Australian Politics (11 Viewers)

[Iron]

You didnt even mention workchoices, which was Howard's biggest sin against the ethos of the people (and the biggest single factor for the vote against the Coalition)

It's not a perfect government, but it's a better government more in touch with the Australian people. The challenge of the opposition is to prove that they've caught up with the people on the points of contention, but kept their strengths. I think the next election will be a genuine fight against two massive egos, but I have faith in the people to get it right

 

[impervious182]

You didnt even mention workchoices, which was Howard's biggest sin against the ethos of the people (and the biggest single factor for the vote against the Coalition)

Intentionally. lol. Yeah, on that issue I agree with you.

It's not a perfect government, but it's a better government more in touch with the Australian people. The challenge of the opposition is to prove that they've caught up with the people on the points of contention, but kept their strengths. I think the next election will be a genuine fight against two massive egos, but I have faith in the people to get it right

Yes. Hopefully they will get it right.

Erm... but yeah, I don't know if the government are in touch or not. The problem is that government's need to make tough decisions and Rudd is not willing to do this. Partly because he has no really, strong values and beliefs of his own. I know this sounds vague, but the truth is, that Rudd is constantly doing backflips on issues - even climate change, Indigenous policies etc. etc..

UN talks in Poland this week, in which Penny Wong and Kevin Rudd said Australia would play a leading role on the issue have backfired. Now Wong is refusing to release guidelines which will ensure that Australia's role is minimal. (I mean, I agree with this choice, but it's a blatant breach of the mandate on which Labor were elected.)

 

[Rafy]

The Nationals in the Senate crossed the floor last night. Senator Fiona Nash was dumped from the shadow ministry as a result. Sen Nigel Scullion (CLP) abstained.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/nats-senator-axed-then-crosses-floor-20081201-6ouw.html

 

[ziki]

If i was 18+ i would vote for Kevin Rudd next election.

We cant say that the world fiancial crisis is his fault right? Even if the national party was leading, what could they do? So i guess his just unlucky thats all.

Also his promises, yes we can see him holding alot of summits but nothing realistic has been done. BUT! Atleast his thinking, he did hold one of his promises to say sorry for the aboriginal people which the national party could never do in the 6years? in office. So i believe that the ALP would be better at leading our country then the National party

 

[Trefoil]

The Nationals in the Senate crossed the floor last night. Senator Fiona Nash was dumped from the shadow ministry as a result. Sen Nigel Scullion (CLP) abstained.

http://www.theage.com.au/national/nats-senator-axed-then-crosses-floor-20081201-6ouw.html

Greens and Nationals voting the same way. Well I never.

Schroe: Well, Rudd's stimulus and funding packages are 'protecting the economic future of our nation'. A recession or downturn is exactly the time when the government is meant to spend and cut taxes, because it promotes consumption and creates jobs. Which is why most economists are telling the government to go into deficit to prevent a recession.

On the other hand, you've got Turnbull ranting about how deficit is evil and government spending is a waste. Um, yeah, he seems like a real economic champion.

 

[impervious182]

National party? Are you even an Australian citizen?

Please take the 25 dollar fine and don't vote.

Coalition, you idiot. Idiot, idiot. I love how saying sorry and dealing with a bullshit issue is more important than the economic future of our nation.

One of the rare instances, where I find my self agreeing with you completely.

How any one could vote Labor after the past year is beyond me.

 

[chicky_pie]

Julie (our next future PM) Bishop is fuckin' awesome, watch as her claws came out targeting Julie (Communist Bad Hair) Gillard after the Labor chumps tried to pick on Bishop over the Libs attacking Swan.

 

[impervious182]

On the other hand, you've got Turnbull ranting about how deficit is evil and government spending is a waste. Um, yeah, he seems like a real economic champion.

Any opposing view Trefoil and you try to simplify it and move it into the realm of idiocy.

Turnbull is not saying 'deficit is evil', he is however being politically clever and reminding voters that Labor deficits are never 'temporary'. And look, Turnbull is a Rhodes scholar and a multi-millionaire, so I think he knows something about economic management.

His suggestion was to cut income-tax for relief and also to inject money into the economy to promote liquidity, but to do it sensibly. Labor on the other hand are just throwing it around, recklessly, even into those pockets, where it will be wasted. (e.g. the state governments)

 

[Rafy]

Julie (our next future PM) Bishop is fuckin' awesome, watch as her claws came out targeting Julie (Communist Bad Hair) Gillard after the Labor chumps tried to pick on Bishop over the Libs attacking Swan.

Tbh, she'll be lucky to keep the treasury portfolio. Swan is the government's weak link and he's been let of the hook lately.

The economy was the coalition's main strength but the advantage they held over Labor has evaporated. It's not a portfolio they can get wrong.

 

[impervious182]

Tbh, she'll be lucky to keep the treasury portfolio. Swan is the government's weak link and he's been let of the hook lately.

The economy was the coalition's main strength but the advantage they held over Labor has evaporated. It's not a portfolio they can get wrong.

Very true. Bishop needs to be moved to Environment (haha... that's a portfolio you can't mess up, Just ask Penny Wong.)

 

[Matt Palmer]

Any opposing view Trefoil and you try to simplify it and move it into the realm of idiocy.

Turnbull is not saying 'deficit is evil', he is however being politically clever and reminding voters that Labor deficits are never 'temporary'. And look, Turnbull is a Rhodes scholar and a multi-millionaire, so I think he knows something about economic management.

His suggestion was to cut income-tax for relief and also to inject money into the economy to promote liquidity, but to do it sensibly. Labor on the other hand are just throwing it around, recklessly, even into those pockets, where it will be wasted. (e.g. the state governments)

turnbull is right in saying income tax cuts will stimulate the economy, if they are given to lower income earners as these people will spend most of their income and stimulate the economy. turnbull wants to cut taxes on the wealthy as well because wealthy people (like him) have to engage in "complex tax avoidance schemes". This makes me think he just doesnt want to pay as much tax on his "multi-millions". He doesnt support reform to the GST tax (although it is very effective). Indirect taxes like these have an adverse affcet on the lower income earners that will stimulate the economy. if the GST was cut it will encourage more spending on goods and services. all in all he is right about tax reform.

 

[impervious182]

turnbull is right in saying income tax cuts will stimulate the economy, if they are given to lower income earners as these people will spend most of their income and stimulate the economy. turnbull wants to cut taxes on the wealthy as well because wealthy people (like him) have to engage in "complex tax avoidance schemes".

No. Tax-cuts would stimulate the economy, even if they're given to high-income earners, because the economy is comprised, mostly, of investments and the assets from these people.

I hate to use the slogan, but it truly is 'envy politics' when people say that low-income earners should get tax breaks and not high-income earners, who are already taxed more, when the effects would be the same. Why shouldn't high-income earners also be entitled to tax breaks? The fact is that high-income earners spend the money just as quickly as low-income earners - all generalisations aside.

This makes me think he just doesnt want to pay as much tax on his "multi-millions".

Erm... he has already earned the money and paid income tax on it... so technically he wouldn't be paying tax on it either way.

He doesnt support reform to the GST tax (although it is very effective). Indirect taxes like these have an adverse affcet on the lower income earners that will stimulate the economy. if the GST was cut it will encourage more spending on goods and services. all in all he is right about tax reform.

It's a good idea in theory, but it's not practical for the long term. Imagine trying to revert back to 10% GST when relative economic stability is restored and people have gotten used to a 5% GST rate instead... It would be very difficult and complicate issues for the government. True, such a reform would stimulate short-term spending, but it would also effect government income in the future - which is not a desired side-effect.

 

[Trefoil]

Turnbull is not saying 'deficit is evil', he is however being politically clever and reminding voters that Labor deficits are never 'temporary'.

