Neutral Political Discussion

[orr]

from macrobusiness today commenting on an AFR article over the weekend

…the tax system is badly broken. It can’t generate enough revenue to deliver long-term structural surpluses that underpin a successful society.
So far our political "leaders" have their heads in the sand (or is that up their A$$es?) that they will leave any adjustment till the last minute, which will cost us dearly.

How tax free super is viable with the halving of workers per retiree over the next few decades is beyond me

To begin with Economists, who will never have the task of being elected, would adjust the the the GST, and let bracket creep on income tax ride.
That to one side; Jeff Kennet's 'Keynesian' Epiphany, voiced today, if it gets any traction, which when melded with Abbott 'Mr Super Infrastructure Man', may give rise to an expanded tax base... Give me a Melbourne/Brisbane rail freight link, powered by Aussie natural gas powered loco's.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/borrow-to-build-rail-network-kennett-20130811-2rq88.html

 

[Julia]

Yes, people who always vote a certain way without really being interested in policy. It becomes like barracking for a football side. Country Lad expressed it well.

Did he? He said:

The mostly biased and predictable comments by a few in the so called discussions here are no different to what is being dished out by the candidates - partisan party politics. As in other matters, I do my own research and don't waste time on such orchestrated nonsense as the campaign or the debate.

" So called discussions" "No different to (sic) what is being dished out by the candidates ".
"I would not be surprised if most would be glued on party supporters whose minds are closed anyway".

Such judgement. So if you don't want to engage in any political discussion, why not (a) avoid reading the thread, and (b) refrain from supercilious condemnation of those who do?

I do not agree that all of us who are politically engaged and who happen to enjoy participating in the discussion are ipso facto stupid, unable to think for ourselves, do our own research, and make up our own minds.

There are plenty of threads on this forum in which I have minimal interest, occasionally read and think 'oh goodness, what nonsense', but I don't feel obliged to condemn those who are obviously enjoying their participation therein.

I love a good debate discussing details of policy and how issues should be handled. A real debate of ideas.
Wish we could have one.

Well, how about, instead of being critical, making a substantive contribution to such a debate to which others would be inspired to respond equally thoughtfully? Good debate doesn't happen in a vacuum.
So much easier to sit on the sidelines and deliver pejorative, superior remarks.

 

[Knobby22]

Well in answer to your "superior" comments.
How come all I have seen from the debate is people talking about the behaviour of the candidates and who performed better, no comment about policy.

I'm sorry, it has descended into barracking. And the only people watching it are those that are barracking.

Just read them, there is nothing else. I have better things to do than watch them and hope for mistakes from one side.

With regard to the debate, I was talking a debate between the leaders, not this website.

 

[Julia]

With regard to the debate, I was talking a debate between the leaders, not this website.

Thank you for explaining that. I know you to usually be fair minded.

I think, however, it was fairly clear that what I was referring to was the criticism of those participating in this thread, viz.

The mostly biased and predictable comments by a few in the so called discussions here are no different to what is being dished out by the candidates - partisan party politics.

It would be interesting to see how many voters actually watched the debate, and I would not be surprised if most would be glued on party supporters whose minds are closed anyway.

 

[sptrawler]

Well in answer to your "superior" comments.
How come all I have seen from the debate is people talking about the behaviour of the candidates and who performed better, no comment about policy.

I'm sorry, it has descended into barracking. And the only people watching it are those that are barracking.

Just read them, there is nothing else. I have better things to do than watch them and hope for mistakes from one side.

With regard to the debate, I was talking a debate between the leaders, not this website.

Currently, there hasn't been much in the way of policy from either side, therefore all one can comment on is the performance of the candidates.

Also much has been stated over the past 4 - 5 years on Abbotts lack of presentation skills. The debate(if you could call it that) was one of the first times Abbott and Rudd have made joint presentations.

Why wouldn't it be worthy of peoples observations, many over the last couple of years have made derogatory comments on Abbotts delivery, you and I included.

