Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
Knobby22 said:
Very trollish to go the man rather than the issues though. So let's start again. Are you for or against them?

I keep being stunned by the "reforms" proposed.[/B]
Click to expand...

I was not playing the man. It is just that I "keep being stunned" by how "the man" who says the reef belongs to everyone could consider a man, who is doing more than anyone else to trash the reef, as his last hope.

You say "let's start again". I say it would be futile to discuss the environment with a man who cannot decide whether he is a Greenie or a PUPpet supporter, i.e. an environmentalist or a wrecker.

I have a feeling that you declared for PUP only because you see them as the best chance of derailing the Abbott government which you hate.
 
Calliope said:
You say "let's start again". I say it would be futile to discuss the environment with a man who cannot decide whether he is a Greenie or a PUPpet supporter, i.e. an environmentalist or a wrecker.
Click to expand...

Don't discuss it then.
 
sptrawler said:
This is an example of sexism.IMO

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/national/a/24250149/gillard-faced-outrageous-sexism-clinton/

How Gillards mysogyny speach, wasn't ever tested by the media for validation, has left Abbott with an undeserved tag.
To me, that smacks of sexist behaviour, by the media.
Obviously sexism towards Abbott is o.k.

When Palmer made comments towards Abbotts female head of staff, that's o.k
Mysogyny is only a dirty word, if you can hang it on Abbott.lol
Click to expand...
Agree. I also lost some respect for Hillary Clinton on 7.30 last night for so lauding Gillard's 'misogyny speech'.

Knobby22 said:
I keep being stunned by the "reforms" proposed.

The Federal Government will now not have any environmental controls and these will be undertaken by the states only. Qld and WA have already signed up. These controls were initially put in by Fraser to save Fraser island from sand mining. Howard enshrined them in law by creating the Environmental protection and Biodiversity Act. Abbott will retain one control, the ability to stop a project before the States have made a decision, but once they have there is no ability to stop any activity.
Click to expand...
It's the mantra of a conservative government to reduce layers of government. You seem to be implying that the States will be less responsible than the Commonwealth in looking after their own environmental matters.
I don't know why you'd draw that conclusion. eg I doubt that this change will suddenly render Fraser Island a miner's paradise.

We will become the only country in the world that will not have the main government controlling the environment. The Barrier reef for instance belongs to all Australians. We deserve a say.
Click to expand...
How did you actually have a say in it when the Feds controlled it? Just your capacity to vote against them in a general election?

The other bit of information I wasn't aware of is that council grants have been frozen meaning council rates will have to rise substantially over the next 3 years. Bad luck pensioners and self funded retirees.
Click to expand...
We'll see. In Qld the government declared that concessions would have to be significantly reduced for the reason you describe. The outcry was so huge, just two days later they reverted and issued an assurance no change would be made.

Knobby22 said:
Oh Calliope, a bad nights sleep yet again.
No I agree. Clive will encourage this. I think I said in another thread that he would not normally get a single vote except Abbott is doing such a bad job. I have heard he is up to nearly 20% of the vote at present.
I don't see where I have said anything good about Bill Shorten, in fact I said the opposite very recently regarding his work experience. But still what has that to do with the price of fish?
Click to expand...
FWIW I recall a post of yours decrying the fact that Labor seem to be all over the place, unsure of what they represent. Hardly any sort of endorsement of Mr Shorten.
 
It's the mantra of a conservative government to reduce layers of government. You seem to be implying that the States will be less responsible than the Commonwealth in looking after their own environmental matters.
Click to expand...

When the States benefit directly from mining royalty payments, I would say it's a clear conflict of interest that they have control over protection of the environment in mining and gas/oil production permits.
 
When the States benefit directly from mining royalty payments, I would say it's a clear conflict of interest that they have control over protection of the environment in mining and gas/oil production permits.
Click to expand...

+1 Reminds me of the States and Gambling hopelessly conflicted there as well.:cautious:
 
sydboy007 said:
''The government is open to criticism and debate about our budget. However, we owe it to the community to set the facts straight and articulate the reasoning behind our decisions,'' the Treasurer said.


If the Abbott Government is truly thinking like this then they've certainly lost the centre. In a slowing economy with rising unemployment I'd like Hocket and Abbott to explain how removing support for those under 30 is in any way going to increase youth and the under 30s employment levels.
Click to expand...


What are you talking about "RISING UNEMPLOYMENT"?......You are behind the times......unemployment has dropped has dropped to 5.8%......Labor predicted 6.2% last year.
 
SirRumpole said:
When the States benefit directly from mining royalty payments, I would say it's a clear conflict of interest that they have control over protection of the environment in mining and gas/oil production permits.
Click to expand...

