Oh. And this, is not the way to conduct a reasoned debate. Personalising it lessens the authority of any argument you have made and may make in the future...
Liam
The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
Liam
FR Drew
Not a custom title.
So, (on average) those earning over 1 million a year had a gross salary of 1.92 million dollars of which they only got to keep 1.55 million after tax.
I accept that using averages in this manner does ignore a minority of this group earning only the base 1 million gross and paying 45% with no deductions at all who are obviously disadvantaged by only having a net take home of 550k.
I accept that using averages in this manner does ignore a minority of this group earning only the base 1 million gross and paying 45% with no deductions at all who are obviously disadvantaged by only having a net take home of 550k.
Last edited:
No, it was an article from The Australian a few weeks ago, but I've since deleted the link. Yes the internet is not the font of all knowledge, and therefore neither are those who use it. Data, stats, all of it can be distorted to justify an argument according to your own ideology.
While stats may not be the best tool for propping up the argument, I wasn't really having one. They were just a tool for my rant which probably could've been less aggressive, but I've been awake for too long to be gentle. You can make any statement you like if you at least include some level of reasoning to justify how you could've reached that conclusion. Statements empty of any basis other than "I think you'll find the vast majority" type reasoning annoy me. A better man would've just ignored it, but actually being the better man is still an aspiration of mine.
As for fairness, that's an even more subjective tool than any statistic. Is it fair to make James Packer pay $200million in tax for exactly the same access to public resources as somebody paying no tax? Is it fair to put the burden of financial responsibility on somebody just because they can afford it? Is it fair to expect the Academia to study for years to allow the general public to benefit from their brain power, yet remunerate them at the same level as an unskilled council sign holder? The answer to those questions is subjective and will be guided by your own political leanings. Personally I prefer something based on a vague understanding of numbers over something based on an unknown level of emotion.
Arete, Kyoto was ratified and for what? Yes it was great symbolism but it achieved nothing. WorkChoices, I'm actually one of the 15% of Australian workers on an AWA. I find it astonishing how deeply the ill feeling towards WorkChoices runs when 85% of Australians employed weren't involved and wouldn't have a clue what it entailed. AWA's were taken up most heavily by the resturant and mining industry. It's interesting to note the the resturant industry has since been given its own award outside the hotels industry. It's also interesting to note that in the regions of Australia that rely heavily on mining (excepting Coal mining which is heavily unionised) the Coalition won convincingly. While WorkChoices has its flaws but so do EBAs, and both have advantages to certain groups of people. Rudd is a tin hero, his me-tooism was indictive of one thing and that's his inablility to have an individual thought or belief. There will be no reform under him that isn't driven externally and overtly popular, so as Academia you know where you stand.
Smeck - if you re-read what I said, you'll see I agreed with you on most of your points. However the assertion that we'd be no different if Howard had of on in 2007 was incorrect IMO.
Every time I villify Rudd for inaction, all the conservatives I know put in a big "see we should have stuck with the libs". Unfortunately if I got what I wanted out of the government, they'd be even more upset with it.
Every time I villify Rudd for inaction, all the conservatives I know put in a big "see we should have stuck with the libs". Unfortunately if I got what I wanted out of the government, they'd be even more upset with it.
Smeck, you truly believe that the Howard government, as a right wing/conservative government was up front with us and always told us were we stood? You don't think that they manipulated information to suit electoral circumstances, like every other government? A few issues come to mind; Children overboard, no troops committed yet (no need to school me on OPSEC, however this was a policy decision, not a tactical one), etc., etc.
Lastly, please do curb your arrogance when you are discussing points on this forum. Fatigue is no excuse for rudeness.
Lastly, please do curb your arrogance when you are discussing points on this forum. Fatigue is no excuse for rudeness.
