Page 21 of 33 FirstFirst ... 1117181920212223242531 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 328

Thread: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

  1. #201
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Not in bible land, Perth
    Posts
    5,666

    Default

    The Sydney Morning Herald has an article up on this, overwhelming majority of comments on the article note that April Fools Day was last week.
    I do not fear death, in view of the fact that I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it.
    Mark Twain

  2. #202
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    6,300

    Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

    Lol. Extending AFD for a week? They are getting desperate.
    Last edited by Blue Lightning; 4th April 2016 at 04:55 PM.
    "Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
    "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

  3. #203
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    922

    Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

    what really irritates me about this dumb idea is that for some reason they always choose the most convoluted, circuitous route.
    want to end the blame game? get rid of one of the parties. you need two of them for the blame game. since we won't be eliminating the federal govt., how about we do away with state ones? wouldn't that resolve the issue and all the duplication and overlaps and inefficiencies?
    granted, that will never fly, but at least put it on the fucking table if you claim to be suggesting a "once in a generation" change. say "this is what I would like to do, but it will never happen, so here is my 2nd best option".
    and then the actual idea ... so if you want federal to drop tax rate by X% and have the states levy that instead (so overall no change) and you would collect and distribute, then why not just give them the money. agree on the split and that's it. you already are collecting and distributing anyway. you know how much I pay in tax, you know which state I live in, just send the X% to the state.
    is this too much to ask?
    The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)

  4. #204
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    6,300

    Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

    Yes, Stub King, that is far too much to ask .

    The agenda was always different, as Jessica Irvine observed in the Fairfax press today -

    Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals are channelling the Tea Party.

    (I would, however, disregard the dumbed-down, flashy hyperbole in that article to the effect that "spending is the whole project of govt".)
    "Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
    "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

  5. #205
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    6,300

    Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

    Malcolm Turnbull promised us serious but we're getting soap opera
    I don’t care if the prime minister and his treasurer are not-so-secret frenemies, I just want them to start restoring economic policy leadership


    When Malcolm Turnbull took the leadership last year from Tony Abbott, he reasoned his predecessor just wasn’t up to the task of providing the economic leadership the country needed.

    This is what Turnbull said:

    “The big economic challenges that we’re living through here and around the world offer enormous challenges and we need a different style of leadership … a style of leadership that respects the people’s intelligence … we need advocacy, not slogans.”

    It was a profound thing to say, and he was exactly right.

    Roll forward several months and here is the current character of the economic policy conversation.



    After a long amble around tax reform, with a brief rest-stop at new federalism, we are back to the Abbott-era absurdity that Australia does not have a revenue problem. There is also a near meaningless formulation that Australia just has to live within its means.



    Over this past weekend I read a Quarterly Essay from journalist George Megalogenis, who did not mince words about Australia’s current economic policy predicament.

    Megalongenis’s essay made me ropable about the seemingly inexorable recurrence of stupid and vapid in the economic policy space …

    Megalogenis contends we need a profound debate in Australia about the role government plays in our economy: “It is being forced on us by the market failures of the 21st century. Both sides cling to the open model because it tells them a reassuring story of Australian success – but that open model has been exhausted by capitalism’s extended crisis and the end of the mining boom. It cannot guarantee prosperity in the future without an active state.”

    He also has some advice for the prime minister: “If Turnbull is to reset the budget debate, he has to abandon the Liberal mantra that taxes must always be cut. Both sides of the budget have to be deployed in the search for fairness and efficiency, and in the present climate that means an active search for ways to unwind the Howard Gift without crushing the economy.

    “The Coalition can’t lay claim to the future until it adjusts to the two big shocks of our age. The first shock is that the version of capitalism favoured by conservatives is broken. …
    The worst idea ever: Piccoli blasts PM on schools

    ... Asked for his view of Mr Turnbull's proposal, Mr Piccoli told Fairfax Media: "That would be the biggest mistake in education policy - probably forever.

    "It would entrench a two-tiered education system.

