Double Dissolution 2016

[luutzu]

You will never make the poor richer by making the rich poorer.

Mathematically, Yes you can.

Mathematically and economically, you cannot make the poor richer by making the poor poorer.

Economically, you cannot make the rich richer by making the rich richer at the expense of the poor - not permanently; not in the long run.

If the majority of the country are poor and poverty stricken with a few at the top owning everything... roads and infrastructures will grind to a halt and crumble; defense can only afford a few gunboats to protect dirty and polluted cities and towns with full of dried up rivers and dead fishes...

Then either the population will rise up to revolt, or if the gov't is too effective at chopping heads then stronger neighbours and barbarians will just waltz in and liberate...

 

[Tisme]

If the 'large sections of the community' you are referring to are the members of the CFMEU, the ETA or the warfies, then those not represented by those thugs would be quite ok seeing them lose their power and become mortal citizens again. I'm sure.

This country still has the most militant, thuggish and overpaid for work, unionists on the planet. They need a good kick in the rear before they completely root this place for good.

Regardless of anyone's motives, including Liberal party of Oz, if we start severe regulation in freedom of association we move the boundaries closer to the next, possibly victimised, group until we have an ordered society, devoid of character.

I can't comment on the unions compared with other countries, but I would presume those unionists who dared march in Turkey on May Day and were rounded up by the military, would be seen as freedom seekers on one hand and trouble makers on the other.

This thread is about the upcoming election based on a suspect double dissolution trigger. The fact that nearly half or more of the voting population will give their count to the ALP means that there is nowhere near an absolute majority who are anti unions, albeit they may not be a member themselves.

Personally I'd like to do bad things to some of the union reps and their site snitches, but despite generations of warnings that we are going down the gurgler because of the union power, we somehow still manage a top lifestyle, a pride in our nation, AAA credit ratings, a chicken in every pot and a great welfare system.... so like most thing in life we may just have to live with the compliment of yin and yang

 

[wayneL]

Mathematically, Yes you can.

Mathematically and economically, you cannot make the poor richer by making the poor poorer.

Economically, you cannot make the rich richer by making the rich richer at the expense of the poor - not permanently; not in the long run.

If the majority of the country are poor and poverty stricken with a few at the top owning everything... roads and infrastructures will grind to a halt and crumble; defense can only afford a few gunboats to protect dirty and polluted cities and towns with full of dried up rivers and dead fishes...

Then either the population will rise up to revolt, or if the gov't is too effective at chopping heads then stronger neighbours and barbarians will just waltz in and liberate...

You can't make the poor richer by forcing production offshore, but does make the Chinese richer.

As a general principle though, I'd prefer to make an Aussie richer than the Chinese .

 

[CanOz]

Regardless of anyone's motives, including Liberal party of Oz, if we start severe regulation in freedom of association we move the boundaries closer to the next, possibly victimised, group until we have an ordered society, devoid of character.

I can't comment on the unions compared with other countries, but I would presume those unionists who dared march in Turkey on May Day and were rounded up by the military, would be seen as freedom seekers on one hand and trouble makers on the other.

This thread is about the upcoming election based on a suspect double dissolution trigger. The fact that nearly half or more of the voting population will give their count to the ALP means that there is nowhere near an absolute majority who are anti unions, albeit they may not be a member themselves.

Personally I'd like to do bad things to some of the union reps and their site snitches, but despite generations of warnings that we are going down the gurgler because of the union power, we somehow still manage a top lifestyle, a pride in our nation, AAA credit ratings, a chicken in every pot and a great welfare system.... so like most thing in life we may just have to live with the compliment of yin and yang

I don't want to see regulation in the right to associate. I do want to see heavy penalties for stand-over tactics, intimidation and threats to anyone. If i or anyone else does not want to associate with the Union, why should they be intimidated to the point of having their family feel threatened by thugs? This is wrong, just as ice cooking bikers are wrong.

