The truth rhymes heheohigeddit.
it rhymes.
The truth rhymes heheohigeddit.
it rhymes.
Read my posts. I DO vote Greens. But there's no way I'm letting my vote go to Labour if it leaks. I'll risk it with Abbott (remember he's still beholden to his party, which ditched the idea of compulsory censorship in favour of opt-in censorship not long before Rudd won election). At least the Greens will be there to say "fuck off" to any dumbshit ideas, having full Senate control next election. But so far Abbott hasn't introduced an Internet censorship scheme like China's. Rudd has.Dude. TONY ABBOTT. He is going to be much more 'family friendly' than Rudd. If you don't want censorship, vote for the greens (but these guys tend to support labor more than the libs anyway). But I'm quite sure abbott would do the same if not more in regard to censorship. He's much more conservative than rudd, rudd only introduced the policy to get votes, but abbott actually believes in this shit
waf said:RE: Rudd v Abbott: Abbott is well and truly the lesser of two evils. He thinks aloud and says silly things, but I see this as very genuine and a nice change from Rudd's ability to talk for hours and say nothing. Rudd's also more insidious, insofar as he is actively attempting to legislate morality, while Abbott will say things but have no real intention of following through on them.
1) The budget was in "surplus" in that the Government was earning more money than they expected, not more money than they needed. We were still in debt (and have been for a long long time).Who cares how many tax breaks were given? Just as long as the budget was still in surplus, there was no harm in this. In fact, many would argue that there is great benefit in the longer-term from lower taxes.
You're also forgetting that whilst income tax fell during the Howard era, consumption tax rose (GST), so some of these tax decreases are offset. Not to mention the fact that earnings from compnay tax skyrocketed during the period, so it makes good sense to give the extra cash back to individuals.
This may have something to do with the fact that both those men wanted to abolish government and let the free market rule... because OBVIOUSLY, from recent events, we can see that the Free market is a fair and just system that takes care of the things that need to be taken care of in a society...sad thing is. the Keynesian ideology that Rudd has used is the only thing taught in year 11 economics. not even a mention of Murray Rothbard or Milton freedmen
And to this I say....I'd prefer full privatisation of the health care system but we don't always get what we want...........................
but to answer your question yes i would prefer a leader to take months in careful planning and analysis but unless abbot thinks of something Rudd is going to take full advantage
Explain this 'needed' revenue to me, if you mean anything other than revenue required to pay for expenditure1) The budget was in "surplus" in that the Government was earning more money than they expected, not more money than they needed.
Governments are always in debt m8We were still in debt (and have been for a long long time).
Too right, he can go to hell before Australia's internet is censored!OK, next issue fuckface: Rudd wants to emulate China and censor the internet.
They slowly reduced their planned expenditure, giving less money to projects that should be happening.Explain this 'needed' revenue to me, if you mean anything other than revenue required to pay for expenditure
Governments are always in debt m8
yoand Governments shouldn't need to be it debt if they balance their budgets properly and pay it off
No offence but you need to understand the scale of the debts most all if not all governments have, saying balance the budget properly and pay it off is just stupid, you expect the fairies to come and whisk the debt away.They slowly reduced their planned expenditure, giving less money to projects that should be happening.
Lemme see...
the revenue to pay teachers and public nurses more than shit-all... (and they wonder why we have a mass shortage of Nurses and Maths and Science teachers)
The revenue to fix the shit roads and shit public transport (or lack thereof across a large amount of the country)
and a miriad of other problems that while keeping taxes and throwing money at the problem wouldn't help, reducing taxes was more of a hindrance...
and Governments shouldn't need to be it debt if they balance their budgets properly and pay it off
Sixty-one dude. Close, though.No offence but you need to understand the scale of the debts most all if not all governments have, saying balance the budget properly and pay it off is just stupid, you expect the fairies to come and whisk the debt away.
If the government balances out so it pays off the debt you can say goodbye to transport systems and welfare projects, the reason they cant pay off the debt is because the amount of tax raising or loss of welfare and stuff for the tax payers would be so bad that the government woul end up being sacked asap.
We pay for hundreds of people to work out what to do with all, people with decades of experience and multiple uni degrees, these people dont always get it right but they get pretty close. Think about this amazing country that you live in and stop complaining.
As for the internet well I'd like to see Rudd try, China has the power to enforce theres through over a hundred years of communist terror, the few brave enough that try to come against the government are quickly and quiety taken care of. In australia we can and will say whatever we like and we'd crush any numbskull stupid enough to try and put that through.
I will agree though that lessening of tax is just stupid, it gives them less money and people will eventually forget it was lowered and raise a stink once they decide to raise it back up
What are you even talking about?and Governments shouldn't need to be it debt if they balance their budgets properly and pay it off
That's half the problem. The list of censored sites is private, not for public release.I've seen a lot of posts about Rudd censoring the net, but has he proposed what he wants/was/is going to censor?
With regards to what?And moll, what would you have done if you were in Rudd's position? I'm curious to know.
What you would have done to, more or less, save Australia from recession during the GFC? I'm not asking this in a 10 year old tone of "THEN U DO BETTA" either. Just saw the degree you are doing in your sig and figured you'd have a more enlightened view than I do.With regards to what?
I wouldn't have tightened workplace regulation at a time when unemployment was set to rise substantially. There, already one better.What you would have done to, more or less, save Australia from recession during the GFC? I'm not asking this in a 10 year old tone of "THEN U DO BETTA" either. Just saw the degree you are doing in your sig and figured you'd have a more enlightened view than I do.
Actually the Howard government paid of all public debt.1) The budget was in "surplus" in that the Government was earning more money than they expected, not more money than they needed. We were still in debt (and have been for a long long time).
Wrong. Howard didn't pay off ALL public debt. He payed off the excessive debt that years of deficit spending resulted in. Paying off all public debt isn't proper financial economics - government securities are an integral component of financial portfolios in modern business.Actually the Howard government paid of all public debt.