaganda/hyperbole.


I'm a Christian but won't affirm that Jesus is the Son of God, but I do go to church.

Evidence of refusal to affirm said statement please. Otherwise dismissed.


I’m pro-family so I want dads to stay home unemployed, instead of getting a job.

WTF?


I’m against abortion but I voted to enable RU486 to be legalised.

I'm quite glad Mr Rudd is able to recognise the distinction between his own private beliefs and the right of others to make choices on a moral issue. It displays the fact that he understands that not all Australians should be forced to subscribe to his personal moral stance, and that he's a representative, not an autocrat. I applaud it.

Capablanca-Fan
31-10-2007, 11:07 PM
Bollocks.
Mrs Rudd did make millions, and was even accused of taking advantage of the IR reforms.


Bollocks.
Your favorite new word? A common word among lefties who lack substance to their arguments.


Rudd is proposing to reallocate our combat troops (leaving the others there) to assist the US in Afghanistan because he believes they can be more effective there. The tragedies of the past 2 weeks would seem to give credence to the proposal.
Never mind that the surge in Iraq seems to be working, and that he supported the invasion of Iraq when it was politically expedient to do so.


Straw man, I don't recall Rudd publicly reiterating or specifically supporting Latham's sentiments. I'd be surprised if he did, since they obviously dislike each other. Hence, bollocks.
I didn't see Rudd object, and you voted for Latham.


You're only jealous that your team's negative campaign isn't working :lol:
You only whinge about negative campaigning if it's from the Libs, not from Labour; typical lefty.


Out of interest, which Ministry did Rudd hold at the time that decision was taken?
The new chief of staff to Queensland's incoming Labor premier. A precedent to show Rudd recipe no good in a crisis (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21002760-7583,00.html).


No contradiction here, supported by economic modeling.
Lower the demand for coal by confiscatory carbon taxes, then coal mining jobs will be affected.


Post hoc ergo propter hoc.
Rubbish. There are sound economic reasons and historical precedent: if it is harder for an employer to fire someone, then he will be more reluctant to take somoene. That's why European countries, with some of the highest job protection laws around, have unemployment rates twice ours.


Kindly provide evidence of Rudd claiming to be a Christian Socialist. Just something from an ALP website will do.
You really know stuff-all about your beloved chairman. Here on Lateline (http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2006/s1753915.htm)he affirms the alleged merits of Christian socialism, and here is an article by the Chairman himself (http://www.themonthly.com.au/tm/?q=node/300), again clearly endorsing this oxymoron, and claiming that the Labor party was founded upon this.


Evidence of both statements please. Otherwise dismissed as propaganda/hyperbole.
In his article, the Chairman sez:

1. Vote for me because I'm a Christian. This is the model that is most repugnant.
But he still wants the Christian vote.


Evidence of refusal to affirm said statement please. Otherwise dismissed.
Not that you care anyway, but on SBS (http://publish.vx.roo.com/sbs/portal/?channel=World%20News%20Australia&clipId=1207_3084491):


Question: Mr Rudd, do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Rudd: Well, I’m a - I’m a, a person who attends church regularly.


I'm quite glad Mr Rudd is able to recognise the distinction between his own private beliefs and the right of others to make choices on a moral issue. It displays the fact that he understands that not all Australians should be forced to subscribe to his personal moral stance, and that he's a representative, not an autocrat. I applaud it.
His view is the most cravenly cowardly and illogical of all. What's the point of "opposing abortion" if it doesn't take a human life? It's as crass as being "personally opposed" to removing a wart. But if it does take a human life, then it ceases to be simply a "personal moral stance". Compare "I'm personally against slavery, but can't impose my beliefs on slave-owners."

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2007, 01:06 AM
By allowing a tax refund of unused franking credits. Before, if they were greater than the total tax bill, they were just wasted. This government's change was entirely for the benefit of low-income earners.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2007, 01:40 AM
we need an australian RON PAUL !
But note Michael Medved's lesson in today's article The third party temptation discredits its candidates (and their ideas) (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/MichaelMedved/2007/10/31/the_third_party_temptation_discredits_its_candidat es_and_their_ideas):


Among the faceless cavalcade of Libertarian losers, one of their Presidential candidates manages to stand out—not because of his strong showing (he drew only 0.47% of the vote) but because he drew the right message from his embarrassing experience. Texas obstetrician Ron Paul carried the fringe-party’s banner in 1988 but soon thereafter returned to the Republican Party, won election to Congress, and conducted a dynamic and much publicized campaign for the GOP Presidential nomination in 2008. Dr. Paul garnered vastly more attention for his ideals and proposals as a contender for the Republican nomination than he ever did as the Libertarian nominee—a living demonstration of the ill-considered idiocy of fringe party campaigns.

Of course, America is a bit different because they still have the crass plurality voting system, where a third party vote is just wasted, instead of preferential, and as Medved says:


By taking votes from the major party contender who’s ideologically most similar, and rewarding those opponents who agree with them the least, independent candidates move the political process away from their professed goals, not toward them.

All the same, third parties have achieved relatively little here too.

Southpaw Jim
01-11-2007, 09:28 AM
Mrs Rudd did make millions, and was even accused of taking advantage of the IR reforms.
Hah. You know what I was referring to, and it wasn’t Ms Rein’s success. But, if you think obfuscation helps your case, by all means…


Your favorite new word?
An appropriate word in the circumstances. I can’t be bothered thinking of synonyms every time you talk bollocks.


Never mind that the surge in Iraq seems to be working, and that he supported the invasion of Iraq when it was politically expedient to do so.
Completely irrelevant to the question of reallocating troops to a different deployment and whether this contradicts Rudd’s commitment to the US alliance.


I didn't see Rudd object, and you voted for Latham.
If politicians objected to their party leader’s position every time they disagreed, then we wouldn’t have political parties. Some more recent examples:
Turncoat’s stance on Kyoto and his lack of balls in publishing his opposition to Coward’s stance.
”Tip” Costello’s stance on Coward, his gutlessness in standing for his beliefs and principles by challenging for the leadership, and his propensity to snipe from the sidelines or get sloshed and divulge his innermost feelings to 3 Canberra journos.
I also fail to see how my vote for Duncan Kerr in 2004 has any bearing on Rudd’s credibility.


You only whinge about negative campaigning if it's from the Libs, not from Labour; typical lefty.
Typical partisan, I’d say. Don’t recall you admitting or proffering any criticism of Coward or the Liberal Party, for example by responding to my question as to why you think the Libs are getting a flogging in the polls.


The new chief of staff to Queensland's incoming Labor premier.
Ministers make the decisions and take the responsibility. This whole “Rudd is responsible for everything Goss did” shtick is pathetic.


Lower the demand for coal by confiscatory carbon taxes, then coal mining jobs will be affected.
Funny how the CFMEU supports Rudd, very altruistic of them! This position also contradicts your position on water pricing and appropriate price signals. Jono, have you read anything about externalities? Your point about demand doesn’t prove that jobs will be affected – after all, demand for energy IMO is relatively inelastic, and if the cost of energy increases as a result of a carbon tax then people will continue consuming energy at the same rate and adjust their budget accordingly (ie buy less plasma tvs). Furthermore, even if demand is lowered, this is a good thing – it provides the coal industry with a stimulus to find a technological solution (such as “clean” coal) rather than being lazy and continuing to pollute.

By your argument, we’d still be using DDT because jobs in the chemical industry might be affected.


Rubbish. <obfuscation snipped>
Jono, you’re avoiding my point. Presumably because you, like Coward, cannot prove a direct link between WorkSerfChoices and a significant increase in employment. Hence post hoc ergo propter hoc, ie it does not follow that the recent upswing in employment is a result of WorkSerfChoices.


Here on Lateline he affirms the alleged merits of Christian socialism, and here is an article by the Chairman himself, again clearly endorsing this oxymoron, and claiming that the Labor party was founded upon this.
Ok, he’s a Christian socialist (didn’t know, don’t really care). Now, how does that contradict Rudd’s “economic conservatism”, ie the proper managing of budgets and inflation? After all, that’s the current political context of the phrase “economic conservative”. It does not (like it or not) encompass things like a completely deregulated industrial relations system. Thus, I would interpret Rudd’s “economic conservatism” as entirely consistent with Christian socialism, insofar that good fiscal management ensures the government’s ability to attend to Christian social issues, such assisting the poor.


In his article, the Chairman sez:
1. Vote for me because I'm a Christian. This is the model that is most repugnant.
But he still wants the Christian vote.
Has he said “vote for me because I’m a Christian”? I doubt it, but feel free to provide a direct quote from the mainstream media. I suspect he wants Christians to vote for him because of his policies.


Not that you care anyway, but on SBS:
Question: Mr Rudd, do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God?

Rudd: Well, I’m a - I’m a, a person who attends church regularly.
You’re right, I don’t care about matters of Rudd’s religion – they should have no bearing on political debate. IMO, Rudd’s response confirms his answer to the question – I can’t see why he would go to Church if he didn’t believe in Jesus.



His view is the most cravenly cowardly and illogical of all.
Nope, it’s indicative of balance and recognising that others have a different morality to apply to their own lives. BTW, if Coward and the Libs are anti-abortion, why haven’t they banned non-emergency abortions? Hmm?

Leave the abortion debate Jono, because you and I are diametrically opposed on this one and you won’t draw me any further on it.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2007, 12:37 PM
If politicians objected to their party leader’s position every time they disagreed, then we wouldn’t have political parties.
It's not just a matter of a different position, but Latham's whole outlook, e.g. a self-confessed hater. Rudd, Howard, Costello, Swan would never confess to being haters.


Some more recent examples:
Turncoat’s stance on Kyoto and his lack of balls in publishing his opposition to Coward’s stance.
Turncoat really hasn't changed much. I have no time for him either.


”Tip” Costello’s stance on Coward, his gutlessness in standing for his beliefs and principles by challenging for the leadership, and his propensity to snipe from the sidelines or get sloshed and divulge his innermost feelings to 3 Canberra journos.
Costello is a good economic manager and effective parliamentary debater, but he is not my favorite Liberal.


Typical partisan, I’d say.
Sure. So stop whinging about it. It's crass for KRudd to run a negative campaign about Howard's negative campaigning!


Don’t recall you admitting or proffering any criticism of Coward or the Liberal Party, for example by responding to my question as to why you think the Libs are getting a flogging in the polls.
I have criticised them on this site, so you haven't looked very carefully. Gunner once thought I was too harsh on them.


Ministers make the decisions and take the responsibility. This whole “Rudd is responsible for everything Goss did” shtick is pathetic.
Rudd had the authority and made a dreadful decision. How typical of the oxymoronic "public servant" to demand that a minister fall on his sword for the mistake of a bureaucrat.


This position also contradicts your position on water pricing and appropriate price signals.
I thought you agreed on this one, for once, even though it's pretty basic economics.

Oh, another thing, city councils around here banned the highly efficient drip-watering system because it would discriminate against the poor who could not afford such a thing. This is a classic example of how socialists hate unequal wealth more than equal poverty.


Furthermore, even if demand is lowered, this is a good thing — it provides the coal industry with a stimulus to find a technological solution (such as “clean” coal) rather than being lazy and continuing to pollute.
Since coal is mainly carbon, the product of its combustion will be CO2.


By your argument, we’d still be using DDT because jobs in the chemical industry might be affected.
No, DDT should be used because it is great at killing malarial vectors and hasn't harmed a single human. The only problem with DDT was overuse, not use.

In any case, I was pointing out a contradiction between purporting to support an industry and also policies that would hurt that industry, not saying that jobs have to be protected at all costs.


Presumably because you, like Coward, cannot prove a direct link between WorkSerfChoices and a significant increase in employment. Hence post hoc ergo propter hoc, ie it does not follow that the recent upswing in employment is a result of WorkSerfChoices.
I've given you sensible economic reasons based on supply and demand, as well as the practical outworkings in other countries. And I know people for whom this applies directly, an employer who told me that he didn't want to take on more staff because of trouble he had getting rid of clearly bad staff. All you have is emotions.


Ok, he’s a Christian socialist (didn’t know, don’t really care).
So why did you waste time asking for documentation? More lefty smokescreens.


Now, how does that contradict Rudd’s “economic conservatism”, ie the proper managing of budgets and inflation? After all, that’s the current political context of the phrase “economic conservative”. It does not (like it or not) encompass things like a completely deregulated industrial relations system. Thus, I would interpret Rudd’s “economic conservatism” as entirely consistent with Christian socialism, insofar that good fiscal management ensures the government’s ability to attend to Christian social issues, such assisting the poor.
Socialism has a definite meaning involving redistribution of wealth and government intervention in business. Economic conservative normally means free markets. If it is consistent with socialism then it has no meaning at all.

Also, Christians support assisting the poor, but this doesn't entail that it should be via massive impersonal government bureaucracies that Rudd is on record believing in.


Has he said “vote for me because I’m a Christian”? I doubt it, but feel free to provide a direct quote from the mainstream media. I suspect he wants Christians to vote for him because of his policies.
He didn't have to say this in so many words, but he is certainly not above pushing this sentiment.


You’re right, I don’t care about matters of Rudd’s religion — they should have no bearing on political debate.
Then don't waste my time on it.


IMO, Rudd’s response confirms his answer to the question – I can’t see why he would go to Church if he didn’t believe in Jesus.
For show. Going to a church doesn't make you a Christian any more than going to a garage makes you a car. I'd say the same about a professing Muslim who couldn't confess Muhammad as the prophet of Allah, but made a point about attending a mosque.


BTW, if Coward and the Libs are anti-abortion, why haven’t they banned non-emergency abortions? Hmm?
A good question, and one I've asked. But as I've said before, voting is choosing between available alternatives, not non-existent ideals.

And as for &#239;mposing morality on others", we could say exactly the same for the "Christian socialism" you like so much. I.e. if he claims that his faith warrants "fairer" distribution of wealth and greater protection for (existing) employers, he is imposing his faith on wealthy people and employers. [/QUOTE]Fact is, most laws "impose morality", so the only question is whose morality should be imposed.


Leave the abortion debate Jono, because you and I are diametrically opposed on this one and you won’t draw me any further on it.
I wasn''t intending to get into this debate as such, but demonstrate Rudd's woolly thinking on it, which is the worst of all positions to take.

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2007, 01:07 PM
I'll have a serious look at the LDP platform and see how much I agree with or don't agree with soon.
Their philosophy (http://www.ldp.org.au/principles/philosophy.html)sounds like just the thing you've said here:


The LDP's position sometimes confuses those who like to apply left and right labels to political ideologies. Free trade is considered to be right-wing while drug legalisation is left-wing. Cutting tax is right-wing but defending civil liberties and gay rights is left-wing.

However, all of these positions share the common principle of decreasing the role of government. They differ from "left-wing" people who often want the government to control the economy but not our social lives, and also from "right-wing" people who want the government to control our social lives but not the economy.

Axiom
01-11-2007, 01:59 PM
Their philosophy (http://www.ldp.org.au/principles/philosophy.html)sounds like just the thing you've said here:


The LDP's position sometimes confuses those who like to apply left and right labels to political ideologies. Free trade is considered to be right-wing while drug legalisation is left-wing. Cutting tax is right-wing but defending civil liberties and gay rights is left-wing.

