Broken election promises, core and non core policy
Not telling the whole truth about boat people incidents
Massive travel bills
Taking pay rises while telling others to accept less or none
The last government to do this
Kevin 07
At least when Johnnie was in he paid the bills and didn't just rack it up on the credit card.

I had some very good friends at uni who were red as they come. I used to enjoy listening to them bleating on about how they hated the Libs for introducing Hecs (not sure if they did) and GST. Last time I checked we had a Labor government and both schemes are still in place.

Chimbu
 

Jeez Chimbu, your making me think here ( not easy after a few pale ale's) but I still have to ask, does the government, and therefore by default, the populace at large (including employers) have any sort of moral obligation? It is easy to say that if you are not happy with your lot, move on! Some people dont have that option. Is there any obligation on society to support these people or do we simply cut them loose? Pass- A -Frozzo would have us do that, but the interesting thing is that these people that, maybe, some would cut loose, are still necessary for the system to operate. So Chimbu, should we support anybody? and if so who? or is it every man for himself? Are you comfortable with the aircraft maintenance, pilot hiring scenario or not?

Arnold I tend to look at most things through the prism of the basic Individual inalienable rights.

Would I like it if all aircraft maintenance/pilot hiring moved offshore? (it isn't possible but lets ignore that for a minute)

No I wouldn't but have anyone's basic rights been trammeled? If I am a well trained, experienced engineer I can go offshore myself and earn more money, probably tax free. The Airline just shot themselves in the foot...which is their right...and I have exercised mine without hindrance.

What is the effect of the car industry being subsidised?

Well you and I are FORCED to provide employment/wages for people in an unsustainable industry. By being so forced you and I, and all tax payers, are being denied out individual human rights.

If those subsidies are not put in place people lose their jobs and may have to move in order to gain employment, may have to retrain/upgrade their qualifications/may have to accept lesser remuneration but their rights have not been infringed upon. Having to do so might mean they could be better off....or not...but their rights have not been infringed...their opportunities have not been hindered...you could argue that by subsidising their employment you are actually hindering them. And that subsidy money is available to benefit those or other people in various ways that society may decide on. They may be offered the opportunity of free training...see free education later.

There is no such thing as someone who CANNOT move to find work...only people who WILL NOT...maybe because they are convinced they have rights that they do not actually have.

I have worked in 4 countries in my chosen career. I have trained and studied and upgraded my skills and got to fly bigger aircraft and get paid more. I have thoughtfully exercised my inalienable individual rights to life, freedom and property to live my life based upon my best rational judgement.

But I don't have a right to the job I currently hold or the level of pay I get.

If tomorrow my employer decides I am out of here then I am out of here (and it has happened to me in the past) but my rights have not been infringed. Same if my employer decides to cut my pay by X% or remove staff travel privileges, as an example. My basic rights are intact - I can leave and take my skills with me - if enough of my workmates do the same by exercising their rights then my employer is in the ****..if not...

Society has chosen to provide a certain minimum level of social security for when people lose their jobs but a (growing) % of society has come to look upon social security as a right and sundry socialist political groups have raised it to the point people actually don't NEED to work anymore. Social security is NOT a right because you and I are FORCED to pay them that money and THAT infringes on our rights.

We must all recognise that within society there are all sorts of people who are possessed of all levels of skill/work ethic/education etc.

A LOT of people are being paid too much money for what they produce..great for them but it means everything they produce costs more and YOU AND I are FORCED to pay that increased amount of money.

Houses, cars, food, clothes, movies, electricity...GOVERNMENT.

Next time you walk into a Govt department (CASA??), shop etc and get served by some sullen, barely literate, lazy employee ask yourself what YOU would pay that person based on your own best rational judgement if YOU owned the business...or would you employ them at all?

If a person only deserves or can command $10/hr then paying them $10/hr might actually motivate them to get off their ar$e and be better/improve themselves via education/increased qualifications..or not.

Paying them $40/hr and/or giving them a gold plated Govt pension only benefits them at everyone else's expense...Good idea:ugh:...ever wonder why YOU work so hard to fund your life aspirations and a reasonable retirement? Because you're being forced to fund, via taxation, the perceived 'rights' of an enormous number of people that, if you were their employer, you'd sack.

