Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[hammertime]

Bet it's not a non issue to indigenous Australians…

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

I think you under estimate the intelligence of our indigenous population.
They will care about his policy to help them, not on token visits.
Policy which he already has a proven track record for as Health and DEWR minister.

What policy? You keep mentioning it…

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

Yeah I was thinking the same thing. What exactly are these fantastic policies and proven track record?

Haven't got time to look them up a.t.m

But a few examples are the ICAP scheme he instituted when DEWR minister (Interest Rate subsidy for Indigenous business persons)
As Health minister he instituted Nursing program to help reduce domestic violence.
He has also got hands on in the communities before.

I think he has certainly done enough within his prior capacities to show it's something he cares about.

 

[Winnipeg]

I don't doubt Abbott has a personal desire to help out the Indigenous community

But that means little if he isn't willing to back it up with actions in government.

This for instance:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-cuts-to-indigenous-legal-aid-under-fire-20130906-2tah9.html

Regardless, he shouldn't promise thing he is not willing to go through with

That makes him a liar

 

[stryker]

Hope the Labor party wake up to themselves and do not install Shorten as their leader…the bloke is poison and represents everything that the nation hates about the way the party is run.

Personally think he is lower than a snakes bum and twice as stupid. Abbot will be PM till he is 90 if this jerk off is the alternative.....

 

[pHyR3]

Whatever happened to malcom? seemed like a good leader and representative for liberal but was a bit held back by people like Abott but now he seems like he's embracing some of their idiocies like the NBN especially. He used to seem as though he was forced into followign certain policies….

Thought he would have been a good replacement for Abbott if he had lost but dunnno anymore...

 

[mike]

Whatever happened to malcom? seemed like a good leader and representative for liberal but was a bit held back by people like Abott but now he seems like he's embracing some of their idiocies like the NBN especially. He used to seem as though he was forced into followign certain policies….

Thought he would have been a good replacement for Abbott if he had lost but dunnno anymore...

Malcolm is the last person you would want as a leader. He has zero understanding of the real world that people actually live in. He definitely has a different view on how people should be treated than at least I do. You only need to look at his views on the republic and the election of a president as a starting point. He did not want the public to have a vote in who should be the president but instead they should be voted in by parliament. The idea of a republic was doomed from then on. Everything he touches breaks….he just does not relate well with people.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[hammertime]

Whatever happened to malcom? seemed like a good leader and representative for liberal but was a bit held back by people like Abott but now he seems like he's embracing some of their idiocies like the NBN especially. He used to seem as though he was forced into followign certain policies….

Thought he would have been a good replacement for Abbott if he had lost but dunnno anymore...

Malcolm is the last person you would want as a leader. He has zero understanding of the real world that people actually live in. He definitely has a different view on how people should be treated than at least I do. You only need to look at his views on the republic and the election of a president as a starting point. He did not want the public to have a vote in who should be the president but instead they should be voted in by parliament. The idea of a republic was doomed from then on. Everything he touches breaks….he just does not relate well with people.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

How does he not relate well with people? because he was sucessful you think he is elitist and removed from reality?

.. and how is parliment selecting our leader any vastly different to what Labor did over the past few years?

 

[hammertime]

I don't doubt Abbott has a personal desire to help out the Indigenous community

But that means little if he isn't willing to back it up with actions in government.

This for instance:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-cuts-to-indigenous-legal-aid-under-fire-20130906-2tah9.html

Regardless, he shouldn't promise thing he is not willing to go through with

That makes him a liar

Yeah, well that cut isn't good. I agree. But when finding savings, you have to upset people. There isn't 2 ways about it. 99% of the time, it's reducing payments/services or cutting staff.

It's all about finding the most efficient way of using capital. Going the extra mile to help people who have committed a crime is something that I would cut first too. Even if it is indigenous specific.

I'm just glad we have a government already making some tough decisions.

 

[Yossarian]

Whatever happened to malcom? seemed like a good leader and representative for liberal but was a bit held back by people like Abott but now he seems like he's embracing some of their idiocies like the NBN especially. He used to seem as though he was forced into followign certain policies….

