Tony Abbott - Do you want him as PM? (4 Viewers)

[scuba_steve2121]

hmm...let me think, so far Abbott has labeled everything a 'great big tax', described Aboriginal welcome to country as 'out of place tokenism (yet he believes federal parliament should continue to start the day with the lords prayer?), rejected all proven means of pricing carbon, doesn't believe in climate change, voted against legislation allowing Australian scientists to do research with embryonic stem cells, wants a return to at-fault divorce and is associated with groups that favour censorship but are opposed to legal abortion, euthanasia,gay rights and stem-cell research. While I'm far from happy with Rudd's actions at the moment, my answer to this question is a resounding NO.

these are fair points and i support your criticism 100%

but are all these things still going to matter to you when you are unemployed and not able to get a job and everything costs 200% more under a Rudd government?

one of the reasons why economic trumps social

 

[Lentern]

these are fair points and i support your criticism 100%

but are all these things still going to matter to you when you are unemployed and not able to get a job and everything costs 200% more under a Rudd government?

one of the reasons why economic trumps social

The only truth you speak here is that things would cost less under Abbott, because an Abbott government would have gone into recession for not acting after the collapse of Lehman brothers. Inflation and interest rates would have gone down, but so would employment, demand, gdp and everything else under the sun and if economic trumps social (which it doesn't) Abbott still loses.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

The only truth you speak here is that things would cost less under Abbott, because an Abbott government would have gone into recession for not acting after the collapse of Lehman brothers. Inflation and interest rates would have gone down, but so would employment, demand, gdp and everything else under the sun and if economic trumps social (which it doesn't) Abbott still loses.

are u trying to defend stimulus spending ? if you are plz take your bullshit somewhere else

 

[Lauchlan]

because you refuse to look at the facts and the outcomes u just say "well its my opinion".

your like fighting against a religious person.

u: Rudd is good

me: no because his policy will has disastrous results because of a b and c

u: well its my opinion that he is good and that they won't

etc etc etc

no, im saying 'well, thats your opinion'. a BIG difference.

funny you say that because i enjoy arguing with religious peoples... except for when they just say 'have faith' and 'look at the bible' to defend stuff.

but back on topic, its your opinion that it goes like this, i think otherwise:

u: rudd is the worst PM ever.

me: it could be worse - at least he has put across positive policy (of course people do disagree on the 'positive' part) and enforced it, had results planned for 2013 ect. ect.
what has tony abbott got to offer, besides the absence of policy?

u: no rudd is a shit economist therefore he's the worst PM ever. i dont like tony but i dont care.

me: *sigh* thats your opinion.

 

[Lentern]

You do realise all that stimulus spending does is postpone the inevitable caused by malinvestment, right?

Eventually it's going to become financially infeasible at which point the serious negative consequences of ignoring market forces are going to be unleashed.

I realize no such false truths,well targeted investment (and I'm not necessarily calling this stimulus well targeted) can increase wealth over both short and long term quite substantially. It was not the market that pulled the United States out of the great depression.

 

[Lentern]

are u trying to defend stimulus spending ? if you are plz take your bullshit somewhere else

I am, by contrast you are defending negative growth whilst claiming that "economics trumps all."

 

[Lauchlan]

employers should be able to hire and fire staff at will and be able to negotiate shifts with employees.

your assumption is that all employers are evil when they are just trying to run a business

stop putting words into my mouth - emplyers aren't evil - but they were given rights to say this is your new shifts to employees (without negotiating) and if the employee couldnt adapt, they would be fired. you think this is fair?

 

[Lauchlan]

hmm...let me think, so far abbott has labeled everything a 'great big tax', described aboriginal welcome to country as 'out of place tokenism (yet he believes federal parliament should continue to start the day with the lords prayer?), rejected all proven means of pricing carbon, doesn't believe in climate change, voted against legislation allowing australian scientists to do research with embryonic stem cells, wants a return to at-fault divorce and is associated with groups that favour censorship but are opposed to legal abortion, euthanasia,gay rights and stem-cell research. While i'm far from happy with rudd's actions at the moment, my answer to this question is a resounding no.