Paying them $10/hr doesn't infringe their basic inalienable rights...paying them $40/hr infringes yours.

MORAL OBLIGATION?

I have a moral obligation to provide my daughter with a good home, good education, clothes, medical care, moral guidance etc. I would argue she has a moral obligation to make best use of those things I provide.

We have a moral obligation to be honest in our day to day lives and respect the individual rights of EVERYONE we deal with every day while insisting ours are also so honored.

There is no such thing as moral obligation to give someone I have never met 'rights' to surf all day funded by the dole, or rights to a job or to an artificial wage. To believe so is foolish.

We, as a society, used to believe in privileges. The difference between a privilege and a 'right' is a 'right' does not have attendant responsibility whereas a privilege does.

I have a an absolute right to freedom of thought/speech. Despite what people think I have absolutely no responsibilities associated with those rights. There is NO RIGHT to not be insulted - if I think your religion sucks then I have a right to say so and you have a right to disagree but you don't have a right to shut me up because that infringes my basic individual right to free speech. I DO NOT have a right to act on my beliefs and seek to harm you or stop you practicing your religion because that infringes YOUR fundamental individual right to life and freedom of thought/speech. If your religion seeks to enslave me to its ideals against my will then you/it have infringed my fundamental rights. Think about the societies that actually allow that to happen - countries where there is no separation of church and state - Saudi Arabia/Iran/Palestine spring to mind.

If society allows me the privilege of free education then I have a responsibility to society to make the best possible use of that privilege. If I am given free health care I have a responsibility to use just what I need and no more. If I think I have a right to these things those responsibilities disappear.

We allow the Govt the privilege of levying taxation to pay for stuff that society deems to be good public policy...in our best interest if you like. A govts ability to Tax its citizens is NOT a right because a right carries no responsibility and a Govt has an absolute responsibility not to over tax or waste tax. Governments of both persuasions ditched this responsibility at least 30 years ago...and we let them.

Think about the superannuation black hole (the govt has a different name for it that escapes me at the moment) that we have been hearing about for a decade or more. They're not talking about your pension they are referring ONLY to public service defined benefit schemes...a scheme the politicians/public servants believe they have 'a right' to. We have just been told that the amounts self funding retirees can sock away at reduced tax rates for their old age has been cut in half - our fundamental individual right to life has been infringed by our Govt so that they may fund their own/public service retirement schemes that we cannot be part of as they were deemed too expensive 30 years ago. Do you think public servants/politicians need to sock away ANY money each month for their retirement? No they don't...you're FORCED to do so for them. You and I will be means tested and have just been told we will be working two extra years before we get fck all.

Do you wonder any longer why the Govt CANNOT provide a decent pension to mr and mrs average...or below average..who slaved their guts out for 40 years, paying too much tax, and just managed to pay off their home and educate 3 kids before age and/or health caught up to them at 65 and they find themselves retired with 40k in the bank and a likelihood of living another 15 years in relative poverty?

Do we have a greater 'moral responsibility' to them or to non productive people who relied on their 'right' to social security for 40 years?

Where is the outrage?

If we all INSISTED on our basic, inalienable, individual rights and RESPECTED those of others society would be a healthier place.

Coalition closes poll gap - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Turnbull be nuts to go for a double diss . Wait, let this mob compost down a bit.

Chuckles ..... :D

I can't stand it when former PM's think we need to hear their opinions. This is one that crosses political boundaries for me. They've had their time in the sun & we're paying them a huge pension to STF up!:*

(PS. Nice work CC!)

No man is an island, Chuck...

I'm not going into a big reply, except to highlight a point you touched upon; living in a society confers privileges, and requires concessions in return. e.g. taxation, agreeing to abide by laws etc. The disputes arise over the interplay and quantities within those myriad rules, concessions, rights etc. As you point out, people have choice. If you think your rights are being infringed by an increased taxation burden to pay for unemployment benefits to lazy people who will not move to get work, you are free to move somewhere else. Is that irony not lost on you?

Sometimes, paying people more than a subsistence can be in your interest, Chuck, lest a majority of people decide to shift some of the parameters of the society, and you find more than your ability to speak your mind is 'trammeled'. If you get my drift.