Thought he would have been a good replacement for Abbott if he had lost but dunnno anymore...

Malcolm is the last person you would want as a leader. He has zero understanding of the real world that people actually live in. He definitely has a different view on how people should be treated than at least I do. You only need to look at his views on the republic and the election of a president as a starting point. He did not want the public to have a vote in who should be the president but instead they should be voted in by parliament. The idea of a republic was doomed from then on. Everything he touches breaks….he just does not relate well with people.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

How does he not relate well with people? because he was sucessful you think he is elitist and removed from reality?

.. and how is parliment selecting our leader any vastly different to what Labor did over the past few years?

Well we're talking HOS here not PM so it's not a Labor/Liberal thing but in any case I think Turnbull and the other leading republicans were right on this issue. I've got no real objection to a "popular vote" for president but I think it's unneccessary, adds little to the process and makes a relatively minor alteration to the system into a major one. I think a system where the G-G/president/Grand Poobah has to get say 66% support in both houses should do the trick.

 

[Anthism]

I don't doubt Abbott has a personal desire to help out the Indigenous community

But that means little if he isn't willing to back it up with actions in government.

This for instance:

http://www.theage.com.au/national/coalition-cuts-to-indigenous-legal-aid-under-fire-20130906-2tah9.html

Regardless, he shouldn't promise thing he is not willing to go through with

That makes him a liar

Yeah, well that cut isn't good. I agree. But when finding savings, you have to upset people. There isn't 2 ways about it. 99% of the time, it's reducing payments/services or cutting staff.

It's all about finding the most efficient way of using capital. Going the extra mile to help people who have committed a crime is something that I would cut first too. Even if it is indigenous specific.

I'm just glad we have a government already making some tough decisions.

How on earth is that a tough decision? Cuts should be coming from services that favour the rich. But no, that would cause Abbott to lose his most loyal servants.
Idiot focuses on screwing over a race that has been the target of prejudice from day 1.
Might be a tough but fair decision in your eyes because it doesn't affect you.
Wait till the cuts start affecting the public health system and education and we'll see where this government is going pretty quickly.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[mike]

Whatever happened to malcom? seemed like a good leader and representative for liberal but was a bit held back by people like Abott but now he seems like he's embracing some of their idiocies like the NBN especially. He used to seem as though he was forced into followign certain policies….

Thought he would have been a good replacement for Abbott if he had lost but dunnno anymore...

Malcolm is the last person you would want as a leader. He has zero understanding of the real world that people actually live in. He definitely has a different view on how people should be treated than at least I do. You only need to look at his views on the republic and the election of a president as a starting point. He did not want the public to have a vote in who should be the president but instead they should be voted in by parliament. The idea of a republic was doomed from then on. Everything he touches breaks….he just does not relate well with people.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

How does he not relate well with people? because he was sucessful you think he is elitist and removed from reality?

.. and how is parliment selecting our leader any vastly different to what Labor did over the past few years?

Well we're talking HOS here not PM so it's not a Labor/Liberal thing but in any case I think Turnbull and the other leading republicans were right on this issue. I've got no real objection to a "popular vote" for president but I think it's unneccessary, adds little to the process and makes a relatively minor alteration to the system into a major one. I think a system where the G-G/president/Grand Poobah has to get say 66% support in both houses should do the trick.

A president without a direct vote by the people is no different to what we have now. That is the point, it needs to be different. That's is one of the reasons the move failed.

Do I think because he is successful he is elitist? No. But he is elitist, it's just they way he thinks. I have worked with many highly successful people on both sides of politics. Most are fantastic people with great empathy. Turnbull is right, always right and does not listen. He is the worst kind of successful person because he believes he is always right. That works fine when you are the only one involved and are prepared to take the risk and the consequences. It fails miserably when others are involved and they take the brunt and suffer the consequences of the risk taking.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[hammertime]

Do I think because he is successful he is elitist? No. But he is elitist, it's just they way he thinks. I have worked with many highly successful people on both sides of politics. Most are fantastic people with great empathy. Turnbull is right, always right and does not listen. He is the worst kind of successful person because he believes he is always right. That works fine when you are the only one involved and are prepared to take the risk and the consequences. It fails miserably when others are involved and they are take the brunt and suffer the consequences of the risk taking.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

Well we've had a few leaders like that. Howard to name one.

