Shadow,
Two points:
First, in the course of becoming financially independent, I had a few decades of paying an awful lot of taxes, and also, along the way, I spent two decades in the military.
Morover, on a good part of my current income, I still pay income tax.
So, I think I'm as entitled as anyone else here to express my opinion, thank you very much.
Second point is, that in your usual rant about ths government, and its deficits, you - somewhat carelessly, in my view - forget the GFC.
that we have come out of it with one of he lowest levels of unemployment in the world is due in part to the sensible action by Labor to stimulate the economy while incurring a managable debt level, through prudent deficits.
Result is that today Australia enjoys one of the lowest unemployment levels and almost the lowest public debt level in the developed world.
Not a bad result, I'd say.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Don't forget the mining boom with tax revenues in 2011 4x higher than in 2007, and labor still had a deficit.

The stimulus package run by the government was at best mediocre. Too much was spent over too long leading to a deficit that was far higher than necessary.

The protection of jobs in the construction industry was so over done that wages spiked from labour shortage. Then instead of selecting infrastructure projects that were ready to go and sponsoring those, Labor went and built thousands of vastly over priced small buildings that were far from optimum, and don't forget the pink batts stuff up.

If the goal was simply to throw money at the problem, then labor succeeded admirably. If the object was meeting the objectives for lowest cost, then Swan's spending was an exercise in incompetence. Note that during the later part of this GFC, the tax take was higher than in 2007.

Anthonyve - A reply such as what you wrote was not really answering the questions that is why I wrote this
It is easy to call a question stupid, that the answer too may involve highlighting a hypocrisy on the part of the person being asked.
In fact it is a valid question that tries to ascertain whether you would put your money where your mouth is or are just blowing hot air.
By your failure to answer you have lost any credibility and your "cares about social justice" statement appears to only backed up in rhetoric rather than in substance.
You say you answered the questions, NO you avoided answering the questions with some lame rhetoric. To me this and you next reply backs up my assumption that "all talk no action"

Phillip S,
I have already said, in an earlier post that you evidentally didn't read properly that I have not had any refugees staying at my place.
Naturally, I might add. WHo does?
I have also said in an earlier post that how and which charities I support is none of your or anyone else's business.
Enough already, so let me ask you a question.
You accuse me of being all talk and no action, when you wouldn't know what I do.
So, let me ask you, what do you do that gives you the right to challenge me on my actions, inwhat is a forum about ideas.
My guess is, you're full of it.
But, I am only guessing so I'll give you the chance to respond.
Anthony
http://www.observationpoint.com.au

Anthy old boy, I don't think anyone gives a damn what you do. What you do is so unimportant as to be ignored.

However it is what you advocate Thar is objectionable. You want to force every one to have their money spent on your objectives.

Now we know you are a fool, your posts tell us this everyday. We also know that what you advocate for Oz is very much to the disadvantage of us, our kids & their kids.

The fact that you demand that our money is spent in this way gives others the right to question you how much you do in support of these people.

It always sounds to fit with Maggies suggestion, that socialists are very generous with other peoples money. Bleeding hearts can be included in there as well.

As soon as I can get your hand out of my pocked, I promise to ignore you completely.

Anthonyve - I am going reply to your post using quotes from YOU to questions asked of you, if it makes no sense that is because you made no sense to others in your reply. In essence you avoided answering
I will apply this method to your current and future posts
From you quote
1 "the language is rather inflammatory and - I would argue - disproportionate."
2 "Setting aside for the moment that this is a stupid question as it has no relevance to the matter at hand, as in one cannot generalise from the specific, I took none."
3 "not to put too fine a point on it - none of your, or anyone else's, business." IN THIS case your business.
4 "And if that question, which seems to be so important to you, is the best way you can think of to move your argument forward, then I think you've already lost."