Um, that's rubbish. Arbitrary rubbish. Over his term, Hawke actually managed to decrease the deficit handed to him by the Liberal Fraser who concealed it during the election, while Howard rode a mining boom (and Rudd will too). There's honestly no real precedent for either party in modern times for you to base such a vacuous claim off.

No, what Turnbull is doing is trying to undermine confidence in the government to make himself look better, which in turn undermines confidence in the economy. That's not the marking of a good economic manager. That's the marking of somebody who puts his job ahead of the health of the country.

And look, Turnbull is a Rhodes scholar and a multi-millionaire, so I think he knows something about economic management.

Hah, no. That says he knows how to play the system to get rich (to which I credit him), not run an economy.

His suggestion was to cut income-tax for relief

Rudd already gave tax cuts in the middle of the year. More now would be unwise as it would significantly increase the deficit without providing the same level of impact as stimulus spending.

and also to inject money into the economy to promote liquidity, but to do it sensibly. Labor on the other hand are just throwing it around, recklessly, even into those pockets, where it will be wasted. (e.g. the state governments)

Pardon me? The state governments are exactly where the money needs to go to promote infrastructure spending which creates jobs. And I'd hardly call education or health spending, of which a significant portion has been, 'wasted'.

Turnbull mostly wants all the stimulus to be in the form of tax cuts and one-off handouts instead of funding packages and infrastructure stimulus. That's economic suicide, not least of all because people often save in tough times instead of spending to promote growth, but also because it has no sustained long-term (e.g. a year from now) economic benefits.

 

[Rafy]

Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 just passed the Senate so independent schools will receive funding next year.

Provisions relating to a national curriculum were removed, and the secrecy of private school donors assured.

Background on the dispute here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...schools-at-risk/2008/12/01/1227979933096.html

 

[Trefoil]

Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 just passed the Senate so independent schools will receive funding next year.

Provisions relating to a national curriculum were removed, and the secrecy of private school donors assured.

Background on the dispute here: http://www.smh.com.au/news/national...schools-at-risk/2008/12/01/1227979933096.html

Didn't independent schools already get funding? Or was this extra funding?

Secrecy of donors - well, it's not a political party or office, so I don't think it's a significant issue?

National curriculum - ambivalent. One of the few cases where I agree with the silly American concept of "if you don't like this state's policies, move to another". One national curriculum means one target for the type of dumbing down changes that NSW's syllabus has experienced lately.

 

[impervious182]

Um, that's rubbish. Arbitrary rubbish. Over his term, Hawke actually managed to decrease the deficit handed to him by the Liberal Fraser who concealed it during the election...

Hawke did inherit a deficit, but I seem to remember the government still being in deficit when he was ousted from office. And how did Liberal Fraser get into deficit in the first place? Oh that's right, good old Labor Gough Whitlam. Spend, spend, spend!

Don't try and change history, or I'll have to start calling you Stalin.

No, what Turnbull is doing is trying to undermine confidence in the government to make himself look better, which in turn undermines confidence in the economy. That's not the marking of a good economic manager. That's the marking of somebody who puts his job ahead of the health of the country.

Oh, and Kevin Rudd never did that in opposition? Oh and Wayne Swan hasn't done that while in office! Oh and Stephen Smith never did that while on overseas trips.

Your ideal Australia is one which never questions the decisions of a Labor government. Surprise, surprise - an opposition criticising the decisions of the government! Shock, horror.

I think, the sign of a shocking economic manager is a person who is in government undermining confidence in the economy. Enter Wayne Swan.

... Rudd already gave tax cuts in the middle of the year. More now would be unwise as it would significantly increase the deficit without providing the same level of impact as stimulus spending.

Well now it would. We're in agreement. On this same notion, any government spending would increase the deficit. What's your argument. No one is suggesting Labor's spending and more... they're suggesting a different spending scheme to replace the Labor one. They haven't spent the money yet.