Australia has a remarkable ability to oust the government if the pendulum shifts too far one way or the other. I hope that continues.

For those who still believe the coalition are such great economic managers try this article from the noted left wing paper The Australian





Meganomics Blog | The Australian

Howard and Dixon
 

Dixon and Howard have a lot in common.Sense of entitlement.Belief in their divine right to rule.Vertically challenged.Manipulative.In short Machiavellian.
Every morning I get up go the bathroom and send a little Johnny to the coast.Great way to start the day.
Howard is yesterdays toast.Old and cold.He lost the election and his own seat.Only the second Prime Ministerto do so.A fitting end for the little runt.

Chimbu (post 56) and Ferris (post 59), agree with some points both of you have made but I must say I lean 70% towards Chimbu - well said.:ok:

I believe in a strong civil society but we have gone too far along the road of taxing productive workers and business to death and drowning them in red tape whilst the pile of "dead wood" we have to support grows ever larger (I'm talking about you and your Govt. KRudd + most state Govts.).:yuk:

Me too ferris...but what happens to the political process and ultimately civil society when the majority of people are voting to maintain perceived rights that are actually privileges that carry responsibilities? If I am convinced that I have all these spurious 'rights' then I will vote for the person who protects those spurious rights with no sense of responsibility to the society that I expect to provide them. That is the moral hazard I speak of above...and Australia is very far down that hazardous path.

If everything is viewed through a prism of the few basic, inalienable, individual rights it gives great moral clarity. It repairs that sense of absolute moral right and wrong that the Left denies exists and the right claims is only conferred through religious mandate.

When society has a clear understanding of right and wrong it solves a great many of the problems we face today. It puts responsible political power back where it belongs...with the people.

As just one example of a 'problem' that would be fixed by people insisting on their moral, basic, inalienable, individual rights and demanding that those same rights apply self evidently to all people, take 'illegal' immigration/boat people.

If I believe that ALL people have a basic right to Life, freedom of thought/words/movement/actions and Property then I must accept that people born in places that forcefully deny those rights have the RIGHT to leave and go somewhere where they CAN lead their lives using their own best judgement based on rationally looking at the world around them and deciding how they will use those rights to make them 'happy'.

Instead of society spending billions on stopping people, on risking their lives (something no govt or individual has the moral right to do) we instead welcome them and use those billions more productively.

But people will say "look at all the problems uncontrolled immigration causes...look at the gangs in western sydney...they will destroy our standard of living because they work for less $ etc"

No, these problems arise because the left has convinced immigrants (or more accurately their children) that they have rights they do not actually have.

For starters we have no 'right' to a minimum wage so if an immigrant is offered employment by an employer and accepts that employment NO-ONES rights have been infringed...by seeking to forcefully stop them we, as a society, are infringing their rights.

If instead we sat new immigrants (and every Australian born child) down in a room and outlined EXACTLY what rights they have and DO NOT have and the ABSOLUTE requirement to defend and respect those same rights in ALL other people and the results of them NOT so doing, as deemed appropriate by our democratic society, then few problems would exist...and Australia would benefit.

Chimbu,you have to be one of the biggest right wing loony fool I have ever heard of with comments like that. So there should not be a minimum wage huh? I therefore assume you are quite comfortable with immigrants being brought into this country from wherever radical right wingers like you can source them from and undercut Aussie wages until we are either unemployed or join them in the race to the bottom. So long as it's not you or your family ofcourse. I bet you hate the idea of pensions too huh? Hell everyone should provide for themselves shouldn't they? Afterall we are all free to do so. Ofcourse with good fortune and health people like you are right,but this is where your ideology falls down. It has no compassion for the sick, handicapped, retarded,etc. Let them beg huh? Works well in places like India where no doubt you would source your workers.

You need to read and comprehend what I have written again.

Where did I say I don't believe in social security per se?

I think you will find in post 53, from memory, that I rail against the inability of govt to provide a living retirement pension to people who need it because they waste so much of your taxes on people who don't need it. Legitimately unable to work? No problem we as a society will help you in meaningful way...well we would if we were not WASTING resources on the bone idle. I would dearly love to see the old age/disability pension doubled or trippled but because we waste so much of our limited capital resources on spurious rights we are stopped from being as compassionate a society as we could otherwise be.

