PDA

View Full Version : Who is being ripped



Davidflude
28-01-2006, 12:14 PM
Certain things are coming out about the coalition regime which are very nasty.

1) If you work one hour or more a week you are classed as employed. This is why unemployment statistics look reasonable. A recent survey shows the underlying unemployment rate is between 9-10 per cent. Sorry dollar sweetie but two out of three sucks. A treasurer's job is to maintain high employment, low inflation and a reasonable rate of economic growth. Sorry dollar sweetie but two out of three sucks. Running the economy requires considerable skill, hard work, intestitudinal fortitude, and ticker. On your record so far I think that you would make a worse Prime Minister than Paul Keating.

2) The tax system is unfair. If I look at my net tax (tax paid less government handouts) I pay more tax than middle class families who earn 60% more than I do.

3) the two big rorts, negative gearing and chopping capital gains have totally
euchred the tax system and made it regressive for the rich. Also they have driven property prices from 6 times earnings to 9 times earnings.

4) tax bracket creep is used to fund middle class tax bribes.

It is time for a tax revolt. With the Nats going over Niagara in a barrel perhaps it is time to form a Poujadist Party to contest the sets in the bush
and the Senate.

Steve K
28-01-2006, 12:47 PM
I don't think we need a new party to bring about major change. What's needed is the Australian Labor Party to develop some policies that are traditional Labor Party policies not mimicking the mean and nasty (if you are less well off) policies of the so called Liberal Party of Australia. Normally the 2 major parties would be fighting over the middle ground but the policies of both have shifted so far to the right that the middle ground of 20 years ago is now considered leftist. It was Keating and Howard that led us to this position and no one in any position of influence in the ALP seems to want to head on back to that old middle ground. Labor still has a large voter base out there plus the infrastructure to mount serious campaigns when required...all they are lacking are decent, fair and compassionate policies.

McTaggart
28-01-2006, 01:59 PM
David, what is a Poujadist?

PHAT
28-01-2006, 02:05 PM
David, what is a Poujadist?

Google is your friend.

http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries/difficultwords/data/d0010289.html

McTaggart
28-01-2006, 02:47 PM
Thanks Matthew,it seems to me that Google could replace the Bible as the "fount of all wisdom",oh boy, will that get me into trouble?

qpawn
28-01-2006, 05:28 PM
While I share the disgust of David with many aspects of federal fiscal policy, I wouldl ike to urge some caution on the issue of negative gearing.

My sisters have moved out of home based upon a negative gearing scheme. We are just a middle class lot who are trying to get something for ourselves; we are not ripping off anybody compared to tax mimimisation schemes or the CEO salaries that were in the news this week.

Davidflude
28-01-2006, 10:42 PM
While I share the disgust of David with many aspects of federal fiscal policy, I wouldl ike to urge some caution on the issue of negative gearing.

My sisters have moved out of home based upon a negative gearing scheme. We are just a middle class lot who are trying to get something for ourselves; we are not ripping off anybody compared to tax mimimisation schemes or the CEO salaries that were in the news this week.

Negative gearing is a tax rort. However in view of the weakness of the property
markets and a concept called regression to the mean I would not buy a negative
geared property in the Eastern States. WEstern Australia might be OK.

Remember gearing works both ways. It can be really scabby if interest rates rise.

Oh I forgoy family trusts are another tax rort.

eclectic
29-01-2006, 06:23 AM
provisional tax is another rort ... tax on money a business might earn before it's earned

come to think of it not getting refund interest on tax that is overpaid is another rort

:rolleyes:

:eek:

:confused:

Spiny Norman
29-01-2006, 06:26 AM
It is time for a tax revolt.
What's needed is for men and women of good faith to get themselves involved in grass roots politics, get themselves elected, and change the system. But politics is a dirty business. Not something I'd want to get involved in myself.

Davidflude
29-01-2006, 08:58 AM
What's needed is for men and women of good faith to get themselves involved in grass roots politics, get themselves elected, and change the system. But politics is a dirty business. Not something I'd want to get involved in myself.

