This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Tony Abbott for PM

Jump to new
Calliope said:
Do you own research.



What argument? And why does a reference to your copper past cause you to bang your head?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with my past in any shape or form as a cop, but the fact that you do not seem to understand the need to back up (provide evidence) of your assertions does indicate a lack of the real world ole pal.

But of course as an Abbott follower (and it has to be just the man as he also has no defined philosophy} what more would one expect.
 
sydboy007 said:
What proof do you have that a TA lead Govt would have run surpluses over the last 5 years?
Click to expand...
Up to you entirely what you choose to post, of course, but the above question is frankly a bit childish.
None of us know what a Coalition government would have done during the GFC. Personally, I doubt that they would have wasted so much unnecessarily in frivolous expenditure just to keep people spending. That was a temporary measure at best by the government and we are now seeing the results. None of it went in long term infrastructure spending, and to see the surplus left by the Howard government frittered away on plasma TVs etc was a great shame imo.

The guy has a hideously expensive maternity leave tax for large companies on offer, with nary a middle class welfare cut in sight.
Click to expand...
Agree. I've not heard anyone on any side of politics support the proposed maternity scheme. It's unnecessary and reduces Mr Abbott's credibility.

What proof do you have that economic refugees wouldn't have flooded Australia over the last 5 years with the old system in place?
Click to expand...
Again, an immature approach to a discussion. Perhaps remember that when Labor took office the boats had slowed to all but nothing. The Labor government dismantled a situation which was working well.
I don't think it takes too much imagination to conclude who should wear the responsibility here.

The same Tony who feels knowledgeable enough to comment on current events, but then admits to not reading reports.
Click to expand...
Why do you think political leaders employ staff? Obviously to do the donkey work like reading tedious reports and giving the leader a summary of the content. To try to make a thing of Mr Abbott not necessarily reading every page that crosses his desk is pretty silly.

The same Tony who hounds the PM over events 2 decades ago, shrilling claiming the odour of corrupting, yet says Mal Borough is a good bloke when a judge pretty much says he was doing some tricky things.
Click to expand...
Why are you even commenting on this? All anyone can conclude is that all sides of politics are into anything which might make their opponents look bad. Yes, it's tacky. No, no one likes it. Go and bleat to the people concerned in Canberra. You will have most of the electorate on side.

Why is the carbon tax so bad? As far as i can tell no company has closed down and cited it as the reason.
Click to expand...
Again, shallow reasoning. How can you ignore the fact that Gillard went to the election firmly announcing that there would be no carbon tax, then in order to appease the Greens' condition to put her in power, had no compunction in completely reversing her position. Amoral doesn't begin to cover it.

And in practical terms, Australia having a carbon tax when most of our trading partners do not, does effectively nothing to change the climate, and much to disadvantage Australian industry.
So please don't be so disingenuous as to claim that the carbon tax is either justified or good for Australia.

You are new to this forum. Perhaps, before you repeat stuff that has been covered ad infinitum over various threads in the past, do a search for such content, in order to avoid the rest of us having to heave a sigh of exasperation while responding to you.


Oh god, you criticise someone for making a personal assertion, then proceed to do the exact same yourself.

It should be quite possible to discuss political differences objectively and rationally without being inflammatory and personal. I am so absolutely sick of the sort of exchange that is epitomised in the last few posts in this thread.
Go and read the thread "Let your Profits Run" where you'll see how people with different approaches and opinions still manage to engage in a constructive discussion sans any nasty or personal remarks and with thoughtful, rational comments.
 
Calliope said:
What proof do you have that you do not have an obsession with continually harping on the theme;

"What proof do you have?"

A legitimate response to these nonsense questions would be:

"Can you disprove it?'
Click to expand...

Because the LNP keep bagging Labor over the deficits they have run since the GFC.

Since Minchin said that the LNP would have run surpluses over the last 5 years.

So to me the LNP have made this a theme to bang on because they say 1 thing, yet ofer no substance to how they would have / will achieve it, and if anything are taking actions to furtehr erode the tax base while claiming they can run bigger surpluses than labor.

What I find annoying is people make claims, but then seem unwilling to justify them. I at least make the effort to provide some research to back up my claims!

There's this belief that the LNP are somehow superior economic managers, yet I would argue there is no proof. How can a party that has Barnaby Joyce as a powerful member be considered market oriented? No to cubby station being sold, no to Chinese investment, no to market based carbon trading.

What does the LNP actually say yes to? They can barely bring themselves to say yes to Labors harsher migration policy.

Labor:

* Floated the AUD - Howard was dead against it

* Introduced super

* Brought in enterprise bargaining

* Deregulated the banking industry

This thread is Tony Abbott for PM. So my basic question still applies. Why would you vote for him?

So far I've not really seen anyone come up with a reason based on what he will do in office/ Does anyone kno what his aims are, what is vision is?
 
