Latham or Howard? (1 Viewer)

[gem_max]

Why does everyone of your arguments involve an insult?

You honestly think Indonesia is a threat to Australian security?






You have more chance of killing yourself that being killed by a terroist...better keep yourself away from those kitchen knives

the nagain you live in the country...there aint no terrorists up where you live

An insult? Where? Perhaps you are too touchy... Oh wait thats an insult too! As for that last bit... harsh... very harsh. You might want to delete that dude.

Oh and Coffs is hardly the country. Get out more.

EDIT: and quit editing your posts after ive quoted them.

No I do not think Indonesia is a problem. I was actually planning on heading to Bali, possibly within the next year. My post moved the focus away from Indonesia, hinting that there is more danger elsewhere.

Point taken.

But it won't change my idea.

I disagree with Howard on pretty much everything, not just because I think he's a fool: Iraq, education, hospitals, FTA, everything.

haha much better, sticker for you. Dont worry though Im only joking. More teacher voice just for iambored's benefit hehe.

 

[gem_max]

Coffs! i think thats called regional NSW!!!! however i think it qualifies as a 'town' or regional center...

in the last two pages you have managed to call people who dont agree with you ignorant and immature

you are a 1st year Tech student teacher at SCU...you are not a political science maestro you are just as 'ignorant' as joe blow down the street who gets his news from the tele or channel 9 news...hows that for a bit of paternalism?

Regional does not mean country. A region is an area of land, in this case the coast. Coffs is in the top 5 largest towns in NSW. You were making it sound like some hillbilly, beatnick shin dig.

Ignorant and immature are hardly as insulting as suggesting that I might kill myself. You may have more political experience than most of us here yet posting something as offensive as that is just plain inhumane.

Paternalism eh? Are you going to tell me your my father now Darth?

 

[leetom]

Voting for Howard because we are live in 'uncertain' times is rediculous. The paranoia that hounds Libereal supporters is amazing.

 

[lukebennett]

"Even people who dont work hard (when was hard work ever a determinent of how much money people earn? ) they still deserve an education..."

Yes you are right, but people deserve to have the money they earn going on education and services. just because they earn more money doesnt mean they should have it given to other people. Tax money belongs to whoever earns the money. If latham wants to cut funding to private schooling that is not a fair policy because funding should be increased in public schooling not decreased in private schooling.

By the way, Asquithian these times doesnt have to be amazingly uncertain for the stock market etc to be fluctuating all over the world. Who knows whether we will be attacked by terrorists. we may not be, but this question is the problem as it has forced more and moremoney into security so that people feel safe (safety is slmost possible to ensure so when something goes wrong what happens? more of our surplus money is needed for security!!!! Latham just being from labour ensures a loss of surplus. History of labour politics tells us it is the labor way to spend big and cause interest rates to hike, which will place a bigger squeeze on families which labor wont be able to ease.

howard might be manipulative but name one PM who hasnt been manipulative. IT is completely subjective to call him the most manipulative PM.

And who wants someone who cant control their mouth in parlianment like latham running the country. He is just a big kid. that can be a good thing but not for someone who could be running an $8 billion economy

 

[lukebennett]

"Even people who dont work hard (when was hard work ever a determinent of how much money people earn? ) they still deserve an education..." (asquithian)

Yes you are right, but people deserve to have the money that they earn going on education and services. just because they earn more money doesnt mean they should have it given to other people. Tax money belongs to whoever earns the money. If latham wants to cut funding to private schooling that is not a fair policy because funding should be increased in public schooling not decreased in private schooling.

By the way, Asquithian these "times" dont have to be amazingly uncertain for the stock market etc to be fluctuating all over the world. Who knows whether we will be attacked by terrorists. we may not be, but this question is the problem as it has forced more and more money into security so that people feel safe (safety is almost impossible to ensure so when something goes wrong what happens? more of our surplus money is needed for security!!!! Latham just being from labour ensures a loss of surplus. History of labour politics tells us it is the labor way to spend big and cause interest rates to hike, which will place a bigger squeeze on families which labor wont be able to ease.

howard might be manipulative but name one PM who hasnt been manipulative. IT is completely subjective to call him the most manipulative PM.