"I new an honest politician once, he was never elected" Will Rogers

ElevatorEscapee
29-01-2006, 10:40 AM
There are also brackets within tax brackets, such as the thresholds (and percentages of income) that people reach before they have to start paying back things like HECS and the SFSS scheme debts.

They must have moved one of the thresholds after July 1 last year, so suddenly I wasn't earning enough to have to start repaying one of these thingies... then I got a 3% payrise, which means I now get $3 less per fortnight after tax than I was getting before the payrise! :lol:


come to think of it not getting refund interest on tax that is overpaid is another rort

One oesn't get charged interest on underpaid income tax if they pay it before a certain date, so I guess that sort of evens out.

I actually received interest from the ATO early last year when they paid my Superannuation Co-Contribution late. :-)

I guess if a tax refund is late in being paid, then the ATO should pay the same amount of interest on it that they charge people who are late paying their tax debts. I am not certain whether this happens or not though.

================================================== ==

As for politics, I suspect many people go into politics with ideals, hoping to make the country (and the world) a better place. However, they soon realize that they must join a major party if they really wish to have any influence... and after having joined the party, soon find themselves having to tow the party line.

A few years of this can squish ideals and turn even idealistic reactionaries into Party apparatchiks.

Perhaps the way to dismantle the "two party" system that we are currently burdened with is to get rid of two of the major tenets of Australian democracy.

i) Compulsory voting

Removing this would remove the influence of all those who don't want to vote, or couldn't care about voting... or those like myself, who sometimes look at a ballot paper and don't think any of the candidates are worth voting for.

Currently the only way to object to having to vote by not voting, without incurring the wrath of the law, is by voting informally.

ii) The preferential voting system

Effectively this equates in most seats to even the most anti-Liberal and anti-Labour voter having to choose which to put last and which to put second last... In that voter's mind, it is basically a choice of the lesser of two known evils.

Personally I would prefer to have people who really want to vote for someone else, not have their second, third, etc preference turn their vote into someone they didn't want to vote for.

To this end, I would advocate an idea that, ironically, John Howard came up with back in the mid 1980s when he was opposition leader: "One vote, one value" (ie who you vote for first only counts not who you have assigned preferences to).

PHAT
29-01-2006, 10:42 AM
Bitching about tax is generally silly until you formally state exactly what the purpose of tax is, and what it is not. From those principles, and a few assumptions such as liberty and stability, the rights/wrongs of our particular tawation system can be much more easly identified. Having said that, I should add that there is often cases where there are competing rights/principles. Derrr. It is those times that we can actually seek compomise/balance. Thus, we must declare our position on the question, "what is tax for?"

I say: Tax is to organise some portion of the societies whealth toward services and infrastructure, the promotes the longterm stability, which private enterprise cannot deliver.

Therefore, I conclude that taxation regimes that create a growing underclass which eventually destibilises the other parts of society, is failing to deliver.

No doubt, the proportion of our citizens who are part of our underclass, is growing slowly. I suggest that the princple tax reason for this is the effective tax rate for people leaving unemployment to enter paid work, is 65%. ie, for every $100 earned, they lose $65 from there welfare payment.

Since low end jobs pay $10-12 p/h I ask you, who here would bother spending $50 p/w in travel to work for $3 - 4 an hour? (= $114 - 152 p/w).
This is effectively about $2 p/h.

McTaggart
29-01-2006, 05:24 PM
Answer, the really hungry and desparate would. In the USA the lower classes work for US$5. per hour because welfare payments cut out after 6 months,no ifs or buts. Our little Johnno is working towards that scenario here. It is called giving the chronically unemployed an incentive! Under Freidmanism/Thatcherism/Howardism the welfare state will wither away and a new golden age will dawn free from all unions and hand-outs from the state. Back to the future,101. (about 1850)

pballard
30-01-2006, 02:46 PM
ii) The preferential voting system

Effectively this equates in most seats to even the most anti-Liberal and anti-Labour voter having to choose which to put last and which to put second last... In that voter's mind, it is basically a choice of the lesser of two known evils.