So why shouldn't people critique it.

 

[Country Lad]

It doesn't take much for you to get on your high hose Julia.

Did he? He said:

" So called discussions" "No different to (sic) what is being dished out by the candidates ".
"I would not be surprised if most would be glued on party supporters whose minds are closed anyway".

That is being dishonest Julia, you are purposely taking this out of context. The second line of that quote had nothing to do with the first line - you are twisting what I said because that second line was clearly in relation to the debate seeing it was in the same sentence as "how many voters actually watched the debate" - nothing to do with this forum.

That is precisely my point, and you give a great example - partisan misleading comments and much misrepresentation of what is actually said leading to abuse such as the rest of your post.

I rest my case.

Cheers
Country Lad

 

[Julia]

This is from your original post:

My interest in the election is demonstrated by the fact I didn't watch the debate, couldn't care less who "won" and don't have any interest in the election campaign as it is all spin and BS.

The mostly biased and predictable comments by a few in the so called discussions here are no different to what is being dished out by the candidates - partisan party politics.

Clear supercilious and patronising assessment of those of us regularly participating in this discussion.
It would seem so easy to just avoid the thread if it so offends you.

It would be interesting to see how many voters actually watched the debate, and I would not be surprised if most would be glued on party supporters whose minds are closed anyway.

Again a judgement. I watched most of the debate, mostly for the reasons described by sptrawler above, not because I'm not able to separately decide on whom to vote for. As did many people I know, none of whom are incapable of objectivity, and none of whom are 'rusted on' to either party.
FWIW I've actually voted Labor about as often as I've voted for the Coalition.

That is being dishonest Julia, you are purposely taking this out of context. The second line of that quote had nothing to do with the first line - you are twisting what I said because that second line was clearly in relation to the debate seeing it was in the same sentence as "how many voters actually watched the debate" - nothing to do with this forum.

As above, I was responding to two of your 'assessments' of your fellow ASF members.
I have nothing more to say on this.

 

[Ves]

Clear supercilious and patronising assessment of those of us regularly participating in this discussion.

The mostly biased and predictable comments by a few in the so called discussions here are no different to what is being dished out by the candidates - partisan party politics.

I am baffled as to how you can read a statement that specifically says by a few and intepret it as meaning those of us regularly participating. The most basic of statements seem to be lost on you when it suits your agenda of crying foul on a view you do not agree with.

If it was a one-off incident it would probably be let slip - but Julia it is a continuous occurence with you. Your posts seem to regularly attract conflict stemming from an overtly defensive attitude - "how dare you criticise me." I know you freely like to blame others for this happening, whether publically or via snarky private messages for offending or attacking you. But have you considered that part of the problem may be caused in your need to read into other people's posts a little too much? Not everything said on these forums is about you, so there is no need to make out it is to justify your need to be the perennial victim.

The best piece of advice is your own:

It would seem so easy to just avoid the thread if it so offends you.

 

[Julia]

Thank you for your opinion, Ves. That's a fair point about 'a few'. You are correct that I misinterpreted that.

I'm always happy to apologise if I've been unreasonable and I accept that I probably over-reacted to CL's post. So herewith such apology to CL .

 

[Country Lad]

So herewith such apology to CL .

Thank you Julia, accepted.

Cheers
Country Lad

 

[dutchie]

I think that it will be important for the next government, whether Labor or Coalition, to have a clear majority in both houses.

Australia is facing another difficult time ahead with it's finances and the slowing down of the resources boom.

The ruling government will need to be able to run the country without kowtowing to any minor party or independents.

So for this election it will be important, imho, for people to either vote for labor or the coalition.

 

[MrBurns]

I think that it will be important for the next government, whether Labor or Coalition, to have a clear majority in both houses.

Australia is facing another difficult time ahead with it's finances and the slowing down of the resources boom.

The ruling government will need to be able to run the country without kowtowing to any minor party or independents.