I think you mean the taxpayer benefits from the royalties What you see as a conflct of interest, in getting rid of green tape, others see as common sense.
 
Calliope said:
I think you mean the taxpayer benefits from the royalties What you see as a conflct of interest, in getting rid of green tape, others see as common sense.
Click to expand...

The taxpayer also benefits from a clean environment. What you see as a commercial enterprise, others see as a pollution factory.
 
SirRumpole said:
The taxpayer also benefits from a clean environment. What you see as a commercial enterprise, others see as a pollution factory.
Click to expand...

It's obvious you are not a taxpayer so we are poles apart on Green tape. Could you give me an example where Green tape reduces my taxes by derailing development?:rolleyes:
 
SirRumpole said:
The taxpayer also benefits from a clean environment. What you see as a commercial enterprise, others see as a pollution factory.
Click to expand...

And it would appear the Greenies agree with you.

"Adani has a long record of environmental destruction and are not a company you would let look after your pot plants, let alone safeguard the future of the Great Barrier Reef," Greenpeace's Ben Pearson said in a statement.
Mr Pearson said the mine would see a new coal terminal built at Abbot Point in the reef's World Heritage area, requiring dredging and dumping and thousands of extra ships through the reef.
Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/national/bre...approval-delayed/story-e6frfku9-1226957289831

Great ... we have a lovely clean environment and NO JOBS :banghead:

Could be the stoush between Clive and the LNP (Gina Reinhart in the mix as well) has given the minister the jitters?

What's Abbott doing about it? Keeping the coal fires burning is what. :D

Mr Abbott, however, has made his opposition to carbon pricing and to binding international agreement even clearer. He used a visit to Canada before arriving in New York to caucus with the like-minded conservative leader Stephen Harper to publicly reinforce their contempt for carbon pricing. The two men expressed a newly articulated view against global limits, arguing individual countries should be free to determine their own action as long as there was no cost to economic growth.
Click to expand...

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...arack-obama-20140611-39xrq.html#ixzz34swIAX6g
 
noco said:
What are you talking about "RISING UNEMPLOYMENT"?......You are behind the times......unemployment has dropped has dropped to 5.8%......Labor predicted 6.2% last year.
Click to expand...

Over the last 12 months the participation rate has declined by 0.4%

That's equivalent to over 46,000 workers. To put it into perspective the improvement in unemployment was 0.3% over the last year, but the fall in participation accounts for that improvement and more. A stable participation rate would likely have an unemployment level of 6.1%-6.2%.

Then we also have the fall in aggregate worked hours, the hidden unemployment and underemployment in the economy. May aggregate monthly hours worked decreased 2.1 million hours (0.1%) to 1,598.6 million hours. May 2013 aggregate hours worked was 1,628.5 million hours. Basically 30 million hours less work available last month.

The ABS estimates the labour force underutilisation rate is 13.5%.

I look forward to seeing how you can put a positive spin to the above reality.
 
I know the level of trust in politicians is minimal, but imo to suggest that, because the Federal government has taken its hands off environmental matters and instead the responsibility rests with the states, all environmental concerns will be dumped and the whole of Australia will become one giant pit of mining is ludicrous.

What on earth is it about political afficionados that they persist in resorting to descriptions of doomsday when the slightest change is mooted?

Let's just recognise that a balance needs to be attained between appropriately caring for the environment and providing jobs for people.

If the Greens and their various supporters here had their way, we'd have about three quarters of the population on ultra generous dole payments.
Fine. Just advise where the money is coming from.:rolleyes:
 
sydboy007 said:
Over the last 12 months the participation rate has declined by 0.4%

That's equivalent to over 46,000 workers. To put it into perspective the improvement in unemployment was 0.3% over the last year, but the fall in participation accounts for that improvement and more. A stable participation rate would likely have an unemployment level of 6.1%-6.2%.

Then we also have the fall in aggregate worked hours, the hidden unemployment and underemployment in the economy. May aggregate monthly hours worked decreased 2.1 million hours (0.1%) to 1,598.6 million hours. May 2013 aggregate hours worked was 1,628.5 million hours. Basically 30 million hours less work available last month.

The ABS estimates the labour force underutilisation rate is 13.5%.

I look forward to seeing how you can put a positive spin to the above reality.
Click to expand...