Should the pension be means tested. Do I think the dole should have an expiry date for the healthy? Absolutely.

But the fundamental, inescapable fact is that the basic definition of a 'right' is that it CANNOT infringe on another right.

Society can aspire to a minimum wage if it so chooses and Australia has done so...Great!!!

But it isn't a right.

My Daughter has in the last two years or so left home and gone off to college, gained qualifications and in the last 11 months entered the work force...initially part time while still at college in the place she now works full time...they were determined to get her full time within weeks of her starting there...she had to keep asserting herself by knocking back extra shifts because they interfered with college..she even asserts her right to time off because she KNOWS that not doing so will mean she can't function to her employers best advantage...they respect her for doing so.

She was told by many of her mates she could not possibly get a job at this place because she had no relevant experience (as a barmaid) so she should get a job at some lowly pub first...she went to the interview and told them what she COULD do, what she had done and the boss just said "when can you start?"

She is possessed of a great work ethic, self discipline in most things (except bloody boys:ugh:) and within mere months of starting work has been picked out of the crowd of work peers for promotion and grooming for management positions. Her pay has gone up. She chooses to remain full time casual because she gets paid for every minute she works and recognises that in return she does not get sick/holiday pay. Her employer values her and has said so...asked her what her aspirations are and is facilitating those aspirations in a reasonable and timely manner...putting extra training resources into her (significant free education - she has received free what many parents pay several $1000 for) while still paying her a wage...she feels a very real sense of responsibility to her employer that she notes is lacking in most of the kids that work in the same establishment who instead display a sense of entitlement to their wage while doing just the minimum amount of work and nothing more. She is happy and feels she has found an employer that allows her to use her best judgement (to even make the odd mistake- rare because she has a good head on her shoulders and asks questions - and never twice) and she wants to stay with that employer and work her way to the top.

She has moved from barmaid to events supervisor in a very large business in 6 months...she is 20. She has proved, and continues to prove, her worth and potential and stated clearly her aspirations and the owner of said business has responded with the statement "Chelsea I need you to help control these other dickheads...this is a multi million dollar business that I cannot put a 20 year old in charge of..but one day you will be in charge of it." and she has examples of other staff who have been there 15-20 years (the business has been there 30+ years and always owned by the same fella) and earn a VERY good wage and have been treated extremely well (maternity leave with their job waiting when they are READY to return- as one example a women had 2 years off ( I assume not all paid) and her job was there when she came back) by the owner of the business...because he recognises good employees and is desperate to keep them out of enlightened self interest.

If the boss was a moron she would exercise her basic rights to go somewhere else and his business would suffer as a result.

But she knows she has no right to any of this...she has to earn it and continue to earn it....she didn't get that way by pure fluke. If giving my child the ability to be happy makes me one of the biggest right wing loony fools I have ever heard then so be it...mea culpa:ok:

And I will give you an example of the sort of thing she DID that got her where she is now. When she was 17 she had basically finished school here in Asia (English system) and didn't want to do yr 12 and 13 as there was no requirement for her chosen profession in hospitality/event management. My position was you're either in school or working...no middle ground. Where can I get a job I am an expat kid? Ask xyz (Australian female GM) at blah blah hotel (6 star) who has talked to you at school. She rang and told this women the situation and was told to expect a call from HR. She went for the 'interview' and had a plan laid out in front of her to work as an intern in each department of the hotel for one month each, starting in events...pay was Sin$200/MTH. She smiled sweatly, returned home and said "Dad they are taking the piss...$200/mth!!!"

What qualifications do you have that would justify a certain wage?

None.

So?

OK.

She went to work and so impressed the event manager that she refused to release her from the department and just a few months later she organised and ran the British High Commission Christmas Party and earned high praise from the high commissioner and many others...and worked 50+ hrs a week for $200/mth. And was happy and learned heaps and looks back on those achievements with justified pride.

Geez, some of the arguments here are akin to Geoff Dixon blaming the 1hr late departure of a flight today on Alan Joyce's decision to scrap the segmentation of engineering.

There was no global economic crisis when Howard was here. There is now. It is very easy to blame the current government for a whole host of things. How can we know for certain that things would be better under a Liberal government?

In my opinon, the Liberals threw the last election because they knew what was around the corner. Easier to govern when times are good than when they are tough.

How did Keating put it? Costello spent 10 years in the hammock. That's not an insult, it's merely the situation he found himself in at the time.

:ok: love it.

Costello did have a pretty cruisy ride.Money flowing from the gst fountain and mining taxes and royalties to burn. He did make super much less complex to his credit, far too generous for the big end of town but what the heck all things must pass. I could have looked like an economic genius under those conditions.
Staying a back-bencher now is to his benefit.His halo still intact.

Fact is I don't think either side really saw what was coming.

For mr howard to claim "work choices" was responsible for the low unemployment is a gross exaggeration.
I do think the libs will look back on his era as a huge missed opportunity to govern for 2 decades minimum. Handover of power and subtle policy changes for a new generation cost them dearly imho.

by the way, "fasces" was a bundle of sticks or rods, largely ceremonial, carried by the lictors before the consuls of the roman senate symbolising their position and power.

The Liberals lost the last election because the left leaning press 'demonised' Howard.

Howard couldn't stand aside for Costello because he knew that Costello didn't have the balls for the job. So did the left leaning press, which is why they so wanted Costello to get the job, that would have given them several miles of copy on the subject of Howard's judgement and Costello's failure.

I think he had demonstrated that with his behavior before and since the election. He is very happy to damage his own party waiting for HIS time to come rather then just get on with it. i.e doesn't have the balls!
IMHO the Libs lost their way when people like Costello, B.Joyce and a few others spent more time backstabbing Howard then coming up with new policy. The media smelt blood (or extra advertising sales) and started and stayed on that angle.
As they say, disunity is death in politics and people like those two and their circles have the blood on their hands.
But as also has been said....it may have been a good election to lose!!

Some of you guys must have missed the basis of Industrial legislation in this Country that was in place for well over 100 years prior to Little johnny and WorkChoices.
Have a read of what Henry Bourne Higgins who was the second President of the Commonwealth Court of Conciliation and Arbitration wrote many moons ago.
He described the unregulated industrial relations environment of the 19th Century as the " rude and barbarous process of strike and lockout" which were replaced by a "new province for law and order", namely the system of compulsory conciliation and arbitration.
One only has to read the "Harvester Case" which was the precident for the basis of fair and reasonable rumuneration " the normal needs of an average employee ,regarded as a human being in a civilised community. In other words the Aussie concept of a fair days pay for a fair days work which led ultimately to the formation of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission.
WorkChoices was the culmination and essence of greed distilled from the
fervent minds of people such as Dixon and "big business" in general. One only has to read anything from the HR Nicholls society to get a glimpse of the Liberal Party and big business mindset under Howard.
Howard and big business wanted WorkChoices for the simple reason of "supply and demand". As the numbers of people in western society ages so to will the number of eligible workers decline. A bit of a conundrum for the hard line capitalists. That was the whole point of WorkChoices ,to nutralise the ability of workers to collectively bargain their position thereby nullifying any negotiating advantage going into the future.
Smacks of a return to the unregulated industrial relations environment of the 19th century that HB Higgins wrote about. That would have been the so called progress we would have gotten under Howard.

What are you on about PAF?
That was the whole point of WorkChoices, to stop workers wages rising when supply of labour drops, duh! That's why big business wanted to nutralise the ability of those workers to collectively bargain.
What do you want? Sweat shops and kids in coal mines?

Pass-a-Frozo - I think that had Costello shown he had the balls for the job JH would have stepped aside, no challenge required. Personally I do like Turnbull and I think that Rudd and his crew come across as cheap plastic imitations who are already showing signs of buckling under union pressure.

What's stopping him now PAF, or any day since the election?....I suggest lack of balls!!!! He had the numbers the day after, but he coudn't man up like everyone expected him too. There wasn't any other captain in the cockpit then, he was number one on the seniority list then.
I think politics (please tell me if you think I'm wrong here:E) is different to applying for a job. If you can't play according to the rules (a point I think you like) then you should leave that job....a point you made. If Costello didn't like the boss he should have gone to the back bench if he didn't have the balls to make the challenge....and by all accounts at the end he might well have had the numbers(just not the ....). As you have said....if you don't like your job and conditions leave!!!!!
Sooooo please explain what point I missed again?

