Jump to content


Photo

how crap is this government ?


  • Please log in to reply
5748 replies to this topic

#41 Director

Director

    Immortal

  • Hero
  • 40,460 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:27 PM

That money was going to be sent overseas to contribute to a foreign research program, not domestic.

Source?

Rob.


BIG international drug companies, not the Australian economy, will reap the profits from the $20 billion medical research fund financed by the new fee on GP visits, experts warn.
Health Minister Peter Dutton has raised the ire of researchers by ruling out using money from the $20 billion medical research fund to commercialise Australian medical breakthroughs.
“The government with taxpayers money is not a hedge fund, we’re not an entrepreneur with a huge appetite for high risk, high return,” Mr Dutton said


http://www.news.com....m-1226941785144



:(


lols, at least we know who behind the scheme now.

"The most powerful tool in the hand of the opressor is the mind of the opressed."-- Steve Biko

Those Who Dance Are Considered Insane by Those Who Can’t Hear the Music.


#42 Hlass

Hlass

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 14,838 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 05:54 PM

Told ya.

Hockey. Entitled fool. Determined to punish the poor.

Brandis. Deeply vindictive

Pyne. Terrible at being a politician. Even worse at being a minister.

Bishop the elder. Most partisan speaker in living memory

Bishop the younger. Mildly retarded?


You forgot Scott Morrison - irredeemable cunt.


My apologies. Very true.

When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains

And the women come down to cut up what remains

Roll on your rifle, blow out your brains

And go to your God like a soldier.


#43 Captain Awesome!

Captain Awesome!

    Journeyman

  • Atomican
  • 209 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 06:33 PM

The damage they did hasn't been fully realised yet - it's the things we'll miss out on for probably another 10 years that will emphasise it. And the sad thing is that others will get the blame.


You're right, the wrong people get the blame - Federal Labor.

During the Rudd/Gillard years, government spending remained at the ten year average - around 25% of GDP.

Which means that, considering Labor was in government during the GFC, a period of lower GDP, the previous Coalition governments spent more in real terms. They basically pissed up the proceeds of the resources boom on Pork Barreling the electorate, and then blamed Labor for spending the money that kept us out of recession during the GFC.

It's the stuff of Orwell novels.

To say that it was solely Labor that kept us out of recession would be simplistic. The country did have money "in the bank", and this allowed Labor to deploy funds to keep the economy afloat. But to say our current debt situation is down to profligate spending by Labor utterly ignores the truth.

With regards to the OP, I don't know whether Abbott is a better or worse Prime Minister than Rudd, but it's so close we might as well call a dead heat for last.

Edited by Captain Awesome!, 06 August 2014 - 06:34 PM.

Romans are OP.


#44 scruffy1

scruffy1

    Champion

  • Hero
  • 5,377 posts
  • Location:near the beach

Posted 06 August 2014 - 07:21 PM

With regards to the OP, I don't know whether Abbott is a better or worse Prime Minister than Rudd, but it's so close we might as well call a dead heat for last.


true that

but only one arsehat is still the putative leader of our nation, and i don't think we've yet witnessed the nadir of his reign

ummmmmmmmmmm............


#45 Rybags

Rybags

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,059 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 07:30 PM

The fall in taxation revenue during the GFC, plus the stimulus spending still comes nowhere near the turnaround amount in the overall financial situation. To say that KRudd/Gillard were responsible spenders and that Howard splurged is ludicrous at the least. And there are countless figures, graphs, reports to confirm it.

#46 AccessDenied

AccessDenied

    Guru

  • Hero
  • 12,482 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 07:38 PM

Rybags: The issue is that it's all based on statistics. And you get can get graphs and figures to prove ANYTHING there.

Both sides of politics.

The issue is the I can't think of any benefit Abbott has provided yet. Hockey is worse. And I get the feeling he's going to be reassigned soon. Even his own party is turning their back on him.

The $20billion is not $20billion. It's an estimation based on current trends of doctor visits remaining the same. The AMA and various other medical professionals think it's lunacy.

But there is a way they can get that $20bil.
http://www.abc.net.a...-budget/5463830
Basically, if you want vaccines, you have to do the co-payment.

No matter how bad KRudd was (Gillard wasn't too bad. She was just less effective because of party bullcrap), he's still not as bad as Abbott. Rudd wasn't so bad because he did nothing. Abbott is bad because he takes a hammer to a shop specializing in Crystal.