Freedom of association? The Freemasons meet freely, the Rotary Club meet freely, the Church meet freely. But they're not acting above the law, are they? Do they threaten people that don't want to join? hhmmm, when was the last time i was threatened by the Church for not wanting to join?

 

[Tisme]

She communicated with me the other day stating she will vote Labor this time because she read where Labor stated the Liberal government was going to cut back on aged care.....

Do you have the article to support that Noco?

The Libs did introduce the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill and I seem to recall they were about diminishing the pension via a revamped asset test, increasing the pension age to 70, knocking some concessions on the head or reducing the value of them....

of course I'm only going on my memory here.

 

[Tisme]

I don't want to see regulation in the right to associate. I do want to see heavy penalties for stand-over tactics, intimidation and threats to anyone. If i or anyone else does not want to associate with the Union, why should they be intimidated to the point of having their family feel threatened by thugs? This is wrong, just as ice cooking bikers are wrong.

Freedom of association? The Freemasons meet freely, the Rotary Club meet freely, the Church meet freely. But they're not acting above the law, are they? Do they threaten people that don't want to join? hhmmm, when was the last time i was threatened by the Church for not wanting to join?

Well in QLD it's a gift after the Joh days, but if you ride a motor cycle you can't associate, nor wear insignias on jackets regardless of whether you're a 1%er or not.

Community groups and not for profits tend to be well regarded because they are benign and aren't seen as an industry group. I haven't seen as much standover and coercion from the unions as in the past and they do tend to pick on large contractors and EBA sites rather than small business in the construction industry. Nonetheless they are an imposing force, but so are the many ar5eholes who run building companies and don't pay sub contractors and would do the same to individuals who didn't have union oversight.

 

[Logique]

For the record....

Almost the textbook bellwether voter there CanOz. The parties need to win you over!

 

[noco]

Mathematically, Yes you can.

Mathematically and economically, you cannot make the poor richer by making the poor poorer.

Economically, you cannot make the rich richer by making the rich richer at the expense of the poor - not permanently; not in the long run.

If the majority of the country are poor and poverty stricken with a few at the top owning everything... roads and infrastructures will grind to a halt and crumble; defense can only afford a few gunboats to protect dirty and polluted cities and towns with full of dried up rivers and dead fishes...

Then either the population will rise up to revolt, or if the gov't is too effective at chopping heads then stronger neighbours and barbarians will just waltz in and liberate...

Vote 1 Labor on the July2 and you will have all of the about.....

 

[CanOz]

Vote 1 Labor on the July2 and you will have all of the about.....

Hopeless social capitalist

 

[noco]

Do you have the article to support that Noco?

The Libs did introduce the Social Services Legislation Amendment (Budget Repair) Bill and I seem to recall they were about diminishing the pension via a revamped asset test, increasing the pension age to 70, knocking some concessions on the head or reducing the value of them....

of course I'm only going on my memory here.

It was a private conversation I had with that young lady but I will ask her next time I am in contact with her.

I believe the eligible age pension age will be raised to 67 as out lined by the Labor Party.....the increase to 70 is a long way down the track.

The age pension was introduced in 1909 for those eligible over 65 when the life expectancy of the male at birth was 55.

None of my grand parents lived beyond 66.

With modern medical science and stem cell research, people are now living well into their 80's and even 90's which exacerbates the problem of social security trying keep up.

People must accept they will have to work longer past 65 if they do not have a suitable superannuation to last them perhaps another 25 years.

http://www.ncoa.gov.au/report/appendix-vol-1/9-1-age-pension.html

Age Pension age

The Age Pension age (the age at which a person can access the Age Pension) is currently 65 for men and 64.5 for women (but will soon increase to 65). From 2017 the Age Pension age will be increased by half a year every two years and will reach 67 by 2023.

I also had a recent conversation with a 70 year old Asian woman...Her husband is 85 and in ill health......They have a nice home and I am told they are millionaires.....She told me she will be voting for the Labor Party on July2 because the Turnbull government won't grant them an aged pension...She also blamed the Turnbull government for the low interest rate they receive on their money in the bank....I tried to explain to her, no matter which party gains power on July2, things will not change for her....She and her husband will still have to pass the income and asset test.