And who wants someone who cant control their mouth in parlianment like latham running the country. He is just a big kid. that can be a good thing but not for someone who could be running an $8 billion economy

 

[gem_max]

there are other meanings to that word you know

i was just turning the same words you used on yourself...? So whats the problem and why is it so offensive when i use the exact words you used to describe other people to describe you?

Did i say at any point that i was going to attempt to kill myself with a kitchen knife? No i did not... EVER.

And besides YOU are the only one I have actually labelled ignorant (you should be chuffed for being so singled out ).

And I know that there are more meanings to that word. Stars Wars trilogy was, as you should know, just released on DVD so you'll have to excuse my preocupiedness with all things jedi at this point in time. Ive been getting these strange urges to buy star wars lego even. Thanks gosh they dont make Australian political party lego too eh?

 

[mervvyn]

Yes you are right, but people deserve to have the money that they earn going on education and services. just because they earn more money doesnt mean they should have it given to other people. Tax money belongs to whoever earns the money. If latham wants to cut funding to private schooling that is not a fair policy because funding should be increased in public schooling not decreased in private schooling.

I sort of agree on the second part about increasing funding, but given that funding isn't endless, there is a partial case to be made for reallocation.
However, i'm more concerned with the idea that taxes belong to the person who paid them. Taxes are a contribution to the overall wellbeing of society, especially those less well off than you. Presuming that everyone were to only get services according to how much tax they paid, things would be a lot less fair than the situation now. Think of how much an education or hospital place costs - we need those, but not everyone uses them. And the amount of tax paid by someone on $25000 a year is hardly enough to cover all the services that person and their dependents might need - what about people without an income. Tax is a form of income sharing that is a basic tenet of a functioning society.

By the way, Asquithian these "times" dont have to be amazingly uncertain for the stock market etc to be fluctuating all over the world. Who knows whether we will be attacked by terrorists. we may not be, but this question is the problem as it has forced more and more money into security so that people feel safe (safety is almost impossible to ensure so when something goes wrong what happens? more of our surplus money is needed for security!!!! Latham just being from labour ensures a loss of surplus. History of labour politics tells us it is the labor way to spend big and cause interest rates to hike, which will place a bigger squeeze on families which labor wont be able to ease.

Like the Liberals haven't been spending up big recently?

howard might be manipulative but name one PM who hasnt been manipulative. IT is completely subjective to call him the most manipulative PM.

And who wants someone who cant control their mouth in parlianment like latham running the country. He is just a big kid. that can be a good thing but not for someone who could be running an $8 billion economy

It is also fairly subjective and shallow to dismiss him as just a big kid who can't control his mouth. I'm not saying he's perfect, but a party is more than one man. And it's $800 billion, can you quote your Liberal propaganda properly please?

 

[lukebennett]

"you think john howard cares about public high schools?"

do you really think Latham cares? no!!!!! he's just opposing howard for votes. Dont expect any dramatic changes if latham gets in.

it doesnt matter if weve run deficits in the past if howard stays in anyway.

Bob carr is hardly doing a great job at state level. who cares if their is a surplus when city rail doesnt even work etc. Everyone want him out. Go brogden

Anyways why vote in "new blood" who hasnt proven himself to be fit to run an economy. I'd hardly vote in someone for a "change" at the expense of an economy which is improving all the time.

 

[ohne]

2. Ok so what basis is there for saying latham will run a deficit...both the parties policies are fully costed?

The ALP has not submitted any of its policies to treasury for costing under the charter of budget honesty so I think it is fair to say there is some doubt on this claim, particulary over the "Medicare Gold" policy and also the "savings" under the tax policy.

 

[ohne]

3. Rial network problem can be blamed on both liberal and labor governments...it has been a problem for a longer time that the car government

Really? Even the transport minister himself said the rail system is in its worst state since it was founded. I think anyone with half a brain could recognise that the rail system was in a far better state in the early 1990s.

 

[lukebennett]

I sort of agree on the second part about increasing funding, but given that funding isn't endless, there is a partial case to be made for reallocation.
However, i'm more concerned with the idea that taxes belong to the person who paid them. Taxes are a contribution to the overall wellbeing of society, especially those less well off than you. Presuming that everyone were to only get services according to how much tax they paid, things would be a lot less fair than the situation now. Think of how much an education or hospital place costs - we need those, but not everyone uses them. And the amount of tax paid by someone on $25000 a year is hardly enough to cover all the services that person and their dependents might need - what about people without an income. Tax is a form of income sharing that is a basic tenet of a functioning society.