I would prefer a decisive leader than one that sways with opinion. Wouldn't you? I'm a big fan that he went against his party with the ETS, because he knew it was the right thing to do.

 

[hammertime]

How on earth is that a tough decision? Cuts should be coming from services that favour the rich. But no, that would cause Abbott to lose his most loyal servants.
Idiot focuses on screwing over a race that has been the target of prejudice from day 1.
Might be a tough but fair decision in your eyes because it doesn't affect you.
Wait till the cuts start affecting the public health system and education and we'll see where this government is going pretty quickly.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

… but what policies favour the rich now? Labor means tested everything. I can only think of negative gearing, which is only a reduction in taxable income after making a loss...maybe you could make an argument for Private Health Care subsidity, but even that's been cut.

Where else do you think we should cut? Because we need to make cuts.

 

[pHyR3]

I'd agree with macolm about the parties voting in the presiident. I assume what you/he meant by that is that there is no need for TWO election campaigns and that it should be done like it is in oz. Which i don't mind too much.

 

[pHyR3]

How on earth is that a tough decision? Cuts should be coming from services that favour the rich. But no, that would cause Abbott to lose his most loyal servants.
Idiot focuses on screwing over a race that has been the target of prejudice from day 1.
Might be a tough but fair decision in your eyes because it doesn't affect you.
Wait till the cuts start affecting the public health system and education and we'll see where this government is going pretty quickly.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

… but what policies favour the rich now? Labor means tested everything. I can only think of negative gearing, which is only a reduction in taxable income after making a loss...maybe you could make an argument for Private Health Care subsidity, but even that's been cut.

Where else do you think we should cut? Because we need to make cuts.

Why do we need to make cuts?

 

[hammertime]

How on earth is that a tough decision? Cuts should be coming from services that favour the rich. But no, that would cause Abbott to lose his most loyal servants.
Idiot focuses on screwing over a race that has been the target of prejudice from day 1.
Might be a tough but fair decision in your eyes because it doesn't affect you.
Wait till the cuts start affecting the public health system and education and we'll see where this government is going pretty quickly.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

… but what policies favour the rich now? Labor means tested everything. I can only think of negative gearing, which is only a reduction in taxable income after making a loss...maybe you could make an argument for Private Health Care subsidity, but even that's been cut.

Where else do you think we should cut? Because we need to make cuts.

Why do we need to make cuts?

The intergenerational issue.

It's a major problem here, but even more so in other Western economies like the UK and the US. Countries will need to run deficits for decades or make severe cuts. Including us. You've just seen how one country going backwards can drag down the rest of the world. We only had the capacity to survive unscathed because we had the Balance Sheet in order.

What further compounds it is that we will need to tackle the environmental issues during the same period ahead.

The Howard govt set us up well, encouring super savings, covering the massive shortfall in the off-balance sheet public super, paying down the debt and policy to promote producing more tax payers (Family support & Baby Bonus) but we still need to be getting the house in order ready for this period.

You think cutting things like special legal support is bad now. Wait till then if we keep spending.

 

[Anthism]

How on earth is that a tough decision? Cuts should be coming from services that favour the rich. But no, that would cause Abbott to lose his most loyal servants.
Idiot focuses on screwing over a race that has been the target of prejudice from day 1.
Might be a tough but fair decision in your eyes because it doesn't affect you.
Wait till the cuts start affecting the public health system and education and we'll see where this government is going pretty quickly.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

… but what policies favour the rich now? Labor means tested everything. I can only think of negative gearing, which is only a reduction in taxable income after making a loss...maybe you could make an argument for Private Health Care subsidity, but even that's been cut.

Where else do you think we should cut? Because we need to make cuts.

Why do we need to make cuts?

The intergenerational issue.

