The Abbott Government

[Julia]

Chris Richardson's view on the debt ceiling from "The World Today":

Economist Chris Richardson - from Deloitte Access Economics - dismisses the need for a debt ceiling at all and accuses both sides of playing political games with it.

CHRIS RICHARDSON: I don't think we need a debt ceiling, full stop. Remember this is a fairly new invention in Australia and it's a dumb one. Parliament already looks closely at every budget. You can ask Gough Whitlam and Malcolm Fraser just how closely we look at budgets.

We have Parliament passing in effect the expenditure and revenue decisions in the budget. That means they've directly or indirectly already made decisions about debt. If you have another layer of decision, that's dumb. It's asking for trouble as the US has recently proved.

We'd be much better off having no debt limit. If we've got to have one, let's have a massive increase so that it does not prove to be a problem.

LOUISE YAXLEY: Do you think then that this is just a political game?

CHRIS RICHARDSON: Both sides have played political games with debts and deficits in Australia. No side has covered itself with glory in this debate. Either before or after the election.

For reasons of good governance in Australia, we have already, year in, year out, taken careful decisions around budget spending and revenue. We should not let grandstanding opportunities arise. The US is a good example of the trouble a nation can get into around grandstanding.

Again, neither side of politics has its hands clean here. Of the available options, yes I would prefer the increase to $500 billion. But only because the sensible option, you know, take the debt ceiling out the back and shoot it.

ELEANOR HALL: That's economist Chris Richardson ending that report from Louise Yaxley in Canberra.

This is all just the usual political theatrics on both sides. Labor have nowhere to go on this. They have tacitly admitted this by asking for justification of the $500billion by Treasury. Martin Parkinson will be duly wheeled out, will say all the right words, and the whole silly argument will be history.

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers, how amusing.

What makes you think I give a flying f### what you think?

As far as I am concerned extreme argumentum verbosium here is nothing more than visual pollution and a criminal waste of bandwidth. I only bothered to read the one where you quoted me, the rest I scroll over for possibly interesting content from other members.

WayneL, since you missed my main point highlighted...

I'll thoroughly support them for the abolition of the Carbon Tax and a few other things if their actual legislation turns out true to advertised policy... BUT, don't you dare think I'm forgiving of them (or Labor) for broken promises and fraudulent policy and legislative positions.[/B]​

...lets look a what you are really saying. As always I'm open to correction if the strict meaning or statistics are wrong. Just point it out with references. (I'll use Wikipedia here)

Proof by intimidation (or argumentum verbosium) is a jocular phrase...

jocular: fond of or characterized by joking; humorous or playful​

Since you are clearly not 'fond' of me, you must be joking, humorous or playfull... good grounds to not believe anything you say. As pointed out previously and demonstrated by TS in particular, immediately prior.

...to refer to a style of presenting a purported mathematical proof by giving an argument loaded with jargon and appeal to obscure results, so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding.​

So, firstly, by definition you are heavily implying the 'mathematical proof' the ABS, Treasury, Parliamentary Budget Office and the like is just 'appeal to obscure results'.

Secondly, this is a case of what I asked people previously... what do you think of people who accuse you of what they are guilty of themselves... so that the audience is simply obliged to accept it, lest they have to admit their ignorance and lack of understanding

I'm happy to let the people and Joe Blow decide who is "extreme argumentum verbosium here". For me opinion backed up with at least some solid 'official' data is far preferable filling the band with than copious verbal head nodding of approval like behind speakers in parliament and toxic argument.

Just on the bolds the retail sector took us through the GFC the sector didn't shed jobs unlike mining (19%).

If they (retail) had fired 19% of the work force like mining then we would look more like the US regardless of our debt free situation.

Ken Henry acted ahead of the curve "go retail go early" gets little credit for saving Australia from deep recession.

Quite true. While the mining boom was and still is very important to us, it is well recognised that commodity prices in USD took a huge hit as the official data shows.

Basilio,

Unsurprisingly, you have missed the point altogether. It is not treasury data at issue, it is, which I repeat for your benefit, the argumentum verbosium and the poisonous,biased subjectivity contained therein..... and the delusion that it counts as any form of valid analysis.

The farcical fallacy of your post highlights the scientific validity of the canonical wayneL's Law, vis a vis a total absence of objective thought; as is your ability to recognize it as in self evidence in your komrade's ridiculous subjectivity.

WayneL, you know Basilio (and others) and I have have a few significant differences of opinion, BUT we have always maintained a reasonable degree of decorum (behaviour in keeping with good taste and propriety), hence ... is it any wonder we might become "friend", "colleague", or "ally"?

The concept of the 'common enemy' as a group unifier is something that lobby groups,controlling people and politicians often use to get the numbers to fill the media with their story and pass legislation etc.

What you might also should know is that in overkill (as I explained the government exaggerating the financial position to win office) it works against you by aligning many of your opponents when it's increasingly obvious you are denying the undeniable and threatening their democratic rights and natural justice.

Just get rid of this stupid debt ceiling nonsense. This isn't America, and no one is going to block supply anyway, so what's the point of wasting time and money debating it. And Hockey is a moron for talking up the possibility of shutting down the public service.

Certainly agree no one is going to block supply, at least not yet.

But, I'd suggest if the government keeps relating to the US and tries to go down their fiscal and monetary policy road too much and beating their current drum, people will smell a rat and likely rebell.

Apparently the Greens and Labor, via the senate have demanded the production of:

any documentation relating to “on water operations” that occurred between September 7, 2013 and November 14, 2013 by 12pm on November 18. - See more at: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...y-fn9hm1gu-1226759702635#sthash.ncztJ280.dpuf​

The use of parliamentary process like senate inquiries for transparency and openness could be their undoing if they don't 'get real' pretty soon.

1) Labor went along with most of the Coalition's tax cuts as part of the 2007 election campaign simply to get elected.

I have no problem with your summary except for the blue highlights.

That's true, but how do two wrongs make a right? The Coalition are keeping all the welfare handouts for the carbon tax etc and even topping some policies like paid parental leave to 'get elected'.

5) The carbon tax and associated measures. This very policy is designed to slow economic growth and hence revenues.

Little doubt the carbon tax is a big drain on our economy... although you might surprised how many business leaders believe in global warming and the need for some sort of control.

Actually the mining tax was designed to collect more revenue. I'll find the link, but it's in one of those I've already posted that the mining industry pays less tax than others.

The problem as I see it was in the design and implementation. There wasn't the desired integration of state royalties with the formula to prevent states exploiting their low royalties and payroll tax etc attracting business to their state to draw more population which draws more fed funding, GST, grants etc.

You will likely see mining tax revenue pick up since any company manager worth their salt would have brought forward maintenance and development etc to minimise the tax as long as possible.

It's fair to say the Howard government in its latter years shares some of the blame for the present situation, but they at least were fiscally sound in the early years of their government which is much more than can be said for Labor's 6-years in office.

Good to see you absorbing the data dr, but to be fair the Howard government didn't have a GFC in their face first up.

So...

The question now is how the new Coalition government responds

on balance, is it better to have a government that is open as a book (arguably too open) a bit big on the social welfare side of fiscal policy albeit a bit clumsy, or a skillfull, prudent manager who turns deceptive capitalist 'deliberately' sabotaging the economy just to try to win office again?

 

[Whiskers]

Chris Richardson's view on the debt ceiling from "The World Today":


This is all just the usual political theatrics on both sides. Labor have nowhere to go on this. They have tacitly admitted this by asking for justification of the $500billion by Treasury. Martin Parkinson will be duly wheeled out, will say all the right words, and the whole silly argument will be history.

Ordinarily, one would expect the debt ceiling would not be a big issue except for the tactical blunder I mentioned... overselling an argument for so long that we are in a financial crisis, to condemn debt.

Tactically, given the debt ceiling is there, Labor and the greens have the numbers in the senate to block it.

If the economy is deteriorating as badly as Abbott and Hockey say, why not lift the gags on public servants and FOI requests for information to clear the air? It can only work in their favour, cant it!?

What would you do if Labor and the greens just laid down and did everything the Libs demanded... and it turns out they pulled the wool over our eyes again deceptively turning our structural budget lower again, like Howard and Costello and like the US? No doubt you'd abuse the hell out of them for dereliction of duty, failing their duty of care, not putting up a spirited opposition... as in a criminal defence, causing the wrong people to be punished due to ineffective council.

Abbott and Hockey have the means to prove this one way or the other... they just have to remove the veil of secrecy to prove it. There are no 'smugglers' or other villains that thrive on the release of this sort of info into the media... except those hidden within.

I would suggest the economy, as in the revenue forecasts is not as bad as they are leading us to believe. They are twisting the old Howard spin... instead of selling off heaps of assets to support big spending, driving the structural Budget down as Howard did, Abbott and Hockey are beating up the 'budget crisis' to try to justify more borrowing to continue a big spending government that would drive the structural budget lower, stripping the guts out of us like the US and much of Europe.

 

[trainspotter]

Does you Mum know you are on the computer again Whiskers? :

You really do not have a clue do you?

 

[drsmith]

Whiskers,

I don't know if you realise it but the Howard government's fiscal record and how it stands in comparison with Labor after taking office in 2007 has been discussed in detail on this forum in the past.

I will though respond quickly to the following point,

Good to see you absorbing the data dr,........

The summary view I expressed on the Howard government's fiscal record today in this thread and its comparison with Labor is broadly consistent with the views I've expressed in past discussions on that matter.

 

[wayneL]

WayneL, you know Basilio (and others) and I have have a few significant differences of opinion, BUT we have always maintained a reasonable degree of decorum (behaviour in keeping with good taste and propriety),

Here, evidence of delusion and/or duplicity, not to mention a monumental hypocrisy of truly megalithic proportions.

One example: Do really regard your Argumentum Hitlerium on an earlier post as showing either good taste, propriety or decorum?

In fact you are hoist by your own petard.

That's it, I'll reserve my own verbosity for more mercantile pursuits and consign the remainder of your points to the BS bin.

 

[Whiskers]

Whiskers,

The summary view I expressed on the Howard government's fiscal record today in this thread and its comparison with Labor is broadly consistent with the views I've expressed in past discussions on that matter.

Ok, So...

The question now is how the new Coalition government responds on balance, is it better to have a government that is open as a book (arguably too open) a bit big on the social welfare side of fiscal policy albeit a bit clumsy, or a skillfull, prudent manager who turns deceptive capitalist 'deliberately' sabotaging the economy just to try to win office again?

One example: Do really regard your Argumentum Hitlerium on an earlier post as showing either good taste, propriety or decorum?

Firstly:

Argumentum Hitlerium is an informal fallacy that consists of trying to refute an opponent's view by comparing it to a view that would be held by Adolf Hitler or the Nazi Party .​

Clearly, I was exemplifying a cultural and behaviour style of the followers of the referred to events, not the views of the leaders... I did say two events entailing loyalty to the extreme... suicidal, like under primiarily Emperor Hirohito though.

What is NOT in good taste is you misrepresenting what people say (or, if they are not as articulate as you and I, what they mean) and twisting it around with extreme argumentum verbosium trying to intimidate them...

I'll reserve my own verbosity for more mercantile pursuits and consign the remainder of your points to the BS bin.

What do merchants want to do? Buy and sell things to make a profit. The adjective mercantile describes these kinds of efforts and goals.

Many people have mercantile dreams of opening a store where they can sell things they love and interact with people in their community. Sometimes, however, the word mercantile has negative connotations. Exploiting factory workers, polluting the environment, wasting natural resources? All these reflect the dark side of the mercantile pursuit of profit. https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/mercantile

Soo... it seems we are back where we started... where in the full circle you discuss naught about the 'message' and try your best to shoot down every 'messenger' who dares to critique whom you 'like', with more extreme argumentum verbosium .

Lets start with why you have a problem with the government having to provide treasury forecasts and or their budgetary plan to justify the need to lift the debt ceiling so much.

Also given you said "whatever its imperfections, whatever mistakes is has made or will make, I like this new gu'mint"... what about answering the question to drsmith above.

It should help clear up which connotation of "mercantile pursuits" you subscribe to, whether you are serious or just jocular... of the deceptive or just not quite so competent type.

 

[drsmith]

Does you Mum know you are on the computer again Whiskers? :

What worries me more than anything is the use of the tablet under the covers after bedtime.

 

[Julia]

Some years ago we had a poster with the nic 'bullmarket'. He wasn't especially nasty to anyone, neither was he characterised by any particularly vociferous views about anything in particular.
But what he did do that drove everyone else mad was to swamp many threads with his unwanted, meandering pontificating about pretty much anything that others actually wanted to have a genuine discussion about.

After an interminable period of this, he abruptly and decisively disappeared.
Perhaps he suddenly found greener pastures, or perhaps the common sentiment prevailed and he was banned.

 

[Whiskers]

After an interminable period of this, he abruptly and decisively disappeared.
Perhaps he suddenly found greener pastures, or perhaps the common sentiment prevailed and he was banned.

Sentiment: A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based mainly on emotion instead of reason.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentiment

So... correct me if I'm wrong, but (but in the current context) you seem to be implying that Aussie Stock Forums is pro Lib and would bann robust critique from opponents.

Are you also implying Aussie Stock Forums enforces mob rule?

I thought we were all better than that!

But since you raise it... that is the underlying philosophy that I object to with our politicians.

Are you characterising the posts from WayneL, Trainspotter and even drsmith above as "genuine discussion"?

I'd also add that I have no memory of a "bullmarket" and my comment above is not an endorsement or otherwise of him.

 

[sails]

Sigh... ignore seems to be the only option.

It's like being in a room of people wishing to have a discussion but one person shouts loudly and continuously making it so unpleasant that most people end up leaving.

My

 

[trainspotter]

What worries me more than anything is the use of the tablet under the covers after bedtime.

What worries me more is the tablets she gives him before tucking him into bed

 

[trainspotter]

Sentiment: A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based mainly on emotion instead of reason.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/sentiment

So... correct me if I'm wrong, but (but in the current context) you seem to be implying that Aussie Stock Forums is pro Lib and would bann robust critique from opponents.

Are you also implying Aussie Stock Forums enforces mob rule?

I thought we were all better than that!

But since you raise it... that is the underlying philosophy that I object to with our politicians.

Are you characterising the posts from WayneL, Trainspotter and even drsmith above as "genuine discussion"?

I'd also add that I have no memory of a "bullmarket" and my comment above is not an endorsement or otherwise of him.

No Whiskers ... what WE are telling you is that you are an overbearing prat. Some of your posts are logical and structured whilst others are just ....... well, you get the idea. No problem with your "opinion" ... it is the condescending, bordering on narcissism, approach you bring to the room that pisses people off. Good for you if you are right sometimes .... bad for us to have to read it ... all the time.

I will leave you with this little gem ... "Don't knock your neighbor's porch light out to make yours shine brighter."

 

[Calliope]

No Whiskers ... what WE are telling you is that you are an overbearing prat. Some of your posts are logical and structured whilst others are just ....... well, you get the idea. No problem with your "opinion" ... it is the condescending, bordering on narcissism, approach you bring to the room that pisses people off. Good for you if you are right sometimes .... bad for us to have to read it ... all the time.

That sums it up nicely TS. His condescending, narcissistic approach is well illustrated in his signature..."Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be Will Be)". He provides a translation for the world's probably most hackneyed phrase, on the assumption that we peasants are too ignorant to know this.

Take my advice;

 

[Whiskers]

It's like being in a room of people wishing to have a discussion but one person shouts loudly and continuously making it so unpleasant that most people end up leaving.

Sails, I agree with the literal word here.

But...

Sigh... ignore seems to be the only option.

... while in the first instance it is often wise to 'ignore', just put it away for awhile until one's sentiment (A thought, view, or attitude, especially one based mainly on emotion instead of reason) is displaced with 'reason'.

let we show you.

