The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > After the Budget - debating our future > Comments

After the Budget - debating our future : Comments

By Tristan Ewins, published 2/6/2009

Labor stimulus spending is spot on. By investing in infrastructure now, we support jobs through the recession.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
meh .. ALP advertisement, infomercial, whatever you want to call it.

Why is the ALP so worried that it has to put up attempted propaganda and attacks on the coalition?

What are they hiding?
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 8:40:04 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
rpg

The ALP is probably hiding much the same as the Liberals were when in power and indulging in "attempted propaganda and attacks on the coalition".

Both parties have forgotten that their role is to govern FOR Australia.
Posted by Fractelle, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 8:44:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks Fractelle, I know the defense mechanism of the ALP is to immediately attack the coalition, thus avoiding scrutiny and justifying their deceit.

This is media management at its best no doubt about it, instead of doing anything of substance, the immediate response is to draw attention to the Coalition, mention that the Liberals in government never did this or that, and by the way it was raining gold bars the whole time. If necessary point out what the Liberals/coalition didn't do while in government, depending on the reaction required from the media i.e. no infrastructure was built at all during their watch, here's one example - the Darwin to Alice Springs railway.

Do they mention the states have some infrastructure responsibility, well no because it's not convenient, that excuse is for different circumstances, and wouldn't have the desired effect of attacking the federal opposition.

Our problem is that the system doesn't product governments that understand that they are there for basic services which are not optional but mandatory, water, roads, hospitals and education.The media report constantly what the governments want them to report not what is actually going on, both party structures are guilty of it but the ALP have developed it into a polished art form. Mind you, eventually people will wake up and not believe anything they say regardless of it being true or not, such will be the reaction to the constant deceit and assumption the community are stupid.

We get puff pieces like this with zero substance as a mark of "doing something", what utter rubbish. The stupid ALP mantra of "doing something is better than doing nothing" has no validity when the doing something is just hot air and propaganda.
Posted by rpg, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 9:33:37 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pls note the following criticisms of Labor:

"Labor’s stimulus does not - in fact - go far enough"

"the figure of $22 billion (on “nation-building” projects) doesn’t only refer to new spending,"

"interest on the debt would be only 0.6 per cent of GDP”."it raises the question of why Labor is not providing bolder and more assertive leadership."

"these measures are not sufficient to eliminate or even meaningfully mitigate poverty among some of the most vulnerable Australians."

"Labor could make a greater investment in renewable energy."

There is more - but I think this should suffice to make my point.

While - as a social democrat/liberal socialist - there are more points of difference against the conservatives - I do not shy away from criticising Labor.

To conclude: this is an honest paper, which is openly critical of Labor on the points that the author disagrees with. I urge people to read the entire article through - and to see this for themselves.
Posted by Tristan Ewins, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 9:46:35 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh here we go: advice on how to run capitalism – from Marxists, those economic wunderkinder!

Tristan’s prescriptions might make sense if government got its funding from a moonbeam.

But only if we assume that there is an abundance of capital that can be (forcibly) taken at no cost to anyone or the environment, can the whole ignorant mindset make sense.

1.
On the one hand their greatest desideratum is full employment on a high wage. On the other hand they have nothing to offer but to persecute and penalise as a class the people whose risk and work provides the employment.

On the one hand, they make it illegal to employ people below an arbitrary made-up rate above the market rate, and put all the costs of their other pet projects onto employers. Then they blame the resulting unemployment on the capitalists.

Tristan, if an employer provides someone a job, the wage is responsible for the resulting rise in the employee’s living standards. But if an employer does not provide someone a job, the employer is no more responsible for his unemployment than you or me. Why don’t you employ someone at a loss, Tristan? Hypocrite.

Tristan, when an employer employs someone, he converts all the costs - wages, taxes, super, workers comp, OHS, industrial relations, maternity leave, and so on – into a grand total. If, after all that, the employee can bring in a market rate of profit, he employs him.

Thus all the on-costs that the socialists and interventionists impose are coming out of wages, not profit. Wages are that much lower as a result. Thanks, genius.

2.
We can create as many green jobs as we like if we don’t care how much resources we waste. Think of all the jobs for rickshaw drivers we could create by abolishing internal combustion engines.

That is the level of the socialists’ abysmal ignorance.

Not satisfied with murdering over 200 million people in the last 100 years, the socialists unashamedly identify themselves as such, still peddling exactly the same mixture of ignorance, fake moral superiority and planned chaos.
Posted by Wing Ah Ling, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:08:16 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The author is an apologist for the labor party. All of this post is cut and paste from the official party line.

What is missing from the propoganda is:

80% of the spending is in labor consitituencies

virtually none is for major infrastructure that will promote future growth. (school buildings etc)

The stimulous package is too much, on the wrong things and is essentially a huge pay back to mates, that we will have to pay for for decades.
Posted by Shadow Minister, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 10:39:17 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I wouldn't mind if the money was being spent building infrastructure but its being frittered away on consultants and planners who will analyse the problem to paralysis before awarding the contracts to their well connected squillionaire maaates.