So for this election it will be important, imho, for people to either vote for labor or the coalition.

Yes I think it's time for the Greens to go away and take with them all the Independents who have done nothing for anyone but themselves.

 

[sydboy007]

<sarcasm alert>

possibly we should have all Federal members of parliament help to build the refugee proof fence spanning along the top of the country. Should be a good work for the dole scheme. Maybe assign current refugees waiting for their status to be verified to work with each member. I certainly have a fair idea of who's going to be the harder workers.

I'm sure the exercise will do them good, especially the over weigh pollies, and I'd certainly like to see them doing some work rather than having tantrums in the media over insignificant issues (note I'm not saying immigration isn't an important issue, just that so far I've yet yo see any indication that our potential leaders have any idea about the problems rolling in, especially due to demographics.)

 

[Calliope]

I'm sure the exercise will do them good, especially the over weigh pollies, and I'd certainly like to see them doing some work rather than having tantrums in the media over insignificant issues

I agree. Insignificant issues like gay marriage and and political correctness get far too much attention.

 

[sydboy007]

I agree. Insignificant issues like gay marriage and and political correctness get far too much attention.

Throw in ideas for spending billions to develop the north when infrastructure in the capital cities is growing under some of the highest population growth. Cutting travel times in Sydney by 10 minutes saves billions in time but our illustrious leaders have their grand schemes to tame the north.

 

[Calliope]

Throw in ideas for spending billions to develop the north when infrastructure in the capital cities is growing under some of the highest population growth. Cutting travel times in Sydney by 10 minutes saves billions in time but our illustrious leaders have their grand schemes to tame the north.

Tough border protection and developing the North are just hollow vote catching scams. Both will be ditched after the election regardless of who wins, because neither is achievable.

 

[drsmith]

Tough border protection and developing the North are just hollow vote catching scams. Both will be ditched after the election regardless of who wins, because neither is achievable.

I could comment on border protection but it wouldn't be neutral.

 

[sydboy007]

I could comment on border protection but it wouldn't be neutral.

I think our Dear Leaders watched a bit too much Croc Dundee in their more youthful years.

That's not a general <2 star>

THIS is a GENERAL <3 stars>

ps it's a jump from a rear admiral to a vice admiral.

I'm a bit disappointed not to see a 4 star general (Admiral) assigned his duties, and there's a 5 star Admiral of the fleet who could also chip in

How I long for a recognition of fiscal imbalance and ways to deal with it, innovative infrastructure funding, enhancement of the CSIRO in agriculture and new breeds of food crops and funding for studies to determine if any of the fears about GM crops have a basis in fact.

A report on where 75% of Govt revenue is sourced and the top 10-15 spending programs, or tax forgone, so the punters can start to gain a small understanding of where the money comes from and where it goes. Then we might start to have some adult like debate about how to change the tax system.

I wont hold my breath. Now I must tend my flying pigs.

 

[noco]

Many moons ago I posted my opinion on political candidates who, in the case of men with a Clarke Gable or a Pierce Brosnan apperance, would appeal more to women and would most likely receive more votes than a candidate with less sex appeal irrespect of their political beliefs.

Perhaps this is the reason Malcolm Turnbull is more popular than Tony Abbott. It does not matter whether you are a Rhode Scholar with an economics degree as in the case of Tony Abbott or in Labors case with David Bradbury who is professor in Economics. Bradbury is up against a female who has sex appeal and he may well lose his seat irrespective of his academic ability.

Many people are easily swayed into making a purchase whether it is a house, a car or some minor article if the sales person they are dealing with are beautiful people.

Jessica Irvine explains why beautiful people get paid more.




http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...id-more-than-you/story-e6freon6-1226698982762

 

[chiff]

Perhaps more people are swayed by articulate people able to present a cogent intelligent plausible case.But then again perhaps not.
As is said-I used to be indecisive but now I am not quite sure.