View Poll Results: WHO WILL WIN? (THIS POLL ASKS WHO WILL WIN, NOT WHO DO YOU WANT TO WIN)

Voters
12. You may not vote on this poll
  • Coalition by >30 seats

    0 0%
  • Coalition by 16-30 seats

    0 0%
  • Coalition by 15 or fewer seats [CORRECT]

    4 33.33%
  • Hung parliament

    0 0%
  • Labor by 15 or fewer seats

    6 50.00%
  • Labor by 16-30 seats

    1 8.33%
  • Labor by >30 seats

    1 8.33%
Page 4 of 34 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 510
  1. #46
    CC Grandmaster Adamski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Penrith, NSW
    Posts
    8,647
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    Kevin Bonham is starting to become more of the go to man of Australian politics than Antony Green:

    https://www.news.com.au/national/fed...2354810f9c8879
    You have to read a long way down before you reach "Election analyst Kevin Bonham...".
    God exists. Short and to the point.

    Secretary of, and regularly arbiter at, Rooty Hill RSL Chess Club. See www.rootyhillchessclub.org.

    Psephological insight. "Controversial will only lose you votes. Courageous will lose you the election." Sir Humphrey Appleby on Yes Minister.

    Favorite movie line: Girl friend Cathy to Jack Ryan in "Sum of all Fears". "What kind of emergency does an historian have?".

  2. #47
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    A has more propensity to pay. A also has more to lose, Eg taxes support law and order. A wants their greater wealth maintained.

    Bit hard to take seriously the moaning over 20c when you're happy to waste $100.
    Law and order - everyone is happy to support but Supporting fakeugees, supporting spending money on overseas projects (btw, not only international aid but also our military participating in conflicts where Australia does not belong), Indigenous programs etc. There are many so called ''social'' programs that are funded by tax payers.

    A has more to lose...but what about B? why should A be responsible both for himself and for B?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  3. #48
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,291
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Law and order - everyone is happy to support but Supporting fakeugees, supporting spending money on overseas projects (btw, not only international aid but also our military participating in conflicts where Australia does not belong), Indigenous programs etc. There are many so called ''social'' programs that are funded by tax payers.

    A has more to lose...but what about B? why should A be responsible both for himself and for B?
    So if A has say $1m in assets, B has say $1k in assets - law and order costs say $10k - who should pay what? Progressive taxation is required.

    One could make a similar argument for many social services. Eg education. A child with an education grows up to join the workforce. Doesn't grow up to break and enter, or mug people for their wallets. If you have a lot more assets, you have more vested interest to see that the education succeeds.
    meep meep

  4. #49
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Law and order - everyone is happy to support but Supporting fakeugees, supporting spending money on overseas projects (btw, not only international aid but also our military participating in conflicts where Australia does not belong), Indigenous programs etc. There are many so called ''social'' programs that are funded by tax payers.
    This is why we have elections. The overwhelming majority of Australians support spending money on Indigenous programs, so you're outvoted!

    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    A has more to lose...but what about B? why should A be responsible both for himself and for B?
    Can you think of any ethical reasons why we should be responsible for our fellow man?

  5. #50
    CC Grandmaster Garvinator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    13,073
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Can you think of any ethical reasons why we should be responsible for our fellow man?
    I feel like this is a question from the movie Roxanne. Even taking the ethics out of it (which can be highly subjective), I can probably put up about 20 reasons why we as a society, or if the question is framed as an individual, gains from assisting their fellow country person? I know I have changed the narrative a bit, but I think this debate is about Australians helping Australians, so I have no issue having a go at that, if Michael wants to duck the question, or takes an opposite view.

  6. #51
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    This is why we have elections. The overwhelming majority of Australians support spending money on Indigenous programs, so you're outvoted!

    Can you think of any ethical reasons why we should be responsible for our fellow man?
    I can think of ethical reason why we should be responsible for fellow men (and women) who are not capable of taking care of themselves.

    I see no ethical reasons to provide financial support to those who:
    1) have been having income similar to mine but manage their money poorly
    2) choose to work/study less than me and consequently have inferior income
    3) choose to drink/consume drugs/ etc.
    4) do not do enough to change their own lives for better but expect me to do so
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  7. #52
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,327
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    So if A has say $1m in assets, B has say $1k in assets - law and order costs say $10k - who should pay what? Progressive taxation is required.
    No it's not, not if the government sticks to its proper functions like for law and order. The huge expenditure comes from bloated bureaucracies that transfer wealth from some Australians to others.

    Fair taxation means: if someone earns 10 times as much, he pays 10 times as much, not 100 times.

    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    One could make a similar argument for many social services. Eg education. A child with an education grows up to join the workforce. Doesn't grow up to break and enter, or mug people for their wallets. If you have a lot more assets, you have more vested interest to see that the education succeeds.
    Yes we do, which is why we should keep the government out of it! More government education funding usually means NOT more teachers and educational tools, but more administrators that further bloat the bureaucracies.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  8. #53
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Garvinator View Post
    I feel like this is a question from the movie Roxanne. Even taking the ethics out of it (which can be highly subjective), I can probably put up about 20 reasons why we as a society, or if the question is framed as an individual, gains from assisting their fellow country person? I know I have changed the narrative a bit, but I think this debate is about Australians helping Australians, so I have no issue having a go at that, if Michael wants to duck the question, or takes an opposite view.
    Garvinator, lets be clear who exactly am I supposed to choose to help or not to help.
    If a person is born disabled or became severely disabled as a result of an accident - I feel honoured to be able to help him by supporting financially. I also feel honored to assist young graduates searching for professional jobs who are eager to work hard and smart (that's one area where me and my company can help by running free support programs etc.).