Agree Julia, however it was Calliope who introduced the sneer first, Perhaps I should not have used the banghead but I do hot up when they try to insinuate the ole cop thing. Oh yes as a cop he must be hopeless or corrupt. That is why I tried to get Joe some year or two back now to allow me to change my ASF name. It was a misguided choice in the beginning at a time when I was very ill.

But the politics of the day does raise the hair.

We really do need to bring back the Menzies/ Chifley era where everything said was substantiated to High Degree uni level.
 

I value your opinions explod, Julia, Calliope, and the thoughts and actions of Menzies and Chifley.

All the above hold genuine beliefs or have held them in the case of Menzies and Chifley.

gg
 
explod said:
I have no problem with my past in any shape or form as a cop, but the fact that you do not seem to understand the need to back up (provide evidence) of your assertions does indicate a lack of the real world ole pal.
Click to expand...

I don't remember making any assertions ole pal.
 
Julia said:
Go and read the thread "Let your Profits Run" where you'll see how people with different approaches and opinions still manage to engage in a constructive discussion sans any nasty or personal remarks and with thoughtful, rational comments.
Click to expand...

Good. No more "gratuitous" insults then.
 

An assertion
 
Calliope said:
Yes, I suppose that as an ex-copper you also have an obsession with trying to prove the un-provable.
Click to expand...

All matters are for a Court to decide.

That it is an obsession of an ex-copper is an assertion
 
Calliope said:
Do you own research.



What argument? And why does a reference to your copper past cause you to bang your head?
Click to expand...

The ball was in your court on this, if you are going to assert you need to back it up.

And why did you bring it up then?

This time answer the question.
 
Why would I vote for Libs?
A few reasons
Smaller government
More small business friendly
Reduction of the nanny state bs that labor loves
Attention to IR laws.
ABCC hopefully making a comeback.

To sum it up they fit enough of what I want. At least more than labor does at this moment.

Here is the small business policy outline
http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/SmallBusinessPolicy.pdf

How they plan to help tourism
http://www.liberal.org.au/sites/default/files/ccd/Real%20Action%20to%20Support%20Tourism.pdf

You know what instead of me linking just go to the libs page and read rather then being a lazy bugger whinging
"why should I vote them"
and not just reading the lab / lib webpages and see what you think is best for you.
 

+1

gg
 

* Howard inherited a $90billion deficit, from the outgoing Labor Party.

* Left office with a $20billion surplus and $80billion in the future fund.

* Introduced GST and reduced personal tax rates.

* Number of new boat people in last year of office 4!!!!

Now as you said the thread is about Tony Abbott, why vote for him?
Well it is quite easy, why would you vote for Labor. Lets list their achievements or lack thereof.
Your list of achievements seems to only focus on the Hawke/ Keating era.
Post 2007:

* Mass handout and wastage resulting in a $20billion surplus going to a $300billion deficit in 5 years.

* Non of the deficit is productive( the NBN isn't included in budget figures and it is yet to prove its value anyway).

* Pension age has been lifted from 65 to 67.

* Super contribution caps have been reduced, thereby reducing the ability to self fund retirement.

* Personal income tax rates have been lifted.

* Foriegn ownership eligibility rules have been relaxed considerably.

* Border security is shambolic and becoming a real funding problem.

* Carbon tax introduced due to minority party pressure, this is putting further stress on a struggling manufacturing sector.

So maybe it is time to give someone else a go, who knows? Time will tell if people agree.
 

Good post.

Salient.

To the point.

Evidential.

gg
 

It's very obvious to the majority of Australians on why to vote for Abbott, irrespective of his policies (revealed and unrevealed).

What have we got to loose??

This current government is so pathetically incompetent that even the drovers dog could do a better job!
 
explod said:
...Oh yes as a cop he must be hopeless or corrupt. That is why I tried to get Joe some year or two back now to allow me to change my ASF name. It was a misguided choice in the beginning at a time when I was very ill..
Click to expand...
Yes a stereotype there Explod, I think you have a good case for a change of posting name, try again with Joe.
 
* Howard inherited a $90billion deficit, from the outgoing Labor Party.
The $96 billion of debt inherited by the Howard Government from the Labor Party in 1996 comprised around $39.9 billion of debt accumulated by the Fraser Government under the Treasury-ship of Mr Howard and left to the Hawke Government in 1983

* Left office with a $20billion surplus and $80billion in the future fund.
See asset sales - http://alturl.com/bjhqk - to me selling an asssett to pay off debt is no net benefit

To get an accurate indication of the true dollar impact on debt of those asset sales, I have converted them into June 2007 dollar terms. Take the sale of DASFLEET, for example, which was sold for $408 million in July 1997. In June 2007 terms, this was worth $536.8 million. Or perhaps the first tranche of Telstra is interesting. Sold for $17.2 billion in November 1997, that converts to $22.6 billion in June 2007 terms.

The value of all asset sales under the Howard Government totalled a very hefty $71.8 billion in June 2007 dollar terms. This means that around three-quarters of the pay-down of the $96 billion of government debt was simply from selling assets to the private sector. Nothing more, nothing less.

Consdiering the interst bill payable with interest rates so low, and the yield Telstra is paying, to me the sale was a complete and utter value destruction for the Australian public.

* Introduced GST and reduced personal tax rates.
This and the far more stirngent gun laws are prob the only true achievments I'd give Howard credit to.

* Number of new boat people in last year of office 4!!!!
The Howard Govt was lucky to be in office during one of the strongest periods of world growth. Since Labor has been in office the number of regional conflicts has increased, and many economies are deep under water, so I would argue that it wouldn't matter who was in office, the number of economic refugess heading for Australia would have increased.

Now as you said the thread is about Tony Abbott, why vote for him?
Well it is quite easy, why would you vote for Labor. Lets list their achievements or lack thereof.
Your list of achievements seems to only focus on the Hawke/ Keating era.
Post 2007:

* Mass handout and wastage resulting in a $20billion surplus going to a $300billion deficit in 5 years.
The Labor Govt is currently raising less tax revenue than at any point in the Howard Govt.

Please have a read of http://tinyurl.com/bktuv2o as it's quite informative. So I don't understand how people can say a LNP Govt will be a small Govt when history shows they have been very high taxing as a % of GDP

* Non of the deficit is productive( the NBN isn't included in budget figures and it is yet to prove its value anyway).
I took advantage of the insulation batts install. My house was bitterly cold in winter, especially downstairs. In summer the 2nd floor would be stifling. I have noticed a big difference in this since the insulation was installed. My avg electricity consumption has falling by ~ 2kwh / day.

Considering the huge drop in confidence and growth in 2008 when the GFC was startng to hit Australia hard I would say the public debt might have been a cheap form of insurance because if unemployment had risen as far as it was feared, house prices would have collapsed, and the recession Australia would have then had would have cost us all far more than $300 billion

* Pension age has been lifted from 65 to 67.
In 15 years the number of people over 65 will double. We are living longer and healthier lives. This ia a very prudent way to cope with the increase in life expentanty, and the dramtic increase of dependants compared to workers.

I would blame Howard for forcing this onto the Govt because Australia is the ONLY country in the worl to lightly tax super on the wy in, and no tax on the way out. Every other country with a similar system will give a low tax treatment either on the way in or the way out.
Howards Tax free super in the pension phse has dramatically erorded the tax base.

In 2015 the tax forgone on super will be higher than payments made for the pension.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding is the LNP are supporting the increase in the pension age, so voting for Tony wont change this.

* Super contribution caps have been reduced, thereby reducing the ability to self fund retirement.
$150,000 of non deductible super contributions per year seems a lot of money to me. $25,000 a year of deductible super is alos quite a lot of money each year. $2 million in 10 years.
The caps in no way affect a persons ability to save for their retirement, it does help to make the system fairer as currently the majority of the tax benefits go to a small % of the richest

* Personal income tax rates have been lifted.
See http://www.ato.gov.au/content/12333.htm - If $3 a year on an 80K income is causing you hardship then there's something wrong with your budgeting skills

* Foriegn ownership eligibility rules have been relaxed considerably.
I would argue the Govt has made it very clear that SOEs will face much harsher scruitiny over any investments, and that the Govt prefers them to invest in greenfield rather than brownfield assets.

* Border security is shambolic and becoming a real funding problem.
Economic refugess are a big problem everywhere. We get a few thousand a year. German gets up to 100,000. The media and LNP are the only reason people believe we have a boaat people problem.

* Carbon tax introduced due to minority party pressure, this is putting further stress on a struggling manufacturing sector.
As far as I have read there has been no mine closure which has referenced the carbon tax as a reason for closure. I would argue poor management and unions pushing for above avg wage increases have more to do with this, as well as the high AUD causing a loss of competitiveness.

Also you have to throw in the gas glut in the USA which has cause them to become a far larger coal exporter which has depressed prices.

So maybe it is time to give someone else a go, who knows? Time will tell if people agree.

For my view my vote is like an investment. I don't make an investment purely because the one I already may not be performing as well as I think it should. Doing that is a fast way of loosing money

So the current Labor Govt has:

* lower mortgage rates than the previous

* smaller government - tax as % of GDP has always been lower than at any point in the Howard Govt.

So could voting for Tony mean voting for:

* higher taxes

* higher interest rates
 

The Labor party are doing there best to draw Abbott out to reveal his policies and fortunately he is wise enough not to release them untill closer to an election date. However in the meantime, this deceitful Labor Party are using it to make out Abbott has no policies.

If Abbott did release his policies now, and knowing how the Labor Party machine ticks, they would use the best parts to there advantage and claim it was their policy and would also criticize and flog to death other policies up to the election.

Tony Abbott is too smart for those Labor cronies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...