Like the Liberals haven't been spending up big recently?



It is also fairly subjective and shallow to dismiss him as just a big kid who can't control his mouth. I'm not saying he's perfect, but a party is more than one man. And it's $800 billion, can you quote your Liberal propaganda properly please?

Howard has been spending up big, but not to the same extent as labor.

I agree with the part that taxes are for society as a whole, but considering that people such as my dad already gets half his income taxed, to have money removed from private education (which he feels is the best option for me) is not fair.

I know more money has to go on nearly everything. but for a difference to be made alot of money is needed and it is just not feasible in most cases.

thanks for giving a more objective post. My does get a bit subjective at times but i still think latham is too rude and to ready to justoppose howards ideas and say that $9 extra for some families will make a huge difference. i personally think that is a terribble waste of money as it in most cases will just slip through families fingers

 

[lukebennett]

Howard walks out of press conferneces and wont answer direction questions on TV instead he just says bankly 'im not going to answer that'


hows that for rudness and arrogance...so high and mighty that he doesnt feel that he should answer direct question or when the questioning gets too hard he leaves to press confernece...

Chances are they are not direct questions from TV shows. They can feel free to take anything out of context. In press conferences they must follow a code of conduct to stop them doing this. Why would ha answer these questions when half the answers would be used against him. THAT IS NOT RUDENESS!!!! That is being sensible.

 

[gem_max]

now its down to squabbles about rudeness? I give up on this thread... Im going back to my lego... or the beach... Enjoy your last week of this debate chaps

 

[mervvyn]

Howard has been spending up big, but not to the same extent as labor.

Maybe not during the election, but $52 billion at this year's budget pretty much blows away even the biggest of the imaginary Labor spending sprees. All in the name of buying a few votes in marginal seats

I agree with the part that taxes are for society as a whole, but considering that people such as my dad already gets half his income taxed, to have money removed from private education (which he feels is the best option for me) is not fair.

It depends what sort of private schooling - most wouldn't lose out under the Labor proposal. Is it fair that public students whose parents might not even earn enough to be in the top tax bracket (where you lose about half of your income) should have a poorer resourced education at your expense (or mine, i went to a "hit list" school as well). Education spending is important, but you have to admit the SES formula that has been going for the past few years isn't brilliant.

Edit: I should qualify that; I don't mean to say that every school should be funded to the same level as the elite private schools, that would be ridulously expensive and not necessary, or that private schools should have all of their funding cut. But what is necessary is the improvement of the standard of resources - infrastructure and recurrent costs like textbooks - that have been neglected in recent years, and perhaps the money should be going to the states to be spent within their education bureaucracy rather than having a separate federal one for the same thing.

thanks for giving a more objective post. My does get a bit subjective at times but i still think latham is too rude and to ready to justoppose howards ideas and say that $9 extra for some families will make a huge difference. i personally think that is a terribble waste of money as it in most cases will just slip through families fingers

You're welcome... however, (although i don't agree with income tax cuts in the scale we've had recently, particularly for the higher end of the income scale, i understand that we have to have tax bracket readjustments to minimise bracket creep), it is a fairly big assumption and an unfair one to suggest that the money is wasted because the "great unwashed" (my words, but the impression you gave) inherently can't use money sensibly.

it doesnt matter if weve run deficits in the past if howard stays in anyway.

Does this mean it's ok for Labor to have run deficits in the past as well? Both sides have produced deficits in the past, even the current government, so doesn't that make it a level playing field? Sorry, i'm just a little skeptical about the preconceptions of the Liberals as naturally better economists and Labor as instant deficit/high interest rate bringers.

 

[lukebennett]

You're welcome... however, (although i don't agree with income tax cuts in the scale we've had recently, particularly for the higher end of the income scale, i understand that we have to have tax bracket readjustments to minimise bracket creep), it is a fairly big assumption and an unfair one to suggest that the money is wasted because the "great unwashed" (my words, but the impression you gave) inherently can't use money sensibly.