However, all of these positions share the common principle of decreasing the role of government. They differ from "left-wing" people who often want the government to control the economy but not our social lives, and also from "right-wing" people who want the government to control our social lives but not the economy.
Thankyou for posting that Jono.
It encapsulates nicely ,the blurred left-right paradigm, which renders meaningful discourse on matters political difficult.
The LDP seem to have cut through this garden path with a very real political direction, which i heartily endorse and support.
Jono please reconsider your electoral vote.
KB and I ,look to be voting LDP ! :)

Southpaw Jim
01-11-2007, 02:19 PM
Turncoat really hasn't changed much. I have no time for him either.
You might have to, if he becomes the leader in time for the next election. I tend to like Turncoat’s stance in the political spectrum, as far as I’m aware of it, but I think he’s terrible in public. Appears dithering, bumbling. Can’t seem to speak confidently.


Costello is a good economic manager and effective parliamentary debater, but he is not my favorite Liberal.
Hmm. Tip. Tip is competent, but unimaginative. He has probably been the best Parliamentary debater since Keating departed, although he is a pale shadow – he is witty, but tends to bluster and shout too much. I think, however, that recently Gillard has shown herself to be quite good in this arena, and I think that the Libs struggle to deal with her generally, both in Parliament and on tv debates. BTW, I don’t really rate Rudd high in this department.

Back to Tip, assuming for the nonce that the Libs lose and he takes over the reins, it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out. He’s electorally unpopular, but we only see him as Treasurer – which is hardly the touchy-feely good news job in Cabinet. He’ll have to change his methods, to avoid the arrogant smirker tag.


It's crass for KRudd to run a negative campaign about Howard's negative campaigning!
No, it’s good politics. The funny thing is, is that negative campaigns only work when there’s already a perception in the public mind to build on. The public already perceive Coward as “mean and tricky”, hence Rudd’s negative campaign gets traction. Coward’s negative campaign is failing, because the general public perceive him otherwise. Oh, and a hint as to why the Liberal Party are getting flogged in the polls: people don’t like being told their judgments are wrong ;)


Gunner once thought I was too harsh on them.
There’s hope for you yet :clap:


How typical of the oxymoronic "public servant"
As opposed to the oxymoronic “creation scientist”? :P



Oh, another thing, city councils around here banned the highly efficient drip-watering system because it would discriminate against the poor who could not afford such a thing. This is a classic example of how socialists hate unequal wealth more than equal poverty.
Ah, more creeping reds under the beds. Good to see the revolution is proceeding as planned.


Since coal is mainly carbon, the product of its combustion will be CO2.
Really? :doh: shows you what a BSc is worth.. coal.. carbon… CO2.. wow..



I was pointing out a contradiction between purporting to support an industry and also policies that would hurt that industry, not saying that jobs have to be protected at all costs.
Well then, I recommend you read up on the issue of industry externalities and how to treat them.


I've given you sensible economic reasons based on supply and demand, as well as the practical outworkings in other countries.
Quoting the unemployment rates of a few more unionised does not prove that WorkSerfChoices has caused a significant increase in employment. It might, in theory, do so in less than buoyant economic times, but at a time when the economy is running at full steam, I can’t see ‘unfair dismissal’ being a problem for employers when business is screaming out for more employees.


I know people for whom this applies directly, an employer who told me that he didn't want to take on more staff because of trouble he had getting rid of clearly bad staff.
And I know someone whose small business employer made them “redundant” because of a “business restructure”. In the process of suing for unfair dismissal, this person also discovered that they’d been significantly underpaid for years.

Evidence of widespread misbehaviour on the part of small business employers? I doubt it. We can all quote isolated examples Jono, it doesn’t prove anything. The idea is that you should be able to point to some ABS stats, or an academic study, or something similar that proves that WorkSerfChoices has created a significant number of jobs.


All you have is emotions.
All you have is invective and Liberal Party propaganda :hand:


So why did you waste time asking for documentation? More lefty smokescreens.
More specious righty ad hominems. I was interested to know whether it was true, or you were just making it up. So shoot me.

He didn't have to say this in so many words, but he is certainly not above pushing this sentiment.
Ah. The ‘vibe’. The good ol’ Dennis Denuto argument :lol:


Then don't waste my time on it.
You started it :P


For show.
Sorry, I’m struggling to believe the assertion that Rudd goes to church “for show”. That’s an incredible devotion to ‘image’.


so the only question is whose morality should be imposed.
So… what’s the answer to the question?

Capablanca-Fan
01-11-2007, 03:07 PM
You might have to, if he becomes the leader in time for the next election. I tend to like Turncoat’s stance in the political spectrum, as far as I’m aware of it, but I think he’s terrible in public. Appears dithering, bumbling. Can’t seem to speak confidently.
Seems to be another limousine lefty who's in the wrong party.


Hmm. Tip. Tip is competent, but unimaginative.
So why change for Swanny?


He has probably been the best Parliamentary debater since Keating departed, although he is a pale shadow — he is witty, but tends to bluster and shout too much.
As oppose to resorting to foul abuse like Keating.


Back to Tip, assuming for the nonce that the Libs lose and he takes over the reins, it’ll be interesting to see how it plays out. He’s electorally unpopular, but we only see him as Treasurer – which is hardly the touchy-feely good news job in Cabinet. He’ll have to change his methods, to avoid the arrogant smirker tag.
True enough.


As opposed to the oxymoronic “creation scientist”? :P
That's right, Kepler, Newton, Faraday, Maxwell were not real scientists. :P
As I explained before, those in the private sector are the real public servants, because they have to please the public, not their bureaucratic superiors, if they want to get paid.


Ah, more creeping reds under the beds. Good to see the revolution is proceeding as planned.
So are we to understand that you approve of this nonsensical council practice that banned the most efficient watering system on the basis of envy politics (aka socialism).


Really? :doh: shows you what a BSc is worth.. coal.. carbon… CO2.. wow..
I wouldn't know, that was too many degrees ago :P Anyway, burning coal will always be "greenhouse unfriendly" no matter how clean it is.


And I know someone whose small business employer made them “redundant” because of a “business restructure”.
But if it is a small business, then the business owner is doing what he thinks is right with his own money. Genuinely unfair dismissals happen in government circles or in large businesses with a middle manager who doesn't stand to lose personally.


In the process of suing for unfair dismissal, this person also discovered that they’d been significantly underpaid for years.
That's nothing to do with workchoices but with employer fraud.


Evidence of widespread misbehaviour on the part of small business employers? I doubt it. We can all quote isolated examples Jono, it doesn’t prove anything. The idea is that you should be able to point to some ABS stats, or an academic study, or something similar that proves that WorkSerfChoices has created a significant number of jobs.
Sure, "correlation is not causation", but it's more than you have :hand:


All you have is invective and Liberal Party propaganda :hand:
Look in the mirror sometimes :doh: Oh that's right, it's not invective when it comes from the Left, just like blacks who beat up honkies are not racist.


Sorry, I’m struggling to believe the assertion that Rudd goes to church “for show”. That’s an incredible devotion to ‘image’.
Wilhelm and Heilary Klinton are just the same. God and Hillary Clinton (http://www.conservativebookservice.com/products/BookPage.asp?prod_cd=c7133)by Paul Kengor is most revealing.

Kevin Bonham
02-11-2007, 08:36 PM
KB and I ,look to be voting LDP ! :)

Tempted, not so much on the basis of outright support but on the basis that Australian politics needs a libertarian dimension as I have argued before.

I disagree with them on CIR, recall elections, privatisation of the ABC and SBS, abolition of controls on private use of native vegetation, the market approach to saving threatened species (only works in selected cases), aspects of their gun rights policy, smoking in pubs and clubs and probably many other things. Those were just those I found in a very quick look.

By the way, the LDP approach to tax is not just a 30% flat tax, but also:

Under the LDP 30/30 tax policy, for every dollar an individual earns over $30,000 they pay 30 cents in income tax and for every dollar they earn under $30,000 they receive a low income subsidy of 30 cents.

...which provides an unconditional safety net, albeit a rather austere one (about $180/week for someone with no work at all.) Interesting.

I see they are getting lots of flak for preselecting someone related to Ivan Milat, and I'm keeping an eye on all that.

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2007, 01:09 AM
Tempted, not so much on the basis of outright support but on the basis that Australian politics needs a libertarian dimension as I have argued before.
Yeah, can't say that the major parties are economically libertarian enough.


I disagree with them on CIR, recall elections, privatisation of the ABC and SBS, abolition of controls on private use of native vegetation, the market approach to saving threatened species (only works in selected cases), aspects of their gun rights policy, smoking in pubs and clubs and probably many other things. Those were just those I found in a very quick look.
A bit too libertarian for you then? ;)


By the way, the LDP approach to tax is not just a 30% flat tax, but also:

Under the LDP 30/30 tax policy, for every dollar an individual earns over $30,000 they pay 30 cents in income tax and for every dollar they earn under $30,000 they receive a low income subsidy of 30 cents.

...which provides an unconditional safety net, albeit a rather austere one (about $180/week for someone with no work at all.) Interesting.
How does it compare to the current rate? Seems they are not Randian anyway.


I see they are getting lots of flak for preselecting someone related to Ivan Milat, and I'm keeping an eye on all that.
Should someone be punished for who their relatives are?

Aaron Guthrie
03-11-2007, 10:41 AM
I see they are getting lots of flak for preselecting someone related to Ivan Milat, and I'm keeping an eye on all that.Who is the flak coming from?

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2007, 11:47 AM
Garrett's 'me too' gaffe lets cat out of bag: Liberals (http://www.theage.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/peter-garretts-latest-gaffe/2007/11/02/1193619148273.html)
The Age
3 Nov 2007


Radio 2UE broadcaster Steve Price reported Mr Garrett had told him the "me too" tag the Liberals are putting on Labor wouldn't matter if the ALP won because "once we get in we'll just change it all".

Mr Garrett said the remark, made in the Melbourne Airport Qantas chairman's lounge early yesterday, was "jocular". This was backed up by Nine's entertainment reporter Richard Wilkins, who was also party to the conversation.

Mr Garrett did not deny the comment but tried to explain it in terms of Labor's policies.

"Notwithstanding what was said, there is no doubt things would change under a Labor government," he said.

...

Mr Price insisted it was on the record and that Mr Garrett knew who he was.

"It was no joke," Mr Price said. "We weren't joking. He wasn't laughing."


Just as I've said: Chairman Rudd campaigns to the Right, while Gillardova and the 70% union front bench are waiting for their chance to govern to the Left.

And how ironic: Howard is such a tired old leader, but his policies are fresh enough to copy at least 22 of them (or pretend to in the campaign), while the fresh new Labor Chairman has hardly any policies of his own.

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2007, 03:15 PM
A bit too libertarian for you then? ;)

Well, things like voter recall and CIR actually have nothing to do with libertarianism and everything to do with an excess of procedural demockery. You get an opportunity to recall an elected politician when their term runs out, and if you want policies implemented then you should vote for politicians who support those policies or else create a new party.

But yes, I am not a fundie-libertarian because I have found some issues where I do see strong reasons for state intervention, even if some of those are selfish ones.

Smoking in pubs and clubs is a useful example. I don't smoke, and would like to be able to go to see bands I like without having to deal with both the immediate and longterm impacts of being surrounded by smokers. However, in a libertarian view the owner of the premises is free to allow people to smoke there if he/she wishes. Premise owners would do so (as they always used to) because the proportion of the market willing to not go to a gig on account of smoke is tiny.

So the choice I get is between getting covered in smoke as a result of other people's habit or supporting the use of the law (and its implied threat of violence) to prevent owners allowing smoking on their premises. The latter means I get to see gigs I like without having my health affected by smokers, and I care more about that right than the publican's right to make $$$ out of smokers or the smokers' rights to poison themselves.


How does it compare to the current rate? Seems they are not Randian anyway.

It compares to the current rate poorly but not necessarily disastrously so. I think a single person with their own flat can get about $250pw with rent assistance at the moment. Yes, I was interested that their taxation policy is quite un-Randian and effectively has its own safety net built in.


Should someone be punished for who their relatives are?

Not in my view, unless she has expressed some sympathy for him, of which I'm not aware. In answer to Mangafranga's question, the flak is coming from supporters of gun control who are irate about a relative (sister) of Ivan Milat running for a pro-gun-rights party.

Basil
03-11-2007, 03:18 PM
Well, things like voter recall
What? I can recall faulty voters? This is fantastic news for the Coalition ;)

Capablanca-Fan
03-11-2007, 03:27 PM
But yes, I am not a fundie-libertarian because I have found some issues where I do see strong reasons for state intervention, even if some of those are selfish ones.
I see no need to fund the ABC or SBS, or sport, art etc. That really is taking from the poor and giving to the rich.


So the choice I get is between getting covered in smoke as a result of other people's habit or supporting the use of the law (and its implied threat of violence) to prevent owners allowing smoking on their premises. The latter means I get to see gigs I like without having my health affected by smokers, and I care more about that right than the publican's right to make $$$ out of smokers or the smokers' rights to poison themselves.
That's one area where I dissent from most libertarians as well. I campaigned for a long time to get smoking banned from tourneys in NZ, and faced nonsense that smoking was "their democratic right", as if they had any right to force others to indulge their pleasure even if they didn't want to (see archives of NZCF AGM minutes).


Not in my view, unless she has expressed some sympathy for him, of which I'm not aware.
That's fair.


In answer to Mangafranga's question, the flak is coming from supporters of gun control who are irate about a relative (sister) of Ivan Milat running for a pro-gun-rights party.
Maybe she thinks that if others had a gun, they wouldn't have been so defenceless.

Kevin Bonham
03-11-2007, 04:21 PM
I see no need to fund the ABC or SBS, or sport, art etc. That really is taking from the poor and giving to the rich.

Sport and art are different matters that I didn't comment on above. I do support limited government-run media (a minor share of the market, not a controlling one) provided that it maintains acceptable levels of openness to a wide range of credible opinions.


That's one area where I dissent from most libertarians as well. I campaigned for a long time to get smoking banned from tourneys in NZ, and faced nonsense that smoking was "their democratic right", as if they had any right to force others to indulge their pleasure even if they didn't want to (see archives of NZCF AGM minutes).

To me, smoking is effectively a mild act of violence against any unwilling person in the same room who inhales the smoke. That seems to be an aspect of the issue that pro-smoking libertarians haven't thought through very well, although some would then argue that by going into a pub that allows smoking you consent to being smoked at.


Maybe she thinks that if others had a gun, they wouldn't have been so defenceless.

I have no idea if she even has views on the gun issue in particular at all.

Axiom
03-11-2007, 05:28 PM
As a proud fundamentalist Libertarian, i can say the smoking issue is very easily solved by having smoke-free clubs,restaurants etc and also others that are smoking clubs,restaurants etc.

Even smoking chess clubs ! :hmm: interclub could be a problem though ! :doh:

snowyriverman
03-11-2007, 06:59 PM
While not a certainty, it appears more likely than not that Labor will win the next federal election.

This is not devastating news to me.
- it is important to have change (perhaps not for the sake, but I digress)
- no-one can govern forever
- there is much to be said (peace of mind for me, for one) for letting Labor have a go (that's how the Libs got in last time!

so I'm settling back and looking at the marketing that is winning and losing the hearts and minds of Australia

1. IR

2. Tuned Out


3. Campaign 'Asleep on Climate Change'


4. There's also the 'Sneaky' imaging which Rudd and Gillard did so well a couple of months ago

and others.