Personally I would prefer to have people who really want to vote for someone else, not have their second, third, etc preference turn their vote into someone they didn't want to vote for.

To this end, I would advocate an idea that, ironically, John Howard came up with back in the mid 1980s when he was opposition leader: "One vote, one value" (ie who you vote for first only counts not who you have assigned preferences to).

If you want to break the 2 party system, don't remove preferential voting!

Preferential voting makes it possible to vote for a minor party, without wasting your vote. With preferential voting, it is possible (and fairly common) for an independent to win a seat despite having the second most number of first preference votes (typical scenario: Liberal 40%, Independent 35%, Labor 25%, Labor preferences elect the independent).

Of course an even better way to break the 2 party system is do remove single member electorates, a system which means that close to half the population have a representative they didn't vote for (not even on preferences).

pballard
30-01-2006, 02:49 PM
While I share the disgust of David with many aspects of federal fiscal policy, I wouldl ike to urge some caution on the issue of negative gearing.

My sisters have moved out of home based upon a negative gearing scheme. We are just a middle class lot who are trying to get something for ourselves; we are not ripping off anybody compared to tax mimimisation schemes or the CEO salaries that were in the news this week.

How did NG help? Do you mean they bought a property but lived elsewhere (maybe still with parents) and helped saved money.

Removing (or gradually reducing) negative gearing would probably have helped your sisters even more: many investors drop out of the market, so demand falls, so house prices fall.

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2006, 02:50 PM
ii) The preferential voting system

Effectively this equates in most seats to even the most anti-Liberal and anti-Labour voter having to choose which to put last and which to put second last... In that voter's mind, it is basically a choice of the lesser of two known evils.

Personally I would prefer to have people who really want to vote for someone else, not have their second, third, etc preference turn their vote into someone they didn't want to vote for.

To this end, I would advocate an idea that, ironically, John Howard came up with back in the mid 1980s when he was opposition leader: "One vote, one value" (ie who you vote for first only counts not who you have assigned preferences to).

That is first-past-the-post which has numerous defects including: the effective disenfranchisement of those who support minor parties from any say in who governs, the potential for candidates strongly opposed by most of the electorate to win, the splitting of the vote between similar candidates, the potential to run spoiler candidates to damage other people's votes, etc.

In my view first past the post barely qualifies as democracy and can only be excused by lack of resources. A far better solution is what exists in Queensland: optional preferencing. If you just vote 1, only your first vote counts, but it is formal. Or you can give preferences to all. Another solution is to permit Langer voting (eg 1-2-3-3-3) provided every box is filled.

Apologies for the off-topic comment - as for the topic itself I totally agree with Fludey on the issue of correct measuring of unemployment. I also think the Coalition's approach to unemployment policy generally (especially the bureaucratic hoop-jumping of activity tests etc) is belittling and demeaning and the ALP's is alas little better.

Davidflude
30-01-2006, 05:59 PM
That is first-past-the-post which has numerous defects including: the effective disenfranchisement of those who support minor parties from any say in who governs, the potential for candidates strongly opposed by most of the electorate to win, the splitting of the vote between similar candidates, the potential to run spoiler candidates to damage other people's votes, etc.

In my view first past the post barely qualifies as democracy and can only be excused by lack of resources. A far better solution is what exists in Queensland: optional preferencing. If you just vote 1, only your first vote counts, but it is formal. Or you can give preferences to all. Another solution is to permit Langer voting (eg 1-2-3-3-3) provided every box is filled.

Apologies for the off-topic comment - as for the topic itself I totally agree with Fludey on the issue of correct measuring of unemployment. I also think the Coalition's approach to unemployment policy generally (especially the bureaucratic hoop-jumping of activity tests etc) is belittling and demeaning and the ALP's is alas little better.


I was retrenched after many years with the same employer. I obtained a new job but it took 20-30 hours a week effort for three months and I was very well qualified, and had massive support from an outplacement agency. If the level of demand is deliberately set too low by the Federal Government then finding jobs is fearsomely difficult. Not surprisingly many people become depressed and drop out or take to petty crime.