+1

 

[scuba_steve2121]

no, im saying 'well, thats your opinion'. a BIG difference.

funny you say that because i enjoy arguing with religious peoples... except for when they just say 'have faith' and 'look at the bible' to defend stuff.

but back on topic, its your opinion that it goes like this, i think otherwise:

u: rudd is the worst PM ever.

me: it could be worse - at least he has put across positive policy (of course people do disagree on the 'positive' part) and enforced it, had results planned for 2013 ect. ect.
what has tony abbott got to offer, besides the absence of policy?

u: no rudd is a shit economist therefore he's the worst PM ever. i dont like tony but i dont care.

me: *sigh* thats your opinion.

i didn't say he was the worst PM ever I'm sure there have been much worse

what I'm saying is that the wealth and living standards of a country is determined by Economics. Rudd has Clearly no idea about Economics thus this is going to drive us into a very long recession when wall street crashes again. A Liberal party government would be beneficial as they wouldn't partake in such economically fallacious activities. so for the next 5 years a good Economic policy fucking trumps anything else

 

[Lauchlan]

abott sounds like a hypocrit. he has no stand on anything so far.
rudd was okay until labor brought in the leauge tables.
personally, i would not vote either labor or liberal.
that is why i voted "other"

fair enough, but they didnt bring in league tables - they were made by the media (its a difference nonetheless)

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I realize no such false truths,well targeted investment (and I'm not necessarily calling this stimulus well targeted) can increase wealth over both short and long term quite substantially. It was not the market that pulled the United States out of the great depression.

sigh......

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I am, by contrast you are defending negative growth whilst claiming that "economics trumps all."

lol are u one of those people that go as long as GDP is rising its a good thing?

 

[Lauchlan]

these are fair points and i support your criticism 100%

but are all these things still going to matter to you when you are unemployed and not able to get a job and everything costs 200% more under a Rudd government?

one of the reasons why economic trumps social

there is no economic party and social party. you cannot label parties like that.
one may focus more on the other, but that doesnt undermine there value in the other.

you cant prove this wrong, all you can do is try for another presonal attack, or express your bias opinion once more (perhaps with dodgy quotes)

 

[Lauchlan]

The only truth you speak here is that things would cost less under Abbott, because an Abbott government would have gone into recession for not acting after the collapse of Lehman brothers. Inflation and interest rates would have gone down, but so would employment, demand, gdp and everything else under the sun and if economic trumps social (which it doesn't) Abbott still loses.

i agree 100% with the bolded.

 

[Lauchlan]

i am, by contrast you are defending negative growth whilst claiming that "economics trumps all."

so true.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

there is no economic party and social party. you cannot label parties like that.

one may focus more on the other, but that doesnt undermine there value in the other.

you cant prove this wrong, all you can do is try for another presonal attack, or express your bias opinion once more (perhaps with dodgy quotes)

yes i can its called the political spectrum look it up

yes it does that is why people vote for different parties or else we might as well have a socialist regime

i already have

 

[ImAgInE94]

lauchlan, get over your self. your question asking and facts are irrlevent is annoying.

 

[Lentern]

lol are u one of those people that go as long as GDP is rising its a good thing?

Um, no all things have a price and GDP is no exception but all other things being equal I'd rather it going up than going down and if we plunged into the dark depths of recession we would have had a collapse of revenue sufficient to put the government in considerable debt anyway.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Um, no all things have a price and GDP is no exception but all other things being equal I'd rather it going up than going down and if we plunged into the dark depths of recession we would have had a collapse of revenue sufficient to put the government in considerable debt anyway.

even when its going up through inflationary spending and mal investments?

huh? government puts it self in debt

 

[Lentern]

even when its going up through inflationary spending and mal investments?

huh? government puts it self in debt

It depends how sharply it was pushing up inflation, if the question is regarding the Rudd government in particular then certainly there are no problems on that front. I don't accept that all stimulus spending is malinvesting so that's not relevant.

No the market does.