    "The non-government [system] would be funded by the federal government with plenty of revenue raising ability, while public schools would be fighting for funding against hospitals and policing.
    "NSW and I have been big supporters of what David Gonski recommended in his review and he wanted sector-blind funding of schools based on need.

    "Having two different systems funding schools separately is absolutely contrary to what Gonski recommended."



    Asked for his view of Mr Turnbull's proposal, Mr Piccoli told Fairfax Media: "That would be the biggest mistake in education policy - probably forever.

    "It would entrench a two-tiered education system.

    "The non-government [system] would be funded by the federal government with plenty of revenue raising ability, while public schools would be fighting for funding against hospitals and policing.
    "NSW and I have been big supporters of what David Gonski recommended in his review and he wanted sector-blind funding of schools based on need.

    "Having two different systems funding schools separately is absolutely contrary to what Gonski recommended."

    ...
    "Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
    "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

  6. Like button wadaye liked this post
  7. #206
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    6,300

    Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

    Coalition trails Labor in Newspoll for the first time under Malcolm Turnbull
    Latest Newspoll gives Labor a two-party-preferred lead of 51%-49%, as Turnbull’s personal rating continues to tumble


    Labor has pulled ahead of the Coalition in the Newspoll for the first time since Malcolm Turnbull wrested the leadership from Tony Abbott last year.

    The latest Newspoll, published by the Australian late on Monday evening, has Labor ahead of the Coalition on the two-party-preferred measure 51% to 49%.

    The poll suggests the Coalition’s primary vote has dropped five points since the beginning of 2016, and Malcolm Turnbull’s satisfaction rating has tumbled by 15 points over the course of this year.

    The measure recording voter dissatisfaction with Turnbull’s performance has doubled in the Newspoll survey since he became prime minister in late 2015.

    Turnbull has remained ahead of the Labor leader Bill Shorten as preferred prime minister in the latest survey, but his lead has narrowed from 31 points to 21 points.

    Turnbull’s preferred prime minister rating (48%) has dropped 16 points since the peak reached in November. Shorten was rated better prime minister by 27% of the survey, up six points in the fortnight.

    The poll of 1,743 people also suggests voters are displeased with the prime minister’s proposal put to last week’s Council of Australian Governments (Coag) meeting that states raise their own income taxes to bankroll services such as education.

    That idea was endorsed by only 19% of the Newspoll survey, with 58% opposed and 23% undecided.

    Field evidence from recent opinion polls is mixed.

    The Essential survey has had the major parties locked up on 50-50, while the last Ipsos poll published by Fairfax Media had the government ahead on the two-party-preferred measure at 53-47 ...
    "Just stick to the idea that science is just about making descriptive models of natural phenomena, whose emergent predictions are tested to destruction" - Woof!
    "Science is what we have learned about how to keep from fooling ourselves" - Richard Feynman

  8. Like button WesternGeo liked this post
  9. #207
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    922

    Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

    Quote Blue Lightning said View Post
    Yes, Stub King, that is far too much to ask .

    The agenda was always different, as Jessica Irvine observed in the Fairfax press today -

    Malcolm Turnbull and the Liberals are channelling the Tea Party.
    I can see some similarities but the Tea Party believe in small govt. So even if doing away with states does not actually diminish the reach of govt. it does make it much smaller. So one would have thought it would at least feature in the debate. it would also make reducing govt footprint easier because you would not have the states standing in the way.
    However it does seem on many an occasion that we mirror the US but a decade or so later. I hope we can stop this trend now since the US is not in a good place at present. but I think Turnbull (and Abbott before him) are not as ideologically motivated as the TP. I don't think it is libertarian-ism that is driving them. It looks to me more like good ol' fashioned trickle down economics. cut taxes for the rich and corporations, limit impact on budget by cutting services and jack up indirect taxes on the middle class to plug the gap. rarely does govt cut taxes and Abbott cut 2 (carbon, mining) while at the same time telling us the sky is falling on the budget deficit. I don't think he saw this taxation as govt overreach, it was just to the benefit of big business. odd that they never seek to limit govt overreach when it comes to subsidizing their favourite industries (e.g. diesel rebate). I wonder why?
    So yes, there are parallels, but I think it is closer to Reaganomics than TP libertarian-ism. granted, it is a bit of hair splitting and they are both detrimental.
    The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)

  10. #208
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Perth, WA
    Posts
    573

    Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

    Quite a good piece by Greg Jericho on The Drum, with lots of graphs for those that like that sort of thing:

    The Government doesn't really want to live within its means - it just doesn't want to raise taxation. And that's fine, but let's not pretend that makes them in any way careful economic managers, writes Greg Jericho.