Or he just enjoys creating havoc and damage for his own party!

How great it is to live in a democracy, where we can all rant and rave about our favorite teams be it AFL, NRL, or the game made in heaven Rugby, or our favorite people etc KRudd or the hated Howard, depending on our political leanings, none of you are right and none of you are wrong, time only will tell, and that my friends you should be truly grateful for, as most of you are pilots or cabin crew you know the success of the flight comes under the experience of the Captain, and you can only hope Krudd knows what he is doing, because if he doesn't the future for this great country, well, God help our kids and grandkids, because it is their future they are gambling on, of that there is no doubt.

Frozo,

Your last statement is totally incorrect.

In an economic downturn private sector spending naturally drops, hence why any government steps in to create demand i.e infrastructure projects. To say it is all private sector driven is rubbish.
3/4 of China's growth this year is due to government spending(latest addition of the economist).
If the government were to do nothing then the consequences for job losses/economy would be far worse.The private sector is cutting not spending.

The problem we have is that both Labor supporters or Liberals take respective political sides over reality/facts/figures. Political spin with big scary words such as Debt and Deficit are being flung out with no substance in counter policy.

This global problem needs to be above politics,sadly not a realistic outcome.

The Libs were fortunate that they had the benefit of such large company tax receipts hence a large budget surplus. Some could argue that they should have spent the surplus of a lifetime on badly needed infrastructure.Instead they handed out a fair amount of middle class welfare. Tax cuts and big tax breaks to super in particular.The so called frugal Libs dished it out too.

Labor and indeed any government in the current environment must spend or at least act. This lesson was learnt the hard way in the depression.

I think history will judge Labor's $900 payments very,very poorly.
To imply that a Liberal government would suddenly turn the budget into surplus or to have acted in a far different way though is naive.

Workchoices was a killer for the Liberal party.To try and argue it as the savior of a worldwide recession is rubbish and puts in jeopardy a Liberal return to office.

I was a young liberal in my uni days and I am disappointed that Turnbull did not provide more substance in his budget reply.
Whilst I agree that tobacco tax is a good alternative to slugging the option of private health care, Turnbull failed to give details of an alternate Liberal plan.

By playing the spin game and failing to provide rational alternatives the Libs have let themselves down.

Can't agree on 'lack of balls' as PC's reason for not stepping forward immediately after the Lib defeat. Politics is a dirty business, and the bunny (a word I use after some search for the right descriptor) who leads the Opposition immediately after such a defeat is (mixing my metaphors horribly) a sacrifical lamb. Whatever he does, he's going to be perceived by the voters to be a failure (or at least associated with failure), so no leader with aspirations of a successful punt for the Big Job some time in the future wants to be placed in that position if he can avoid it.

Costello might "be convinced" to step forward in the near future, but I suspect he'll wait until the threat of a double dissolution (hopefully) passes, because I don't think he wants to take Our Kev on in another election just yet. The poster who mentioned above that the Libs wanted to throw the 2007 election because they knew a bad time was approaching isn't the first to say just that. I saw the same opinion in an article in The Australian long before JH called the 2007 election. (However, I think I'd be safe in saying they didn't know just how bad it was going to be!)

However, nothing's a given in politics, and who knows who else might have come to the fore in the meantime? We can only hope there's someone out there among the younger crop of Libs who might come into the light to take the reins.

howard v costello v turnbull
 

If costello had the NUMBERS not just the balls he would have been leader.
Fact is he isnt regarded highly enough (then or now) to get the top job.

There is no doubt he wanted the gig but he just didnt have the numbers or if he did he failed to act.Its a numbers game and he didnt have them, or, could not count when the chance came.
Mouthing off about it did him some harm too.

The last thing the libs needed was another lurch to the right.Costello is one of those most responsible for work choices and prominent in the HR Nicholls society. His political attachment to that fact would have been electorally unpopular.

my prediction is Costello will be leader of the opposition, and will lead Liberal to an election victory in 4 yrs. obviously if we don't have a double dissolution beforehand.
sure, he is a backbencer now, but he keeps his face in the public with little press releases here and there. making sure he is not forgotten.