Arete, apologies for getting easily distracted, I did note the overall sentiment of your post but felt the need to reply on another. Personally I think we'd be quite different under a Howard government, but its impossible to justify and therefore a difficult statement to make. Day to day living though, I'm not convinced that Governments have a major impact. Whether or not my boss is going to annoy me, the fridge is empty or the car rego is due are issues I have to deal with regardless. The government only decides whether or not I'll have enough money left over to play shiny bicycle bling afterwards, or whether the boss can fire me for not going in.
As for reforms you really wanted from the government, I concur with your sentiments though I doubt we'd agree on the end state. Where I would've liked to see some Howard reforms go would be as distasteful to you as your Rudd reforms would be to me. It might be better for both of us to meet in the middle.
Johnny, all Governments (and Corporations/Unions) manipulate information to steer opinion in the direction they want it. To believe anything else is naive and shows a complete disregard to what politicians are capable of. Howard didn't seem to feel the need to be our best friend though, and when he thought an issue didn't warrant his attention he generally said so. Kyoto was not going to be signed without developing countries included, Sorry wasn't going to aid in reconcilliation. Whether you agreed with it or not, you knew or could often predict his position. Unlike Rudd and his constant grandstanding on the big issues, and then lacks the motivation/drive/whatever to push through the solution. Remember his commission into grocery prices, fuel, taking Japan to the international court over Whaling, his leading role in the G20, getting a seat on the UN security council. You aren't required to agree, but I did feel like I knew where I stood with Howard, and Keating for that matter. Rudd changes opinions with the weather, the fact that he's lobbying for you one day is no guarantee he won't bite you the next. Fitzgibbon got sacked for not being able to guarantee his Office acted appropriately, Swan can't guarantee his Office has acted appropriately yet he enjoys Rudd's full support. I suspect we have a different perspective/defintion of arrogance as well, but you're the moderator so you get to moderate.
As for reforms you really wanted from the government, I concur with your sentiments though I doubt we'd agree on the end state. Where I would've liked to see some Howard reforms go would be as distasteful to you as your Rudd reforms would be to me. It might be better for both of us to meet in the middle.
Johnny, all Governments (and Corporations/Unions) manipulate information to steer opinion in the direction they want it. To believe anything else is naive and shows a complete disregard to what politicians are capable of. Howard didn't seem to feel the need to be our best friend though, and when he thought an issue didn't warrant his attention he generally said so. Kyoto was not going to be signed without developing countries included, Sorry wasn't going to aid in reconcilliation. Whether you agreed with it or not, you knew or could often predict his position. Unlike Rudd and his constant grandstanding on the big issues, and then lacks the motivation/drive/whatever to push through the solution. Remember his commission into grocery prices, fuel, taking Japan to the international court over Whaling, his leading role in the G20, getting a seat on the UN security council. You aren't required to agree, but I did feel like I knew where I stood with Howard, and Keating for that matter. Rudd changes opinions with the weather, the fact that he's lobbying for you one day is no guarantee he won't bite you the next. Fitzgibbon got sacked for not being able to guarantee his Office acted appropriately, Swan can't guarantee his Office has acted appropriately yet he enjoys Rudd's full support. I suspect we have a different perspective/defintion of arrogance as well, but you're the moderator so you get to moderate.
Last edited:
No, the Def. Min. got the sack because he was severely compromised and Rudd hated him. And yes, I already stated in my initial response that every government does this, thanks for the reminder, though. However I'm not talking about any other government, I'm talking about the Howard Govt. Funny you bring up how things weren't paid attention to, kind of like all those memos that nobody saw or felt weren't important enough to read. Anyway, we aren't going to see eye to eye so I will leave it at that.
Also thanks for reminding me that I am the moderator too, makes me feel like I'm big man.
Also thanks for reminding me that I am the moderator too, makes me feel like I'm big man.
Last edited:
nizai
Likes Dirt
Smeck im quite happy to accept that I may have been wrong in the statement in the opening line of my post - particularly my 'certain' phrasing, which is probably what got me into trouble. I was in the same boat as you in knee jerk posting a response to a similar level of "ignorant bullshit" Greg_Bris was posting.