In keeping in the theme of my critique of the former labor government and some aspects of this Lib government, exploring the intent of their actions by asking them to clarify statements that appear to contain veiled threats, hidden connotations or maybe just poorly or mistakenly phrased words, by studying their response.

The theme:

1. Politicians (and their faithful supporters) accusing others of what they are guilty of themselves.
2. Does two wrongs make a right?
3. Is it better to have a government that is more well meaning, but clumsy, more social welfare or a government that is more secretive, very deliberate, with a hidden more capitalist adgenda?

Further, attempt to address the behaviour (whether intentional or accidental) as opposed to immediately attacking the person. Hence the reason I refer to trolling (reflecting bad behaviour) instead of troll, the individual.

1. trolling
Being a prick on the internet because you can. Typically unleashing one or more cynical or sarcastic remarks on an innocent by-stander, because it's the internet and, hey, you can.

Guy: "I just found the coolest ninja pencil in existence."
Other Guy: "I just found the most retarded thread in existence."
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=trolling​

Now, I used the "urban" reference in this case as this appears to be more 'urban' gorilla type behaviour.

I used "thefreedictionary" reference for "Sentiment" as that appeared to be fairly typical 'fight or flight' behaviour, a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival, form more traditional 'suburbia.''

I used Wikipedia for "argumentum verbosium" and "Argumentum Hitlerium" etc as that appeared a bit more sophisticated behaviour, more 'urbia', cities with dense populations.

I just say "No" to others who tell you to "go to bed".

Then there are some comments that are just so self-incriminating, it's best to just let them standout, untouched.

So in keeping with our democratic process and natural justice, 'whatever will be will be'... I rest for a moment, while waiting for clarity of intent on substantial open to question, in doubt comments immediately prior... whether just poorly chosen words as we all do some times, but is easily rectified by rephrasing.

In the mean time, what is the common denominator of the Howard era, Labor troubles and the current Lib government?

Beating up a controversy in the name of one thing (Union power and responsible fiscal management, leadership and budget crisis), BUT as a deceptive decoy for secretive agendas (workchoices and structural budget decline, Carbon Tax and faction control, extreme capitalism and more structural budget decline?)

 

[wayneL]

IIRC Whiskers has become "qualified" in "conflict resolution" or some such thing.

My two observations:

1/ the Whiskers post qualification is profoundly different to the pre qual Whiskers. Pre qual Whiskers was pretty much normal, not prone to irritating others especially.

2/ the irony that post conflict resolution qualification, Whiskers is more likely to heighten and augment conflict, rather than resolve.

...and another observation - Whiskers seem to have rather too much time on his hands.

FWIW

PS re the narcissism observation of TS - Yes, bang on.

IMNTBCHO

BTW Whiskers, for your edification and not to validate your preposterous contention, it is Guerilla, not Gorilla.

 

[drsmith]

I just say "No" to others who tell you to "go to bed".

It's good advice.

Posting late at night results in a loss of beauty sleep.

 

[trainspotter]

*Collective sigh* ... and now we all can get some sleep

 

[IFocus]

Mean while back on the thread topic Abbott sucks up to the Sri Lanka government ignoring President Mahinda Rajapaksa tyrant government and human rights abuses.

All over the politics of boat people.

Sad really even Howard didn't hesitate to raise such issues.

Mr Abbott told reporters in Colombo on Friday that Australia had "good and close co-operation" with the Sri Lankan government and navy.

"I'll be thanking the Sri Lankans for the co-operation which they have extended to us on this important issue and I will have more to say about this in the next day or so," Mr Abbott said.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...e-smuggling-20131116-2xnhf.html#ixzz2ktg9yeok


Wonder if Abbott will supply more white vans.

 

[drsmith]

Mean while back on the thread topic Abbott sucks up to the Sri Lanka government ignoring President Mahinda Rajapaksa tyrant government and human rights abuses.

All over the politics of boat people.

We've given them two retired patrol boats.

Big deal.

What about the human rights abuse that was Labor encouraging people to come to Australia by boat only to have over 1,000 drown ?

As I've said before, you really should avoid commenting on this issue if that's the best you can do.