The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
like seriously if you own TWO HOUSES you automatically forfeit your right to complain about "cost of living pressures" and "doing it tough"
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
first world problems.Spark wrote:
like seriously if you own TWO HOUSES you automatically forfeit your right to complain about "cost of living pressures" and "doing it tough"
So how much more tax am I going to be paying so Labor can stitch up the coalition with stupid spending promises?
Fuck Israel
Whats important is the govt puts in place enough subsidy so couples can have kids and a rental property or two and still enjoy their second income in full.Spark wrote:
like seriously if you own TWO HOUSES you automatically forfeit your right to complain about "cost of living pressures" and "doing it tough"
Last edited by Dilbert_X (2013-05-14 02:21:53)
Fuck Israel
Boom, no more baby bonus. Fuck you, Conte family - and might I remind you your name sounds kind of like "cunt".
The Age expects me to feel sorry for a childless couple with nearly $1m in property? Oh dear, my nose bleeds for you.
The Age expects me to feel sorry for a childless couple with nearly $1m in property? Oh dear, my nose bleeds for you.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
I'm sure unemployed couples in Western Sydney with their five kids aren't taking advantage of the baby bonus at all.Dilbert_X wrote:
Whats important is the govt puts in place enough subsidy so couples can have kids and a rental property or two and still enjoy their second income in full.Spark wrote:
like seriously if you own TWO HOUSES you automatically forfeit your right to complain about "cost of living pressures" and "doing it tough"
how are they going to get a head start in life with their 2 propertiesTy wrote:
Boom, no more baby bonus. Fuck you, Conte family - and might I remind you your name sounds kind of like "cunt".
The Age expects me to feel sorry for a childless couple with nearly $1m in property? Oh dear, my nose bleeds for you.
Haven't seen much media reaction but I think they've been caught off guard. I think they expected a "Dying Government" budget where a Treasurer announces a whole lot of sweeteners and bribes that they know they'll never have to find the money for. But it's not that sort of budget. So their fall back is that it's a "reputation saving" budget so the Rudd/Gillard legacy can be a good one.
Really? I didn't know they needed it. When the dust has settled over the 2013 election even if Tony Abbott gets into power with an overwhelming majority, the current Government is in good shape legacy-wise. All the tabloid headline making topics, the Coalition fear campaigns, the lies, the accusations, the utterly relentless tide of utter bullshit happily provided by the Murdoch media, it will all wash away. And what you'll be left with is a Government that kept Australia not just afloat but actually growing and continuing to succeed during a period of global economic turmoil. One that put in place some hugely beneficial policies despite them being politically unpopular at the time.
Of course the other thing you'll be left with is an Abbott Government. Have fun with that.
Even John Howard has praised this Government's economic management, (though he tried to claim it was due to his successes despite the graph Jaekus posted.) And the Coalition's criticisms are generally completely false, (I wish PolitiFact Australia would hurry the fuck up and post more stuff.) There's really nothing the Coalition can come up with so it has decided to pull stunts with that aforementioned ridiculous booklet.
The media has resigned itself to an Abbott victory but I would remind them that firstly the Election is four months away and secondly, the Murdoch media empire in particular has a recent history of eating humble pie over its election predictions.
There's something that annoys be about this particular stance on the budget. The article I read may have the opinion that Gillard is on her way out, and that's fine, it's logical in regard to polling numbers. But I have to ask why this is a "face-saving" budget? Why, when it could so easily be determined to be a budget from a Government that doesn't just expect itself to be thrown out. A Government that plans to govern for the next four months instead of trying pointless stunts - and beyond if it can manage it. Wouldn't it be nice for the media over the next day or so to take that angle. Do you think anyone will? Do you think one journalist who'll be surprised and say "Oh shit - Tony might have a fight on his hands." I hope at least one does. But I doubt it.
Really? I didn't know they needed it. When the dust has settled over the 2013 election even if Tony Abbott gets into power with an overwhelming majority, the current Government is in good shape legacy-wise. All the tabloid headline making topics, the Coalition fear campaigns, the lies, the accusations, the utterly relentless tide of utter bullshit happily provided by the Murdoch media, it will all wash away. And what you'll be left with is a Government that kept Australia not just afloat but actually growing and continuing to succeed during a period of global economic turmoil. One that put in place some hugely beneficial policies despite them being politically unpopular at the time.
Of course the other thing you'll be left with is an Abbott Government. Have fun with that.
Even John Howard has praised this Government's economic management, (though he tried to claim it was due to his successes despite the graph Jaekus posted.) And the Coalition's criticisms are generally completely false, (I wish PolitiFact Australia would hurry the fuck up and post more stuff.) There's really nothing the Coalition can come up with so it has decided to pull stunts with that aforementioned ridiculous booklet.
The media has resigned itself to an Abbott victory but I would remind them that firstly the Election is four months away and secondly, the Murdoch media empire in particular has a recent history of eating humble pie over its election predictions.