It infuriates me that after ten years out of office the Labour mob have not rebuilt at the federal level. Bracks is having a spring clean. Why can't the Federal mob. As for the Nationals the only one with principles is "Barnyard". I hope that he and a couple more abandon the party and sit on the cross benches in the Senate.

The other thing is that no-one ever tells the Prime Minister anything that he does not want to know. My sources within the Liberal Party told me that no-one told him the truth about the children overboard affair and that he was really upset when he found out.

George Bush is even worse. He is widely believed to follow the quaint custom of executing the messenger that brings bad news (with the exception of the turd blossom). Carl was having an operation when the hurricane hit New Orleans and nobody else was prepared to ruin the President's holiday.

Again about the Labour party I keep reminding myself of what Will Rogers said

"I have never belonged to an organised political party, I am a democrat"

Davidflude
30-01-2006, 06:02 PM
I think that is time the Australian constitution was amended that no-one could serve more than two terms as Prime Minister.

That would certainly curtail the frequency of early elections.

ursogr8
30-01-2006, 07:02 PM
I think that is time the Australian constitution was amended that no-one could serve more than two terms as Prime Minister.

That would certainly curtail the frequency of early elections.
Are you naturalised Dave?

pballard
30-01-2006, 09:09 PM
I think that is time the Australian constitution was amended that no-one could serve more than two terms as Prime Minister.


Why not? It's democracy in action. Much as I'd like to see the back of JWH, if Australians keep voting for him who am I to argue?



That would certainly curtail the frequency of early elections.

The 1998 election was early, but not by much. We haven't had a really early election since 1984. Fixed senate terms have helped ensure that.

Kevin Bonham
30-01-2006, 09:56 PM
I like early elections. The more chances we have to throw some of the worse idiots out the better, even if it never happens. I would hate to have a system like the UK's where there were only elections once every five years.

Spiny Norman
31-01-2006, 06:19 AM
Why not have a permanent system whereby registered voters can "change their mind" at any time? Make it so that if the government of the day can't achieve majority support in the population over any 12-month period an election is automatically triggered... :)

eclectic
31-01-2006, 07:11 AM
I think that is time the Australian constitution was amended that no-one could serve more than two terms as Prime Minister.

That would certainly curtail the frequency of early elections.

why not suggest that executive members of chess victoria can only have a two term tenure at its next agm?

oh ... sorry ... off topic ... :hand:

McTaggart
31-01-2006, 08:05 AM
why not suggest that executive members of chess victoria can only have a two term tenure at its next agm?

oh ... sorry ... off topic ... :hand:


CAREFUL! don't go there.

McTaggart
31-01-2006, 08:19 AM
I like early elections. The more chances we have to throw some of the worse idiots out the better, even if it never happens. I would hate to have a system like the UK's where there were only elections once every five years.

Agreed Kevin,it just that they seemed to be replaced,with depressing regularity, by similar idiots. I know that neither side has a strangle-hold on fools as they can be seen scattered all over the parliamentary benches but when an unpopular government led by an extremely devious unpopular little man keeps getting returned, election after election, you would have to turn your attention to the opposition. As Steve K pointed out,they have an obligation to the populace to lift their game and to this extent thay have failed. You may not have liked Mark Latham,and I don't think he was suitable to be a PM, but if you read his book it gives you an un-nerving insight into politics. For my part, I have given up on any chance of ever seeing a fair and just society returning to Australia and I have gone into "internal exile"

Davidflude
31-01-2006, 09:26 AM
Agreed Kevin,it just that they seemed to be replaced,with depressing regularity, by similar idiots. I know that neither side has a strangle-hold on fools as they can be seen scattered all over the parliamentary benches but when an unpopular government led by an extremely devious unpopular little man keeps getting returned, election after election, you would have to turn your attention to the opposition. As Steve K pointed out,they have an obligation to the populace to lift their game and to this extent thay have failed. You may not have liked Mark Latham,and I don't think he was suitable to be a PM, but if you read his book it gives you an un-nerving insight into politics. For my part, I have given up on any chance of ever seeing a fair and just society returning to Australia and I have gone into "internal exile"

Does that mean that you are moving to Cabbramatta?

pax
31-01-2006, 11:10 AM
If you ask me, the biggest joke is the Senate.