Look, the main issue I was rebutting was the inference that poor people or people on the minimum wage, or people who access welfare programs in this country are lazy or "lack drive". Most of them are hard working individuals. There was an attempt to paint a large broad section of society with the same brush, which annoyed the hell out of me.
N
Last edited:
sockman
Likes Bikes and Dirt
I realise I'm probably in way to deep frro me to argue any logivcal anything in my current state, but all reforms, change and whatever you want to callt hem start with an idea or belief. From my (extremely) limited understanding, KYOTO was intended to start to a process of reform that will hopefully be beneficial, as it is intended.
Maybe I payed too much attention in highschool english, but positive change is hard to achieve without a precursor that makes at least some sense to the masses. Goals are often set too high as a general rule, but in my opinion that allows for more in depth analysis of issues, and ultimately sets achievable goals in the long term, even if they are initially short sighted or in this case very selective or limited in what they can or will achieve (again, my understanding of kyoto is limited to wikipedia and the top few google results, but I think I might have the gyst of things...).
All IDEAS or GOALS start somewhere, but only some evolve into rational and achievable courses of action. I see Kyoto as a stepping stone to greener pastures.
And before I drag this more OT, do you honestly believe Australia's action towards Kyoto would be significantly different, under a different Government?!?!
Like the thread title states, 'Meet the new boss, same as the old boss'. Everyone has their own agenda, but political movements/governments who want to stay in power, or gain popularity have to appeal to a majority audience to succeed, a major part of which involves giving into varuous demands from people and politicians of all walks of life.. FACT. I think :S
I hope someone can make as much sense of my half asleep, still drunk ramblings as they make to my not quite working at this hour of the morning brain.
Time for beddybyes, y'alllllll
ps: got beef? I prefer pork.
Last edited:
Of course governments are self serving, and the Senate is designed to ensure the Government legislates from the centre of politics. So our day to day existence does not change between different leaders. However if you think different leaders don't influence the direction of government within its framwork I request you highlight my errors or delve a little deeper into the political scene. Have a look at the massively deep shit the Americans are in with their unfunded pension scheme, or the amount the British pay into their National Pension Plan, and then compare that with the Superannuation that Keating introduced, and include in that Howards Future Fund to meet the Australian Governments unfunded superannuation responsibilities. The Future Fund took several years to get to its $55billion, I don't believe Rudd would have put aside the $10-$15bill each year that Howard/Costello did. Beazley fought it, Crean fought it, Latham fought it, they wanted the money returned or spent. Leaders (good leaders) have direction, an ideology, a modus operandi and they achieve change for the good of the people, not at the will of the people. Compare the first term of Menzies to Curtin and you'll see the difference a pair of balls can make. Menzies was much better the second time around, but the first time he was a pro-British lackey, not an Australian Prime Minister.
As for Kyoto, I agree with your sentiments, but in this case I stand by what I said. Kyoto was an voluntary undertaking which we and America ignored since China and India weren't involved. We then ratified Kyoto, America didn't. We made an undertaking to reduce consumption and greenhouse gas emmission, America didn't, yet they have begun implementing an Emissions Trading Scheme and we have not. The difference???? They're deeper in the shit financially than we are, but their ETS Bill is in the Senate, having already been debated and passed by Congress, ours is still being drafted and is yet to be debated in the House of Reps. Rudd has all the authority he will ever have right now, he's soaring in the opinion polls, we never turf out first term governmnets so he's still got another term, so after rushing out to ratify Kyoto what is he waiting for? Courage of Convictions or political Chameleon chasing the popular consensus? Would Australia's response have been different with Howard still in Office. Yep, he wouldn't have ratified Kyoto and there be no discussion of an ETS in the media, it just wouldn't be on the cards at all. The difference is we knew that, and Rudd campaigned on the back of environmental reform that he isn't delivering. With Howard we'd probably still have a few soldiers stationed in Iraq, there'd be a bit less stimulus being bandied about, but day to day it would be about the same. People have this impression that governments affect your day to day life, and get upset when this leader is just like the last one because I still just scrape by and live pay to pay. Government is long term, they effect how much money you save or spend, when you can retire, how much a new car will cost, whether you can smoke in that car. The price of fuel and the cost of lettuce, house prices, are dictated by the market, all the Government can do is pound it's chest and grandstand on the issue, which only dissappoints people who thought real change was going to occur.