P.A.F comment on page 1.

P.A.F as we have seen all to well, private industry creates wealth for private individuals, a group that has and continues to get more and more exclusive.

No a government does not create wealth, that is not it's job. It's job is to try to redistribute the wealth that private enterprise creates (for the benefit of few).

In that fundamental aim of governance, Howard failed spectacularly, but that was his intention now wasn't it.:ugh:

That is definitely NOT the role of the government, unless of course you live in one of those splendid communist countries.

In those lovely places, the government claims to be redistributing the wealth however all they really do is line their own pockets to a far greater extent than private industry ever does and stamp on your civil rights.

It is not the role of the government to create either jobs or wealth. They come from private enterprise.

As you point out Mr Wong, private individuals create private wealth. As a private individual, YOU are entitled to engage in your own enterprise and create some of your own private wealth. Don't expect anyone else to risk their own money, create some wealth and then have it distributed to you because you are too lazy or scared to have a go yourself.

tsalta

Well Tsalta, if the role of government is not to create jobs, wealth or redistribute any of the above as you claim, what role does it have?

Do you really need to reference the failed experiment of communism to make your point? How does my claim of governments redistributing wealth through taxation and similar, have anything to do with communism?

I take no pleasure in the fact that people with extreme political leanings always go to the other pole to make their point

Where to begin? I could go on for hours but I should be studying.

Governments DO NOT create. They CONSUME, CONSUME, CONSUME.

Taxes are levied to provide services to the country. Services such as education, defence, health etc. They are not as you suggest, supposed to be mailed out to all and sundry as a fundamental aim of the government.

One of the aims of communism is to have an entirely level country where all the population are equally well off (poor off most likely) which seems to be what you are suggesting. Redistributing wealth to those who do not deserve it.

One of the main problems which has led the country and the world into this financial mess is the populations mindset of the government being there to catch your fall. "The government will look after me". I contend that it is the governments responsibility to let institutions and individuals fail. A real danger of failure would perhaps make people more circumspect in their financial lives.

tsalta

Perhaps you should study your posts or mine a little better, as you make my point for me. And for the record the only one harping on about communism is you.

Your point - Services that governments provide such as education health and defense are paid for how? By the redistribution of wealth. Which was my point. Are you so narrowed by your dogma that you still think I'm talking about communism. Nor am I talking about the welfare state. Take a breath and try to see another point of view.

You said:

.

Are you serious :bored:....No really.:ugh:

And here was I thinking it was greedy banks, sub prime, ridiculous borrowing to acquire for asset stripping purposes and an over leveraged equities and derivatives market. The whole time it was the average Joe who sits in the middle of the bell curves fault. I'll make one claim however. It is average Joe taxpayer who is bailing the big institutions out through his taxation contributions. (I am referring here mainly to the United States)

Ummm governments do let individuals fail financially...all the time. Can you say the same about institutions? Why don't you ask that question in Detroit Michigan, or perhaps in the financial district of New York.

Dude, there is sumtingwong with your head.

Redistributing wealth is not the same as paying for essential services.

Redistributing wealth is taking it from someone who has earned it and giving it to someone who has not.

Taxation to provide services is not the same as redistributing wealth.

Yes I am serious, and yes for a large part it is the lower and middle class who lived beyond their means for so long who have created this mess.

Then voting for a welfare minded government with no economic credibility vastly exacerbated the situation.

tsalta

On the surface you're right but can you name a communist state that does not do the exact opposite and have an elitist level of the population at the expense of the rest?
Err No.... the reason we are in this mess is because of a simple human attribute called greed....and it is not greed at the bottom of society that caused it.....it was the greed at the top.

You don't have to look much further than the board rooms of some very large concerns to see who has done it and is still doing it.

I'm certainly no Nazi but if you want an example of a government that was
as far removed from communism as possible then Adolf's was it.After the great depression Hitler went on a spree of public works such autobahns, railways,public areas such as lakes and housing.He basically revived the German economy and reduced unemployment in Germany from six million to zero in just six years.After that he sort of went of the rails but it shows what a government can do and it explains the reason why he was so popular (at the start at any rate).

With all the surpluses that the Howard government received they could have made a huge difference with public works and infrastructure...but no they gave a lot of it away with tax cuts and changes to the super laws............and who did that benefit?

Of course the anti Rudd people here are not happy with the $900 cheque they received but how many gave it back?

Also there is the small matter of honest John giving handouts when his brothers factory went belly up.....but thats different isn't it?

Now for those anti labor people here who are telling us that a government cannot create wealth are just carrying on with the usual Liberal party drivel.Nick Minchin has said on many occasions that the government has no right to interfere with private business but that did not stop Howard doing exactly that by giving business Work Choices.

This argument will not stop because it all depends on what side of the fence you vote for.If you were a Howard supporter then you will not rest until labor is out of office and it does not matter how good a job Rudd does.

I had said the same thing a couple of posts back.

Look where it got Germany. So far they are in the hurt locker for two world wars and a world cup. A real winning strategy there!

It was greed at the top that spawned obscene remuneration at the top. It was greed in the middle that provided them with the opportunity to do so.

tsalta

It isn't because you say it isn't. Not that you'll answer the question but how else do governments redistribute wealth. Essential services are for the use of all, not just those who can afford it. That is redistributing wealth.

Ahh so sub-prime was caused by bogans paying for plasma's with their credit cards. How did these people live beyond their means? It had nothing to do with corporate greed and unscrupulous lending practices.

As you've resorted to puerile personal attacks, and have addressed none of my questions, I think I'll leave it there. I really do hope you never fall on hard financial times, because surely with your views, you could never take a cent of support from the government, or even a concession ticket to ride the bus...you didn't earn it remember

They try and do it by handing out $900 cheques and over taxing higher earners to give benefits to those who should get off their posteriors and improve themselves.

Yes, but more so buying houses on their credit cards.

Isn't it obvious? They were buying houses on their credit cards.

Oh, my poor bleeding heart. Some nasty banker took advantage of me. It's not my fault I haven't invested in my financial education and can't tell the difference between an asset and a liability. Best we break out the violins.

I'm all for supporting those who CAN'T support themselves. I have a big issue supporting those who WON'T support themselves. If you, me or anyone else falls into the CAN'T box, then a civilised society should support them. If you, me or anyone else falls into the WON'T box, don't expect any sympathy or support.

tsalta

You were going pretty well there, tsalta, until you tried to blame sub prime on the lower echelons. That is patently ridiculous, and indicates a dogmatic level of belief that clouds your judgement.

Perhaps we drop the idea that everybody can improve their situation by education or some other method of "self improvement"? If every single man, woman and child went out and earned a PhD, we would still need shelf-packers, barmen, and people to ask if you would like fries with that. It's a painful lesson in life; some people never get paid what they are worth, yet others can never be worth what they are paid.

If every single man and woman spent less than they earned then, yes, every man and woman could improve their situation and we would not have the financial mess we have now. That takes financial education, self improvement. Not necessarily a PhD.

Sure, I'm being harsh just blaming the lower echelons. Yes, the government has to share some blame for insufficient regulation, yes the corporates have to share some blame for predatory tactics but at the end of the day each individual is responsible for their own actions. Not the government, not the teachers, not the media, not the institutions, but the individual.

Responsibility.

For decades, governments of both sides have been trying to absolve the individual of individual responsibility; And they have both been wrong.

tsalta

Wow! some people here have realy demonstrated what nasty people they are, and what total disregard they have for other people. Chimbu, you are obviously proud of your daughter (and so you should be), and I am proud of my kids (daughter, a teacher and son, a LAME) and they didnt get ther on the back of anybody. But I also know a guy (and his family) who cleans aeroplanes for a living and is on the bottom of the earnings tree. He is, however one of the best people I have had the pleasure to meet. He is not a "bludger" and has "got off his arse" and is working to his capability. Do I think he could use some of your tax money for a leg up, dam right I do! Some here would have it that because he does not fly a block of flats with a computer and get hundreds of thousands of dollars for doing it, then thats too bad. I would sooner see this guy get some help by the system than see some of the people on this forum get any more than they have now, even if they think they deserve it. Damm! there are some nasty people here. I wont be back BOBL