There's something that annoys be about this particular stance on the budget. The article I read may have the opinion that Gillard is on her way out, and that's fine, it's logical in regard to polling numbers. But I have to ask why this is a "face-saving" budget? Why, when it could so easily be determined to be a budget from a Government that doesn't just expect itself to be thrown out. A Government that plans to govern for the next four months instead of trying pointless stunts - and beyond if it can manage it. Wouldn't it be nice for the media over the next day or so to take that angle. Do you think anyone will? Do you think one journalist who'll be surprised and say "Oh shit - Tony might have a fight on his hands." I hope at least one does. But I doubt it.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Tbf it's very standard for any pre-election govt to just throw money at the electorate. It's a bit unusual that it's not happening now.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Here's one article - http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal- … jklb.html#
edit: just noticed Ty had posted it already in his comment above.
edit: just noticed Ty had posted it already in his comment above.
Last edited by Jaekus (2013-05-14 04:01:46)
Apart from the accumulated deficit.Ty wrote:
I didn't know they needed it. When the dust has settled over the 2013 election even if Tony Abbott gets into power with an overwhelming majority, the current Government is in good shape legacy-wise.
I am learning to speak Hobbit right now.Of course the other thing you'll be left with is an Abbott Government. Have fun with that.
Fuck Israel
Accumulated deficit is a storm in a teacup that people who think Abbott is a credible politician believe to be an issue. Honestly, we're in a pretty good shape and despite some of the cuts I don't agree with, like education and renewable energy, and others they didn't do, like subsidies to the mining sector, the budget was pretty good really. There wasn't any pork barreling unlike Howard era budgets in election years and it's clear the idea is to fund policy whilst getting the budget back into the black. Unemployment is very low and the economy by and large is doing very well when compared to the global picture.
Jaekus wrote:
Accumulated deficit is a storm in a teacup that people who think Abbott is a credible politician believe to be an issue. Honestly, we're in a pretty good shape and despite some of the cuts I don't agree with, like education and renewable energy, and others they didn't do, like subsidies to the mining sector, the budget was pretty good really. There wasn't any pork barreling unlike Howard era budgets in election years and it's clear the idea is to fund policy whilst getting the budget back into the black. Unemployment is very low and the economy by and large is doing very well when compared to the global picture.
If she's been in power since 2009 then yes, she is an idiot and her government needs to go.
No, public debt is not something you can write off, it is theft from future generations who are not only paying the for the money borrowed, they're also paying all the accumulated interest on that debt as well.
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
Howard years from 96-07
Rudd/Gillard from 07 onwards.
Rudd/Gillard from 07 onwards.
If you have an investment property you don't get to complain about the price of milk and bread.
Howard achieved his surpluses through fortuitous domestic and global economic circumstances and heavy taxation. Meanwhile his spending during the time has been deemed wasteful. Gillard's debt levels are largely due to the investments that kept Australia out of the Global Financial Crisis as well as further investments in health, education, and infrastructure. It's never as simple as "surplus good, deficit bad" and I wish the media and Joe Hockey would think of something else to say.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Honestly our budget position is pretty much exactly where everyone thought it would be in 2009. So long as there's sensible deficit reduction targeting blatantly idiotic spending - like the baby bonus, for example, that's fine.
PS. That above graph is misleading. Our net debt is 11% of GDP, not 20-odd. There's quite a few economists who say we should actually be taking of low interest rates on bonds to fund much-needed infrastructure projects.
PS. That above graph is misleading. Our net debt is 11% of GDP, not 20-odd. There's quite a few economists who say we should actually be taking of low interest rates on bonds to fund much-needed infrastructure projects.
Last edited by Spark (2013-05-14 16:28:31)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Swan just claimed in Question Time that if the Gillard Government's GDP-to-taxation ratio was the same as during the Howard years there would be an $8b surplus. Not sure how true that it, I'll leave it for PolitiFact. There's probably some validity in it though.Ty wrote:
Howard achieved his surpluses through... heavy taxation.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
We need to cut middle class welfare.
Yeah, roughly the same.Ty wrote:
Swan just claimed in Question Time that if the Gillard Government's GDP-to-taxation ratio was the same as during the Howard years there would be an $8b surplus. Not sure how true that it, I'll leave it for PolitiFact. There's probably some validity in it though.Ty wrote:
Howard achieved his surpluses through... heavy taxation.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
your graph only goes to 2007...
uh, my bad. but it'd only have fallen since then.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
so on the one hand abbott is complaining about excessive budget deficits
on the other hand he's just promised a completely unfunded tax cut
outstanding
on the other hand he's just promised a completely unfunded tax cut
outstanding
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Why does anyone even pay attention to what politicians say they'll do after the election?
Its like asking a child how well behaved they'll be after they get their ice-cream.
Its like asking a child how well behaved they'll be after they get their ice-cream.
Fuck Israel