Abbotts budget is fail on many counts. It relies on spending remaining the same. It relies on consumer confidence remaining the same. They're not. They're dropping. Why? Because of his budget. And he'd have known this if he consulted economists. But Abbott has said time and again he doesn't trust economists.

AD
I can make my own woggle! Bet you can't woggle yours.

#47 aliali

aliali

    Titan

  • Super Hero
  • 24,411 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 08:27 PM

To say that KRudd/Gillard were responsible spenders and that Howard splurged is ludicrous at the least.
And there are countless figures, graphs, reports to confirm it.


And yet IMF would disagree with your apparently countless figures, graphs and reports.
http://www.imf.org/e...2013/wp1305.pdf
http://www.smh.com.a...l#ixzz2I5EwR463
Even the AU Treasury agrees.
http://lowpollutionf...ding_growth.pdf

Of course you are my bright little star,

I've miles and miles of files pretty files of your forefather's fruit,

and now to suit our great computer. You're magnetic ink.


#48 krispy89

krispy89

    Champion

  • Atomican
  • 4,971 posts
  • Location:Terra Furma

Posted 06 August 2014 - 10:21 PM

Brandis has proved to the Australian people that he is completely clueless, and an ignorant fool after this disaster of an interview on Sky News today.

George Brandis in 'car crash' interview over controversial data retention regime.

"Growing old is mandatory, growing up isn't"
"Never lose your inner kid"
 


#49 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,545 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 10:30 PM

Brandis has proved to the Australian people that he is completely clueless, and an ignorant fool after this disaster of an interview on Sky News today.

George Brandis in 'car crash' interview over controversial data retention regime.


Could have just said "I don't know I'm not good on the tech stuff."

Funnily enough "http://www.smh.com.a...06-101849.html" is a complete car crash of an article.

When describing that "web addresses" would be captured, it's possible Senator Brands meant to say that the IP addresses of web servers people accessed would be stored.

When a web user visits Google, for instance, the IP address left behind as metadata is 74.125.237.198. When visiting Sky News, it's 101.167.166.43.

But if a law enforcement agency accessed this IP address metadata and put it into a web browser they would then be able to determine that the user went to Google or Sky.

Someone needs to teach Ben Grubb about Virtual Hosts, load balancers, round robin DNS, latency-based routing and GeoDNS.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#50 GoFaster

GoFaster

    Master

  • Atomican
  • 818 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 10:37 PM

Brandis has proved to the Australian people that he is completely clueless, and an ignorant fool after this disaster of an interview on Sky News today.

George Brandis in 'car crash' interview over controversial data retention regime.


Could have just said "I don't know I'm not good on the tech stuff."


Sure, but then he would have been attacked about not knowing enough about what he was planning to implement. Because it seems that some people don't understand that ministers usually employ advisers for a reason...

#51 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,545 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 10:41 PM

Brandis has proved to the Australian people that he is completely clueless, and an ignorant fool after this disaster of an interview on Sky News today.

George Brandis in 'car crash' interview over controversial data retention regime.


Could have just said "I don't know I'm not good on the tech stuff."


Sure, but then he would have been attacked about not knowing enough about what he was planning to implement. Because it seems that some people don't understand that ministers usually employ advisers for a reason...


Probably would... but I'd rather be attacked for not being 100% across policy than making the policy up on the spot. But that's me...
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#52 scruffy1

scruffy1

    Champion

  • Hero
  • 5,377 posts
  • Location:near the beach

Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:04 PM

Could have just said "I don't know I'm not good on the tech stuff."



could have just said "i don't know, we're not very good at this governing stuff" but honesty in politics is out of vogue

the previous labour front bench were pretty woeful, but these people must repeatedly regret that you can't win with a lay down misere

if australia ever needed the right tools for the job of government, now is that time, but ironically it has only acquired a bunch of right-wing tools

ummmmmmmmmmm............


#53 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,545 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:16 PM

Could have just said "I don't know I'm not good on the tech stuff."



could have just said "i don't know, we're not very good at this governing stuff" but honesty in politics is out of vogue

the previous labour front bench were pretty woeful, but these people must repeatedly regret that you can't win with a lay down misere

if australia ever needed the right tools for the job of government, now is that time, but ironically it has only acquired a bunch of right-wing tools


Like I said before - government was better before the masses were empowered with twitter.

With the 24 hour social news cycle, politicians are expected to have arseholes cleaner than most people's bed sheets. That leads to boring, inexperienced leaders who have only ever done the politics route.