You left off the broken promise . JH promised "TRUST ME". He has let us down on AWB, David Hicks, Interest Rates, Honesty ...see Children o/b, The Australian Way...see dogs and balaclavas against the stevedores.


Back to the bad old days of union control once the über-leftists like Gillard and Tanner demand their pound of flesh. Rudd is doing the usual mendacious leftist "campaign to the middle, govern to the left" dance.

Yes, there will be union influences. You left off Jack Munday and his role in preserving building heritages, and the Union support for the asbestos cases. Was this accidental by you?


I'm not privy to your research. I assume you're talking about the swinging voters. I certainly don't hold the opinion you ascribe, and I'm fairly certain the lifer lefties don't believe Howard is mediocre - they loathe everything (they think) he stands for.

But lifer lefties are rusted on to the ALP. That is not the subset of your post 1?


The second reason is that this thread was intended to be a balanced commentary on the perception of the parties as opposed to each party's merits.

Excellent. The concentration on perception.


Real jobs have increased:
[B]Real wages have also increased:.

These are the coincidental stats, maybe even facts, not necessarily the front of house perceptions though.




The Labor government's stated plans on IR, (previous plans on roll-back), the hopeless ripping of the Future Fund for Broadband and a maniacal obsession with skills training are 4 areas where the well-intentioned lefties can cock-up the un-cock-up-able.



Obviously comments made before the LNC bidding for votes campaign.


Originally Posted by pax
1. What's wrong with skills training?

Coz it's a fluffy duck.

[B]PART 1
This country has more than enough TAFEs, colleges, courses and who knows what, both free and paid to service 100 countries.


We don't need any more bloody institutions and skill trainers!


What's wrong with Skills Training?
We don't need more skills training. It's a mantra. I believe it is one of your (the left's) straw men.
Obviously comments made before the LNC bidding for votes campaign.




Also caught the first (that I've seen anyway) salvo in (what may well be mutual) negative advertising from Labor. John Howard in monochrome with the blood red interest rates rises noted on the screen. 5 of them. The thrust is that Howard is a liar. This on top of Rudd's repetitive (kicked off in Parliament last week) "Which do you regret more on interest rates? Making the promise, or failing to keep it?" Of course, the only promise that Howard made was that the country would be better off under the Libs. The Labor argument would be destroyed by manga or any 3 years old, but that's politics and I know it goes both ways.

I think it will play well. Certainly a proportion of voters (rightly or wrongly) believe Labor are more likely to be the cause of higher interest rates than under a coalition. But this campaign, I believe, will assuage quite a number into diluting that opinion. Coupled with the housing crisis, I think its feasible that Labor can all but negate this fear among swinging voters.

A new candidate of perceptions to be added to the list of 4 that begun this thread.
A fear campaign. If we applied the Prime Minister's absolution of a fear campaign "just a stating the facts", then this candidate will stand or fall by the evidence of two nights of 2004 television LNC adverts".


Yes. Ummm ... James. You've only just got here and it's already a '... never mind' moment ... I need to go and collect myself. I'll be back to address this tosh and I reckon I can be civil at the same time ;)



EDIT: I'm going to bed now anyway, got to engage in more BS... I mean economics... come 8.45am tomorrow. I'll return to this thread in the morning...


So... where do people think we're headed now? JWH et al appear confident that they can make history and turn around a 14-20% polling deficit.. after all, the electorate is just having a joke with them.

Right?
Candidate perception number 6.
The voting population is just having a joke.

so its simply a matter of the electrorate tiring of the same old leader,rather than as a response to material differences?


And a seventh candidate.


And he hardly has any new policies; just "me too". Well, if the Coalition's policies are good enough fror KRudd to copy, then why change the government at all?

And why is KRudd so keen to protray himself as an economic conservative? So he can campaign to the right then govern to the left, just like most dishonest lefties. Professor Sinclair Davidson and Alex Robson are about the likely impact of Ruddonomics (http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/ruddonomics_is_going_to_hurt/):


(A) closer look at Mr. Rudd’s record reveals that he’s not a reformer, but rather an unreconstructed interventionist masquerading as a free market conservative…

In practice, a Labor government under Mr. Rudd would re-regulate economic life. Over the past year he has promised to set up no fewer than 68 new bureaucracies and establish 96 reviews if elected. He promises to ratify the Kyoto Protocol and commit Australia to a costly program of reducing its greenhouse gas emissions to 60% of 2000 levels by 2050. His proposed industry policy—constructed by Kim Carr, a declared socialist—would create an uberbureaucracy of 12 Industry Innovation Councils. The goal, it seems, is to promote manufacturing by “picking winners"—a policy with an appalling track record of failure both in Australia and elsewhere. To round things off, Mr. Rudd’s labor-market policy promises to abolish individual workplace agreements and to restore union power over policy making to its former glory.


Give me some actual reasons that the country would be better off under Labor, not just visceral Howard hatred. I suppose you voted Latham as well? :lol:

This was a thread on perceptions, has anyone claimed that there is much of a policy differences that will influence voters? (Maybe the climate and IR).


No, trying to remind people that the election is a choice between two actual alternatives, not between the incumbent and a non-existent ideal. So it makes sense to vote against Howard (indirectly) only if you think that the Opposition would do a better job.

Or if the populus thinks the Opposition can be trusted.


James, interestingly (for me), apart from your little list of nothings for which you hang Howard (and not cited 'personal reasons'), you haven't listed any reason for voting Labor as taken from their manifesto :wall:

You're not alone though. Half the country has the same idea as you (albeit largely made up of freshmen straight out of school) :wall:

And you wonder why Howard, Jon and the rest of us just shake our heads.

Go on, give me a giggle. What is your favourite Rudd policy?

Why should the election be about policy. JH said “Trust me” in 2004 and the population has found out it cannot trust him. Thus, why listen to policy announcements?


Acting Chief of the Defence Force, Angus Houston (now current Chief), informed Minister for Defence Peter Reith by telephone at around midday on 7 November 2001 that "there was nothing to suggest that women and children had been thrown into the water". You can check the Senate Estimates report if you don't believe me.

Now...

Howard, prior to addressing the National Press Club, contacted Reith on the evening of 7 November to check the facts. Howard admitted this occurred in Parliament (check Hansard, 14 February 2002).

Howard addressed the National Press Club on 8 November 2001, and claimed that children were being thrown overboard.

The election was held two days later.
Game over for TRUST.


For the sake of argument, let's just accept Howard as guilty of electioneering and lying and everything.

My question to you (and all leftys) is, on a scale of 1 -10, how much do you rate this event (from 6 years ago, and a mantra for all seasons, and why not) as reason for voting the government out? I would also appreciate a statement providing an issue to which you would attribute a parallel weight, say the 'sorry' issue or the greenhouse issue or the unemployment issue or the Hawke cheating on his wife issue.

My reason for asking is, if in fact Howard was culpable (and for the sake of argument I am), I'm dumbfounded at the store that is rafted to this. I genuinely would appreciate edification.

The children overboard was not the only exposed lie though.
You asked in the first post why the perceptions are as they are for the population.
The answer to your question is lack of trust.
Clearly the population has moved this to top of voting intentions


1) The time for change catches up with every long term government, regardless of creed.
2) Kevin is a darling. I've got young girls running round my office with Kevin shirts who haven't the faintest idea why - they just think he's cute. Hawke had the same effect on the blue rinse set.
3) I feel Howard was out of touch (wrong) with the reconciliation affair.
4) Howard's green policy (which I support) has entirely failed to have resonance. He's simply lost that one to a headline. I am having similar difficulty in the publishing business. Fascinating marketing exercise - coz that's all it is.
5) Scare campaign on WorkChoices - another headline.
6) And ultimately, Kevin just keeps his nose clean, doesn't say or do anything of any note - he just doesn't foul up. Kevin has adopted the me-too stance to perfection.
A good strategy.

Add the TRUST thing


To this point in time the LNC have campaigned on all the old bogies and all the old shibboleths, except the TRUST thing. Is that not odd? Or does LNC polling show this is the core perception problem. 56 percent of the population do not believe JH. The man who campaigned on TRUST in 2004 is now perceived to be not trustworthy.

Gunner dredges up Hawke’s poverty line and the bosses are bums line, but the voters perception was that he should be given some licence or slack.

But the Liberals have reached the Tipping point. TRUST is gone.
It may well be the only thing that Rudd has.
Thus making the Garret gaffe the only mistake that could lose the unloseable.

Southpaw Jim
03-11-2007, 11:01 PM
Jono, I was going to reply to post #351, but I've been sick for 2 days and I can't be bothered. I think we're running 'round a mobius strip anyway ;) :P

On the Garrett thing, a blunder and no more. A 2 day puff piece, and quite obviously a badly thought-out joke - but, hey - if you want to believe it truly is evidence of the Socialist-revolution-by-stealth, go for it... ;) all I can say is, I hope the likes of Costello go hard on it and over-egg the pudding, like he did on the Brian Burke thing :owned:

My 2c on causes:

- too many breaches of trust, as mentioned by snowyriverman (welcome aboard!);
- it's time.

More learned people than I have pointed out that the Libs primary vote has been on a serious decline since the 2004 election (ie PRE-Rudd), and it seems that voters have been looking for change for a while now - it's just that Rudd has provided the catalyst in the electoral reaction for change. I think people were ready for a change in 2004, but didn' like/trust Latham.

In addition, this government has 11 years of baggage (kinda back to the trust thing), whereas Rudd - electorally - has a clean slate.

I haven't written off Coward yet, but if he pulls it off it will be the comeback of Australian political history.

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2007, 12:05 AM
Jono, I was going to reply to post #351, but I've been sick for 2 days
Hope you feel better.


On the Garrett thing, a blunder and no more.
Let's have some consistency then. No point whinging about Abbott's gaffe's but ignoring equal or worse ones by your lot.


A 2 day puff piece, and quite obviously a badly thought-out joke — but, hey — if you want to believe it truly is evidence of the Socialist-revolution-by-stealth, go for it... ;)
The best evidence that they plan a sharp tilt leftwards is that so many lefties and unionists are looking forward to a Labor victory.


In addition, this government has 11 years of baggage
I rather like a lot of its baggage: low interest rates while paying off a home (even now), lowest unemployment in decades, "black armband" revisionist view of Aussie history on the backburner instead of being shoved down our throats.

For example, On the contrary, from May 2005 to May 2007, over 500,000 jobs have been created, including over 400,000 full-time jobs. And from March 1996 to March quarter 2007, real wages increased 20.8%, cf. a drop of 1.8% from March 1983-March 1996 under the previous Labor government. Since Howard's new IR laws, real wages have increased by 2.4% (March quarter 2006 to March quarter 2007).


(kinda back to the trust thing), whereas Rudd — electorally — has a clean slate.
Not necessarily in QLD! I've mentioned the Wolfdene Dam cancellation before, and that might count against the man nicknamed "Dr Death" in this state as Brisbane faces water restrictions. See also Rudd's Goss history a voter turnoff: KEVIN Rudd's background as a Queensland bureaucrat is causing some voters in his home state to hesitate when considering whether to vote Labor. (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22689011-11949,00.html)

Kevin Bonham
04-11-2007, 12:45 PM
Any psephelogical commentary appearing in the Australian needs to be taken with some degree of salt as the paper seems to be getting its jollies from spinning opinion poll findings the Coalition's way even when most of the evidence suggests otherwise.

I exempt from the above any commentary by Dennis Shanahan, which should simply be ignored entirely. :hand:

Kevin Bonham
04-11-2007, 01:19 PM
Another minor party contesting this election that may be of some interest to me in the Senate is the Secular Party (http://www.secular.org.au/secular.php). :D

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2007, 01:49 PM
Bob Brown interview (http://www.liberal.org.au/info/news/detail/20071104_AcrossAustraliaBobBrownInterviewwithCharl esWooley.php):


I know but I know what Peter is saying, he’s saying to blokes, to people of green persuasion or to others, or even to some journos, he’s saying ‘mate what we say now and what we do then could be two different things’, now you know he’s been putting that out.

No wonder lefties, unions and "public servant" types (all part of the same mindset) are so keen for a Labor win. And you can be sure that Comrade Gillardova and the 70% Unionist front bench didn't work so hard for victory so they could become Coalition-Lite.

Southpaw Jim
04-11-2007, 02:29 PM
Viva la revolucion!! :owned:

Southpaw Jim
04-11-2007, 02:31 PM
I exempt from the above any commentary by Dennis Shanahan, which should simply be ignored entirely. :hand:

Amazingly, I think in his last foray, Shamahan managed to discover the concept of "margin of error".

He'll be talking about trends next! :wall: :whistle:

Capablanca-Fan
04-11-2007, 02:33 PM
Viva la revolucion!! :owned:
At least you're admitting it now, instead of pretending to deny the obvious fact that the Unionists and other lefties love Labor for a reason, and this reason is not simply a continuation of most of the Coalition's policies :P

Spiny Norman
05-11-2007, 07:36 AM
I recall an election in VIC back in the 80's where I very nearly voted Labor (in the Cain+Kirner years). I fully intended to vote for them. If polled the day before, I would have said "I'm voting Labor". But when I got to the polling booth, I just couldn't bring myself to do it. It will be no surprise to me if, on polling day, there is a major swing back to the Coalition. In my estimation they've gotten plenty wrong, but not yet enough to warrant being thrown out. I can understand plenty of people not agreeing with me of course. I guess we'll all know in 3 weeks' time.

Southpaw Jim
05-11-2007, 01:14 PM
It will be no surprise to me if, on polling day, there is a major swing back to the Coalition. In my estimation they've gotten plenty wrong, but not yet enough to warrant being thrown out. I can understand plenty of people not agreeing with me of course. I guess we'll all know in 3 weeks' time.

I don't see it happening - historically, the polls at the beginning of the campaign (barring some major gaffe) are usually pretty close to the election result, ie the official campaign normally makes no difference. I'd expect that there will be some small narrowing over the next 3 weeks, and the result will (barring any major f#$kup by Rudd) be around 52/53% to Labor. I'm not aware of any previous election where the populace has had a change of heart en masse.

Mind you, this election could be history in the making: either a massive electoral volte face after 9-12 months of very solid polling for Labor :eek: OR the polls hold where they are and we have a landslide of epic proportions :owned:

The next week of polling will be interesting - Johnny's trying to own the interest rate rise in some weird weird way, suggesting that he's not to blame for inflation. Newspoll on Tuesday 10th will be very telling as to whether this and the "uncertain economic times ahead" line will do anything for the Libs. I suspect not :hmm:

Kevin Bonham
05-11-2007, 04:13 PM
I don't see it happening - historically, the polls at the beginning of the campaign (barring some major gaffe) are usually pretty close to the election result, ie the official campaign normally makes no difference.

There have been a couple of cases where the difference from start of campaign to end has been as great as 5 points in the last half dozen or so elections. But there is no sign of that much difference happening here as yet.

Davidflude
05-11-2007, 10:38 PM
I have just been looking at the ABC election website. To me it looks like the coalition will have a majority after the election.

If Labour wins in the lower house then we can expect a double dissolution election just as soon as

the following bills are rejected by the Senate

- fixing workchoices

- reenfranchising young people

They run a workchoices campaign

"People tell you have no rights under workchoices. This is not true. You have

<expleted deleted> rights.

