+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 63 FirstFirst ... 78910111959 ... LastLast
Results 81 to 90 of 628
  1. #81
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    I just did a simple google search and literally cut and pasted the first half a dozen articles. I could of linked a heap more but it's just the same info, different page.

    http://thenewdaily.com.au/money/2016...economy-class/

    https://www.crikey.com.au/2015/02/03...is-much-worse/

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-1...itance/6162670

    http://theconversation.com/election-...vernment-60701

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-0...eficit/5423392

  2. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,089
    Thanks
    1,285
    Thanked
    1,181
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts

    Default Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    Yep I sure am. I'm not sure why you are being so angry with anyone expressing different views than your own. But I can assure you what I said is factually correct. We had a perfect credit rating under Labor. I would spend the time hunting down the articles but I doubt it will matter so I won't bother
    I'm not angry at all! Sorry if I come across that way. I'm quite passionate when it comes to politics, not just Australian but all over the world.

    What you said is factually incorrect I'm sorry to say. You can't rely on biased media articles. You need to look at factual information for example, economics journals, RBA data etc. Or if you have time, you can actually look at the federal budget papers, they clearly show that the Howard Government inherited a bad fiscal deficit from Labor in 1996 and managed to bring the budget to surplus after barely 1 year in government. Then came the Rudd Government in 2007 and by the end of their first term, brought the budget to an overwhelming deficit. In fact, in 2010 the Rudd government produced the worst Budget deficit this country has seen in over 40 years.

    The Labor party doesn't know how to manage the economy. They overspend: that's their platform and they aren't ashamed of it. That's what they rely on to win votes - increase taxes on "big business" and the "wealthy" and spend more money. That isn't going to help our economy thrive, increase jobs or be more innovative and competitive.

    ETA: another interesting source of info is treasury papers published and available online. For example, the treasury working paper on the effect of company tax cuts. In summary, a cut in company tax will increase real wages, stimulate consumption and production and ultimately increase GDP.
    Last edited by witherwings; 01-07-2016 at 10:49.

  3. #83
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,202
    Thanked
    16,895
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    The figures aren't bias they are legitimate sources like the OECD. The massive blow out in the deficit under Abbott and Hockey isn't bias, it's fact. Just bc a website has left leanings like the ABC doesn't mean the facts they cite are untrue.

    I also don't agree with the idea that 'labor spend, liberal saves'. It's just that they spend on different things. labor tends to spend on low income and the libs spend on upper middle and high income. For example the package during the worldwide recession under labor was huge, granted. It also saved our economy and I remember that the Lib's package was 90% of the amount Labor's was (I remember that figure that isn't plucked out of nowhere) but their answer to the economic crisis was tax cuts for middle and high income.

    The libs like to spend too. That isn't bias, it's fact. They just choose a different target group to spend on than labor and greens.

  4. The Following User Says Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    Mama Mirabelle  (02-07-2016)

  5. #84
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,710
    Thanks
    1,392
    Thanked
    7,295
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts

    Default Election 2016

    The deficit has doubled under the coalition and they paired up with the greens to raise the debt ceiling.

    During every year under labor and gfc, Australia was one of the few countries that recorded economic growth each quarter during that time.

    John Howard had the luxury of the mining boom yet still only managed to have a $20 billion surplus even after privatising Australian assets.

    http://percapita.org.au/media/labors...make-it-count/

  6. #85
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,710
    Thanks
    1,392
    Thanked
    7,295
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    Plus, the Australian dollar was above parity under labor and the conservatives were complaining about cost of exports because of the high dollar.

  7. #86
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    my house
    Posts
    17,710
    Thanks
    1,392
    Thanked
    7,295
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 posts
    The company tax cuts is a joke.

