Ok Gertrude, I will sum up the position as I see it thus far.
You are free to show where I am wrong, for I can always
be wrong.

We have 150'000 cattle dying and starving in Queensland,
you think the situation is terrible, but there is not
much that you can do about it, you don't have the money.

We know of no attempt by Gertrude to pack her little
kit bag and head north, to try and help with the rescue
and feeding operation of these poor creatures.

Besides, that would mean leaving your little comfort
zone of the Gold Coast and really get her hands dirty,
helping those animals.

So your time seemingly is better spent arguing on OLO
that rehctub should be PM.

What have I missed?

Are we going to overlook that America is spending 7% of its gross national income on a bail out?
While we spend 2%.
As the economy gets back on its feet, no matter how bad it gets it will get back on its feet.
The tax base with increase, we however, like the rest of the world will have a bill to pay.
Some of this bail out will return to the government via tax's
Tell me rechtub, what would be the result of Australia not following the western world? not having a bail out?
Yes wages did just 12 months ago rise with supply and demand.
Rechtub are you prepared to debate why?
Can you understand the death of training under the man PALE thinks you should replace, John Howard, saw firms fight to pay high wages.
To poach other firms workers with head hunting wage offers.
You do, surely understand under workchoices no boss entered an agreement he/she did not want too?
The power lay with bosses not unions, some of our biggest came to the table with greenfield agreements already written, wages bonuses the lot, before consulting unions.
Rechtub those agreements have not expired would you have workers give them up?
The contracts begun are not finished, would you have the boss cut his profits reduce the costs ? fat chance.
I too want answers but can you tell me what would be the result of no bail out?
Another poster says we are wasting cash on schools and hospitals! do you agree with that Mr Prime Minister in waiting?

Nicky “Col, if I offended you, I apologise, it was not my intention.”

No offence taken Nicky…. I never have a problem addressing questions directed at my motives…. It helps me qualify them for my own purposes anyway :- )

The last line of my last post was directed exclusively he who would describe the Falklands war as the “pursuit of National Pride” (words to that effect) or consider the manifest evil of Stalin an appropriate comparison to any democratically elected leader (regardless of politics) and to use his post to try to take a side swipe at me.

I recognize your and my politics are in opposition that is fine. The laws which defend your right to hold your own view are the laws rules which defend my right to hold my own view… and I respect and defend those laws above all things, because those were the things which despots, the likes of Stalin, remove first.

“Would we be better making it some sort of industry "bail-out", since the jobs picture seems to be getting gloomier by the day?”

My view is the notion that government can “pick winners” is long past being proved a fallacy.
Who pays for bail-outs?
Tax payers

If the government withdrew from propping up the ordained “winners” and left the money with tax payers, the taxpayers will do a far better job of deciding which businesses are worth saving and which are past their use-by date.

One of both Margaret Thatcher’s and Ronald Reagan’s respective initiatives was to stop propping up the hulks and leave the process to “the Market”… and before anyone complains “the market got us to where we are today” (in a financial crisis)

WRONG inappropriate government meddling, attempts to distort the processes of “the Market” and unapplied / misapplied regulations and regulators (SEC in USA) is what got us to where we are today.

continued

I note the US Republicans and the Australian Liberals have lodged their opposition to much of the “Bail-out” measures partly because they feel “the Market” is a better “picker of winners” than government has ever been.

I note whilst the frauds of Enron and WorldComm cost billions, they did not bring the house down and the Sarbanes-Oxley Act was instigated and signed off by George W Bush to rectify many of the issues which Enron particularly highlighted.

I note the legislation which followed the great Depression has not been repealed but laws like Jimmy Carters “Community Reinvestment Act” and the “Jingle-Mail” laws which allow people to walk away from their responsibilities without right of the lender to recovery (extreme “Caveat Emptor” with the Bank being the “buyers of debt”) attempted to make an end-run around those laws and the present “Financial Crisis” can be linked directly to those types of laws, which placed undue and unfair burdens of acceptance upon bankers to lend to everyone, regardless of the bankers suspicions.

Government Makes laws. Successive Governments have failed by making bad laws.

I blame the left of politics for meddling too much and making too many bad laws

I blame the right of politics for not having a more determined approach to getting bad laws revised or repealed.

This GFC problem was initiated by lending to bad risks.

LEave bankers to assess risks, restore their confidence in the quality of their debt and the rest takes care of itself

bail-out packages misdirected to alleviate the results of loss-of-confidence do not solve the problem, they mask it and entrench it deeper.

Rehctub, I agree that in "boom" times, such as the recent history of mining, wages possibly did go through the roof - but that had nothing to do with unions or awards.

Yes, very good point. But why now then are the unions getting involved in an attempt to protect these inflated wages etc?

Even TAFE courses are expensive
Tafes are a waste of time in many cases. The teacher are out dated tradespeople and often one who failed in main stream.

All students should be sent to banks, law firms, accounting firms and trade industries for their training and their wages should be heavily subsidised. At least then the training would be up to date.

We waste millions on tafe colleges and then fight for gov funding only to see the college fail in years to come leaving yet another white elephant.

are surpluses not created as "buffers" for hard times
Unfortunately we don't have a telstra left to sell. After all, that was what was required last time the coalision took office. By the way I was oppossed to that sale and still am!

continued

continued
Belly you wrote like the rest of the world will have a bill to pay.
We have approx 20 million people. Approx 7 million work. 3 million don't pay posative tax, so it's up to the 4 million left to pay this back. Is that fair?

not having a bail out?
I'm not oppossed to a bail out, i'm oppossed to a HAND OUT!

Yes wages did just 12 months ago rise with supply and demand.
So why can't they fall again as demand dropps off?

Can you understand the death of training under the man PALE thinks you should replace, John Howard,

If you're refferring to me, I have two apprentices, just gone 2nd year and are almost butchers. Now if that's not great raining, what is?

Rechtub those agreements have not expired would you have workers give them up?
Most certainly, if that is the law then yes they should be withdrawn.

I too want answers but can you tell me what would be the result of no bail out?
Spend it wisely,create jobs, don't hand it out to the ones who wasted the first lot.

Another poster says we are wasting cash on schools and hospitals!
Thanks for the praise. No I don't agree. But do you really think we can continue to provide free everything. Remember, us bill payers are a dwindling mob. We pay more into medicare than the others yet we have to pay to see a doctor. Do you think that is fair?

I am out of time but would love to debate this issue further.
Cheers