Who is going to vote liberal? (1 Viewer)

[Kwayera]

Aaah, Village Idiot, you live up to your name rather well. The fact you genuinely believe your own rhetoric is a little scary, however.

I'll be voting Liberal, below the line, for all the reasons previously stated.

* Him and his Global Warming = LOLz, like anyone really cares, yes us humans are stuffing up the environment atm but we are in no way of controlling the solar system....p.s the sun is the real reason why is causing our planet to heat up.

Sorry, but that's totally wrong.

 

[jb_nc]

Please, don't hurt me with your powerful attacks of wit and sarcasm. I don't think I can possibly stand it any longer. (p.s. I am aware of the irony that I am being sarcastic myself)


Well, I notice you didnt try and dispute any of it, did you? How about you try and argue based on the facts (that is, after all, why we're here) rather than waste your time and the time of those who have to read your stupid posts.

What exactly is there to refute??? You regurgitated exactly what you learnt in year 12 economics??

maybe you should stop posting

 

[jimmayyy]

urgh, speaking of political parties, i was looking for some minors to fill in the gaps come election day and have been going through a list found at http://www.australianpolitics.com/parties/list.shtml containing of most parties in australia and their websites. i urge you strongly to look at it and see how fucking stupid every minor party in Australia makes itself look with their websites.

christ, even the LDP look like radicals. no wonder its always a two horse race. we really need a major third party to step up and keep the bastards fair. come back, democrats!

 

[Foxodi]

2. People generally do have more money today. But because of inflation it is worth less. Remember your parents saying something like "In my day an ice cream cost 20 cents?" (Damn I am still stuck on ice cream). They dont really have more money anymore anyway - real wages have decreased in recent years ( ***cough***workplace reforms ***cough chough***), though to be fair this does not take into account all the $ flying around because of the resources boom, international investment, etc etc. ***Insert grudging praise but claims that labor could manage the resources boom just as well***

I'll be voting liberal -insert the already stated arguements for voting liberal-

But I must ask, where did you get these real wages figures from? Because last I heard real wages has increased 20% in the past 11years >.>

 

[Azamakumar]

lol @ village idiot.

5% growth - 3% inflation = LOL DON'T VOTE LIBS REAL WAGES ARE DROPPING

 

[jb_nc]

yeah no joke i was laughing at the LDP's website last night and how terrible all of their photographs are

 

[withoutaface]

CDP? That's disgusting. And now I know why I'll never vote above the line.

Seriously, the CDP? The CDP?

CEC are far worse.

 

[withoutaface]

yeah no joke i was laughing at the LDP's website last night and how terrible all of their photographs are

If you think that's bad, look up their ads on youtube.

EDIT: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngOwaYtHHa8

 

[withoutaface]

That add was absolute bullshit. They adjusted for inflation and population growth but not for real GDP growth. So although the real dollar value per capita has increased, the proportion of our incomes that we pay in tax has not, it has probably decreased which is why they chose to omitt this key figure.

Why should you account for GDP growth? I mean the definition of essential services doesn't really change as real wages start increasing...

 

[Mevelyn2551]

What exactly is there to refute??? You regurgitated exactly what you learnt in year 12 economics??

maybe you should stop posting

My point is that it doesnt make it incorrect.

If it is true, then it is true. Doesnt matter if it came from Glenn Stephens (lol watched chaser last night.) or an eco teacher.

 

[withoutaface]

Yes it does. The definition of essential services has constantly changed through out history in accordance with general living standards and real wages. Increases in GDP also create a need/are created by corresponding improvements to government infrastructure. Finally, the Howard government inherited a budget defecit, so the pre '96 levels of taxation were not even sufficient to pay for government spending. Since then they have delivered budget suprlus.

I'd argue that the entire justification for the government funding of a service is that it is essential for the general population. Now aside from things such as healthcare, there's going to be minimal improvements which can be seen as anything more than a luxury for the population, and at the same time as real wages rise the population's ability to obtain such services from private vendors increases, so the need for government infrastructure decreases.

Your whole argument is that tax places too much burden on taxapayers, but if wages are increase and tax as a proportion of incomes is decreasing, then disposable incomes are rising. So people can be better of even without tax cuts.

Doesn't mean they wouldn't be even better off with more tax cuts...

 

[Mevelyn2551]

Hey, to be fair, when I was doing it I thought most of it was fairly down the line and accurate.

Then I realised I'd just participated in Communist Indoctrination 101.

Why dont you go kill some commies then? Oh wait... I dont see any around here.

Beleiving in social justice and acknowledging that the pure market economy works by grinding the dirt poor into the ... errr... dirt... and raising the rich up higher doesnt make you a communist.

It makes you observant.

 

[withoutaface]

Why dont you go kill some commies then? Oh wait... I dont see any around here.

Beleiving in social justice and acknowledging that the pure market economy works by grinding the dirt poor into the ... errr... dirt... and raising the rich up higher doesnt make you a communist.

It makes you observant.

Yes it does, you're regurgitating almost word for word what Marx said, and then advocating that we throw the rich into a giant blender, so that the delicious soup concocted from their bones might end world hunger.

 

[Mevelyn2551]

Eh.... I couldnt resist. Anyone catch the new interest rate?

*turns and bolts*

 

[Mevelyn2551]

Yes it does, you're regurgitating almost word for word what Marx said, and then advocating that we throw the rich into a giant blender, so that the delicious soup concocted from their bones might end world hunger.

The closest thing I have ever had to do with marx is in a critical analysis of Wuthering Heights.

Are you saying that the rich are NOT getting richer and the poor are NOT getting poorer?

Oh, and your post nearly made me piss myself laughing (In a "it was funny" not a "you're stupid" way). I'll get the blender, you round the rich up and put them in cages.

 

[Smithereens]

Not really sure yet. Just have to wait til the upcoming weeks for me to make a decision.

 

[Foxodi]

The rich get richer because they can manage they know how to manage money and have devoted alot of time to it (career, business, education etc)

The poor get poorer because they dont know how to manage money, and take life 'as it comes', and as a result they waste money on many things. Also I'm sure the family life is a factor (not saying family life is bad, a balance is ftw )

 

[Sh4DoW]

I'm voting Liberal.

Im sorry, but how can you blame people for borrowing too much? Houses cost a LOT of money. Unless you have a few hundred thousand in the bank when you are ready to buy a house, you will have to take a home loan. And you will have to pay interest on it.

If they have to borrow 'too much' they shouldn't be buying a home in the first place! You can't say people who over commit aren't asking for bankruptcy and to default on their mortgages?

This is not the Government's problem. The problem is, first home buyers are going for high range homes in the $500k plus price range and are then borrowing 110% of the loan to put down a deposit on the house. Then once they get the new house they 'have' to have a new car and all new furniture to go with the new house, so they take out a loan for that or put it all on their credit cards.

If they don't have a good 15-20% deposit in the first place, when they default they really have noone to blame but themselves, because they're immediately agreeing to pay back $200k more in interest over the term of the loan by borrowing an extra 10% for the deposit as well.

If they had half a brain they would take interest rate rises into consideration and not take out a loan when they are only just able to scrape through with the repayments in the first place .. prior to any changes in interest rates.

 

[withoutaface]

The rich are getting richer, but the poor are getting richer also.

Dom: If it's more beneficial than its costs then it'd be easily provided by private enterprise. Essential stuff like education, healthcare, some public transport and law and order is what I'd say the definition should include, then welfare cheques to cover food and shelter, but anything above that is a luxury and people should have to work to get.

 

[hunter1]

I am voting Liberal, try and tell me why i shouldn't...