These days it takes incredible dedication to vote below the line, as you may be forced to number up to a hundred boxes (and if you make a mistake bang goes your vote). Only about 5% of voters vote for candidates below-the-line. The rest trust the parties to distribute the votes by voting above-the-line.

Most of the 'in doubt' senate seats are elected, not by the voters, but by the preference brokers. And the parties don't give a fig for the normal expectations of voters on where their votes are distributed. So we had ridiculous situations at the last election where votes for Labor went to Fred Nile and Family First before Democrats and Greens.

At the last election, I asked all of the party members handing out 'how to vote' cards how above-the-line votes to their party would be distributed. Nobody could tell me except for the Greens. I asked at several voting booths for information about the distribution of above-the-line votes. Only one was able to dig out a copy of the book that had this info.

pballard
31-01-2006, 11:57 AM
If you ask me, the biggest joke is the Senate.

These days it takes incredible dedication to vote below the line, as you may be forced to number up to a hundred boxes (and if you make a mistake bang goes your vote). Only about 5% of voters vote for candidates below-the-line. The rest trust the parties to distribute the votes by voting above-the-line.

Most of the 'in doubt' senate seats are elected, not by the voters, but by the preference brokers. And the parties don't give a fig for the normal expectations of voters on where their votes are distributed. So we had ridiculous situations at the last election where votes for Labor went to Fred Nile and Family First before Democrats and Greens.

At the last election, I asked all of the party members handing out 'how to vote' cards how above-the-line votes to their party would be distributed. Nobody could tell me except for the Greens. I asked at several voting booths for information about the distribution of above-the-line votes. Only one was able to dig out a copy of the book that had this info.

The senate itself isn't a joke - it is far more representative than the house of reps - but I agree that above-the-line voting is a serious problem.

One idea which has been floated is to allow (or even force) people who don't vote below the line to number every square above the line. This reduces the number of squares to fill in by a factor of 4 or so. A number of people from different parties spoke favourably of the idea, but I don't now how far it's been taken.

Another solution is optional preferential voting. (Number the ones you like, leave the others blank).

I'd like to see both these allowed, and above-the-line-preference-tickets abolished.

Kevin Bonham
31-01-2006, 01:13 PM
If you ask me, the biggest joke is the Senate.

These days it takes incredible dedication to vote below the line, as you may be forced to number up to a hundred boxes (and if you make a mistake bang goes your vote). Only about 5% of voters vote for candidates below-the-line. The rest trust the parties to distribute the votes by voting above-the-line.

Most of the 'in doubt' senate seats are elected, not by the voters, but by the preference brokers. And the parties don't give a fig for the normal expectations of voters on where their votes are distributed. So we had ridiculous situations at the last election where votes for Labor went to Fred Nile and Family First before Democrats and Greens.

At the last election, I asked all of the party members handing out 'how to vote' cards how above-the-line votes to their party would be distributed. Nobody could tell me except for the Greens. I asked at several voting booths for information about the distribution of above-the-line votes. Only one was able to dig out a copy of the book that had this info.

Polling booths are supposed to have copies of the distribution of all above the line votes for all parties available on request. Also, you can typically find them online through the Electoral Commission website a little while out from the election.

I agree with the above comments and I believe that reform is being seriously canvassed for the next election, possibly to allow the voter to direct preferences between parties above the line.

As well as the seat for FF in Victoria there was another issue with microparties - in NSW the preference harvester group Liberals for Forests soaked up the Greens' preferences and robbed them of any chance of a seat.

pax
31-01-2006, 01:46 PM
Polling booths are supposed to have copies of the distribution of all above the line votes for all parties available on request. Also, you can typically find them online through the Electoral Commission website a little while out from the election.


Yes, I knew that but I wanted to see what was available at the polling stations.



I agree with the above comments and I believe that reform is being seriously canvassed for the next election, possibly to allow the voter to direct preferences between parties above the line.