    The economic debate is a shambles at the moment.

    We're at a point where proffering supposedly "once in a generation reform" without any details, any costings, and any consultation is apparently evidence of Turnbull's political genius because the states rejected it.

    Of course they did - and of course they should have. It was a proposal delivered with such little genuineness that Turnbull might as well have been offering to sell the premiers a bridge in Sydney.

    No sooner was that episode over than the the Prime Minister and Treasurer counselled the nation that we must "live within our means", a phrase that deserves a place next to "economic reform" as the most self-serving tripe that politicians utter.

    It has come to mean only that the speaker does not want to fund a certain program or policy, and she or he needs a reason to not do so that sounds vaguely logical. While our Prime Minister and Treasurer trotted out that line this past week, on Friday the Australian Government borrowed $800 million at an average rate of 2.04 per cent - that is a rate below the current underlying rate of inflation of 2.1 per cent.

    If you could borrow a home loan at less than inflation would you turn it down because "you have to live within your means"?

    Scott Morrison would have you believe that you should. On ABC's AM program on Monday he told Michael Brissenden that "we have to live within our means. You can't spend money that's not there."

    Except of course when they do - which is often.

    The current level of gross debt held by the Australian government is now $419.7 billion - $100 billion more than the $319.5 billion it was in 2013-14. The budget has also been in deficit now for eight years, and is currently expected to be so for at least another three (we'll find out in a month's time if it is another four).

    Needing to live within your means always sounds like a winning argument until you actually realise there are a heck of a lot of exceptions to it.

    The living within your means line really only ever applies to new spending.

    Morrison made this point himself when he told Brissenden that, "It means that if you do need to spend extra money then you find savings - not tax increases."

    But again it only applies to extra money you don't want to spend. Thus when it comes to health and education funding, Turnbull and Morrison would have us realise we must live within our means, but when announcing a $30 billion defence white paper, such concerns are not so great.

    And getting back to surplus is nigh on impossible when your approach ignores half of the budget.

    Why not tax increases?

    Morrison refuses to countenance tax increases and he told journalists last week that "you don't tax your way to a surplus", which is rather odd, because that is what happened under Peter Costello.
    Full article with graphs:
    We must expose the 'living within your means' spin

    Pretty much points out that our current level of debt/deficit isn't anything to be overly alarmed about. Also if the Coalition were serious about getting back to surplus they are being fighting with one hand tied behind their back by not considering revenue.

  11. #209
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    922

    Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

    if we needed more evidence of the trickle down economics driving this farcical bunch, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...20-gnmp7n.html

    I mean, does anyone with half a brain buy that? I mean, if you were CEO, and you were given a tax cut, would you then just turn around and hire more people? or give everyone a raise?
    The less people know, the more stubbornly they know it. (Osho)

  12. #210
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    3,145

    Default Re: The Malcolm Turnbull thread

    Quote Stub King said View Post
    if we needed more evidence of the trickle down economics driving this farcical bunch, http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politi...20-gnmp7n.html

    I mean, does anyone with half a brain buy that? I mean, if you were CEO, and you were given a tax cut, would you then just turn around and hire more people? or give everyone a raise?
    I'll believe in trickle down economics when companies start conducting fraud to ensure that they can hire more staff rather than just increase profits.

    Ultimately, companies will only employ more staff if there is work to be done, reducing tax means that companies may have the means to employ someone, but just because they have money to spare, doesn't mean that they will.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •