JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Jesterarts]

Ah, that makes sense.

So in that case, why was Labor banking on 2 billions from this tax?

Obviously this was not an accurate calculation. And moreso, why did they spend money that was so uncertain?

 

[Reaper]

Ah, that makes sense.

So in that case, why was Labor banking on 2 billions from this tax?

Obviously this was not an accurate calculation. And moreso, why did they spend money that was so uncertain?

They over estimated income revenue from the mining companies.

Reaper

 

[vr94ss]

Gillard and her "circumstances changed" defence was only trotted out because she needed the greens to form government - ie for political purposes only. From what I understand Newman found the accounts was disastrously worse than forecast by the then Labor government in QLD and thus drastic action needed to be taken.
Reaper

You know Abbott would have broken promises to get the independents on side to form a government don't you? He would probably just have trotted out Howard's "core and non core promises" line. Howard was a liar by that measure too. It's funny you hold Labor to higher standards than you do Libs.

"I would do anything to get that job, Tony, the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse — but I’d have to give serious thought to it." - Tony Abbot to Tony Windsor.

 

[Jesterarts]

That's concerning. These people are running the country and keep finding themselve in a situation where they have less money than they budgetted.

Granted I only managed a houe budget but I am yet to ever find myself in a similar situation. It's called being realistic.

 

[monkeys437]

Very curious... why have none of you Abbot sycophants objected to Campbell Newman breaking a firm election promise and now deciding to allow Uranium mining in QLD? Oh wait I know.. he isn't a labor politician..

Or maybe its because circumstances have changed? hmmm no that couldn't possibly be it, a promise is a promise...

OMG he must have LIED...

I don't live in QLD but I don't have an objection to uranium mining so even if I did I wouldn't care if he broke that promise.

If he broke a promise which directly increased my Energy bills and the bills of every business I buy things off, I wouldn't be too happy

 

[DAKSTER]

Sigh....

I don't give a crap about Uranium mining one way or another. There is a point here that those with blinkers are missing...

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

Newman changed his mind because the feds decided to sell Uranium to India. He can see a buck in it. Newman has broken countless promises which DIRECTLY affect householders, such as freezing water, rego, electricity, rates. NONE of these have been frozen, its a litany of broken promises. A lot of them are necessary, no argument here.. although are you saying he wasn't aware QLD was in trouble?.. because he clearly was even when he was making those promises. Blind Freddy could see that. Still, lets take his promises on face value, and assume he genuinely believed he could follow through with them... :rofl2:

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

Gillard changed her mind on the Carbon Tax because the greens wouldn't have helped her gain government without doing so. Abbot also agreed (to the independents) to a bunch of things he wouldn't have normally in an effort to gain government, you can put money on that. Of course, he didn't gain government so you won't get to hear about which promises he was willing to break.

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

Howard presided over the countries finances at a time when it was virtually impossible to screw it up. Every major economy in the world was going gangbusters, every trading partner we have were doing great. He didn't do anything special financially, he just rode the money wave that rolled around the world. He also invented the term 'core promises and non-core promises' to somehow convince us he hadn't told any lies...

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

Gillard has done many things people don't like, in an effort to balance the budget. Are you blaming the GLOBAL downturn on the labor government?? Just be thankful you don't live in Greece or any of the many other countries that are doing it seriously tough at the moment.

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

Just one final small point, this time on the Baby Bribe, instituted by the Howard government. If you have a second child, the bribe is now going to be smaller. Abbot objects to this, because 'it hurts families'. Instead, he wants to remove the payments given to assist people with school costs.

So, if you only have one kid, you can choose not to have the next one. If a couple grand influences your decision on whether or not to have a kid, you certainly should be keeping it firmly zipped away. You clearly aren't likely to be a decent parent anyway if that's an influence.

If you have 3 kids at school already, which you may (? seems unlikely to me ?) have chosen to have because of the baby bribe, can you now (if ongoing schoolkids support is removed as Abbot advocates) choose to not send them to school because you cant afford to?

Which one hurts families more.. reducing the baby bribe or removing the ongoing school support? He is going in to bat for families? Gimme a break...

 

[DAKSTER]

On the subject of energy bills, examine the figures. This year, the energy costs of an average household in QLD rose about 13%. Last year, they rose about 21%. The year before that, they rose about 19%. So if the 13% rise this year was directly attributable to the Carbon Tax, what caused the rise last year? And the year before that.. and the year before that.. and the year before that...

The Carbon Tax has become the most heavily publicised non-event in history.

 

[vr94ss]

On the subject of energy bills, examine the figures. This year, the energy costs of an average household in QLD rose about 13%. Last year, they rose about 21%. The year before that, they rose about 19%. So if the 13% rise this year was directly attributable to the Carbon Tax, what caused the rise last year? And the year before that.. and the year before that.. and the year before that...

The Carbon Tax has become the most heavily publicised non-event in history.

The curious case of Australia's rising power bills.

 

[Reaper]

You know Abbott would have broken promises to get the independents on side to form a government don't you? He would probably just have trotted out Howard's "core and non core promises" line. Howard was a liar by that measure too. It's funny you hold Labor to higher standards than you do Libs.

"I would do anything to get that job, Tony, the only thing I wouldn't do is sell my arse — but I’d have to give serious thought to it." - Tony Abbot to Tony Windsor.

Cannot and will not speculate on quotes of private conversations where the entire transcript of such is not made public. Particularly when they are released by a political opponent. I hold them all to exactly the same standards - you must be confusing me with somebody else.

That's concerning. These people are running the country and keep finding themselve in a situation where they have less money than they budgetted.

Granted I only managed a house budget but I am yet to ever find myself in a similar situation. It's called being realistic.

In defence of the government somewhat, predicting income from taxation and the like is much harder than that of income in your average wage and salary earner. Even on a company level it is often difficult to predict income into the future and it's possible to be way out. Last financial year we were way down on budget, but even so, we made appropriate changes along the way and still returned a profit (all be it significantly down on the year before).

Sigh....

I don't give a crap about Uranium mining one way or another. There is a point here that those with blinkers are missing...

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

Newman changed his mind because the feds decided to sell Uranium to India. He can see a buck in it. Newman has broken countless promises which DIRECTLY affect householders, such as freezing water, rego, electricity, rates. NONE of these have been frozen, its a litany of broken promises. A lot of them are necessary, no argument here.. although are you saying he wasn't aware QLD was in trouble?.. because he clearly was even when he was making those promises. Blind Freddy could see that. Still, lets take his promises on face value, and assume he genuinely believed he could follow through with them...

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

Gillard changed her mind on the Carbon Tax because the greens wouldn't have helped her gain government without doing so. Abbot also agreed (to the independents) to a bunch of things he wouldn't have normally in an effort to gain government, you can put money on that. Of course, he didn't gain government so you won't get to hear about which promises he was willing to break.

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

Howard presided over the countries finances at a time when it was virtually impossible to screw it up. Every major economy in the world was going gangbusters, every trading partner we have were doing great. He didn't do anything special financially, he just rode the money wave that rolled around the world. He also invented the term 'core promises and non-core promises' to somehow convince us he hadn't told any lies...

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

Gillard has done many things people don't like, in an effort to balance the budget. Are you blaming the GLOBAL downturn on the labor government?? Just be thankful you don't live in Greece or any of the many other countries that are doing it seriously tough at the moment.

CIRCUMSTANCES CHANGE.

Just one final small point, this time on the Baby Bribe, instituted by the Howard government. If you have a second child, the bribe is now going to be smaller. Abbot objects to this, because 'it hurts families'. Instead, he wants to remove the payments given to assist people with school costs.

So, if you only have one kid, you can choose not to have the next one. If a couple grand influences your decision on whether or not to have a kid, you certainly should be keeping it firmly zipped away. You clearly aren't likely to be a decent parent anyway if that's an influence.

If you have 3 kids at school already, which you may (? seems unlikely to me ?) have chosen to have because of the baby bribe, can you now (if ongoing schoolkids support is removed as Abbot advocates) choose to not send them to school because you cant afford to?

Which one hurts families more.. reducing the baby bribe or removing the ongoing school support? He is going in to bat for families? Gimme a break...

Here is the difference. I have caned Gillard over and over again on her changes that are more in her political interest and saving her skin over that of the interests of the nation. When it comes to cutting costs, unfortnately when inflows are down it's what has to be done. No arguments on that one.

From what I understand of QLD - if it were a company the directors (AKA previous government) would be all facing jail for trading insolvent. NSW is/was not far behind.

On the subject of energy bills, examine the figures. This year, the energy costs of an average household in QLD rose about 13%. Last year, they rose about 21%. The year before that, they rose about 19%. So if the 13% rise this year was directly attributable to the Carbon Tax, what caused the rise last year? And the year before that.. and the year before that.. and the year before that...

The Carbon Tax has become the most heavily publicised non-event in history.

So in the face of rising energy bills, why do we need another energy tax (that's what the carbon tax really is) on top? Costs are going thru the roof no end already and people have been motivated to slash their energy use for best part of a decade or more!

The next biggest sources of carbon emissions are those from burned petrol and diesel, both of which are exempted - so why bother?

Reaper

 

[DAKSTER]

So in the face of rising energy bills, why do we need another energy tax (that's what the carbon tax really is) on top? Costs are going thru the roof no end already and people have been motivated to slash their energy use for best part of a decade or more!

The next biggest sources of carbon emissions are those from burned petrol and diesel, both of which are exempted - so why bother?

Reaper

I totally agree. I have always done so. If you exempt the biggest polluters, the whole thing is a complete waste of time and effort.

I'm just sick of hearing about the huge impact this waste of time is having. Its having no impact at all. Much ado about nothing.

A tax that has no effect on anything is not a tax that is worth having at all. It just gives people something to blame with no actual reason.. just ask the now unemployed Brumbies manager that tried.

It was a bad move politically, motivated and forced upon us by the greens with their heads in the clouds. I bet Gillard rues the day she first heard the words 'Carbon Tax'.