AFA Forums The Malcolm Turnbull thread
 Register FAQ Calendar Mark Forums Read

 Politics Political issues which help or hinder our society

#201
4th April 2016, 02:04 PM
 Sieveboy Being a bigot makes me sick. Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Not in bible land, Perth Posts: 5,602

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
#202
4th April 2016, 03:53 PM
 Blue Lightning "Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask" Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Sydney Posts: 6,104

Lol. Extending AFD for a week? They are getting desperate.
__________________
"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

Last edited by Blue Lightning; 4th April 2016 at 03:55 PM.
#203
4th April 2016, 04:08 PM
 Stub King Take my advice, don't listen to me Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Melbourne Posts: 845

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)
#204
4th April 2016, 04:38 PM
 Blue Lightning "Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask" Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Sydney Posts: 6,104

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
#205
5th April 2016, 06:41 AM
 Blue Lightning "Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask" Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Sydney Posts: 6,104

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

Quote:
The worst idea ever: Piccoli blasts PM on schools

Quote:
 ... 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
#206
5th April 2016, 06:52 AM
 Blue Lightning "Mr Charles Darwin had the gall to ask" Join Date: Apr 2012 Location: Sydney Posts: 6,104

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

Quote:
__________________
"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
 WesternGeo liked this post
#207
5th April 2016, 01:48 PM
 Stub King Take my advice, don't listen to me Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Melbourne Posts: 845

Quote:
 Blue Lightning said 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)
#208
6th April 2016, 01:48 PM
 WesternGeo AFA Member Join Date: Jul 2015 Location: Perth, WA Posts: 573

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

Quote:
 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.
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.
#209
8th April 2016, 04:53 PM
 Stub King Take my advice, don't listen to me Join Date: Jun 2015 Location: Melbourne Posts: 845

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)
#210
8th April 2016, 05:11 PM
 cyclist And if I can reach the pedals, I'll be sweet Join Date: Aug 2010 Location: Sydney Posts: 3,076

Quote:
 Stub King said 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.

 Bookmarks