They get a QC to run a royal commision to see

1) If David Hicks was tortured (under the Geneva Convention definition).

2) Did the Australian Government do all it could to ensure that he had a fair trial.

They appoint Kim Beazley as Ambassador to the USA and the mad monk as ambassador to the Holy See.

They cancel the order for US aircraft and replace them with mig 35 aircraft for half the price.

They alter the flight paths for aircraft flying into Sydney so that they fly over
Liberal electorates instead of Labour ones.

Capablanca-Fan
05-11-2007, 11:31 PM
I have just been looking at the ABC election website. To me it looks like the coalition will have a majority after the election.
I'd trust KB's predictions over the ABC's (unfortunately), but maybe there will be a Latham Moment. But maybe Garrett's admission that Labor has no intention of keeping Rudd's "me too" promises was that. Also, national polls are not as important as polls in individual seats.


If Labour wins in the lower house then we can expect a double dissolution election just as soon as

the following bills are rejected by the Senate
What if they are not rejected entirely but the Senate forces a compromise? Much like the Dems did with the GST (unfortunately).

Kevin Bonham
05-11-2007, 11:51 PM
I'd trust KB's predictions over the ABC's (unfortunately), but maybe there will be a Latham Moment.

I think Fludey's comment there was confined to the Senate.

I think there is a strong chance the Coalition will be just short of a Senate majority after this election. They may well hold exactly half the seats, or half minus one or two. This is why the Xenephon thing in SA is so interesting, as if he is elected he could end up holding the balance of power with Fielding.


What if they are not rejected entirely but the Senate forces a compromise? Much like the Dems did with the GST (unfortunately).

The government can just keep re-introducing the same bill if it is willing to go to an election over the issue. The Libs were not willing to go to an election over minor details of the GST once it became clear the Dems might support it.

By the way, in Tassie there are no Democrats standing at all this year!

Davidflude
06-11-2007, 06:53 PM
I did not realize that the Libs are likely to lose their Senate seat in the ACT. This could mean that whoever wins the lower house election has to negotiate with the Senate.

Davidflude
06-11-2007, 06:55 PM
Big piece of anti Rudd scandal in a Sydney paper on Friday.

Davidflude
06-11-2007, 06:58 PM
Night of the long knives to wipe out the Rodent after the election whether he wins loses or draws. Costello is not the next leader.

Kevin Bonham
06-11-2007, 07:04 PM
I did not realize that the Libs are likely to lose their Senate seat in the ACT.

"Likely" is a bit of an exaggeration by some.

It's possible. If the Libs fail to poll one-third of the vote they can get done over by Labor and the Greens on preferences.

Southpaw Jim
06-11-2007, 09:06 PM
Big piece of anti Rudd scandal in a Sydney paper on Friday.
The Crikey rumour? Unlikely to be momentous, if it was explosive it would've been brought out well before now I think.


Night of the long knives to wipe out the Rodent after the election whether he wins loses or draws. Costello is not the next leader.
This is more credible IMO. Also, won't be good for the Rodent et al if rumours about this work their way into the mainstream consciousness during the campaign...

Axiom
06-11-2007, 09:20 PM
. Costello is not the next leader.
If that happens he will feel like spitting the dummy ala latham but no doubt will simply revert to programming and grin and bear it.
Could be some slightly vicarious schaudenfreudian humour in witnessing him recieve the bad news. (not that, im into that, or anything..)

Kevin Bonham
06-11-2007, 09:24 PM
Night of the long knives to wipe out the Rodent after the election whether he wins loses or draws. Costello is not the next leader.

Another version is Rodent to resign soon after the election if he wins it (possibly to avoid said carnage.)

Basil
06-11-2007, 09:25 PM
Night of the long knives to wipe out the Rodent after the election whether he wins loses or draws. Costello is not the next leader.

This is more credible IMO. Also, won't be good for the Rodent et al if rumours about this work their way into the mainstream consciousness during the campaign...

Please take this excitable sog to The Axiom Report :D

Axiom
06-11-2007, 09:39 PM
Please take this excitable sog to The Axiom Report :D
yes, we welcome all independant free thinkers there ;)

pax
07-11-2007, 10:42 AM
I did not realize that the Libs are likely to lose their Senate seat in the ACT. This could mean that whoever wins the lower house election has to negotiate with the Senate.

Which is the way it always worked in the past..

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2007, 11:56 AM
Which is the way it always worked in the past..
It worked best in 1975 :evil: :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2007, 12:29 PM
Quotas beget only second-rate girls (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22715142-7583,00.html)
Janet Albrechtsen
7 November 2007

JULIA Gillard says we are not ready for a female prime minister. Perhaps that makes her feel better, as she positions herself for second prize as deputy leader. But she is wrong to demean the electorate, suggesting we are too backward to countenance a female in the top job. When the right female comes along, it will happen. What we are not ready for is Gillard as PM.

Gillard's problem is not one of gender. It's closer to home than that. Gillard's problem is Gillard. And the Labor hardheads knew she would become Labor's problem if elevated to the leadership in late 2006.

Gillard, from the party's left faction and with close ties to the union movement, was not the acceptable face of Labor. After a decade of John Howard drawing blue-collar workers and a raft of non-union types over to the conservative side, Labor chose safely and wisely in Rudd. It chose someone best placed to convince voters, in a period of economic prosperity, to try a nice safe pair of Labor hands.

...

Of course, dangling Rudd, the conservative family man, in front of voters has helped Labor's cause. But the real problem with Gillard is deeper than that. It's about her long history of left-wing politics, her anti-American sentiments, her failure on key policy fronts such as the disastrous Medicare Gold.

The ALP's leadership judgment has proved correct. Rudd cleverly promised to be an "economic conservative", his longstanding support of the US alliance was a matter of record and he had no strong union ties, even struggling to recall the union of which he was a member. While Rudd was trying to win over business, his new deputy leader, Gillard, was threatening to punish them if they stepped into the election campaign. And would Gillard have slapped down union bad boys, men such as Joe McDonald, as Rudd has? Not likely. She was too busy working with Greg Combet, writing the industrial relations policy demanded by the ACTU, a policy Rudd had to emasculate to make it saleable.

...

Women have been governor in South Australia, and women are governors in Queensland and NSW. Sure, no woman has been PM yet, but the right one has not arrived on the federal political scene. Indeed, women the world over have reached the highest office. There are female presidents in Ireland, Finland, The Philippines, Chile and Switzerland. Germany has a female PM. Is Gillard seriously suggesting Australian voters are more backward on the gender front than, say, Sri Lanka, India, Israel, Dominica, Norway, Pakistan or Bangladesh, which have elected female leaders? Or Poland, Turkey, Senegal, Mozambique, South Korea or Yugoslavia, countries that have also had women in the top job? Give me a break.

Labor's problem is its self-conscious obsession with gender issues, urging quotas and affirmative action to get women into parliament. This won't attract the right women into parliament. This will attract second-raters, rent-seekers after a saloon passage, not the women who want to succeed on merit. It's those with merit who have the best chance of rising to the highest office.

In stodgy old Britain, Margaret Thatcher rose to the top, dominating British and world politics for a decade, leaving a legacy that most male prime ministers can only dream about. In New Zealand, Helen Clark has similarly dominated politics. Not because she had the right chromosomes but because she had the right stuff, a mix of astute political skills and sensible policies that has cemented her stranglehold over NZ politics.

It is the stuff that Gillard is not made of. At least not yet. But that is not the fault of the Australian electorate. When the right woman comes along with the right political skills and policy nous that matches the aspirations and expectations of the Australian electorate, she will rightly claim the prime ministership. It will have nothing to do with the female chromosome, and everything to do with the fact voters are clever enough to choose the right person.

Southpaw Jim
07-11-2007, 12:52 PM
So Janet doesn't like Julia. So what?

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2007, 12:58 PM
So Janet doesn't like Julia. So what?
Nothing to do with like or dislike, but the mediocrity that results from affirmative action jobs, all around the world.

Southpaw Jim
07-11-2007, 01:39 PM
So Julia got her job as Deputy through 'affirmative action'? :lol: and, if 'affirmative action' is so bad, where are all the star female performers in the Liberal Party? Julie Bishop? Don't make me laugh.

Gillard is one of the better performers, both in the ALP and compared to any LNP MPs. She regularly makes the likes of Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott look like the dills they are, and is a strong Parliamentary performer to boot. I say this objectively, not as an ALP voter.

The point is, is that Albrechtson (every NeoCon's right-wing hack of choice) has taken one statement from Gillard, probably out of context anyway, and spun it into an entire character assassination predicated on the implied assumption that Gillard actually wants to be PM. The article is as objective as Albrechtson herself. Boring.

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2007, 01:56 PM
So Julia got her job as Deputy through 'affirmative action'? :lol: and, if 'affirmative action' is so bad, where are all the star female performers in the Liberal Party? Julie Bishop? Don't make me laugh.
That's the whole point: the liberal party promotes on merit, not quotas. So if there are no star female performers, they won't be promoted on the basis of their sex. They actually have to perform.


Gillard is one of the better performers, both in the ALP and compared to any LNP MPs. She regularly makes the likes of Joe Hockey and Tony Abbott look like the dills they are, and is a strong Parliamentary performer to boot. I say this objectively, not as an ALP voter.
Yeah, right. Yet there are hardly any Gillard-type policies being promoted, just "me too" from Rudd.


The point is, is that Albrechtson (every NeoCon's right-wing hack of choice)
You mean a woman who doesn't spruik the politically correct, black armband, feminist rubbish pushed in the educratic system and the Leftmedia? To a feminist, a woman has any choice she wants—except to be conservative. Similarly, American blacks apparently have no right to be conservative, hence the crude racist attacks on Condi Rice and the odious smear campaign against Justice Thomas.


has taken one statement from Gillard, probably out of context anyway, and spun it into an entire character assassination predicated on the implied assumption that Gillard actually wants to be PM. The article is as objective as Albrechtson herself. Boring.
And lefties like you are the epitomes of objectivity. Yawn, stretch.

Basil
07-11-2007, 04:16 PM
That's the whole point: the liberal party promotes on merit, not quotas.
Basic concept. Of course. Unfortunately DOES. NOT. COMPUTE. WITH. LEFTIES. All walks of life :wall:

Aaron Guthrie
07-11-2007, 04:35 PM
Basic concept. Of course. Unfortunately DOES. NOT. COMPUTE. WITH. LEFTIES. All walks of life :wall:Hey, what you got against the left-handed of the population?

pax
07-11-2007, 06:00 PM
The only thing that was "affirmative action" about Gillard's appointment was that she is left faction vs Rudd's right. Gender had nothing to do with it, beyond any perceived electoral advantages.

Capablanca-Fan
07-11-2007, 06:31 PM
Lefties oppose the freedom to engage in capitalist acts between consenting adults. :P

snowyriverman
08-11-2007, 10:13 AM
At least you're admitting it now, instead of pretending to deny the obvious fact that the Unionists and other lefties love Labor for a reason, and this reason is not simply a continuation of most of the Coalition's policies :P
Yes this is an obvious fact.

Adam
08-11-2007, 10:15 AM
Down and out with Howard, a new start thank God.

Adam
08-11-2007, 10:18 AM
Lefties oppose the freedom to engage in capitalist acts between consenting adults. :P

Bull dust, what stone have you been under.

snowyriverman
08-11-2007, 10:21 AM
Quotas beget only second-rate girls (http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,22715142-7583,00.html)[long quote snipped-mod]


Succession planning. Are you suggesting the ALP should adopt the LNC model?

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2007, 10:59 AM
Succession planning. Are you suggesting the ALP should adopt the LNC model?
Yes: appoint by merit not gender quota, and select members locally unlike Labor's centralized unionist selection.

Under Labor, Australia was portrayed as a racist, sexist country, which is crap. Albrechtsen's article was dealing with the latter charge.

Basil
08-11-2007, 11:22 AM
Down and out with Howard, a new start thank God.
What do you look forward to, Adam?

If you elect to go the Rudd-like answer by listing things you dislike about Howard, fine - but the briefest of encounters with Rudd's policy initiatives would be welcome and certainly on point (and it will have to be brief ;)).

What is this new start you speak of?

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2007, 03:30 PM
Rudd wants to create over 60 more government bureaucracies. And we all know how efficient they are, right? :lol: When a private company stuffs up, it loses money. But when a bureaucracy screws up, they claim that they need MORE money (coerced from taxpayers).

Here's a recent article (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/LarryElder/2007/11/08/government_if_it_aint_broke,_theyll_break_it?page= full&comments=true) about how government stuffs up airport security (confiscating water bottles but missing test bombs), charity (failed and misdirected loans), health (tens of thousands of Britons seek health care abroad because of the long waiting lists due to their socialized medicine), and an employer being unable to hire a 50th employer because much higher government costs kick in.

pax
08-11-2007, 03:48 PM
Rudd wants to create over 60 more government bureaucracies. And we all know how efficient they are, right? :lol: When a private company stuffs up, it loses money. But when a bureaucracy screws up, they claim that they need MORE money (coerced from taxpayers).

You quote this "60 more bureaucracies" thing frequently. Where is your source? And how come Howard never mentions it?

Not to mention that Howard wants to setup a new bureaucracy for every hospital in Australia.

Capablanca-Fan
08-11-2007, 04:06 PM
You quote this "60 more bureaucracies" thing frequently. Where is your source? I can't remember, but here is a list (http://www.edmorrison.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=37).


And how come Howard never mentions it?
Argument from silence.


Not to mention that Howard wants to setup a new bureaucracy for every hospital in Australia.
You mean overcome the current State Labor policy of employing more and more bureaucrats while the number of doctors and nurses stay the same. See post #221.

pax
08-11-2007, 06:22 PM
Where is your source? I can't remember, but here is a list (http://www.edmorrison.com.au/news/default.asp?action=article&ID=37).


So one person counts as a bureaucracy now (e.g Chief Nursing Officer)? I wonder how many on that list are parroting Government promises (e.g National Curriculum Board)?

Davidflude
10-11-2007, 11:23 AM
that's the whole point: the liberal party promotes on merit, not quotas.

Was Amand Panda appointed on merit?

Was Helen Coonan appointed on merit?

Was Alexander Downer appointed on merit?

The Liberal party has a very real quota system. The quota of the wets for Cabinet positions is zero, irrespective of their ability.

Davidflude
10-11-2007, 11:27 AM
The latest polls seem to indicate that the result will be a banzai pipeline wipeout for the coalition. (For those who do not know about such things the pipeline breaks over a coral reef. Wipeouts tend to be fearsome as surfers can hit the coral.)

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2007, 11:40 AM
The 62-38 from Morgan is not credible but the 56-44 from Nielsen is. The Coalition has not yet got one single poll better than 53-47.

Spiny Norman
10-11-2007, 03:15 PM
I'm being selfish and hoping for a Coalition win. If they win our chess club will be the beneficiary of funding to the Croydon RSL for a major refurbishment, which will in turn provide us with a long-term (perhaps permanent) home right in the heart of Croydon. :cool:

Garvinator
10-11-2007, 03:47 PM
I'm being selfish and hoping for a Coalition win. If they win our chess club will be the beneficiary of funding to the Croydon RSL for a major refurbishment, which will in turn provide us with a long-term (perhaps permanent) home right in the heart of Croydon. :cool:
Would you be hoping for a Labor win if they had made this promise and not the Coalition?

Spiny Norman
10-11-2007, 05:18 PM
Would you be hoping for a Labor win if they had made this promise and not the Coalition?
Putting my chess club president's hat on firmly ... if Labor had made the promise of funding and the Coalition didn't ... then yes, I would be hoping they'd win.

Capablanca-Fan
10-11-2007, 08:20 PM
Was Amand Panda appointed on merit?

Was Helen Coonan appointed on merit?
Not as a token female, anyway. She does belong with Labor though with her love for government regulation.


Was Alexander Downer appointed on merit?
Yes.


The Liberal party has a very real quota system. The quota of the wets for Cabinet positions is zero, irrespective of their ability.
Of course: the proper place for a wet liberal is the Labor Party!

Kevin Bonham
10-11-2007, 09:05 PM
Of course: the proper place for a wet liberal is the Labor Party!

More likely the Australian Democrats, except that they are more or less dead.

If the Coalition is walloped really hugely at this election I wouldn't be too surprised to see its miniscule leftish wing have another go at forming a centre party.

pax
13-11-2007, 10:45 AM
It's amazing to watch both leaders try to outflank each other. Kevin Rudd is falling over himself trying to look like an economic conservative, while John Howard is throwing cash at Health, Education and Child Care as though he's channeling Whitlam..

snowyriverman
13-11-2007, 12:59 PM
Yes: appoint by merit not gender quota, and select members locally unlike Labor's centralized unionist selection.

Under Labor, Australia was portrayed as a racist, sexist country, which is crap. Albrechtsen's article was dealing with the latter charge.

What you describe now is recruitment process and recruitment planning.
My question was directed at the succession planning of Howard to Costello.

snowyriverman
13-11-2007, 01:06 PM
A reversal of the truth. Enterprise bargaining by definition releases wages from constraint. Fewer workers are unionists, and the non-union workers generally have higher wages.
There is a contrary view that enterprise bargaining put a circuit-breaker into the leap-frog wage rises under the preceding centralised system.



For those employed, anyway. There were 1 million unemployed under Keating, while now there is the lowest rate of unemployment for three decades.
True.



I've already given you better solutions: abolish housing ban open space laws and state stamp duties, and introduce a low flat tax in return for abolishing negative gearing, since that is only worthwhile because the highest marginal tax rates are so punitive. And CGT must take into account inflation somehow.

Can't be a good solution otherwise the LNC would have rolled out this as an idea.

Capablanca-Fan
13-11-2007, 01:14 PM
Can't be a good solution otherwise the LNC would have rolled out this as an idea.
Argument from silence, and also forgets that housing policies are a matter for the States not the Federal Government. The state LNC organizations are crap.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2007, 10:38 AM
11 long years — reality check (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKTvjs1NTc0)! If Howard is so bad, why is Rudd copying most of his policies? If today's interest rates are so bad, why are they still lower than at any time of the last three Labor PMs? And more.

Davidflude
14-11-2007, 11:09 AM
If today's interest rates are so bad, why are they still lower than at any time of the last three Labor PMs? And more.
They are lower than when Howard was treasurer. However two more rises are expected in December and January.

The thing to remember is that when first elected the government took action on capital gains tax and negative gearing that lead to speculative buying of properties. This coupled with the securitisation of mortgages has lead to property prices going through the roof. Personally I believe that Costello was asleep at the wheel and did nothing to head off trouble at the pass. As a result we have property prices that are absurdly high, a vast increase in national debt and potential trouble.

It is not as bad as in the US. I read about where property developments have been built in the woop woops next to golf courses. First there are mortgage forcloses. Then the thieves steal all the copper wiring. They do not steal the white goods as the market for stolen whitegoods has collapsed. Next the squatters move in. Finally families of bears move in. Meanwhile the issuers of the mortgages do their dough cold.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2007, 11:43 AM
They are lower than when Howard was treasurer. However two more rises are expected in December and January.
Yes, we all know about the idiotic government of that loser Fraser. But now this old has-been is a media darling despite the failures of his own leadership, simply because of his insane jealousy of Howard's success.


The thing to remember is that when first elected the government took action on capital gains tax and negative gearing that lead to speculative buying of properties.
Both of these were in effect already. The Libs changed CGT to simplify it from the previous indexation system, and to encourage ownership for at least a year, that's all. What would be grossly unfair is to charge CGT on the profit in bald numerical figures even if there was no profit in real terms after inflation.

As for negative gearing, the Libs' lowering of the highest tax rates has made it LESS worthwhile than before.

Meanwhile, all of this removes blame for the State Labor governments raking in enormous stamp duties. So they have an incentive to keep property prices high by restricting land usage.


This coupled with the securitisation of mortgages has lead to property prices going through the roof. Personally I believe that Costello was asleep at the wheel and did nothing to head off trouble at the pass. As a result we have property prices that are absurdly high, a vast increase in national debt and potential trouble.
As Gunner pointed out IIRC, the whingers would have whinged if Costello HAD done something, e.g. restrict the loans to lower income people. But this would limit home ownership for the poor (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/StarParker/2007/11/12/how_to_limit_home_ownership_for_the_poor).

Basil
14-11-2007, 12:05 PM
As Gunner pointed out IIRC, the whingers would have whinged if Costello HAD done something, e.g. restrict the loans to lower income people. But this would limit home ownership for the poor (http://www.townhall.com/Columnists/StarParker/2007/11/12/how_to_limit_home_ownership_for_the_poor).
I did, but not only that, David Flude's suggestions of retrospective "Labour wouldn't have presided over such a thing" or similarly themed reasons for attacking the Howard government's stance on this issue is arrant nonsense.

Where was Flude or Rudd or any other half-baked commentator 3-5 years ago while this housing situation was cooking saying "whatever you do, don't give ready loans to the lower socio-economic bands" or "whatever you do, don't let the developers sell these cheap house and land packages in whoop whoop to new couples"?

Answer? Nowhere.
Reason? Because the self-serving smug bastard after-the-fact dribble that Rudd (and now David Flude and half of Australia who is now trying to give itself a crash course in ideas that have passed them by all their lives) and his limp-wristed, inward-looking, clue-free, economic, lily-white zombies are trotting out is shallow, ill-conceived, unsubstantiated, self-serving crap! like every other bloody economic utterance of theirs.

pax
14-11-2007, 12:12 PM
11 long years — reality check (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKTvjs1NTc0)! If Howard is so bad, why is Rudd copying most of his policies? If today's interest rates are so bad, why are they still lower than at any time of the last three Labor PMs? And more.

It's happening both ways now. If Rudd is so bad, why is Howard copying his policies? I wonder what Jono thinks about Howard's handing out of $9bn (extorted from tax payers of course) on schools, child-care and first home buyers?

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2007, 12:18 PM
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, net household wealth has increased by 14 per cent from 2003-04, from $494,346 to $562,854. So Howard is right that, on average, Australian working families have never been better off.

And the problems with allegedly unaffordable housing are often due to many people with expectations too high, wanting a first home much bigger than the first home their parents or grandparents owned. So they abandoned financial responsibility, e.g. making sure they could afford the repayments if the rates were increased by 2% (more than the total of the interest rate rises under Howard). So they put themselves into debt to buy bigger homes than they can afford—and THIS is a major factor in driving up house prices because of all this extra money pouring into the housing market.

pax
14-11-2007, 12:36 PM
Where was Flude or Rudd or any other half-baked commentator 3-5 years ago while this housing situation was cooking saying "whatever you do, don't give ready loans to the lower socio-economic bands" or "whatever you do, don't let the developers sell these cheap house and land packages in whoop whoop to new couples"?

Neither has mentioned either of those two things.

As far as I can tell, what you just described are (some of) the causes of the US housing crisis. The Australian housing crisis is completely different, both in cause and effect.

pax
14-11-2007, 12:39 PM
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, net household wealth has increased by 14 per cent from 2003-04, from $494,346 to $562,854. So Howard is right that, on average, Australian working families have never been better off.

It's a completely meaningless increase in wealth if it comes from the increase in value of the house that you already live in. On the other hand, if you don't own a house and want to buy, your prospective financial situation has become considerably worse by the spike in house prices, even if that is not reflected by the statistics you quote..

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2007, 12:40 PM
It's happening both ways now. If Rudd is so bad, why is Howard copying his policies? I wonder what Jono thinks about Howard's handing out of $9bn (extorted from tax payers of course) on schools, child-care and first home buyers?
Not very highly. You should know by now that I am libertarian in economic policy. All the same, Chairman Rudd is so much "me too" that it's a joke, and it's most unlikely that the powerful Labor Leftists like Comrade Gillardova would allow it once safely in power.

pax
14-11-2007, 12:45 PM
And the problems with allegedly unaffordable housing are often due to many people with expectations too high, wanting a first home much bigger than the first home their parents or grandparents owned.

Allegedly? Have you any idea what it costs to buy *any* house today compared with 10 or 20 years ago? In Perth, the median house price has doubled in three years. In the same time, wages have increased by maybe 10%. How can you possibly deny that houses have become less affordable?!?

Basil
14-11-2007, 12:49 PM
Neither has mentioned either of those two things.
Indeed. And that is exactly the point. If it was all so obvious to Flude and Rudd while Howard was asleep at the wheel [mindless chant ad nauseam - insert favourite hobby horse], why wasn't Rudd or Flude forewarning us? Reason? Harder to pick than a broken nose. Does that stop Rudd or Flude lambasting the government or calling it asleep at the wheel? No. Double-hypocritical-after-the-fact, self-serving, transparent, standard - all easily gobbled by dim-witted water cooler types. Hey it works! Just had the Battla in-laws regurgitating the crap at the wife this morning! I had to leave the room. Renée told her mother exactly what she needed to - and THAT I wish I had on tape - priceless! :lol:


As far as I can tell, what you just described are (some of) the causes of the US housing crisis.
What did I describe? I have no idea - I can't recall. I was too engrossed with my eye-popping blood-vessel bursting rant :lol:

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2007, 01:00 PM
It's a completely meaningless increase in wealth if it comes from the increase in value of the house that you already live in.
No it's not. It means greater collateral for an investment loan, which is a common way that people in the West start new businesses.

Indeed, the lack of property rights is a major reason that poor countries are poor. Hernando de Soto shows this in detail in his book The Mystery of Capital: Why Capitalism Triumphs in the West and Fails Everywhere Else. But in many of the poor countries, the route to property ownership is absurdly cumbersome thanx to corruption or bureaucratic red tape. In his native Peru, the process to get a legal title to one's home "consists of 5 stages" and the first stage alone "involves 207 steps." In Egypt, anyone "who wants to acquire and legally register a lot on state-owned desert land must wend his way through at least 77 bureaucratic procedures at thirty-one public and private agencies." These procedures "can take anywhere from five to fourteen years." In Haiti, it is 19 years.

But meanwhile, a home with no legal title has nothing that a bank can accept as collateral. The same is true of businesses created and run without having jumped through all the legal hoops.

de Soto points out that the whole country suffers without property rights. Business is driven underground, with much greater costs due to lack of legal protection of contracts and from crime.


On the other hand, if you don't own a house and want to buy, your prospective financial situation has become considerably worse by the spike in house prices, even if that is not reflected by the statistics you quote..
Explained by my post above. Unfortunately many young people trying to buy their first home have been hurt by financial irresponsibility of their elders living beyond their means and driving house prices skyward.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2007, 01:09 PM
Allegedly? Have you any idea what it costs to buy *any* house today compared with 10 or 20 years ago? In Perth, the median house price has doubled in three years. In the same time, wages have increased by maybe 10%. How can you possibly deny that houses have become less affordable?!?
Depends where you want to buy. But I remember well that in my first few years of living in Brizzy, the property market was flat—despite the negative gearing and CGT concessions you hate so much in your love of high taxes. More recently of course it has boomed. But much of that is the influx of people without a corresponding influx of new land.

We also haven't heard what Chairman Rudd will do to make them more affordable.

Basil
14-11-2007, 01:51 PM
We also haven't heard what Chairman Rudd will do to make them more affordable.
We won't. Nor will we hear anything about what he will do about anything. What we do get is vision! F***ing vision for Africa! Now Rudd wants to be known as the Education Prime Minister. So does every Prime Minister, but only the left ones package it up as a salvation. Gullible saps.

What we also get is "rid of the evil Howard" - and that seems more than sufficient for at least half the country (until such time as Rudd & Labor are tossed as the law of (something!!) determines they surely will be).

BTW, don't ask why he is evil, lest we get "Children Overboard" and "Interest Rates". In which case we have to counter with "No Child Will Live In Poverty" and "The Recession We Had To Have". At which point the discussion reaches futility and the 'evil' claim dies ... and then we're just back to the prejudices that Daddy taught them as kiddies (chatting around the dinner table - reminds me of the Telstra Broadband ad in the vee-dub) and a lifetime's worth of hating. Jono, I am here to tell you that with the exception of true swinging voters, there ain't nothing you or I can say to dissuade 'em.

pax
14-11-2007, 01:59 PM
No it's not. It means greater collateral for an investment loan, which is a common way that people in the West start new businesses.

Ok, so for a very small percentage of people it makes a difference. For the rest, it's meaningless, and for people that haven't bought a house yet - it's a nightmare.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2007, 02:00 PM
Jono, I am here to tell you that with the exception of true swinging voters, there ain't nothing you or I can say to dissuade 'em.
Sad but true. People are beyond reasoning if they are determined to support, in effect, the following absurdities:

Great government = the recession we had to have, and a million unemployed.
Evil government = lower interest rates than at any time in the Whitlam, Hawke or Keating administrations, and the lowest unemployment in 30 years.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2007, 02:03 PM
Ok, so for a very small percentage of people it makes a difference. For the rest, it's meaningless, and for people that haven't bought a house yet — it's a nightmare.
Again, do you have any practical* ways of alleviating this problem?

* Practical ≠ even higher tax burdens on property investors.

pax
14-11-2007, 02:57 PM
Again, do you have any practical* ways of alleviating this problem?

* Practical ≠ even higher tax burdens on property investors.

Even higher? You mean the way that property investors pay little or no income tax due to negative gearing, and then pay much lower rates of CGT on what they earn in return?

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2007, 03:48 PM
Even higher? You mean the way that property investors pay little or no income tax due to negative gearing,
The only way this would be true is if the interest rate on their borrowing was much less than their rental income. So if their loss wasn't taken into account in taxation, the shortfall would have to be covered by higher rents. Oh yeah, that's right, this is precisely what actually happened when Keating abolished negative gearing, then had to re-instate it.


and then pay much lower rates of CGT on what they earn in return?
CGT applies only when the property is sold. I've already explained that there MUST be concessions, otherwise there is a tax on a "profit" which may be nothing of the kind after inflation.

When will lefties learn that envy-driven "tax the rich" policies end up hurting the very poor that lefties claim to care about. And the "rich" are often not that rich; two effective property investors I know are a baker and a postal worker respectively.

pax
14-11-2007, 04:36 PM
The only way this would be true is if the interest rate on their borrowing was much less than their rental income. So if their loss wasn't taken into account in taxation, the shortfall would have to be covered by higher rents. Oh yeah, that's right, this is precisely what actually happened when Keating abolished negative gearing, then had to re-instate it.

Sorry, what? Because rents are lower than interest, the Government has to hand out tax breaks?



CGT applies only when the property is sold. I've already explained that there MUST be concessions, otherwise there is a tax on a "profit" which may be nothing of the kind after inflation.

Fine. Index it to the CPI - that would be substantially less than the straight out 50% discount that applies now irrespective of the length of time of the Capital Gain.



When will lefties learn that envy-driven "tax the rich" policies end up hurting the very poor that lefties claim to care about. And the "rich" are often not that rich; two effective property investors I know are a baker and a postal worker respectively.

Oh give me a break. We are talking here about the ways in which some wealthy people are able to pay substantially less tax than those less well off.

No other country is as generous as Australia to property investors.

Capablanca-Fan
14-11-2007, 05:28 PM
Sorry, what? Because rents are lower than interest, the Government has to hand out tax breaks?
It's not handing out anything. It is merely refusing to confiscate as much. Evidently your politics of envy would rather see rents skyrocket again.


Fine. Index it to the CPI —
We used to do that, but it was cumbersome. A tax system should cost taxpayers as little time as possible.


that would be substantially less than the straight out 50% discount that applies now irrespective of the length of time of the Capital Gain.
Only if you hold it for a year. And CGT is at the highest marginal rate of the investor.


Oh give me a break. We are talking here about the ways in which some wealthy people are able to pay substantially less tax than those less well off.
No, most of the tax is paid by the "wealthy", which include many Mum&Dad type investors. And the tax they pay is related to their net real income, meaning earnings minus losses. envy-mongering lefties like you want to confiscate their earnings but make them wear any losses suffered in the process of making these earnings possible.

Anyway, I've already given you the solution to the hated negative gearing: a low flat tax in return for losing this deduction, because negative gearing is only worthwhile because of the high tax rates.


No other country is as generous as Australia to property investors.
Actually, the generosity applies to all borrowing investors, whether the investment is property or shares. And what's wrong with being the most generous? Why should we fall into line with the moribund penisocialist Eurabian economies, or the double taxation of dividends in Yankeeland?

Kevin Bonham
14-11-2007, 06:52 PM
Sad but true. People are beyond reasoning if they are determined to support, in effect, the following absurdities:

Great government = the recession we had to have, and a million unemployed.
Evil government = lower interest rates than at any time in the Whitlam, Hawke or Keating administrations, and the lowest unemployment in 30 years.

Not "beyond reasoning" at all - simply a matter of different priorities.

One of the problems the Howard government has, and one of the reasons it is simply not recovering significantly in the polls, is that it keeps on flogging the plus side of its economic record without sufficiently admitting that that is not the whole story and that life is genuinely difficult for many, officially unemployed or otherwise. It's not that hard to see through such a tactic.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 08:48 AM
Not "beyond reasoning" at all - simply a matter of different priorities.

One of the problems the Howard government has, and one of the reasons it is simply not recovering significantly in the polls, is that it keeps on flogging the plus side of its economic record without sufficiently admitting that that is not the whole story and that life is genuinely difficult for many, officially unemployed or otherwise. It's not that hard to see through such a tactic.
Of course it's not the whole story, but Labor's whinging ads use actors, after the "real life" hard luck stories were found to be dubious. Sure, life is difficult for the unemployed, but there are a lot fewer unemployed than the million under Keating and the recession we had to have.

And no advance has not made life worse for some: e.g. we are using computers and word processors, but this meant the end of loads of jobs in typing pools and typewriter factories going bankrupt. A century ago, the development of the automobile killed heaps of jobs in horse training, stabling, cleaning up horse crap ...

In the case of the IR reforms, some employees will be fired, but the stats indicate that more are being hired now.

Basil
15-11-2007, 10:37 AM
One of the problems the Howard government has, and one of the reasons it is simply not recovering significantly in the polls, is that it keeps on flogging the plus side of its economic record without sufficiently admitting that that is not the whole story and that life is genuinely difficult for many, officially unemployed or otherwise. It's not that hard to see through such a tactic.
Again I disagree Kevin. I don't think for minute that people who have tougher circumstances will be better under a Rudd (or any previous) Labor government. History proves that. The only difference I can discern (and I do try and discern) throughout history is rhetoric.

There is no doubt that Rudd and his predecessors package the "helping" story really really well. I nearly cried when I heard Kevin talking yesterday - it was so moving. He nearly swept me up in a tidal wave of love for him. Your quote above illustrates to me that John Howard should have spent much more time telling people that he really really knows they are hurting. As far as I am concerned, we already know that and so does he. Howard's mistake is not pandering to their sensibilities.

He nearly swept me up in a tidal wave of love for him... Then I remembered that he and his mates are a clue-free zone and we are back to exactly where I have been since a young man. Like good parents, good employers and proven good government, what is is needed is economic infrastructure driven at business level to achieve all the good things. That is how to help people.

On a side note, I find it odd (for want of a better word) that in the not so distant past, the century-old conservative policy of fiscal restraint was condemned as the rich being mean. Now Kevin is mouthing it (coz it works :wall:) the Laborites are all nodding knowingly and of course its not being mean at all, it's being sensible. Sweet Alabama - get a clue people.

Watching you lot change your subtle outlook on life and policies depending on the messenger (even though the message hasn't changed) is laughable.

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:43 PM
I've already given you better solutions: abolish housing ban open space laws and state stamp duties, and introduce a low flat tax in return for abolishing negative gearing, since that is only worthwhile because the highest marginal tax rates are so punitive. And CGT must take into account inflation



Argument from silence, and also forgets that housing policies are a matter for the States not the Federal Government. The state LNC organizations are crap.
So, is your solution listed as LNC policy, and have they a strategy for achieving this?

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:45 PM
11 long years — reality check (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKTvjs1NTc0)! If Howard is so bad, why is Rudd copying most of his policies? If today's interest rates are so bad, why are they still lower than at any time of the last three Labor PMs? And more.

I don't think Rudd is copying Howard's policy to be untrustworthy.

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:47 PM
Where was Flude or Rudd or any other half-baked commentator 3-5 years ago while this housing situation was cooking

Answer: Not in Federal Government.

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:49 PM
According to the Australian Bureau of Statistics, net household wealth has increased by 14 per cent from 2003-04, from $494,346 to $562,854. So Howard is right that, on average, Australian working families have never been better off.

Did anyone ever dispute this? The majority are better off.
But we will value a leader who is not proven as loose with other truths.

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:50 PM
And the problems with allegedly unaffordable housing are often due to many people with expectations too high, wanting a first home much bigger than the first home their parents or grandparents owned. So they abandoned financial responsibility, e.g. making sure they could afford the repayments if the rates were increased by 2% (more than the total of the interest rate rises under Howard). So they put themselves into debt to buy bigger homes than they can afford—and THIS is a major factor in driving up house prices because of all this extra money pouring into the housing market.
Agreed.

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:53 PM
Not very highly. You should know by now that I am libertarian in economic policy. All the same, Chairman Rudd is so much "me too" that it's a joke, and it's most unlikely that the powerful Labor Leftists like Comrade Gillardova would allow it once safely in power.

Would a libertarian agree to negative gearing concesions and CGT concessions which appear to interfere in pure markets?

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:56 PM
We won't. Nor will we hear anything about what he will do about anything. What we do get is vision! F***ing vision for Africa! Now Rudd wants to be known as the Education Prime Minister. So does every Prime Minister, but only the left ones package it up as a salvation. Gullible saps.

What we also get is "rid of the evil Howard" - and that seems more than sufficient for at least half the country (until such time as Rudd & Labor are tossed as the law of (something!!) determines they surely will be).

BTW, don't ask why he is evil, lest we get "Children Overboard"

I thought Eurotrash won that exchange in this thread hands-down. Are you now willing to say there was no deliberate deception?

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:57 PM
and "Interest Rates".
And re-opening the deception on this one?

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:58 PM
"No Child Will Live In Poverty"
Does not belong to Rudd.

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:58 PM
"The Recession We Had To Have".
Does not belong to Rudd

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 12:59 PM
At which point the discussion reaches futility and the 'evil' claim dies

The flaw in your analogies is obvious from the previous sequence of posts.

Spiny Norman
15-11-2007, 01:00 PM
Does not belong to Rudd
True ... but he didn't seem to mind trotting out both Keating and Whitlam in support of his launch. If it were a court case, your objection would be over-ruled by the judge with a "You opened the door to this criticism counsellor ..."

EDIT: ... and Hawkey.

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 01:04 PM
Watching you lot change your subtle outlook on life and policies depending on the messenger (even though the message hasn't changed) is laughable.

And your whole case seems to rest on this theory that the message has not changed.
But the message does change with a change of messenger. For example, Latham's hit-list of private schools is not even hinted at by the ALP nor the LNC.
Do you want a list of other examples?

Southpaw Jim
15-11-2007, 01:52 PM
True ... but he didn't seem to mind trotting out both Keating and Whitlam in support of his launch. If it were a court case, your objection would be over-ruled by the judge with a "You opened the door to this criticism counsellor ..."

EDIT: ... and Hawkey.
Um, Spiny, those 3 have attended every campaign launch since '98. Hardly a case of Rudd "trotting them out". I'd find it unusual if they weren't in attendance.

On that note, where was Fraser at the Libs' launch? :hmm:

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 02:06 PM
Um, Spiny, those 3 have attended every campaign launch since '98. Hardly a case of Rudd "trotting them out". I'd find it unusual if they weren't in attendance.
Me neither. And it shows that anyone who really thinks that Rudd is the economic conservative he claims to be needs his head read.


On that note, where was Fraser at the Libs' launch? :hmm:
Who's want that old failure? But the Labor-loving Leftmedia just love him now, even as they use the high interest rates under the Government Fraser led to attack Howard.

Southpaw Jim
15-11-2007, 02:49 PM
Who's want that old failure?
Comments like this make me wish I had a crystal ball, to see if in 10 years time people like yourself will be reviling Howard in the same way for destroying the Liberal Party and sending them to the wilderness :hmm:

"Howard: he just didn't know when to quit"
"Howard: he had it all and pissed it away"
"Howard: he was power mad"

:whistle:

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 02:52 PM
I thought Eurotrash won that exchange in this thread hands-down. Are you now willing to say there was no deliberate deception?
I thought Gunner won hands down. Who cares what you think anyway?

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 02:56 PM
Would a libertarian agree to negative gearing concesions and CGT concessions which appear to interfere in pure markets?
A libertarian is more likely not to support CGT at all, since capital gains are not income. How does it interfere with a free market if we refuse to confiscate so-called profits that were completely eroded by inflation.

And libertarians have pointed out that with a low enough flat tax, there would be no need for negative gearing. But when the government confiscates almost half a person's earnings, then there should be some compensation for expenses accrued to make these earnings possible.

Southpaw Jim
15-11-2007, 02:58 PM
Who cares what you think anyway?
Typical Rightie - dissenting views are not permitted :hand:

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 02:59 PM
Comments like this make me wish I had a crystal ball, to see if in 10 years time people like yourself will be reviling Howard in the same way for destroying the Liberal Party and sending them to the wilderness :hmm:

"Howard: he just didn't know when to quit"
"Howard: he had it all and pissed it away"
"Howard: he was power mad"

:whistle:
I have hardly been an uncritical supporter of Howard, and thought he should have done more. But he is nothing like Fraser, who wasted his years of government, and was more like Labor in outlook anyway.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 03:00 PM
Typical Rightie — dissenting views are not permitted :hand:
No, this person pops in on a chess bulletin board but hardly talks about chess anywhere.

BTW, it's the Lefties at universities who impose draconian speech codes and conformity to leftist thought.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 03:02 PM
I don't think Rudd is copying Howard's policy to be untrustworthy.
I think he is doing just that. He knows that if he campaigned overtly for his democratic socialism, he wouldn't stand a chance. So he is pretending to be an economic conservative, copying Howard's policy, all the while decrying Howard as out of touch and lacking fresh ideas! :wall:

Basil
15-11-2007, 03:11 PM
Where was Flude or Rudd or any other half-baked commentator 3-5 years ago while this housing situation was cooking
Answer: Not in Federal Government.
Hopeless response. The point was, that today as commentators on the Howard Government, Flude and Rudd are suggesting that Blind Freddy should have taken action while the housing situation was cooking. Commentators (like you, Flude and Rudd) don't have to be in government to commentate. If the left wants any credibility on this issue (claiming that Blind Freddy could have seen what was happening), we need to see where they were pointing out the obvious back when the situation was apparently emerging.

The reality is that the left had no idea (your, Flude's and Rudd's attempts to suggest that you saw it all along are just facile transparent lies). Further, as I have pointed out previously, there was little in fact to be done about it.


BTW, don't ask why he is evil, lest we get "Children Overboard"
Are you now willing to say there was no deliberate deception?
I truly don't know (and nor do you). But I am prepared to accept for the sake of argument that deception existed. My question of approximately how important is this issue (six years ago) went unanswered. Follow up question: if it is important, why do so many left commentators not allow into argument something that happened 15 years ago under Keating because its old news [/self-serving non genuine defence] but happily rake in something that happened 6 years ago.


and "Interest Rates".
And re-opening the deception on this one?
I am not re-opening anything. The issue is live. When that question was very first raised on this BB, I said I had no problem with the statement of "keeping interest rates at record lows". It turned out not be true, but I genuinely would have allowed the phrase if a Labor pollie had uttered it and the situation was reversed. What I don't understand is
1. How the puffery of Howard's statement can, in all genuine seriousness, be called a deception [this is just more silly hating mantra], and
2. Why no genuine left commentator on this board won't say "Hey, you know what? If we are going to hang Howard for 'lying' about interest rates, it is only fair to hang Hawke by the same branch for 'No Child Will Live in Poverty". The utterings are identical! Two political leaders making statements that they genuinely believed they could deliver. I simply reject that Hawke deceived anyone. He made a claim that he wasn't able to fulfil.

You guys remind me of baying mindless dolts watching an executioner in middle-ages England. The idea of balanced and intelligent fair commentary seems beyond most of you. On a good day, I have seen evidence from Kevin, Euro and pax of this ability.


"No Child Will Live Inoverty"
Does not belong to Rudd.
Referred to above. But seeing as you have made a special post, do you accept that history should judge Hawke in exactly the same way that you are judging Howard? If not, why not?


At which point the discussion reaches futility and the 'evil' claim dies

The flaw in your analogies is obvious from the previous sequence of posts.
Huh? I am discussing the left/ right paradigm and the benefits and known deficiencies of the Labor party. I can only rely on history, because in case you hadn't noticed, Labor haven't had the opportunity to govern for a decade because of the horrendous cock-up they achieved when they had their 10 years. If you are going to raise allegations against Howard, I have no choice but to point at historical Labor offerings (unless you suggest Kevin 007 is some sort of god from elsewhere who has no connection with the Labor party's history, ideals and machinations).

Please try and be genuine. And please stop making sweeping claims to clever argument when you fail to grasp the issue at hand, specifically your post about "Not being in federal government' when the issue was about commentators, and secondly about trying to attack my stance on the Labor party's history in government by using someone who has never been in government as a defence.

You are wasting an incredible amount of bandwidth and my time.

Southpaw Jim
15-11-2007, 03:11 PM
I think he is doing just that. He knows that if he campaigned overtly for his democratic socialism, he wouldn't stand a chance. So he is pretending to be an economic conservative, copying Howard's policy, all the while decrying Howard as out of touch and lacking fresh ideas! :wall:
Whatever he's doing, it's working... :lol:

Basil
15-11-2007, 03:18 PM
Whatever he's doing, it's working... :lol:
It is.

Southpaw Jim
15-11-2007, 03:26 PM
It is.

Think of it this way - at least the next 6 years will provide proof one way or another as to the modern ALP's capacity to govern well. You'll either be proven right, or be pleasantly surprised :owned: :P

Watch for the results of an AC Nielsen poll in tomorrow's Fairfax media folks - if there's no improvement then (IMHO) Johnny's gone for all money.

pax
15-11-2007, 03:41 PM
A libertarian is more likely not to support CGT at all, since capital gains are not income. How does it interfere with a free market if we refuse to confiscate so-called profits that were completely eroded by inflation.

Oh come on.. You can't possibly believe this - have you looked at the share market or the housing market in the last few years? 20% per year is barely touched by inflation. Capital gains are income like any other - it's all money you can spend at the end of the day..

Basil
15-11-2007, 04:02 PM
Think of it this way - at least the next 6 years will provide proof one way or another as to the modern ALP's capacity to govern well.
"Govern well"? It's all a matter of degree and expectations and outcomes. There are millions today who say the previous Labor governments have governed well. The country didn't (totally) collapse. Many who were affected were blissfully unaware or not prepared to accept that Labor was responsible.

This (impending) government? Like Keating, Blair (and Beatty), there is no doubt that recent left governments have finally got the message regarding economic conservatism (and thank the lord, so have many of you lot - although I still object to the double standard that when conservatism is spouted my my lot, it's because it's a boys club protecting the rich, and when spouted by your lot, you claim the moral high ground - pfft).

As I've said a number of times the concept of the country's economy was dismissed by many inward-looking poorly-(macro)-educated lefties in times gone by where the mind-set was "pay-dinner table-rich-hate-envy". Hawke was the last clown of this ilk in this country (albeit loved by the blue-rinse set and the kiddies) - and I think it is safe to say his value-set is gone from the landscape forever.

As to whether I think the country will be slightly less well off for Rudd, for sure IMO. The degree of damage? Not huge because of the afore-mentioned.

Will Rudd be turfed in his time - for sure. Will the gloss wear off (over the next 12-24 months)? For sure. There's nothing like being in office (government, chess, in your own business) and making hard decisions and being caught out and slipping on banana skins.

Will the journos (over the next 12-24 months) go for Rudd's throat because the darling promises made now (expectations raised to be more exact) be shown shown to be more hot air than substance? For sure.

Will he be an alright PM? Sure.

Will the harder left factions (such as the hopeless Gillard) get a crash course in how unworkable their life-long held beliefs are? For sure.

Am I happy enough with a Labor victory? For sure. It was always going to happen at one stage. Will I enjoy the break from clueless kiddies staging rock concerts and marches 'Raging Against The <insert next idiotic thing they don't understand>?

Absolutely :lol:

bergil
15-11-2007, 04:46 PM
I bumped into a guy in a tracksuit who said "Here's a bucket of money, don't forget who is fiscally responsible?" :eek: ;)

Basil
15-11-2007, 04:50 PM
I bumped into a guy in a tracksuit who said "Here's a bucket of money, don't forget who is fiscally responsible?" :eek: ;)
If this is a shot at either Howard or Rudd, then I'll just have to put it in the same category as all the other things that get said at elections by all parties in all western countries at election time ... viz [/ignore] - the only difference I think is that I don't drag selective claims out and cry the heavens down :doh:

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 05:30 PM
Oh come on.. You can't possibly believe this — have you looked at the share market or the housing market in the last few years? 20% per year is barely touched by inflation.
This can't continue though. Think Rule of 72 (or more precisely Rule of 69.3 but it's not so easily worked out in your head). The sharemarket is correcting now, and the housing boom will burst as bubbles do.



Capital gains are income like any other - it's all money you can spend at the end of the day..
But what about people who sold in frustration after 5 years of stagnation in Brisbane before the property boom. Their "profit" was often just breaking even or even making a loss when inflation is taken into account.

BTW, economists until recently taught that interest was not income, but just compensation for the lender's money being tied up so the lender can't spend it immediately.

My parents' generation remember very clearly in NZ when it had high inflation and 66% top tax rate. Money in a term deposit would be a guaranteed loss, so the sharemarket or some other investment was the only chance of avoiding that.

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 05:32 PM
I bumped into a guy in a tracksuit who said "Here's a bucket of money, don't forget who is fiscally responsible?" :eek: ;)
Alex Robson, lecturer in economics at ANU, shows in Kevin Rudd an economic dud (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22758911-5001031,00.html) that Chairman Rudd is certainly not more economically responsible, but he spins well enough for his thralls:


LABOR has claimed throughout this election campaign that it is the party of economic conservatism. But poll after poll suggests voters refuse to believe this.

When it comes to economic management, the Coalition is the clear frontrunner. Why can't Labor get this message through? Simple: it is not true.



Rudd argued that because he was only going to announce about $2 billion in new spending and tax breaks (as opposed to the Coalition’s $9.6 billion), this would somehow reduce inflationary pressures and put downward pressure on interest rates.

But it is all spin. ..

Let us put yesterday’s numbers in context. The federal government will spend more than $1 trillion over the next four years, no matter which party wins this election…

Labor wants us to believe that an extra $7 billion or so in tax rebates and spending will significantly add to inflationary pressures and interest rates. This is ridiculous.

Many of Labor’s commitments seem to be uncosted and do not appear in the headline $2 billion figure.

And many of Labor’s commitments have been frontloaded, with billions of dollars in spending announcements already made before the election campaign even began.

pax
15-11-2007, 06:39 PM
This can't continue though. Think Rule of 72 (or more precisely Rule of 69.3 but it's not so easily worked out in your head). The sharemarket is correcting now, and the housing boom will burst as bubbles do.

Both have run at considerably higher than inflation for decades. Why do you think people invest in property/shares? It sure isn't for the rent/dividend income..



But what about people who sold in frustration after 5 years of stagnation in Brisbane before the property boom. Their "profit" was often just breaking even or even making a loss when inflation is taken into account.


If they didn't make a Capital Gain, they won't pay CGT. What's your point?



BTW, economists until recently taught that interest was not income, but just compensation for the lender's money being tied up so the lender can't spend it immediately.

We're not talking about interest.



My parents' generation remember very clearly in NZ when it had high inflation and 66% top tax rate. Money in a term deposit would be a guaranteed loss, so the sharemarket or some other investment was the only chance of avoiding that.

Not sure your point..

Capablanca-Fan
15-11-2007, 06:48 PM
Both have run at considerably higher than inflation for decades. Why do you think people invest in property/shares? It sure isn't for the rent/dividend income..
Of course. Without this, it would be very hard to save enough for retirement. Note that the biggest shareholders are not usually the &#252;ber-rich but superannuation funds that help fund the retirement of ordinary people.


If they didn't make a Capital Gain, they won't pay CGT. What's your point?
Must I spell it out for you, using hypothetical figures:


Mr & Mrs Smith buy a property for $150k in Brisbane in 1990.
They sell it for $200 in 2000.
But inflation over that decade means that what cost $15 in 1990 now costs $20 in 2000.

So they really haven't made any money have they? But Pax would love to see them pay tax on $50k at their highest marginal tax.

Like all lefties, he thinks "greed" = wanting to keep more of your money that you earned, and "compassion" = the government wanting to take more of your money to give to its pet projects. After all, Big Government, In Whom We Trust, can spend your money better than you can!


Not sure your point..
My point was that taxation on interest earnings was grossly unfair, because it meant that they were losing money overall.

Axiom
15-11-2007, 06:50 PM
Stop The Puppet Show Mud Wrestling,
And Vote LDP !

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2007, 08:13 PM
Again I disagree Kevin. I don't think for minute that people who have tougher circumstances will be better under a Rudd (or any previous) Labor government. History proves that. The only difference I can discern (and I do try and discern) throughout history is rhetoric.

Whether the poor will be better under Rudd or not is not the point. The point is Howard misrepresenting the situation in a way that makes it look like he is denying the magnitude of the problem. That doesn't instill much confidence in him making much attempt to fix it.


He nearly swept me up in a tidal wave of love for him... Then I remembered that he and his mates are a clue-free zone and we are back to exactly where I have been since a young man.

Actually I think Rudd is very very cluey about some things. Very strategically adept, for certain.


Like good parents, good employers and proven good government, what is is needed is economic infrastructure driven at business level to achieve all the good things. That is how to help people.

There is no one way to help people (if such is your aim). It requires an effective response across a range of issues that both cushions people from the worst (and even the moderately bad), and gives them the best chances for the future. The problem with Coalition ideology is that it is too skewed towards the latter and too geared towards giving extra chances to those who have already got it made and do not need them. It was so easy for Rudd to demonstrate this by holding off on tax cuts for those earning $180Kpa+.


On a side note, I find it odd (for want of a better word) that in the not so distant past, the century-old conservative policy of fiscal restraint was condemned as the rich being mean. Now Kevin is mouthing it (coz it works :wall:) the Laborites are all nodding knowingly and of course its not being mean at all, it's being sensible. Sweet Alabama - get a clue people.

Actually what it shows is that Rudd has picked up the clue ... after Howard gradually released it over time. What will be interesting to see, though, is how he responds to it once elected (assuming this happens) - whether he will pay it lip service or genuinely follow through with it to even some very small degree.

What's so far-fetched about the idea of Labor transforming its attitude to economics anyway? Haven't you ever heard of Tony Blair?


Watching you lot change your subtle outlook on life and policies depending on the messenger (even though the message hasn't changed) is laughable.

"you lot" is hardly helpful. Itemised examples of inconsistency by specific posters might get us somewhere.

Kevin Bonham
15-11-2007, 08:18 PM
Alex Robson, lecturer in economics at ANU, shows in Kevin Rudd an economic dud (http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22758911-5001031,00.html) that Chairman Rudd is certainly not more economically responsible, but he spins well enough for his thralls:

Robson seems in that excerpt to be arguing that Labor being $7 billion more frugal isn't a big deal and, taking into account his point about "frontloading", that economically there isn't very much difference between the two parties.

But if that's the case, isn't that a propaganda win for Labor anyhow?

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 09:52 PM
Whether the poor will be better under Rudd or not is not the point. The point is Howard misrepresenting the situation in a way that makes it look like he is denying the magnitude of the problem. That doesn't instill much confidence in him making much attempt to fix it.



.
:clap:

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 09:59 PM
"Govern well"? It's all a matter of degree and expectations and outcomes. There are millions today who say the previous Labor governments have governed well. The country didn't (totally) collapse. Many who were affected were blissfully unaware or not prepared to accept that Labor was responsible.


So you interpret govern well in terms of outcomes, instead of honesty.
Have you forgotten your reference in post 1 "so I'm settling back and looking at the marketing that is winning and losing the hearts and minds of Australia".
Howard has lost the marketing because he is not believed anymore.
We value a leader than will govern well, meaning with honesty.
The public service will be the safety net on outcomes; provided Howard has not made that dysfunctional too.

snowyriverman
15-11-2007, 10:00 PM
I thought Gunner won hands down. Who cares what you think anyway?
:eek:

Basil
16-11-2007, 12:40 AM
Whether the poor will be better under Rudd or not is not the point. The point is Howard misrepresenting the situation in a way that makes it look like he is denying the magnitude of the problem.
It isn't the point? Have you told the battlas? I hope you're not talking about your usual misrepresenting how many people are emlployed. For the love of god don't tell me we're back there.


Actually I think Rudd is very very cluey about some things. Very strategically adept, for certain.
Vague and nothing stated of relevance. He is cluey about things, yes. He is a better strategist and debater than John Howard (largely helped because of his very simple message), but I stand by the original which you have failed to address with any substance which is that he (and his party) are clueless economically.


There is no one way to help people (if such is your aim). It requires an effective response across a range of issues that both cushions people from the worst (and even the moderately bad), and gives them the best chances for the future.
Yes, sure. All parties believe they will deliver that ... but ...


The problem with Coalition ideology is that it is too skewed towards the latter and too geared towards giving extra chances to those who have already got it made and do not need them.
If you truly believe that, we can finish there (which is good for both if us) coz we just ain't gonna change each other's minds.


It was so easy for Rudd to demonstrate this by holding off on tax cuts for those earning $180Kpa+.
:wall: :wall: :wall:


What's so far-fetched about the idea of Labor transforming its attitude to economics anyway?
Kevin, I just want the leftie fools to admit it's a new concept just dawning in their tiny little minds and that when "worka-battla-rich-evil-dinner table-pay packet" was mouthed by daddy and grandpa, they just might have been the knuckle-dragging clowns I've always called them - and if that's a bit harsh - certainly limited, naive and unworldly.


"you lot" is hardly helpful. Itemised examples of inconsistency by specific posters might get us somewhere.
You're right - that was crap! Good call.

Basil
16-11-2007, 12:45 AM
So you interpret govern well in terms of outcomes, instead of honesty.
Give it up snowy. Too much crap dialogue from you. Too many unanswered questions of mine (while I answer yours)


Have you forgotten your reference in post 1 "so I'm settling back and looking at the marketing that is winning and losing the hearts and minds of Australia".
Howard has lost the marketing because he is not believed anymore.
No argument.

Kevin Bonham
16-11-2007, 10:15 AM
I hope you're not talking about your usual misrepresenting how many people are emlployed. For the love of god don't tell me we're back there.

That is certainly a part of it. But it's not the only part.


Vague and nothing stated of relevance. He is cluey about things, yes. He is a better strategist and debater than John Howard (largely helped because of his very simple message), but I stand by the original which you have failed to address with any substance which is that he (and his party) are clueless economically.

To the extent that your cluelessness comment was restricted to economics at all (which wasn't explicit) it was made so by slamming the failure of Rudd to see the light on your model of how you help people. I pointed out that you do not help people by any one specific method and it appears that you agree with that while questioning how easily it is delivered. So I did address it. :P


If you truly believe that, we can finish there (which is good for both if us) coz we just ain't gonna change each other's minds.

I'm not concerned about changing your mind. In most debates what I aim for is simply ensuring that anything I disagree with doesn't go unchallenged, so that it will not then be unquestioningly accepted by anyone following it and not aware there is another side to the story.


Kevin, I just want the leftie fools to admit it's a new concept just dawning in their tiny little minds and that when "worka-battla-rich-evil-dinner table-pay packet" was mouthed by daddy and grandpa, they just might have been the knuckle-dragging clowns I've always called them - and if that's a bit harsh - certainly limited, naive and unworldly.

Oh, sure, I have no time for class-warfare nonsense either. But there remain bigger priorities than giving people who are already earning stacks tax cuts. And Howard and Costello have painted themselves into a corner by constantly telling us how fantastic the economy has been under them. Their problem is that if they are right then it is hard for them to argue the case for further changes, and if they are wrong then their economic cred after 11 years to get it perfect is looking shaky.

Furthermore, saying it's a new concept for Labor is fine. But if fiscal conservatism is the measuring stick then (a) Labor is moving towards it, however newly, cluelessly or only semi-sincerely (b) the Coalition is clearly moving away from it (c) the difference is so minimal between the two that they may have crossed over already. Howard hasn't been a real fiscal conservative for a long long time. Costello has, but he has big ears and nobody likes him, hence he will probably never be Prime Minister.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 10:46 AM
I have an economics question: How much of every $1 of tax cut eventually ends up back in the pockets of the federal government? (I suspect that its quite a high number, but I've never seen where anyone has tried to calculate this).

Because I suspect that its quite high, and because excessive spending drives inflation, causing the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates (the proverbial blunt instrument to beat the 'battlas' on the head), I'm moderately ticked off with the Coalition. They give me a tax cut, the banks take a slice of it in increased interest charges, then another big slive goes back to the government as increased tax revenue when I spend any of it (via GST, or income tax of the business I spend it with).

Plenty of this extra tax revenue could have been used to bulk up government savings. I really, really like the initiatives such as the billions put aside for "future education" and "future environment" ... so that we become investors in our kids future, rather than living hand-to-mouth on the revenue/expenses rollercoaster.

I hate to have to admit it, but I think the Coalition is a bit 'fat and lazy' after so long in office. Problem is, I still don't think Labor have learned their lessons. Rudd is a chameleon, who will do/say whatever is required, depending on the audience he is speaking with (this is now amply documented).

So, for me, this election is a case of voting for the lesser of two evils. I think maybe I'm just getting too old and too cynical.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 11:01 AM
Kevin 007: The Man with the Golden Jaw (http://www.youtube.com/v/GzZrHDHVEVw)
:lol:

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 11:03 AM
Wish I could see some of these YouTube videos. I like satire ... but YouTube is blocked here at work.

pax
16-11-2007, 11:06 AM
Must I spell it out for you, using hypothetical figures:


Mr & Mrs Smith buy a property for $150k in Brisbane in 1990.
They sell it for $200 in 2000.
But inflation over that decade means that what cost $15 in 1990 now costs $20 in 2000.

So they really haven't made any money have they? But Pax would love to see them pay tax on $50k at their highest marginal tax.


So index it to the CPI, as I have already said (but of course you don't read what I say but instead debate against some socialist stereotype). Instead we have a crass 50% tax discount that has no relationship to whether the gain is a genuine one or not.

In your example, Mr and Mrs Smith still pay CGT under the current system - whereas if CGT was indexed to inflation they would pay nothing.

Here's another example.

Mr Wong has a PAYE income of $200,000. He earns $100,000 in rent from 10 investment properties. He pays $225,000 in interest on the loans that support his investments.

As a result of negative gearing, he pays a grand total of $17k in income tax. Without negative gearing, tax payable on the $200k is approximately $70k.

This year, he sells a property in the booming WA property market. It was purchased in 2003 for a combined $125,000, and sold for $250,000. Due to the 50% tax discount for capital gains, he pays only $25,000 in tax on the $125,000 capital gain.

Mr Wong has successfully traded $125000 in PAYE income for $125000 in capital gains, and as a result pays nearly $30,000 less in tax.

Southpaw Jim
16-11-2007, 11:23 AM
I have an economics question: How much of every $1 of tax cut eventually ends up back in the pockets of the federal government? (I suspect that its quite a high number, but I've never seen where anyone has tried to calculate this).

Because I suspect that its quite high, and because excessive spending drives inflation, causing the Reserve Bank to lift interest rates (the proverbial blunt instrument to beat the 'battlas' on the head), I'm moderately ticked off with the Coalition. They give me a tax cut, the banks take a slice of it in increased interest charges, then another big slive goes back to the government as increased tax revenue when I spend any of it (via GST, or income tax of the business I spend it with).

Plenty of this extra tax revenue could have been used to bulk up government savings. I really, really like the initiatives such as the billions put aside for "future education" and "future environment" ... so that we become investors in our kids future, rather than living hand-to-mouth on the revenue/expenses rollercoaster.

I can't give you definitive numbers on this Spiny, but it's obvious that what you're suggesting is true. Tax cuts are (1) handing you back bracket creep caused by inflation, and (2) inflationary in themselves. Howard and Rudd will try and tell you that their tax cuts are not inflationary, but they are. They're pumping 30-34bn into an economy that's running at a screaming pace, when the Reserve Bank is warning about the effects of public spending. And so, yet again, the wonderful tax cuts you receive will be eaten up by your mortgage (and then some).

And yet, your local hospital looks more like a Soviet gulag, and your local school's oval is a dustbowl. Furthermore, the disinvestment in things like the University sector make me sick - Australia could be an intelligent economy, developing new technologies, and yet instead we export - wheat, steel, brains...

The amount of money that could've been spent on making our infrastructure better, or our economy less reliant on agriculture, that has instead been spent on buying elections is a crying shame.

As for your choice to stick with the devil you know, well.. that's up to you, and I don't begrudge you for it (honestly).

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 11:42 AM
So index it to the CPI, as I have already said (but of course you don't read what I say but instead debate against some socialist stereotype). Instead we have a crass 50% tax discount that has no relationship to whether the gain is a genuine one or not.
I acknowledged that you said that, and pointed out that it was the old system. I actually think it's fairer, but it was cumbersome to work out.


Mr Wong has a PAYE income of $200,000. He earns $100,000 in rent from 10 investment properties. He pays $225,000 in interest on the loans that support his investments.

As a result of negative gearing, he pays a grand total of $17k in income tax.
That seems correct.


Without negative gearing, tax payable on the $200k is approximately $70k.
Because of the unfair progressive tax system that doesn't treat people equally under the law.

Under the Liberty and Democracy Party's flat tax of 30% with a tax-free threshold of $30k (http://www.ldp.com.au/federal/policies/tax.html) (with a negative tax below that which would replace welfare), Mr Wong would pay $51k.

All the same, without negative gearing, his taxable income would be $300k, surely. Unless you want to make rental income tax-free.


This year, he sells a property in the booming WA property market. It was purchased in 2003 for a combined $125,000, and sold for $250,000. Due to the 50% tax discount for capital gains, he pays only $25,000 in tax on the $125,000 capital gain.
Mr Wong has successfully traded $125000 in PAYE income for $125000 in capital gains, and as a result pays nearly $30,000 less in tax. [/QUOTE]
Such tax schemes are only necessary because of the high tax rats. And it was quite a risk borrowing $125k more than the rental income, if he were retrenched, or the property market flattened as it sometimes does.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 11:48 AM
I can't give you definitive numbers on this Spiny, but it's obvious that what you're suggesting is true. Tax cuts are (1) handing you back bracket creep caused by inflation,
Yet neither party wants to index the brackets to the CPI. The Dems do, but they are losers on the way out.


and (2) inflationary in themselves.
Reagan asked in his debate with Carter why it was inflationary if the people kept more of their money to spend how they wanted, but not for the government to confiscate the money to spend how it wants. Reagan said that inflation was NOT caused by the people living too well, but government living too well.


And yet, your local hospital looks more like a Soviet gulag, and your local school's oval is a dustbowl.
Of course. What else can you expect from government-run things? And these were the responsibility of the State governments which were all Labor.

Basil
16-11-2007, 01:23 PM
Their problem is that if they are right then it is hard for them to argue the case for further changes, and if they are wrong then their economic cred after 11 years to get it perfect is looking shaky.
If you mean 'their problem' as in 'this is the public's perception of them', then I agree. If you mean 'their problem' as in you, Kevin B, believe it to be true, then I disagree.

If the latter, the fact that the economy is under some serious stress and the shining figures are easing, doesn't in any way mean that Howard and Costello show hasn't starred. From a deductive position, I know that you know that that argument isn't valid :P


Furthermore, saying it's a new concept for Labor is fine.
That's the only concession I am looking for. I am not out to say that Labor is evil. I am not out to invite all the previous (real and imagined) commentary on the (legitimate and imagined) reasons for voting against the coalition.


the Coalition is clearly moving away from it
How so? The fact that someone else is pretending (learning) to be an economic conservative doesn't mean that the original act isn't conservative anymore.

First we have supposedly too much money in the tin. We start to give it back (howling lefties - half of them on this board!). The same howling lefties who wanted the money given back are NOW saying let's tighten even further - and the left pick up double votes with a double backflip and having copied the coalition's stance!!!!

How's that for a sleight of hand trick? :P

Southpaw Jim
16-11-2007, 01:26 PM
Yet neither party wants to index the brackets to the CPI. The Dems do, but they are losers on the way out.
I hadn't pegged you for a Dems voter, Jono! :eek: you must be awfully conflicted! :lol:


Reagan asked in his debate with Carter why it was inflationary if the people kept more of their money to spend how they wanted, but not for the government to confiscate the money to spend how it wants. Reagan said that inflation was NOT caused by the people living too well, but government living too well.
I don't rate the economic credentials of an actor. What do you think's going to happen to the $30bn+ pumped into the economy, Jono? Or are you suggesting the RBA doesn't know what it's on about?


these were the responsibility of the State governments which were all Labor.
Ah, the blame game. How passe. If Coward wanted to show true leadership, he would have done something about this years ago, instead of pointing the finger and not fixing the problem.

Not to mention, by Tony Abbott's own admission, the Feds have been reducing their proportional contribution to health funding throughout the tenure of this Government. It's a bit hard for the States not to underfund something when they're underfunded themselves.

Could be why they're on a hiding to nowhere, eh? :hmm: :owned:

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 01:43 PM
I hadn't pegged you for a Dems voter, Jono! :eek: you must be awfully conflicted! :lol:
Nope, one decent policy is not enough to vote for that lot. :P


I don't rate the economic credentials of an actor.
I wouldn't normally, because most of them are spoilt airheaded limousine leftists. But Reagan was well versed in economic theory, having read Milton Friedman and Arthur Laffer. He also had plenty of practical experience in his time with General Electric talking to people from all walks of life, seeing the harm that big government wrought.


What do you think's going to happen to the $30bn+ pumped into the economy, Jono? Or are you suggesting the RBA doesn't know what it's on about?
Again, answer Reagan's question: why is $30bn inflationary when it's people spending their own money, but not when government is spending the same amount of other people's money. Reagan had to apologize though for saying that the government spent like a drunken sailor—it was unfair to the sailors who were merely spending their own money.


Ah, the blame game.
At least I place blame where it belongs! :hand:


Not to mention, by Tony Abbott's own admission, the Feds have been reducing their proportional contribution to health funding throughout the tenure of this Government. It's a bit hard for the States not to underfund something when they're underfunded themselves.
Oh, yeah, the Feds should pour in good money after bad, so outfits like QLD health can employ still more administrative staff.

Southpaw Jim
16-11-2007, 02:00 PM
Nope, one decent policy is not enough to vote for that lot.
Go'orn, you know you want to :P


Again, answer Reagan's question: why is $30bn inflationary when it's people spending their own money, but not when government is spending the same amount of other people's money.
Providing government expenditure is on infrastructure and not consumer products (which is what taxpayers will generally spend on), then the productivity/capacity benefits of that infrastructure will outweigh the inflationary impact of that spending.

Building a railway may be inflationary in that it competes for labour and resources, but if the nation's productive capacity is increased as a result, the inflationary impact is reduced. It's certainly less inflationary than spending the same amount of money on plasma tvs and Foxtel.

If you don't believe me, ask Ken Henry. It's the 3 Ps: productivity, participation, population. The only ways to increase economic output in a 'full employment'** economy.


At least I place blame where it belongs!
So, when Coward takes money away, and then accuses States of not spending enough, it's their fault. I get it now :eek: :doh:


Oh, yeah, the Feds should pour in good money after bad, so outfits like QLD health can employ still more administrative staff.
No, the Feds should continue to pour in the same proportion of the total cost that they did 10 years ago.

**in economy-wide terms, not the labour market.

Capablanca-Fan
16-11-2007, 02:14 PM
Providing government expenditure is on infrastructure and not consumer products (which is what taxpayers will generally spend on), then the productivity/capacity benefits of that infrastructure will outweigh the inflationary impact of that spending.
That's a pretty big if. How many governments these days restrict their funding to infrastructure? And what if the consumers invest their money or donate to charities of their own choice, rather than government confiscating it to invest their way or pump into welfare bureaucracies?


Building a railway may be inflationary in that it competes for labour and resources, but if the nation's productive capacity is increased as a result, the inflationary impact is reduced.
The New York Subway was built privately. They went bankrupt and were taken over by the city — only because they were streng verboten by the city to raise prices to match rising costs.


So, when Coward takes money away, and then accuses States of not spending enough, it's their fault. I get it now :eek: :doh:
He didn't take money away; he just refused to hand it out without accountability :doh:. And how dare the Labor States whinge: they opposed the GST that results in the money they were bathing in, and also refused to rescind some of the state taxes in turn, e.g. the stamp duties that hurt home buyers, and the crass payroll tax that fines employers for hiring people!

Southpaw Jim
16-11-2007, 02:57 PM
That's a pretty big if. How many governments these days restrict their funding to infrastructure? And what if the consumers invest their money or donate to charities of their own choice, rather than government confiscating it to invest their way or pump into welfare bureaucracies?
I didn't say they would restrict their funding in such a way. I'm saying, in response to your question, that spending on infrastructure is less inflationary than tax cuts. Two different issues!


The New York Subway was built privately. They went bankrupt and were taken over by the city — only because they were streng verboten by the city to raise prices to match rising costs.
That's a nice isolated example there, Jono, and one that says more about political expediency than economics.


He didn't take money away; he just refused to hand it out without accountability :doh:. And how dare the Labor States whinge: they opposed the GST that results in the money they were bathing in, and also refused to rescind some of the state taxes in turn, e.g. the stamp duties that hurt home buyers, and the crass payroll tax that fines employers for hiring people!
Jono, have you read the Intergovernmental Agreement on Commonwealth State Financial Relations? It's a rhetorical question: you obviously have not :hand:

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 03:08 PM
Jono, have you read the Intergovernmental Agreement on Commonwealth State Financial Relations? It's a rhetorical question: you obviously have not :hand:
I haven't (few have I expect). But I have read reports/summaries. e.g.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2005/03/07/1110160752766.html

Southpaw Jim
16-11-2007, 03:13 PM
Spiny - a quick skim indicates to me that that report is a fair summary of things.

FWIW, despite the myths that Costello has spread, payroll tax and stamp duty on conveyances of real property were NEVER part of the deal. This much is apparent from Spiny's article.

It also follows from the mere fact of the existence of the Agreement, that the States agreed to the introduction of the GST.

Spiny Norman
16-11-2007, 03:39 PM
FWIW, despite the myths that Costello has spread, payroll tax and stamp duty on conveyances of real property were NEVER part of the deal. This much is apparent from Spiny's article.
Not quite ... there was no mandatory requirement to abolish ... however it certainly was the intention that they be reviewed, with the eventual outcome to be that they were abolished. However the revenue benefits of the GST to the states may have been oversold, hence the states are continuing to charge like wounded bulls on stampt duty and payroll tax. I wouldn't mind betting that this can be sheeted home to the Demoncrats [sic] who butchered the original GST proposal and introduced the GST-free elements (yes, I know, they had their reasons, perhaps even good reasons). Anyway, that has reduced the GST's revenue, hence no abolition of the non-mandatory components. That's how I read it.

Interesting how we were told how the GST was going to single-handledly cause us to revert to the Dark Ages, prior to its introduction. I don't even think about it now. Complete non-event (and yes, I am a small business person who has to remit it to the government).