Pardon me? The state governments are exactly where the money needs to go to promote infrastructure spending which creates jobs. And I'd hardly call education or health spending, of which a significant portion has been, 'wasted'.

You've misunderstood me. It's not wasted because it's spent on eduation and health. It's wasted, because it is not spent transparently and Labor state government's objectives are never achieved... in NSW for example, many many transport projects have gone bust, requiring millions upon millions for no results.

The Labor State governments are money vaccuums. They suck it in, and give nothing back but inefficiency and corruption.

Turnbull mostly wants all the stimulus to be in the form of tax cuts and one-off handouts instead of funding packages and infrastructure stimulus. That's economic suicide, not least of all because people often save in tough times instead of spending to promote growth, but also because it has no sustained long-term (e.g. a year from now) economic benefits.

Infrastructure stimulus works, if the money dedicated to it is used effectively. The question is, how effective will Rudd's stimulus packages be?

 

[impervious182]

Education Legislation Amendment Bill 2008 and the Schools Assistance Bill 2008 just passed the Senate so independent schools will receive funding next year.

Provisions relating to a national curriculum were removed, and the secrecy of private school donors assured.

Well I'm glad the Senate got this right.

 

[ziki]

Instead of turning down labor, consider what Mr.Turnbull can do if his in office. This is a world Fiancial crisis we cant help it but to deal with it. With the fear of reccession coming infrastructure spending is neccecary in order to create more jobs to cover Job cuts from major companies. And looking at how the opposition is reacting now, i doubt the chance that they will deal this problem better then Labor

 

[spiny norman]

Hawke did inherit a deficit, but I seem to remember the government still being in deficit when he was ousted from office.

It wasn't the same deficit, though. But if you knew an iota of history you'd know that there was a recession in the late 1980s which saw the Government go back into deficit to cope with it (because that's how it's done).

And how did Liberal Fraser get into deficit in the first place? Oh that's right, good old Labor Gough Whitlam. Spend, spend, spend!

Again, learn your history. Fraser was in office for over seven years. If Hawke/Keating can be criticised for leaving Australia in deficit for six, surely Fraser not bringing it out in seven must likewise be criticised.

Don't try and change history, or I'll have to start calling you Stalin.

What?

Oh, and Kevin Rudd never did that in opposition?

Not to the same extent, and not in the same situation.

Oh and Wayne Swan hasn't done that while in office!

Not really, no.

Oh and Stephen Smith never did that while on overseas trips.

What?

I think, the sign of a shocking economic manager is a person who is in government undermining confidence in the economy.

You have pretty low standards for decent economic management then.

I won't call Slidey Stalin, but I'll certainly call you retarded.

 

[impervious182]

It wasn't the same deficit, though. But if you knew an iota of history you'd know that there was a recession in the late 1980s which saw the Government go back into deficit to cope with it (because that's how it's done).

I didn't deny it was a different deficit... but still a deficit nonetheless.

Again, learn your history. Fraser was in office for over seven years. If Hawke/Keating can be criticised for leaving Australia in deficit for six, surely Fraser not bringing it out in seven must likewise be criticised.

I didn't say Fraser was not also to blame and I never made the claim that all Liberal governments are great economic managers. Read my post again - you obviously haven't understood it.

What?

Stalin adapted history to fit party policy... Are you going to deny that too?

Not to the same extent, and not in the same situation.

You're right. Kevin Rudd did it much more than Malcolm Turnbull. And as for Wayne Swan and Stephen Smith, you can deny it as much as you want, but these two people are not entirely competant. Remember 'the inflation genie's out of the bottle' - yeah that's a great way to talk up the economy.

You have pretty low standards for decent economic management then.

I won't call Slidey Stalin, but I'll certainly call you retarded.

Erm... and I didn't say that a good economic manager was only a person who didn't undermine confidence in it... but naturally this is one of the conditions. How exactly are Rudd and co being good economic managers by deterring investors?

You're an idiot.