JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Calaber]

That's kinda funny. When the gov looks at fixing the neglect of infrastructure, schools, hospitals, under the last LNP gov, the people that voted them in are the biggest moaners about paying tax to fix it. But you wouldn't do that, would you?

You are making the mistake of assuming that I match your perception of a typical Liberal supporter. Don't. You would be absolutely wrong.

I believe that the only way we can improve our position is by paying to get it done WITH OUR OWN MONEY - not Chinese or some other foreign loan agency. If that means increased taxation or reduced government hand-outs, so be it. I don't agree with everything that Howard and Costello did, and their neglect of infrastructure was, in my opinion, their worst omission over 11 years of government.

However, if you are going to try to convince me that Labor has attempted to address that neglect, you would be wasting your time. The biggest "infrastructure" project this mob has attempted is the NBN. Please demonstrate to me how that addresses Liberal's failure on roads, schools (and I'm not talking about COLA's - I mean complete new schools), hospitals etc, because it doesn't.

 

[vr94ss]

You are making the mistake of assuming that I match your perception of a typical Liberal supporter. Don't. You would be absolutely wrong.

I believe that the only way we can improve our position is by paying to get it done WITH OUR OWN MONEY - not Chinese or some other foreign loan agency. If that means increased taxation or reduced government hand-outs, so be it. I don't agree with everything that Howard and Costello did, and their neglect of infrastructure was, in my opinion, their worst omission over 11 years of government.

However, if you are going to try to convince me that Labor has attempted to address that neglect, you would be wasting your time. The biggest "infrastructure" project this mob has attempted is the NBN. Please demonstrate to me how that addresses Liberal's failure on roads, schools (and I'm not talking about COLA's - I mean complete new schools), hospitals etc, because it doesn't.

I was in no way aiming that at you, that's why I didn't quote you, I quoted Hamma. It was for Hamma who I'm pretty sure is an LNP supporter.

Edit: I thought it was rather ironic of him to agree with you about taxes to pay for stuff when his side of politics would in no way be for it, if proposed, and are the biggest moaners when it comes to a tax increase to do anything. I mostly agree with you, that must mean I agree with Hamma! Unless he was only saying it because Kennet was mentioned

 

[Reaper]

You are making the mistake of assuming that I match your perception of a typical Liberal supporter. Don't. You would be absolutely wrong.

I believe that the only way we can improve our position is by paying to get it done WITH OUR OWN MONEY - not Chinese or some other foreign loan agency. If that means increased taxation or reduced government hand-outs, so be it. I don't agree with everything that Howard and Costello did, and their neglect of infrastructure was, in my opinion, their worst omission over 11 years of government.

We differ on that one a bit. I don't have a problem with borrowing for permanent infrastructure and then paying for it over it's lifetime, particularly if it's an income producing asset. Borrowing within our means with a clear and funded plan to repay it before said asset is scrapped or superseded is fine within reason.

One of the problems with our government, well one of the many problems is they don't know when to stop. They appear to be confusing re-current day to day spending with capex. What that means is we are putting the weekly rent and groceries on the cc without ever paying for it at the end of the month. That is a recipe for disaster. Gillard, Swan and Penny Wrong all crap on about how great they are handling things and our low debt/GDP is, however they fail to mention it was of a zero base less than 7 years ago and is one of the fastest growing national debts in the entire world. Lucky I don't run my company that way, unfortunately I haven't got the taxpayer to bail me out of my mistakes.

 

[Calaber]

We differ on that one a bit. I don't have a problem with borrowing for permanent infrastructure and then paying for it over it's lifetime, particularly if it's an income producing asset. Borrowing within our means with a clear and funded plan to repay it before said asset is scrapped or superseded is fine within reason.

One of the problems with our government, well one of the many problems is they don't know when to stop. They appear to be confusing re-current day to day spending with capex. What that means is we are putting the weekly rent and groceries on the cc without ever paying for it at the end of the month. That is a recipe for disaster. Gillard, Swan and Penny Wrong all crap on about how great they are handling things and our low debt/GDP is, however they fail to mention it was of a zero base less than 7 years ago and is one of the fastest growing national debts in the entire world. Lucky I don't run my company that way, unfortunately I haven't got the taxpayer to bail me out of my mistakes.

I realise that my preference is probably unrealistic in today's world and that borrowing to invest in infrastructure is virtually inescapable. However, I would prefer to see Governments invest in our future through promoting locally developed technology and R&D on those things that the world economy can benefit from, so that the government can reduce its reliance on personal income taxation for its income. I would ideally like to see us pay our way with our own resources and reduce the dependence on foreign capital. And to also see the farm (ie local ownership) being held in our hands and not sold off to the highest foreign bidder. The returns to the nation via increased manufacturing skills and diversity and foreign sales would be enormous and the government would have alternative sources for income other than your hip pocket.

For example, many industries have no presence at all here, or only a token one, yet those industries earn vast capital for their home nations (eg aeronautics, commercial aircraft design and manufacture, home entertainment, communications such as mobile phones). Countries like South Korea can design and manufacture mobile phones amongst the world's best and most popular and the income from sales of Samsung/LG and others must be huge. Why not here? I realise the high dollar and our wage structures and legislative requirements stifle matters, but we don't even seem to try - it's all too hard because of the problems. The goal is worthwhile but the effort is too much.

 

[Reaper]

I realise that my preference is probably unrealistic in today's world and that borrowing to invest in infrastructure is virtually inescapable. However, I would prefer to see Governments invest in our future through promoting locally developed technology and R&D on those things that the world economy can benefit from, so that the government can reduce its reliance on personal income taxation for its income. I would ideally like to see us pay our way with our own resources and reduce the dependence on foreign capital. And to also see the farm (ie local ownership) being held in our hands and not sold off to the highest foreign bidder. The returns to the nation via increased manufacturing skills and diversity and foreign sales would be enormous and the government would have alternative sources for income other than your hip pocket.

Depends what you call the "farm" and weather it's owned by govco or private industry. Personally I think government should be in the business of (some) regulation and providing public infrastructural such as hospitals & schools and the like (non for profit institutions for want of a better term). When it comes to a lot of services such as power, telephone and the like which are sold to the consumer without doubt govco should keep out. The idea that they are regulating an industry they receive a dividend from is a massive conflict of interest for just a start.

For example, many industries have no presence at all here, or only a token one, yet those industries earn vast capital for their home nations (eg aeronautics, commercial aircraft design and manufacture, home entertainment, communications such as mobile phones). Countries like South Korea can design and manufacture mobile phones amongst the world's best and most popular and the income from sales of Samsung/LG and others must be huge. Why not here? I realise the high dollar and our wage structures and legislative requirements stifle matters, but we don't even seem to try - it's all too hard because of the problems. The goal is worthwhile but the effort is too much.

Unfortunately it's not going to happen any time soon. It seems like govco are going out of their way to stifle any sort of manufacturing in this country. There haven't been any home entertainment in Aus since AWA quit australian manufacturing in the early 80's (?). I can't think of any widespread electronic consumer goods built or designed here since and suspect unless a modern day Steve Jobs/Steve Wozniak invents something in a suburban Melbourne garage (won't happen in Syd coz they aren't smart enough ), none of those industries will come to Australia.

 

[c2105026]

RE: Thatcher - obviously I do not agree with her viewpoints by any stretch of the imagination, (Her line 'we are not society but a collection of individuals' is utter bollocks and goes against basic anthropology) but she was a human being who loved and was loved. As is Abbott, Gillard and almost any politician in western democracy. I don't think its entirely appropriate to celebrate the death of someone who wasn't a war criminal or dictator. Then again, I did not live in working class Britain in the 1980s, so I don't really know what it was like to have your industry that you worked in for decades shut. It may have been union-led inefficiency but end of the day many towns and cities basically went hungry due to mines/factories closing (as of 1979 Britain had a car industry, albeit an in efficient one - by 1990 it was gone). We don't know the story of the people that ultimately suffered under thatcher, so I don't think we can judge them either (if you were in their position you'd be feeling the same, possibly!) But that's just me.

OTOH Dubbya's demise, with him being an actual war criminal (Illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan that we were unfortunately conned into), would not leave me celebrating but a bit smug.....I was also quite pleased when Obama finally got Bin Laden.....

 

[minux]

OTOH Dubbya's demise, with him being an actual war criminal (Illegal invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan that we were unfortunately conned into), would not leave me celebrating but a bit smug.....I was also quite pleased when Obama finally got Bin Laden.....

Can you please cite the UN charges of illegal invasion?

What an idiotic comment.

Let me guess, it was all about the oil right?

 

[c2105026]

The UN charging the US of war crimes would require bigger balls than Churchill, Thatcher, Howard, Kennett and Keating all put together. True there was no formal action against USA but just because one who kills another in cold blood isn't charged doesn't make him any less a murderer.....Kofi Annan did accuse USA of an illegal invasion in a BBC interview. My understanding is that the Security Council needs to authorise military invasion of member states, and they very clearly did not.

But something that has always left me scratching my head - why? 15 of the 19 9/11 Hijackers were Saudi, as was Bin Laden himself. No, you can't go after the Saudis; they have about 20% of the world's oil they can hold back from market, and Saudi royal family is very intertwined with the Bushes. No, Saddam threatened to kill Bush Snr, so it was basically a personal vendetta. At the higher end of politics deals get done and the military-industrial complex may also force people into things that they would otherwise not have done. (A rumour I have heard is that Bell Helicopters forced LBJ to go into Vietnam - I cannot comment on the accuracy of this, but if it was true I would not be surprised) If it was done to secure more oil more cheaply...they failed badly.

Going back to official reasons - Iraq had nothing to do with Al-Quaeda or 9/11. Iraq had no connection whatsoever to 9/11, despite Dubbya being so eager to find dirt on Saddam, even as the twin towers were smouldering. Saddam hated Al-Quaeda just as much as the US so he could have been a useful ally, dictator or not, in the 'War on (of) Terror'. WMDs? All that was found was a semi-trailer of chemicals. Whoppee. 'Pics or it didn't happen.'

(I also find it highly Ironic that the US/UK/Australia sought to defeat terrorism by methods that, to the victims (and in particular civilians), would interpret as terrorism)

 

[minux]

Ok, so he is not a war criminal.

What you are saying is you are a conspiracy theorist throwing around unfounded allegations.

Now it makes much more sense.

 

[c2105026]

So you are saying action in Iraq/Afghanistan was sanctioned by the UN? (Nope, therefore was illegal, making 'technically' any leader involved with invasion a 'war criminal')
My 'allegations' (i. a theat directed at Dubbyas father, bush involvement with Saudis) are fact, there is much film/photo evidence that supports this.
Just because the evidence points to something you believe is not true does not mean its a 'conspiracy theory' and written off as such. eg.....

CNN.com - Bush calls Saddam 'the guy who tried to kill my dad' - Sep. 27, 2002
[YOUTUBE]ec-gxFAU3M0[/YOUTUBE]

Much more out there.....(for the record I don't believe in UFOs, Moon landing Hoax, fluoride in the water, 9/11 being an inside job, the Illuminati, NWO, Jewish control of the world etc...I keep my controversial ideas plausible)

Anyway if the above still constitutes a 'conspiracy theory' then some of what is said on here by my opponents could also be likened as such.....(i.e. human-led climate change denial, Greens actually being communists, and so forth)
A controversial idea, if disagreed with, is a 'conspiracy'. If it is agreed with, it's a fact......depends on perspective. One man's fact is another man's conspiracy theory.

EDIT: Another aspect I haven't touched on is use of torture. The US usage of torture, under its own juridstiction, is illegal (War crimes act 1996). It is widely acknowledged that USA used torture during the 00s on terrorism suspects.