MAY KEY FIGURES


Apr 2014

May 2014

Apr 14 to May 14

May 13 to May 14
Trend
Employed persons ('000)
11 560.0

11 573.1

13.1

0.9
%
Unemployed persons ('000)
721.9

719.7

-2.2

5.2
%
Unemployment rate (%)
5.9

5.9

0.0
pts
0.2
pts
Participation rate (%)
64.7

64.7

0.0
pts
-0.4
pts
Seasonally Adjusted
Employed persons ('000)
11 569.4

11 564.6

-4.8

0.9
%
Unemployed persons ('000)
713.9

717.1

3.2

6.5
%
Unemployment rate (%)
5.8

5.8

0.0
pts
0.3
pts
Participation rate (%)
64.7

64.6

-0.1
pts
-0.4
pts

Employed Persons
Graph: Employed Persons


Unemployment Rate
Graph: Unemployment Rate




MAY KEY POINTS


TREND ESTIMATES (MONTHLY CHANGE)

Employment increased to 11,573,100.
Unemployment decreased to 719,700.
Unemployment rate remained steady at 5.9%.
Participation rate remained steady at 64.7%.
Aggregate monthly hours worked decreased 2.1 million hours (0.1%) to 1,598.6 million hours.

Here are the latest statistics.

SEASONALLY ADJUSTED ESTIMATES (MONTHLY CHANGE)

Employment decreased 4,800 to 11,564,600. Full-time employment increased 22,200 to 8,068,300 and part-time employment decreased 27,000 to 3,496,200.
Unemployment increased 3,200 to 717,100. The number of unemployed persons looking for full-time work increased 9,000 to 529,700 and the number of unemployed persons only looking for part-time work decreased 5,900 to 187,400.
The unemployment rate was unchanged at 5.8%.
Participation rate decreased 0.1 pts to 64.6%.
Aggregate monthly hours worked increased 26.5 million hours (1.7%) to 1 ,604.5 million hours.
 
Julia said:
If the Greens and their various supporters here had their way, we'd have about three quarters of the population on ultra generous dole payments.
Fine. Just advise where the money is coming from.:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Surely you don't have such a low opinion of our capabilities that you think we can't do anything else except dig stuff out of the ground ?

Australia is a big country and there are plenty of places that minerals or gas can be dug up from without potentially affecting water supplies or peoples health, so when it comes to putting gas wells on farming land or near towns people have a right to object.


Lots of other countries have minimal natural resources and they get along fine. Australia has a lot of resources and we can afford to develop those resources that don't interfere with peoples lives.

It's also interesting to note that some people approach the realms of hyperbole by assuming that all people who want a clean environment object to all mining activities. That is oversimplifying the debate to the point of absurdity. As has been said, there must be a balance.
 
SirRumpole said:
Surely you don't have such a low opinion of our capabilities that you think we can't do anything else except dig stuff out of the ground ?

Australia is a big country and there are plenty of places that minerals or gas can be dug up from without potentially affecting water supplies or peoples health, so when it comes to putting gas wells on farming land or near towns people have a right to object.


Lots of other countries have minimal natural resources and they get along fine. Australia has a lot of resources and we can afford to develop those resources that don't interfere with peoples lives.

It's also interesting to note that some people approach the realms of hyperbole by assuming that all people who want a clean environment object to all mining activities. That is oversimplifying the debate to the point of absurdity. As has been said, there must be a balance.
Click to expand...
Rumpole, are you so bored that you continually attempt to create argument out of agreement?

I have already said, above:
Let's just recognise that a balance needs to be attained between appropriately caring for the environment and providing jobs for people.
Click to expand...

Continue if you wish. I won't be further responding.
 
Let's just recognise that a balance needs to be attained between appropriately caring for the environment and providing jobs for people.
Click to expand...

To which I agreed.

Julia , once again you confuse 'discussion' with 'argument'. If you don't want a response to some of your points, the only way is to not make them in the first place, and that would deprive us of your opinions and those of others in response, and we would be the poorer for it.

I'd hate to think that in any forum, people always have to agree. Variety is the spice of life.

I may have taken that you were referring to me as a "Green's supporter", who you criticised. Am I not entitled to respond ?
 
I find it bizarre that they are spending so much money to send a personalised letter to the pensioners just to explain that they will be ....... of never mind :banghead:

PERSONALISED letters will be sent to quell the fears of age pensioners, who have been bombarding politicians with complaints about cuts to their payments.
Senior ministers in the Abbott Government have told nervous Coalition MPs that a letter would be sent to all 2.4 million age pensioners to explain that changes in the May Budget would not leave them with less money.
Click to expand...

http://www.news.com.au/national/abb...over-budget-cuts/story-fncynjr2-1226957935144

So some quick maths :- 2.4 million letters at a cost of say $2.00 each made up of stationery, envelope, stamp, print costs etc. = just shy of 5 million dollars WASTED !!!
 
Top