It's a major problem here, but even more so in other Western economies like the UK and the US. Countries will need to run deficits for decades or make severe cuts. Including us. You've just seen how one country going backwards can drag down the rest of the world. We only had the capacity to survive unscathed because we had the Balance Sheet in order.

What further compounds it is that we will need to tackle the environmental issues during the same period ahead.

The Howard govt set us up well, encouring super savings, covering the massive shortfall in the off-balance sheet public super, paying down the debt and policy to promote producing more tax payers (Family support & Baby Bonus) but we still need to be getting the house in order ready for this period.

You think cutting things like special legal support is bad now. Wait till then if we keep spending.

You do realize that for an economy to grow you need to spend right?
See how Germany was crushed after WWI but managed to be a super power prior and during WWII after the GD, it was because they spent money while the rest of the world was cutting spending and look where that got them. Same applies here with the GFC.
Cutting is dumb in the first place and economist experts realize this.

You also didn't mention private school funding.
All things that are definitely less useful than aiding people who actually NEED IT.

In summary - we don't need cuts in the first place and the places that this government who prides itself on cutting are doing it/going to do it to the people who need govt funding most. Only a matter of time until our infrastructure and economy goes in the dumps and we cut Medicare and funding for public schools.

_Posted using RoarFEED 2013_

 

[pHyR3]

Rather than use germany, why not look at the *** hole greece is in right now. They are unable to spend because their debts are at astronomical levels due to structural issues (early retirements, low taxes, black market transactions etc.) and so they have to cut spending. BAD move when you're already doing crap, so now they're doing even worse.

And as for private school funding, you realise only around 60% of aussie kids go to public schools right? Like I see where you're coming from but those parents, although wealthy, are still paying taxes so they should get something back in terms of education i reckon.

IMO, just keep private funding the same, no decrease or increase. Uni funding though….bloody horrible what they're doing. (I'm biased as a uni student hehe) but legitimately cutting funding is @#$!

 

[Tim Sheens]

The problem is definitely inter-generational. Another problem is even though the Howard government left a Balance Sheet in the black, this position only came from selling a good chunk of our gold reserves and the public cash cow by the name of Telstra. Sadly though, the real legacy was that we were deeply in the red in other areas, with pensioners desperately in need of a rise, and a huge deficit in infrastructure due to basically neglecting it for more than a decade.

Together with the loss of continual payments from Telstra, the Tax cuts for the higher brackets towards the end of their term has left a big hole in revenue. The incoming Rudd government made a terrible error of judgement in not cutting the final round of those cuts and more of the middle-class welfare, particularly as the GFC had already hit the world soon after they were elected.

 

[Yossarian]

Rather than use germany, why not look at the *** hole greece is in right now. They are unable to spend because their debts are at astronomical levels due to structural issues (early retirements, low taxes, black market transactions etc.) and so they have to cut spending. BAD move when you're already doing crap, so now they're doing even worse.

And as for private school funding, you realise only around 60% of aussie kids go to public schools right? Like I see where you're coming from but those parents, although wealthy, are still paying taxes so they should get something back in terms of education i reckon.

Well there's nothing stopping them sending their kids to a public school. Once they decide to for over 20k 40k or whatever then I don't think they need government support.

 

[pHyR3]

Rather than use germany, why not look at the *** hole greece is in right now. They are unable to spend because their debts are at astronomical levels due to structural issues (early retirements, low taxes, black market transactions etc.) and so they have to cut spending. BAD move when you're already doing crap, so now they're doing even worse.

And as for private school funding, you realise only around 60% of aussie kids go to public schools right? Like I see where you're coming from but those parents, although wealthy, are still paying taxes so they should get something back in terms of education i reckon.

Well there's nothing stopping them sending their kids to a public school. Once they decide to for over 20k 40k or whatever then I don't think they need government support.

The schools you're referring to have minimal government funding. About 10-15% of what public schools get.

And you can bet the public system would collapse if every parent sent their kids to public schools. Those parents are taking a bucket load of pressure off the public system and the government. Instead of paying 10-11k per student, the govenrment only has to pay 1-2k.

Catholic schools have <5k fees usually and so NEED more funding from the government obviously.