Either optional preferential below-the-line, or preferential above-the-line would be big improvements on the current state of affairs. The latter would mean that every independent candidate would need to be numbered above the line (unless they arranged themselves into blocs of some sort).



As well as the seat for FF in Victoria there was another issue with microparties - in NSW the preference harvester group Liberals for Forests soaked up the Greens' preferences and robbed them of any chance of a seat.

Yes, LFF was a total joke. Apparently the founder of that party nearly got elected in the NSW state upper house by forming a dozen or more parties, funneling votes to one preferred candidate, and doing preference deals with big parties. He didn't actually need to run a campaign or have any policies or anything.

McTaggart
31-01-2006, 05:06 PM
Does that mean that you are moving to Cabbramatta?


Nah,too dangerous, if I were to move any where it would be to a nice quiet suburb like Ponsonby in NZ.....

PHAT
31-01-2006, 10:47 PM
I have given up on any chance of ever seeing a fair and just society returning to Australia and I have gone into "internal exile"

This is as depressing as my own rejection of the green movement.

pballard
07-03-2006, 11:32 AM
A postscript on an old discussion...


The senate itself isn't a joke - it is far more representative than the house of reps - but I agree that above-the-line voting is a serious problem.

One idea which has been floated is to allow (or even force) people who don't vote below the line to number every square above the line. This reduces the number of squares to fill in by a factor of 4 or so. A number of people from different parties spoke favourably of the idea, but I don't now how far it's been taken.

Another solution is optional preferential voting. (Number the ones you like, leave the others blank).

I'd like to see both these allowed, and above-the-line-preference-tickets abolished.

I found out the other day that this is exactly what happens in voting for the NSW upper house. Well done, NSW!

Bereaved
08-03-2006, 01:08 AM
Hi everyone,

here is an article that was published in the MX street press in Melbourne on Monday 06/03/06, Pg 10, which seems very in line with the first point raised by David at the start of this thread.


Understanding poverty
Plenty missing for poor

A combination of poor education, diet, high transport costs and bad teeth are adding to the sense of shame and deprivation felt by the poorest Australians, a report released today shows.

Social policy researchers at the University of NSW are working towards a new understanding of poverty by identifying the things disadvantaged people live without that others take for granted.

Housing, accessible transport, education, health care and a sense of belonging and respect are often beyond the reach of the underprivileged, the Social Policy Research Centre has found.

"There clearly are groups of people in Australia who have missed out on the increasing prosperity that over a decade of strong economic growth has brought to many others," the report said.

Through interviews last year with 71 mainly unemployed men and women living in Sydney and Melbourne, researchers also found a surprising concern about a lack of dental care.

Many people interviewed said bad teeth made it harder to compete for jobs and could invite discrimination.

Young people cited their lack of knowledge about sexual health as a major issue.

Lengthy waiting lists for public housing, the prospect of never owning a home, and a lack of knowledge about tenant rights were also cited as issues.

Many interviewees said they simply could not afford to eat sometimes.

(unattributed to a particular reporter)



What a parlous state of affairs it is to be poor in the "lucky country"

Reports such as this which seem to appear with ever increasing regularity don't seem to address any form of possible solutions. It is merely a recounting of facts like it was a phone bill, and the raw data of itself was sufficient to highlight the need for change.

The absence of regular articles that suggest that such problems are being addressed is perhaps even more worrying.

Let us all hope that some of these problems will be not merely commented on, but that solutions will be provided and not just proposed.

I personally will pray for change, and hope that we all see fit to try and bring about changes to alleviate this situation in our own way ( hint: praying is a good start...)

Take care and God Bless, Macavity

PHAT
08-03-2006, 09:56 AM
What a parlous state of affairs it is to be poor in the "lucky country"
...

Let us all hope that some of these problems will be not merely commented on, but that solutions will be provided and not just proposed.


The first step: 'Pray" that you NEVER vote for a major party.

McTaggart
08-03-2006, 11:34 PM
The first step: 'Pray" that you NEVER vote for a major party.