It didnt mean that they cant use their money wisely. All i meant was that $9 (a week i thought it was) is hardly going to make any difference unless the people getting it are people who are constantly scraping around their homes for money and stuff. Its hardly the amount of money you can use sensibly (you may end up spending $9 extra a week or less per week on petrol). It will hardly pay off any bill. My point is i wasn't making any assumption or imply any "social class" couldnt manage money, im saying it is a waste to cut tax if it wont help, and in my opinion $9 per week wont do that.

 

[mervvyn]

It didnt mean that they cant use their money wisely. All i meant was that $9 (a week i thought it was) is hardly going to make any difference unless the people getting it are people who are constantly scraping around their homes for money and stuff. Its hardly the amount of money you can use sensibly (you may end up spending $9 extra a week or less per week on petrol). It will hardly pay off any bill. My point is i wasn't making any assumption or imply any "social class" couldnt manage money, im saying it is a waste to cut tax if it wont help, and in my opinion $9 per week wont do that.

Ok, fair enough, but surely something is better than nothing. A reduced tax burden gives you more disposable income to play with and become more of a consumeristic and aspirational voter. It might not be spent all at once, $9 a week is like $470 a year, which isn't too bad. It's just a bit more flexibility.
That said, there's the issue of who actually gets the tax cut, and i feel it would have been better to give it to everyone by changing it in a lower bracket rather than just the higher income earners.

 

[lukebennett]

Ok, fair enough, but surely something is better than nothing. A reduced tax burden gives you more disposable income to play with and become more of a consumeristic and aspirational voter. It might not be spent all at once, $9 a week is like $470 a year, which isn't too bad. It's just a bit more flexibility.
That said, there's the issue of who actually gets the tax cut, and i feel it would have been better to give it to everyone by changing it in a lower bracket rather than just the higher income earners.

I think you are right but i think that it would be best to concentrate the tax cut with the lowest income earners. that way the poorer will keep more money rather that dispersing it over a larger area and not having it make a real difference for anyone. I guess it is good campaigning though to say to a wide range of voters that they will have a tax cut.

 

[jameseginton]

Private education

The idea to cut funding to private schooles is one of the most transperant policies of the campaign so far. We must remeber that many marginal seats are in Queensland. Guess where private school funding isnt being cut? I mean come on.

We must also remeber that private schooles arer necessary part of the education sector. Imagine if every private school was closed, the public system would be unable to cope with the added burden of students. There would not be enough teachers or resources to accomodate this. By making private schools more attractive to middle Australia you are in fact "easing the squeeze" (to use one of the most overused cliches) on the Australian economy. The cost of every Australian student to be placed in public eductaion would be astronomical. It is also important to note that work conditions in private schools is not always superior.

I am currently at Scots College and find it amusing when i hear complaints air conditioners dont work, I wish we had one. What you pay for a private school is in fact a well rounded education without the political correctness, you do not have to be afraid of offending anyone because you know where you stand.

One more thing the likely retention of Eden-monarom should see a comfortable vicotry for the Howard Government and for all you left wing radiacalists, it looks like Bush is back for 4 more years, maybe kerry should go have another manicure and top up his fake tan.

 

[leetom]

We must also remeber that private schooles arer necessary part of the education sector. Imagine if every private school was closed, the public system would be unable to cope with the added burden of students. There would not be enough teachers or resources to accomodate this. By making private schools more attractive to middle Australia you are in fact "easing the squeeze" (to use one of the most overused cliches) on the Australian economy. The cost of every Australian student to be placed in public eductaion would be astronomical. It is also important to note that work conditions in private schools is not always superior.

I am currently at Scots College and find it amusing when i hear complaints air conditioners dont work, I wish we had one. What you pay for a private school is in fact a well rounded education without the political correctness, you do not have to be afraid of offending anyone because you know where you stand.

So you propose that in the pursuit of a great economy we kill off public education and make everybody pay for an education? Education can never be sacrificed just for a good economy, every student is entitled to a free and a good standard of education.

No need to be afraid of offending anyone? Because you mix only with students from similar backgrounds as your own? I see that as the disadvantage of private education as you will sooner or later have to experience the diversity of society.

 

[gem_max]

Hey hey again, Im back. I didnt intend to come back but well my local paper (yes asq my 'regional' edition) had an article that said Latham was secretly planning to make petrol $2/L and raise the GST to 15%. Im not trying to push Howard or anything like I was before, I just want to know if this bit of information is true?