I just cannot believe how some people think.

 

[luutzu]

Vote 1 Labor on the July2 and you will have all of the about.....

I doubt Labor is that much into the People noco. They're not that much into Unions either.

 

[luutzu]

You can't make the poor richer by forcing production offshore, but does make the Chinese richer.

As a general principle though, I'd prefer to make an Aussie richer than the Chinese .

The cheap, manual, low-skill manufacturing jobs we ship offshore; the high-skilled engineering and hi-tech jobs we import in.

That's one way to do it.

I worked with Australian engineers and "low skill" trades... they're very smart and able people. Just when there's no more jobs to encourage higher skills or maintenance of those skills... they all either go fishing or go into lower-skilled jobs to put food on the table.

Even our engineering companies does it. With no constant work, once in a couple decade engineering projects they may or may not win... guess what management tend to do with all the Intellectual Properties and engineering patents?

They sell it off to the yanks or the poms.

One big race to the bottom. Last one there kinda win, I guess.

 

[luutzu]

Hopeless social capitalist

All smart Capitalists must be "Socialist". That's how you get to keep on making money and keeping it.

 

[noco]

I doubt Labor is that much into the People noco. They're not that much into Unions either.

luutzu, yes you are right...Labor could not care less about working people...Chiquita and Clean Event is a typical example.

And you say they are not into unions???????.......Labor is controlled by the unions......Bill Shorten is still a unionist and as he says, "if he gets in to power he will lead like a unionist" and will do a better job of stuffing up the country than Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.

 

[luutzu]

luutzu, yes you are right...Labor could not care less about working people...Chiquita and Clean Event is a typical example.

And you say they are not into unions???????.......Labor is controlled by the unions......Bill Shorten is still a unionist and as he says, "if he gets in to power he will lead like a unionist" and will do a better job of stuffing up the country than Rudd/Gillard/Rudd.

You've heard of "political theatre" yea?

You think only the Coalition plays it?

Every politician is fighting for the little guys, just for some reason the little guys aren't winning. Heck, they're not even staying at the same level, they're getting worst and worst... At some point, these politicians have got to stop helping.

 

[Wysiwyg]

Every politician is fighting for the little guys, just for some reason the little guys aren't winning. Heck, they're not even staying at the same level, they're getting worst and worst... At some point, these politicians have got to stop helping.

The trick I believe is to avoid anarchy by supporting the little guy at that survival level (food, shelter). The truth is people steal, lie, cheat more to survive if money is scarce. Australia seems to have a social security funding that is comfortable because crime is relatively low.

 

[Wysiwyg]

I'm a Labor voter but the Party is having to make promises they can't keep (again) and I would like to think Aussies can think for themselves and see through the fibs. Labor should develop a level of economic conservatism and prepare for next election then they will become genuine leaders. They have nothing for this election.

 

[Tisme]

Strange days:

Newscorp backs Albo;
ALP renegades upset about ALP refugee policy;
Lib renegades upset about Lib superannuation changes ;


and then there's this thanks to blather mouthed Kelly

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-...sands-to-buy-duncan-storrar-a-toaster/7403008

 

[Tisme]

Big gobbed Kelly again:


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-11/fact-check-negative-gearing-kelly-odwyer/7401096



On another bright note I see that Tanya is under threat from the Greens .... yeah.

 

[moXJO]

Big gobbed Kelly again:


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-11/fact-check-negative-gearing-kelly-odwyer/7401096



On another bright note I see that Tanya is under threat from the Greens .... yeah.

If Tanya, Albo and Wong lost their seats I would seriously consider labor. I'm over gender warfare.

Realistically Shorten and Tbull are the most center PM's we have had in a while. And so far both have fairly sensible policy. It's all down to what happens after the election.

Rudd promised a lot and completely changed once he took office. Gillard just straight out lied.
I don't put much faith in the factions either side with all the infighting.