    This government is giving $48 billion tax cut to big companies, spending $50 billion on submarines but can't find $4 billion to commit to the last 2 years of gonski. If they want the future to be innovative and stop relying on the government then gonski should be their priority but deep down we all know this government could not give a ship about the most disadvantaged and vulnerable in our country.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to BigRedV For This Useful Post:

    hopefulmum2  (01-07-2016),LaDiDah  (01-07-2016),Mama Mirabelle  (02-07-2016),smallpotatoes  (01-07-2016)

  9. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,089
    Thanks
    1,285
    Thanked
    1,181
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by rainbow road View Post
    You're fooling yourself if you think there won't be. It may be subtle, but it will be there. Not necessarily by major parties but by anyone who has an agenda and a printer and can staple some bigoted poster on a telegraph pole. Of course it doesn't seem like a big deal to people who aren't directly affected by it, however it doesn't mean it isn't.

    Howard changed the wording of the marriage act to specify that marriage was between a man and woman to the exclusion of all others so I'm not sure why you think there's nothing in the constitution that says that?

    All they need to do is take out that clause. Not something they need to spend $160 million on.

    Furthermore, I don't vote for either of the major parties because I don't trust that either of them will do anything about it. I genuinely do not believe the ministers will vote the way the plebiscite says (unless it's not in favour of!) even if it's 95% in favour of marriage equality.
    The constitution and the Marriage Act are not the same thing. A referendum can only change the constitution. The Marriage Act can be changed by a bill in parliament, so why didn't the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government change it when they had the chance? They had the balance of power in the senate. They could have gotten it through.

    And I know you didn't specifically refer to me when you said it isn't a big deal to people who aren't directly affected, but your implication is extremely unfair. I personally do care about various issues that do not directly affect me. I don't need to be gay to care about gay rights, just as I don't need to be a refugee to care about the welfare of people in detention, and I don't need to be disabled to care about people with Disability. Its narrow minded to think that unless you are part of the group being discriminated against, that it's just not a big deal. The fact that the majority of Australians, who are overwhelmingly heterosexual are in favour of marriage equality proves this point.

  10. #88
    rainbow road's Avatar
    rainbow road is offline look at the stars, look how they shine for you
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    in a glass case of emotion
    Posts
    12,408
    Thanks
    1,187
    Thanked
    8,056
    Reviews
    3
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts

    Default Election 2016

    Quote Originally Posted by witherwings View Post
    The constitution and the Marriage Act are not the same thing. A referendum can only change the constitution. The Marriage Act can be changed by a bill in parliament, so why didn't the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government change it when they had the chance? They had the balance of power in the senate. They could have gotten it through.

    And I know you didn't specifically refer to me when you said it isn't a big deal to people who aren't directly affected, but your implication is extremely unfair. I personally do care about various issues that do not directly affect me. I don't need to be gay to care about gay rights, just as I don't need to be a refugee to care about the welfare of people in detention, and I don't need to be disabled to care about people with Disability. Its narrow minded to think that unless you are part of the group being discriminated against, that it's just not a big deal. The fact that the majority of Australians, who are overwhelmingly heterosexual are in favour of marriage equality proves this point.
    I'm not saying that people who aren't implicated don't care, but they're not the ones explaining to their kids why the ACL has left a leaflet in their mailbox saying children need a mother AND a father.

    I have friends with school aged kids whose kids have peers waffling off their parents bigoted rhetoric and then come home crying because of it.

    Hell, my uncle is a LNP politician firmly against marriage equality whose two teenage kids follow in his belief.

    Reports into the financial impact of the plebiscite do account for a potential $20 million in costs relating to the mental health of the community.

    I'm lucky. My kids don't understand it. But there are many more who do, and will!

    In all seriousness, if it is inappropriate to have a public vote on interracial marriage (for example), the same should apply here. It's cheaper, faster and a thousand times more dignified for someone - anyone - to grow a pair and do the right thing and pass it without a fuss in parliament.

    As I said, I'm not professing labor to be the saviours of marriage equality in this country by any means. They could've and should've changed it when they could.

    But I don't believe for a minute the LNP will be doing it either.

    Which is one of the many reasons I won't be voting for either of them.

    ETA: it's also just plain insulting that the public gets to vote on something which DOES NOT AFFECT THEM. What else should they be able to vote on? The colour I paint my house? The linen I buy for my bed? It does not concern anyone except for the gay and lesbian couples who wish to marry.
    Last edited by rainbow road; 01-07-2016 at 11:50.

  11. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to rainbow road For This Useful Post:

    Green Cheese  (01-07-2016),LaDiDah  (01-07-2016),RobinSparkles  (01-07-2016),VicPark  (01-07-2016)

  12. #89
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    2,973
    Thanks
    3,596
    Thanked
    892
    Reviews
    15
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by witherwings View Post
    The constitution and the Marriage Act are not the same thing. A referendum can only change the constitution. The Marriage Act can be changed by a bill in parliament, so why didn't the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government change it when they had the chance? They had the balance of power in the senate. They could have gotten it through. nst, that it's just not a big deal. The fact that the majority of Australians, who are overwhelmingly heterosexual are in favour of marriage equality proves this point.
    Well, the balance was held by Fielding and Xenophon in their first term. The second they would have had to negotiate in the HoR as it was a minority Government to get it passed. I don't think it was as easy as you suggest it was, particularly since it's a conscious vote within the Labor party. I also think it's unfair to say that because a party didn't pass legislation in the past, doesn't mean it ever will. Party platforms are always changing. Can I then say that because the Coalition hasn't recognised same-sex marriage, they they never will?

    I believe Shorten when he says he will introduce a Bill in his first 100 days. He can't guarantee it will pass because from memory Labor still have marriage equality as a conscious vote until 2019 when it becomes binding but I'll need to check that.

  13. #90
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    2,089
    Thanks
    1,285
    Thanked
    1,181
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by BigRedV View Post
    The deficit has doubled under the coalition and they paired up with the greens to raise the debt ceiling.

    During every year under labor and gfc, Australia was one of the few countries that recorded economic growth each quarter during that time.

    John Howard had the luxury of the mining boom yet still only managed to have a $20 billion surplus even after privatising Australian assets.

    http://percapita.org.au/media/labors...make-it-count/
    Are you talking about the fiscal deficit or the current account deficit? They are very different things and have very different implications. If you're referring to the fiscal (budget) deficit, how has it doubled under the liberal government?

    Labor's first term in government took net government income to deficit after 11 years of being at surplus or very close to it. I get that spending was necessary during the GFC, and our mining industry and heavily regulated banking sector contributed to keeping us out of recession.

    The LNP only came into power in late 2013. Not even 3 full years and only 2 budgets that they passed and implemented, which by the way, were seriously stifled by a hostile senate.

    The last budget passed by labor (Wayne swan) was in May 2013, and the audited financial statements proceeding that budget show a huge deficit, only slightly lower than the 2013 financials. From 2014 to 2015, the actual deficit (as per audited financial statements published by treasury) has pretty much halved.

    It looks like the trend is for a reduction in the deficit, not an increase.

    Not sure where you are getting your info from but I am looking at the audited treasury financial statements which are free from bias.


 

Similar Threads

  1. 2016 Election thread
    By atomicmama in forum General Election Discussion
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 17-05-2016, 10:44
  2. May 2016 TTC 💕
    By Catrb092 in forum Conception & Fertility General Chat
    Replies: 409
    Last Post: 14-05-2016, 07:31
  3. IVF/FET Jan Feb 2016 #2
    By Kookii in forum IVF
    Replies: 545
    Last Post: 27-04-2016, 10:24

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Babybee Prams
Save $50 in our pre-Christmas sale! All Comet's now only $500. Our bassinet & stroller set includes free shipping AUS wide, $75 free accessories, 18-months warranty & a 9 month free return policy. Check out our new designer range today!
sales & new stuffsee all
True Fairies
True Fairies is the first interactive website where children can engage and speak with a real fairy through the unique webcam fairy portal. Each session is tailored to the child, and is filled with enchantment and magic.
Visit website to find out more!
featured supporter
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!