    However, I feel no moral obligation to support a person who was initially in a far greater position (including financially) than I am ...but failed to capitalize on the opportunities due to own choices but now feels that he is MY responsibility.
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  9. #54
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    This is why we have elections. The overwhelming majority of Australians support spending money on Indigenous programs, so you're outvoted!
    Do they really? Do you really think that this ostensible overwhelming majority votes for this reason? They more likely vote for other reasons, while the indigenous bureaucracies don't get touched. As President Reagan said, the closest thing on earth to immortality is a government program. Think Public Choice theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Can you think of any ethical reasons why we should be responsible for our fellow man?
    To add to what MB says: sure, it's commendable to help our fellow man by sticking our hand into our own wallets. It is reprehensible to help one's fellow man by sticking our hand into other people's wallets.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  10. #55
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by road runner View Post
    So if A has say $1m in assets, B has say $1k in assets - law and order costs say $10k - who should pay what? Progressive taxation is required.

    One could make a similar argument for many social services. Eg education. A child with an education grows up to join the workforce. Doesn't grow up to break and enter, or mug people for their wallets. If you have a lot more assets, you have more vested interest to see that the education succeeds.
    Should we consider how Both A and B got their assets?
    Has A stolen from Be or is A/A's family who earned these assets fair and square?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  11. #56
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,327
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    ALL government spending is "really a transfer from some citizens to some other citizens", so your argument works against any government spending, including on defence.
    Not at all. Defence, and local law and order, benefit ALL; what I oppose is governments taking from SOME citizens to give to SOME other citizens, with bureaucrats collectively taking about a 75% commission to arrange the wealth transfer.

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    And preventing AGW benefits everyone, but you still oppose it. So your position makes no sense.
    Makes perfect sense. E.g. if you agree with Lomborg that AGW is a problem but oppose the usual big-government ‘solutions’ in favour of solutions that deliver far more benefits to humanity for the same expense, this makes perfect sense. You may not agree with Lomborg's premise, but it's internally consistent. Similarly, if you don't agree that AGW is as much a calamity as increased poverty and skyrocketing energy costs, then it's consistent to oppose the usual "AGW prevention" proposals. One can also consistently say, as did President Trump on Earth Day, that the best way to protect the environment is to have a prosperous economy, while those trying to make ends meet have less ability to conserve. Anyway, this is not the thread to push AGW issues, for or anti.
    Last edited by Capablanca-Fan; 25-04-2019 at 01:09 AM.
    “If Algeria introduced a resolution declaring that the earth was flat and that Israel had flattened it, it would pass by a vote of 164 to 13 with 26 abstentions.” — Abba Eban on the UN general assembly

    “You will never find a more wretched hive of scum and villainy. We must be cautious.” — Obi-Wan Kenobi on the UN kakistocracy

  12. #57
    CC Grandmaster road runner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    on the skin of the pale blue dot
    Posts
    12,291
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    Should we consider how Both A and B got their assets?
    Has A stolen from Be or is A/A's family who earned these assets fair and square?
    Sure you can consider it, though it sounds irrelevant to whether they want to keep the assets or not, as well as irrelevant to the costs of doing so.
    meep meep

  13. #58
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by MichaelBaron View Post
    I can think of ethical reason why we should be responsible for fellow men (and women) who are not capable of taking care of themselves.
    I see no ethical reasons to provide financial support to those who: ...
    You obviously haven't studied much ethics. Perhaps you should start by reading the Bible - you might find some reasons in there.

  14. #59
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Melbourne, Australia
    Posts
    12,204
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    You obviously haven't studied much ethics. Perhaps you should start by reading the Bible - you might find some reasons in there.
    Perhaps those that you expect me to support, should read Bible too. Where does it say in the Bible that they should delegate responsibility for their lives to me?
    Interested in Chess Lessons?
    Email webbaron!@gmail.com for more Info!

  15. #60
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,565
    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    Do they really? Do you really think that this ostensible overwhelming majority votes for this reason? They more likely vote for other reasons, while the indigenous bureaucracies don't get touched. As President Reagan said, the closest thing on earth to immortality is a government program. Think Public Choice theory.
    If they were opposed to Indigenous welfare, they could vote for a party that opposes it. The fact that the majority doesn't suggests that they support it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Capablanca-Fan View Post
    To add to what MB says: sure, it's commendable to help our fellow man by sticking our hand into our own wallets. It is reprehensible to help one's fellow man by sticking our hand into other people's wallets.
    The government providing medical care for severely disabled people is reprehensible?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Australian Federal Election [COALITION WINS]
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 322
    Last Post: 24-09-2016, 08:25 PM
  2. Who will you vote for in the federal election?
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: 19-06-2016, 01:18 AM
  3. Australian Federal Election 2013 [Coalition Wins]
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 380
    Last Post: 29-11-2013, 02:21 AM
  4. Federal Election 2004 (Coalition Wins)
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 185
    Last Post: 27-07-2010, 12:25 PM
  5. Federal Election 2007 (Labor Wins)
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 347
    Last Post: 07-07-2008, 02:51 PM

Posting Permissions

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