Yes,praying is often resorted to when all else fails. Whole populations prayed during the Black Plague when it swept across Europe killing every second person. Did'nt help much then and won't help much now. Praying to an implacable God rarely does. Had they but known,basic sanatition would have been a lot more effective. Better education is a lot better than praying in the long run. And the "lucky" country is going to get a lot less luckier in about two years time ,how do I know? Senator Minchin told me so, although little Johnnie says it will never happen. But he did not say "never ever!" so I am a little worried...

PHAT
09-03-2006, 06:09 AM
But he did not say "never ever!" so I am a little worried...

I would be too, after all, it means non-core.

bergil
09-03-2006, 07:06 AM
Nah,too dangerous, if I were to move any where it would be to a nice quiet suburb like Ponsonby in NZ.....
What about Palmerston North??

John Cleese:
If you ever do want to kill yourself, but lack the courage, I think a visit to Palmerston North will do the trick.

Paul O'Brien from the Local Chamber of Commerce:
Palmy and Manuatu's current slogan is 'young heart, easy living'. But we could certainly add to that, 'so boring you'll relax in a minute'.

Lucena
09-03-2006, 09:12 AM
And the "lucky" country is going to get a lot less luckier in about two years time ,how do I know? Senator Minchin told me so, although little Johnnie says it will never happen. But he did not say "never ever!" so I am a little worried...

Hold on a moment - what Howard said was that he wouldn't introduce further changes in this term(for one thing, it could be political suicide before an election) and he also said he wouldn't take such changes to the next election(likewise, this too would be a political blunder-who wants to run an election campaign under the platform of reduced working conditions and increased job insecurity?) . He said absolutely nothing that would preclude him from introducing the changes, unheralded, after the next election. Over time I have got the impression that any statement from Howard that seems unequivocal has to be scrutinised to the nth degree to see the loopholes he is trying to give himself. It's more useful to pay attention to what he doesn't say, rather than what he actually does say.

bergil
09-03-2006, 09:47 AM
Hold on a moment - what Howard said was that he wouldn't introduce further changes in this term(for one thing, it could be political suicide before an election) and he also said he wouldn't take such changes to the next election(likewise, this too would be a political blunder-who wants to run an election campaign under the platform of reduced working conditions and increased job insecurity?) . He said absolutely nothing that would preclude him from introducing the changes, unheralded, after the next election. Over time I have got the impression that any statement from Howard that seems unequivocal has to be scrutinised to the nth degree to see the loopholes he is trying to give himself. It's more useful to pay attention to what he doesn't say, rather than what he actually does say.
Well said!! :clap:

pballard
09-03-2006, 12:18 PM
He said absolutely nothing that would preclude him from introducing the changes, unheralded, after the next election.

When has he done that in the past?

arosar
09-03-2006, 12:53 PM
What a parlous state of affairs it is to be poor in the "lucky country"

When I came to this country, I always wondered immediately why you had poor people here. I'm talking about homelessness and all that. Hard to believe for a first world nation. I mean, sure, we had poor in RP - but Australia? Hard to understand. I reckon these poor are just hopeless lazy bastards. Look at these scums who sit around street corners all over Sydney these days? The government should round them up immediately. They make our beautiful city loook ugly.

AR

Spiny Norman
13-03-2006, 12:50 PM
When has he done that in the past?
Remember the revocation of the L-A-W law tax cuts?

Oh, wait ... that was the other guy ... ;)

four four two
13-03-2006, 03:09 PM
Arosar,your starting to sound like Marcos.
Think we should introduce martial law to round up the drunks,junks,gamblers and the mentally ill?:hmm:
Afraid tourists will see that Sydney isnt perfect?:hmm:
As for "our" beautiful city,dont forget that many of those "undesirables" werent always homeless. Quite a few of them would have voted for a government in the past that allowed foreigners like you into Australia.

Rincewind
13-03-2006, 03:15 PM
Arosar,your starting to sound like Marcos.
Think we should introduce martial law to round up the drunks,junks,gamblers and the mentally ill?:hmm:
Afraid tourists will see that Sydney isnt perfect?:hmm:
As for "our" beautiful city,dont forget that many of those "undesirables" werent always homeless. Quite a few of them would have voted for a government in the past that allowed foreigners like you into Australia.