Nizai, my apologies. That was a bad day and you certainly didn't deserve to wear it. 5.7% is a vast majority getting a pay cheque, but a progessive tax system means the burden is carried by a few not the many. Whether or not that is "fair" is something that will be debated "til eternity" and it's a battle ground drawn over political beliefs, not economic theory.
Johnny, someone has to keep the peace, big man or small man with a big stick.
Last edited:
I agree, probably the "cream of the crap", however I'd bet a brick against London that Rudd would prefer to keep him there as they would have so much dirt on him. Turnbull has been up to his eyeballs in some the Financial markets more shady deals. He also has pushed so hard for this Carbon Trading agreement, which sounds like a good responsible citizen, but if you look at what drives the man, money, you can see why. He was the ex-CEO of JB Were Goldman, and still holds a bundle of the stock (over $800m according to the 2009 BRW Rich List). Goldmans/JB Were owns over 90% of the Carbon Trading in the world. It stands to reason he wants this passed. I've got to say I don't like the guy at all, but I don't know of anyone in the party who could do a better job. Hopefully they can find a suitable replacement, as Australia needs two strong parties at the moment.
CGR
Likes Dirt
^now that is interesting; i've always thought him to be very, well, Liberal, i don't really know why but to me he fits the party leadership very well. Its a shame (for the Liberal's) he has done such a poor job 'putting himself out there' and all that, because quite frankly he's probably their best hope given their choices.
Last edited:
I'm not sure about all the shady deals you're referring too, though I'm sure there would be some. Considering the way he scuttled Kerry Packer's bid for Faifax I would have thought Turnbull to have a level of moral courage that may be pliable but may also mean he's very ethical, though perhaps not always well informed. Its nothing to not like a man, but he's leader of the opposition, not a guest at a BBQ. I would consider a man so massively successful a good candidate to run a country, if Goldman Sachs thought so highly of his skills perhaps we should look a little deeper than his social skills. Rudd is a proven ass in his interpersonal skills considering the rate he goes through staff members and his intellectual essays get ridiculed, yet Turnbull is a pariah for being socially inadequate but intellectually respected. I don't get it.
Unfortunately a lot of people have forgotten what Liberal is after years of Howard, quite probably the most conservative Liberal of the last 20 yrs. Hockey is too bubbly even though he's banished Swan to being little more than a cardboard cut out. Andrews in tarnished by Workchoices, Bishop is nothing more than a name on a door. If Turnbull can replace Bishop with someone capable of tackling Gillard (who ??? maybe Robb if he recovers) then Rudd will get isolated, even though his Teflon coating is still intact. Until the shine comes off Rudd every Opposition leader will look like crap. Once the Henry review is released Turnbull will be back in his element and Swan will have to face Hockey again, they'll still lose come election time though.
I'm all for a successful business man running for PM, but not one with his history. He may have got cleared by the HIH Commission, but I for one don't believe he was clean. I just don't think he is honest, but having said that I don't know him personally so you can take my opinion with a grain of salt.
I think the difference between Rudd and Turnbull is that Rudd has the total support of his party, which looks reasurring, where as Turnbull doesn't.
Id' love to be wrong about Turnbull, maybe he is more honest than I give him credit for, but after working in the Financial Markets for 20 years I have to say I have seen my fair share of dishonest grubs, and he fits the bill!
Adamski
Likes Bikes and Dirt
I agree. Out of the other blokes tussling over the ETS, Turnbill seems to have the most reasonable approach to the topic. He knows that if they don't approve anything for Rudd to take to Copenhagen we'll be a laughing stock and when the other countries ask Rudd why he doesn't have anything he will be able to point the finger at the Libs and go 'because of those bastards'.