If you think Abbott's bad, wait till you see what's coming as my generation which has it's entire life online for all to see, comes to power.

Sometimes not knowing, is a good thing.
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#54 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,389 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:18 PM

Could have just said "I don't know I'm not good on the tech stuff."



could have just said "i don't know, we're not very good at this governing stuff" but honesty in politics is out of vogue

the previous labour front bench were pretty woeful, but these people must repeatedly regret that you can't win with a lay down misere

if australia ever needed the right tools for the job of government, now is that time, but ironically it has only acquired a bunch of right-wing tools


Like I said before - government was better before the masses were empowered with twitter.

With the 24 hour social news cycle, politicians are expected to have arseholes cleaner than most people's bed sheets. That leads to boring, inexperienced leaders who have only ever done the politics route.

No it doesn't.
It means politicians are required to think and respond on their feet.
And there's no way in this or any life time these politicians from either camp, are ever gonna be capable of doing that in an intelligent and
focused and mature manner.
And as for actually knowing the policies and how they work ... "Wtf ? " politicians would have to actually comprehend something other than
the retirement monies they're syphoning away !

 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#55 .:Cyb3rGlitch:.

.:Cyb3rGlitch:.

    Hero

  • Mod
  • 21,368 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:26 PM

Like I said before - government was better before the masses were empowered with twitter.

With the 24 hour social news cycle, politicians are expected to have arseholes cleaner than most people's bed sheets. That leads to boring, inexperienced leaders who have only ever done the politics route.

If you think Abbott's bad, wait till you see what's coming as my generation which has it's entire life online for all to see, comes to power.

Sometimes not knowing, is a good thing.


This whole post reeks of [citation needed].

"We are a way for the cosmos to know itself." - Carl Sagan
"I do not fear death. 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
 
An open mind is willing to consider new ideas, while provisionally accepting those backed by empirical evidence, and provisionally rejecting those without.


#56 Leonid

Leonid

    Immortal

  • Atomican't
  • 40,545 posts

Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:33 PM

Could have just said "I don't know I'm not good on the tech stuff."



could have just said "i don't know, we're not very good at this governing stuff" but honesty in politics is out of vogue

the previous labour front bench were pretty woeful, but these people must repeatedly regret that you can't win with a lay down misere

if australia ever needed the right tools for the job of government, now is that time, but ironically it has only acquired a bunch of right-wing tools


Like I said before - government was better before the masses were empowered with twitter.

With the 24 hour social news cycle, politicians are expected to have arseholes cleaner than most people's bed sheets. That leads to boring, inexperienced leaders who have only ever done the politics route.

No it doesn't.
It means politicians are required to think and respond on their feet.


Which is not a good recipe for thoughtful and intelligent policy discussion. Just look at e recently released report on NBNCo formation by the Productivity Commission.

Thinking on your feet is great. But it's replaced thoughtful policy construction.

Hell, half our newspapers these days are running digital platforms with sex-based click bait and summaries of the latest thing on twitter.


Like I said before - government was better before the masses were empowered with twitter.

With the 24 hour social news cycle, politicians are expected to have arseholes cleaner than most people's bed sheets. That leads to boring, inexperienced leaders who have only ever done the politics route.

If you think Abbott's bad, wait till you see what's coming as my generation which has it's entire life online for all to see, comes to power.

Sometimes not knowing, is a good thing.


This whole post reeks of [citation needed].


Your mum reeks of [citation needed]

I go now... :)
"I'd rather die standing up than live on my knees." - Stephane Charbonnier (1967-2015)

"If liberty means anything, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear." - George Orwell

#57 eveln

eveln

    Titan

  • Atomican
  • 16,389 posts
  • Location:Nth QLD

Posted 06 August 2014 - 11:46 PM

Could have just said "I don't know I'm not good on the tech stuff."



could have just said "i don't know, we're not very good at this governing stuff" but honesty in politics is out of vogue

the previous labour front bench were pretty woeful, but these people must repeatedly regret that you can't win with a lay down misere

if australia ever needed the right tools for the job of government, now is that time, but ironically it has only acquired a bunch of right-wing tools


Like I said before - government was better before the masses were empowered with twitter.

With the 24 hour social news cycle, politicians are expected to have arseholes cleaner than most people's bed sheets. That leads to boring, inexperienced leaders who have only ever done the politics route.

No it doesn't.
It means politicians are required to think and respond on their feet.