Less talk more action!
Posted by billie, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 11:26:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The stimulous package has beeen great for middle class families and the poor and well recieved.The idea to keep Australia at work, while most of the world is not, can be argued and debated. How we got in this mess (GREED) can not be argued any more.Australia can not afford to be greedy with a surpluss of cash. The GST hit the middle class/POOR the most and should be spent back on the poor at this time of need.
Posted by Fat Pig, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 12:28:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan, trying to pass this off as "attacking" the ALP is laughable.

You start out doing the usual ALP savaging of the Opposition leader, standard ALP handbook stuff, he's "irresponsible", of course he is, he's in opposition and doing his job, but now that's irresponsible!

Then we get a listing of all the government initiatives, some of which are just renamed existing programs, but the reason for the tally is so you can "disagree", ROFL.

Debt is just dismissed, "Any debt incurred can be serviced later..", easy as that isn't it, and serviced later, by someone who has a clue most likely.

The media managers at ALP HQ must love stuff like this, criticism so tender and gentle.

Is the reason for the article in fact to reinforce that, "Labor could go further - and should go further - but there is a clear distinction now between Rudd Labor and the conservatives."
Posted by odo, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 12:29:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Despite all the protests to the contrary, both sides of politics are offering pretty much the same thing.

The argument is only over the detail and the notion that one side "could do it cheaper" is much like the "interest rates will always be lower..." mantra. It's trying to suggest a distinct alternative when there isn't one.

In fact, Malcolm agreed with all of the inital proposals but later changed his mind when he embarked on his current political strategy.

I also can't see where the "80% of spending is in Labour constituencies" comes from when a Liberal State was granted more infrastructure funds than the biggest Labour State, just for starters.

The motive is to get more money circulating through the economy, not some elborate master plan that's going to solve this problem overnight.
Posted by rache, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 9:58:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan's arguments are logical, albeit the hard core conservatives who read these pages refuse to even consider alternate viewpoints. Yet let's tell it like it is - Ben Benankie and a number of other overseas monetary gurus have declared that stimulus packages like those from the Rudd government are what good economics and foreward planning are all about to manage risk and reduce debts as far as possible. The problem with Malcolm Turnbull is that he is so incredibly wealthy, and yet still demands to get living away from home allowance (even though he stays in his wife's apartment in Canberra)that he simply does not get it. Worse, he is so blatantly negative that he is directly leading the push towards fear, panic, a 'run' on some banks, ... and so on. Yet any good economist will tell you that confidence in the market is critical. The ridiculous thing is that where Malcolm Turnbull should be leading or atleast backing Mr Rudd up to be a leader, such as on world emission targets, Mr Turnbull prefers to be a follower everywhere, that is everywhere except on being the creator of doom because he has nothing positive nor original to offer.
Posted by Ange, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 11:37:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Tristan

Much much more could have been done. I suspect Rudd and Labor went easy in this Budget with an eye to a November 2009 election. This is because unemployment will skyrocket in the next year, with over one million unemployed, making winning an election in November 2010 more difficult.

Like you I doubt the Coalition would have done much different either, except perhaps continue further work choices 'reforms' (i.e. screw wage down more) and ignore climate change completely.

As you point out, the unemployed are treated badly. This is deliberate - to force people to scrounge a living on low pay and put downward pressure on wages.

Prospective youth allowance uni students got a raw deal. Defence won 3 percent increase in real terms till eternity. Why not divert some of that extra defence spending to social spending?

The ridiculous 'efficiency' dividend continues, wreaking long term havoc on public services.

ETS is a joke - billions to polluters, nothing to households who reduce their greenhouse gas emissions. The market won't save us.

The private health insurance changes are small beer. Why not move to a fully public health system? Taxing the rich could pay for that.

In fact there are over $80 billion worth of disguised tax handouts to the rich (mainly) the Government could use to fund a much bigger social services budget.

Labor's guess that the economy will recover is precisely that, a guess, based on figures from previous recessions. Why not use 1929 as the benchmark?

The stimulus package made some small difference. It doesn't address low profit rates and so if they are the root cause of the rpoblem won't resolve the Great Recession (as I point out ad nauseum on my blog.

Like you I am a democrat. The market is anti-democratic. A democratic and planned society where production occurs to satisfy human need is what we need, I believe.
Posted by Passy, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 7:33:56 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Some interesting observations -

http://business.smh.com.au/business/debt-and-politicians-sleight-of-hand-20090602-bub3.html

It's really a matter of perspective.
Posted by wobbles, Wednesday, 3 June 2009 1:15:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The proof is in the pudding. We are not yet in a recession. The economy is still in the black. Businesses have not given up despite the continuing gloom from that mega millionaire Malcolm the love himself Turnbull. I wonder how many mirrors he has in his bedroom alone? That spoilt toff smirks every time he sees a camera while others work hard at what they do. Maybe that is another reason why the Libs will not see him as Opposition Leader come the election. But his constant negativities are dangerous for the confidence of the nation, of business and can lead to dangerous waters. Shamefully, he would be well aware of this fact but he and his ilk only care about themselves winning power and not in what is best for Australia
Posted by Ange, Thursday, 4 June 2009 8:17:45 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy