JC Political Thread - For all things political Part 2

What is the point your are trying to make with this question? The answer is obvious - if rescued 40kms from C/I, that's where they would have been taken. So why ask?

There are two really annoying points about this, and other rescues that have taken place in recent times. The first is the fact that the vessels are so overloaded, or in such poor condition, that they can't even get more than 40kms out to sea before they start to sink. The second point is that our navy is rescuing Indonesian vessels in Indonesian Territorial waters. Where the hell are the Indonesian Naval or coastal patrol vessels when all this is going on?

 

Not giving a crap because they don't want to solve the people smuggling issue.

I'm sure there are a few government officials who are getting perks by ensuring Indonesian military vessels play dumb.

I like how the Indonesian stance is "This is not something that the new government can solve itself, we have to work together or else", yet when it comes down to it, they don't even make an attempt to intercept or prevent vessels leaving AND are more than happy making threats of diplomatic consequences when we are pumping our money into their country as Aid.

How's this for an idea, withhold aid from Indonesia, or halve it, until the actually contribute to resolving this issue.

 

sorry, thought it was straight forward, I should have quoted who I was replyingto ... nothing different would have been done under either government. so minux, making the point that the current governments policies were under way is neither here nor there.

I totally agree, these vessels should have never left port, and Indonesia to totally to blame and are responsible for letting these people leave port.

 

More Labor idiocy comes to light:

Hockey exposes “litany of failures” in Labor’s forecasts but stops short of promising a surplus in its first year | News.com.au

Am I surprised? Not one bit.

 

Joe needs to be very careful when he keeps citing these figures. We all know that the ALP's budget figures under Swann were a screw up, but he's gone and it's Joe's baby now. I don't think we need reminding how poorly Swann did his job - the Coalition was voted in, partly, because it claimed to have a better idea of how to run an economy. We know they have inherited a mess. Now, stop carping about the stuff ups and get on with fixing them. The public has had enough sniping between the two parties and won't put up with much more now that the Libs are in.

(Having said that, I'm willing to bet that we haven't heard the last of this yet.)

 

regarding Treasury - for years, we have been given an Annual Budget, and several revisions thereof.
Under SWANN, budgeted surpluses became, in reality, deficits.
I hold K.RUDD, GILLARD, & SWANN responsible for much of this, but at the end of the day, they, and the new Government, rely on calculations done by Treasury.
At this late stage, I think it's safe to say that Treasury has not served us well.
Unless there is a clean sweep of Treasury, it is difficult to see how the situation might improve.

 

That is where I see the problem is. No doubt about it - Treasury hasn't served us well however as the executive in charge, and the guy that looks like a goose when it goes wrong, surely the Treasurer would see if what he is being told passed the bullshit test.

Nearly every company executive and manager in the world relies on data presented to them by others. I do from a range of people - my production manager, accountant, sales guys, engineers and a variety of people outside the organization. I, and near every competent manager will look at the information presented and then cast my nose over it to see if it makes sense and is 1/2 credible. For example - I haven't been near production for days with my only contact being the daily reports that I half look at every morning. Morning 1 they say they are starting a huge job that is likely to take a few days. Morning 2 I get a report saying it's 80% done. Hmmmm - it may be the case but I'll flag that for investigation to validate the data further. It's a very simplistic example and most of my real life ones are significantly more complex but it illustrates my point. Unfortunately in many cases I suspect the previous government just ran with what it was told only for egg on it's face shortly down the road. Note that there are several notable examples of that happening in the Howard years as well (Children overboard for one).

 

Overseas politics - US govt in shutdown. Debt ceiling issues in next few weeks.

Thoughts?

My understanding with the shut-down is that some Tea-Party type people are unhappy about a couple of things (e.g. Obamacare), and have taken their bat and ball and gone home.
As for debt ceiling - on one hand if it isn't lifted federal US funding would need to be slashed by 32% across the board; this could have grave impacts for US security and economy (and ultimately ours). OTOH if you have a debt situation that for decades has been spiralling out of control, maybe it could be refreshing for the US to have a good look at how it taxes, and how it spends money. My understanding is that taxation levels in US are very much on the lowish side, and their spending on things like defence is ludicrous (apparently the US spends as much on its defence as the next 14 countries...combined...)

 

I can't believe the opposition to Obamacare. The health reform sounds like just a very basic version of what the rest of the developed world already has and the Republicans are going on like it's some communist conspiracy.

On the debt ceiling, the situation now will probably cause a rethink in taxation and spending. I remember reading the cost of the Iraq war alone was around $1 trillion, and the Afghanistan and other conflicts and military spending definitely look to be bleeding them dry. Short term they surely have to raise the debt ceiling or risk crashing the world's economy again but longer term I'd hope the spend more on hospitals and less on defence

 

In one respect the far right are correct - spending does need to be cut across the board in USA. The other option is to increase taxes, or a combination of the 2. TBH I am not across taxation in USA beyond the odd tit bit we see in the paper but on the face of it they are very under-taxed compared to Australia and much of the western world. That is not going to change in the next couple of weeks and thus their debt ceiling will have to raise for the short and possibly medium term. No 2 ways about it.

In general if Obamacare is similar to what we know as Medicare then I have no problem with it. Part of the reason big business, and particularly the big 3 Auto manufacturers are (were) in the predicament they are is because the corporation was expected to pick up the tab for their employee's health care for life after their retirement. In most respects I prefer it if govco stayed out of our business but a basic health care system is something they should be involved with.

 

That defence spending isn't just the Americans wanting to spend up big time on defence. The Western World has treated the US as the world's policeman for decades and if the US hadn't performed that role in a number of conflicts, what might the outcome have been? And if they hadn't performed this role, who else is there to do it when the genuine need arose? (ie Korean War). I'm not referring to those futile wars like Vietnam or even the Middle East where the results are not what was required. Just those where the might of the US played a major part in attaining a peaceful conclusion.

 

Maybe if the US didn't dismantle the British Empire as part of it's lend lease... The US picked up the baton and ran with it. It's not a simple story and America has revelled in that position as world police as much as some of it's citizens hate it. Sure they whine but they wouldn't have it any other way and they'll remember it with a happy heart years after it's gone, just as those that long for the British Empire do. They should also be accepting of criticism, after all they find themselves in that position through their own actions and the Brits were criticised.

Edit: Winter is coming, prepare and share. <-- there's my paranoia and hope for man.

 

Well, the US didn't really dismantle the Empire, although Roosevelt could see that Britain (or at least, Churchill) would fight tooth and nail to retain all its dependencies and colonies after the war and the US was definitely against Imperialism. The Brits may have been on the winning side, but many previous colonies found that the war had changed things. They had seen their previous Imperial masters badly beaten by the Japanese and sought their independence (eg India, Malaya, Singapore). The US supported their actions but I don't think they actually dismantles the Empire. Britain's loss of prestige, it's indebtedness after two major wars and the national fervour in those former colonies was probably far more influential than the US.

That said, the US is probably the victim of its own doing in many ways, because there was, for a long time (and perhaps remains to this day in some parts of the States), the belief that what was good for the US was good for the world. America has forced itself on countries which didn't welcome its intrusion. The hatred against the States that exists within the Middle East these days comes from their allegiance to Israel, their plundering of natural resources such as oil for their own benefit for so many years and their military intervention in many localised conflicts as that world policeman, have created an enmity that will probably never disappear.

 

Whoa thats some heavy stuff. It would be the same if the US tried to invade OZ. All the surrounding countries would fight for OZ because if Oz fell so would the surrounding countries. I dont really care. Im juz talkin shiz. Ive had a few. Leave me alone :what:

"A Heavy Bassline Is My Kinda Silence"

 

Then NZL would have to save Aussies ass

"A Heavy Bassline Is My Kinda Silence"

 

I would think Al Qaeda would be very jealous of the Tea Party right about now.

 

This is what the US really had against the empire and what it wanted dismantled, not really dismantling the empire itself, the colonies saw to that but giving the US this kinda defunded the empire.

Office of the Historian - Milestones - 1937-1945 - The Atlantic Conference & Charter, 1941

edit: Which seems very similar to the "free trade" agreements going on these days between countries and blocks of countries weirdly enough the US has no problem with these now.

Edit2: lol! from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Preference

I note the citation needed but would that surprise anyone?

 

I hadn't read that exact first reference you quoted, but it's a more succinct and accurate description of events than my version. I recall reading that Britain had endeavoured to impose discriminatory trade agreements that got up the US nose. The Wikipedia version has more than just a hint of pro-US sentiment included, doesn't it?