Which is not a good recipe for thoughtful and intelligent policy discussion. Just look at e recently released report on NBNCo formation by the Productivity Commission.

Thinking on your feet is great. But it's replaced thoughtful policy construction.

Hell, half our newspapers these days are running digital platforms with sex-based click bait and summaries of the latest thing on twitter.

You just like the look of your own posts. Here's the rest of mine ...

"And there's no way in this or any life time these politicians from either camp, are ever gonna be capable of doing that in an intelligent and
focused and mature manner.

And as for actually knowing the policies and how they work ... "Wtf ? " politicians would have to actually comprehend something other than
the retirement monies they're syphoning away !
" ...

I'm told that there are people who can use modern technology intelligently and constructively.

 Laugh to Live . Live to Laugh.

atomic has π


#58 Captain Awesome!

Captain Awesome!

    Journeyman

  • Atomican
  • 209 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 12:27 AM

The fall in taxation revenue during the GFC, plus the stimulus spending still comes nowhere near the turnaround amount in the overall financial situation.

To say that KRudd/Gillard were responsible spenders and that Howard splurged is ludicrous at the least.
And there are countless figures, graphs, reports to confirm it.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at, but my point is pretty simple.

That is that government spending as a proportion of GDP remained steady at around 25% of across the Howard/Rudd/Gillard years. This means that the Howard Government spent more because GDP was much higher pre-GFC.

They then doubled down by cutting taxes, mainly to benefit upper-middle and high income earners. The middle class, "Howard's Battlers" were handed gobs of welfare. The problem with cutting taxes to high income earners is that they tend to not spend it, but squirrel it away in investments - property, superannuation and the stock market, all of which generate little tax revenue and most of which attract further tax concessions.

That's the reality. They maintained spending as a proportion of GDP, but lowered tax to GDP ratios.

I'm happy to link graphs if you like!

Edited by Captain Awesome!, 07 August 2014 - 12:30 AM.

Romans are OP.


#59 Rybags

Rybags

    Immortal

  • Super Hero
  • 35,059 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 01:18 AM

We only suffered 2 quarters of contraction post-GFC, fair enough there were a good number under 1%growth but there was no recession. In the later years of the Howard government, there were surpluses, so taxation revenue was in fact more than spending. Post- GFC, taxation revenue did suffer, but Labor ignored it and just racked up the debt that we now have. And, tax cuts? It was not so long ago that Labor wanted to reduce corporate tax, Liberal and the Greens opposed it.

#60 Captain Awesome!

Captain Awesome!

    Journeyman

  • Atomican
  • 209 posts

Posted 07 August 2014 - 02:49 AM

Post- GFC, taxation revenue did suffer, but Labor ignored it and just racked up the debt that we now have.
And, tax cuts? It was not so long ago that Labor wanted to reduce corporate tax, Liberal and the Greens opposed it.

It's not true that Labor didn't try to increase tax revenue. They attempted to:

- Reform FBT and Novated Leases - $1.8Bn
- Reform Superannuation - Up to $38Bn
- Introduce a (meaningful) Mining Tax - ?
- Introduced a Carbon Tax - ?

Deficit 2014/15 - $40Bn

Labor proposed to reform the superannuation tax loopholes, the Liberal Party opposed those reforms. To give you some sort of perspective on that, Superannuation tax breaks now costs around as much as the Age Pension. That kind of defeats the purpose of the Superannuation system, doesn't it? Close those loopholes and increased tax revenue pays for the Age Pension. Just tightening the loopholes could significantly offset the cost of Age Pensions.

Labor also proposed an eminently reasonable mining tax that would have seen mining companies pay tax at roughly the level that other companies pay tax. This was howled down by the Coalition.

And then there was (shudder) the Carbon Tax. A tax that actually did what it was designed to do - raise revenue and reduce carbon emissions. The Coalition's plan is to scrap that and instead pay more corporate welfare to companies to NOT pollute.

It's absolutely true that Labor shot itself in the foot on a lot of these issues, particularly the Mining Tax. But had the Coalition gone along with these sensible reforms, the budget would be back in surplus, and we could continue to pay for all of the services the Federal Government is now cutting, most importantly Health and Education. The Coalition is hardly alone in opposing sensible reforms, but lets not rewrite history.

Also - you mentioned that Labor wanted to lower corporate tax. That's true. But that tax cut was to be funded by the Mining Tax.

Edited by Captain Awesome!, 07 August 2014 - 02:54 AM.

Romans are OP.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users