I was also confused by "they make our beautiful city loook ugly". I thought arosar was from Sydney. In which case it isn't the homeless people mate, it's the monorail.

Seriously though a lot of the homeless people are those who have been failed by society. With attitudes like arosar's it is easy to see why. Sydney has no heart.

arosar
13-03-2006, 03:54 PM
Mate, when you live here, you all understand what I'm saying. These guys are not genuine poor. They're actually a syndicate and this is all they do pulling off the same stunt. They have these signs saying, "Oh please help. Need money to get back to Woop Woop" or some place like that. It's just terrible. I think you know what I'm talking about.

Yes, monorail is ugly! They should tear it down immediately.

AR

WhiteElephant
13-03-2006, 04:33 PM
I read that the government was going to put up all the working girls in St Kilda in luxury hotels during the Commonwealth Games so as not to offend the tourists. I didn't believe it until I drove through Carlisle St on my way home last night - not a working girl in sight.

Libby
13-03-2006, 06:06 PM
Seriously though a lot of the homeless people are those who have been failed by society. With attitudes like arosar's it is easy to see why. Sydney has no heart.

But him a copy of Lazyboy's "Underwear Goes Inside the Pants" - set to "repeat" Glue headphones into ears ;)

firegoat7
13-03-2006, 09:13 PM
When I came to this country, I always wondered immediately why you had poor people here. OMG, idiot immigrant learns that poverty is a worldwide phenomena.


I'm talking about homelessness and all that. No doubt you are, seems bourgeois clowns like yourself don't seem to realise that people have to live somewhere.


Hard to believe for a first world nation. Just remember, when you and your Pino mates were getting done over by American Imperialism, the working class in Australia were not and never were sharing the spoils of colonial conquest.



I mean, sure, we had poor in RP - but Australia? Hard to understand.
My friend, you need to read some history. This place was founded on theft.



I reckon these poor are just hopeless lazy bastards. I think you are a total fool (if it was the coffee lounge I would say much worse). It is clowns like you who deserve to be hung up on the nearest tree.



Look at these scums who sit around street corners all over Sydney these days? Yeah they are all drinking imported beer and hanging a round cafes talking real estate.



The government should round them up immediately. They make our beautiful city loook ugly. Hopefully when the revolution comes you will get the first bullet.


cheers Fg7

four four two
13-03-2006, 09:20 PM
A syndicate? :lol: Is Fagin hiding in the shadows to collect his part of the daily take?:hmm:
Sure their signs are fake,I have yet to see a sign that says need money for drugs/booze/gambling. There will always be people with addictions,sometimes their addictions take over their life,this isnt unique to the developed world.It happens in all countries.
Do you doubt that most of them are sleeping on concrete at night while you are in your bed?:hmm:

arosar
13-03-2006, 09:47 PM
Hopefully when the revolution comes you will get the first bullet.

Look here you resident undergrad, why don't you go tell your comrades to go get real jobs?

And the only revolution I'm waiting for is if you can for once manage to be coherent.

AR

Rincewind
13-03-2006, 10:11 PM
But him a copy of Lazyboy's "Underwear Goes Inside the Pants" - set to "repeat" Glue headphones into ears ;)

Yeah that is a classic. But I didn't mean my post to sound trite. Many homeless people have mental health issues substance abuse problems or both. Society offers them very little and arosar (and most others) wants to sweep them under the carpet. It's truly very sad.

four four two
13-03-2006, 10:19 PM
Arosar's comments remind me of the lyrics to Rawhide...

Keep movin', movin', movin'
Though they're disapprovin'
Keep them dogies movin', rawhide
Don't try to understand 'em
Just rope 'em, throw and brand 'em
Soon we'll be living high and wide

ElevatorEscapee
13-03-2006, 10:32 PM
Your barbs are starting to lose their topical relevance AR! ;) I believe someone has indicated that he has already graduated. :)