Jayb,

"poirot: What I don't do on this forum, runner, is to consistently paste fellow posters with whom I disagree as haters and immoral people simply because they disagree with me."

Some evidence please...that I have ever accused someone of "immorality" or being a "hater" just because we hold different philosophies?

Links please?

Foxy, the American Political system is a strange bird, it actually has two right feet. Yes, it's torn between a religious "Right" which can get rather secular when it needs be, and a secular "Right" which can get rather religious when it needs be.
As the American Bible clearly states on its dollar bill "In God We Trust" there was no room for "Everyone Else Can Go To Hell".

<<any expenditure committed (perhaps by a former government) into the future is a constant, and probably growing, flow of cost to any government, and has to be at least matched as much as possible by a similar flow of revenue. Costs out, revenue in.>>

Loudmouth is that the reasoning behind the Abbott government ripping $80 billion from the previous governments commitment to health, education etc.

Planning ahead... Is the Abbott government planning to be there in 2050? I thought with a bit of luck they would be gone by Christmas! This Christmas not the next, We can only hope.

poirot: Some evidence please...that I have ever accused someone of "immorality" or being a "hater" just because we hold different philosophies?

Links please?

Dear poirot. I was thinking of myself in particular. Just about every discussion (dozens) we've ever had at some time, especially on the value of Islam in Australia. xxx

Hi Paul,

If you have another look at your last posting, you may notice that you have not actually said anything - nothing substantial, only a few cheap (if quite accurate) shots, insults, (I don't know how to classify 'two right feet') and unsubstantiated assertions. You may be right in everything you wrote, but there's no way of knowing with such fairy-floss.

Is there any chance of anybody getting back to topic ?

Joe

Joe, not everything need be analytically serious. When it comes to dance n' some are known to have two left feet. LOL.

You did say <<<<any expenditure committed (perhaps by a former government) into the future is a constant, and probably growing, flow of cost to any government, and has to be at least matched as much as possible by a similar flow of revenue. Costs out, revenue in.>>

The undertaking pre-election by Abbott not to cut Labor's (monetary) commitment to future expenditure on health and education, would seem to support your above statement, but come budget night the new government ripped $80 billion off that Labor commitment, thus giving a 'lie' to what you said. you must be disappointed with Abbott on that score of not sticking to the principle you stated. There was no new overriding reasoning given to justify the cuts.

Yes,

You are as slippery as the labor goddess of deceit Juliar.

And it was Labor's co payment that was more expensive in real terms.

If you had bothered to read any of the articles with respect to the co payment, you would realise that its prime function was to give people a price signal that medical visits had some value.

If you had done any economics ever you might understand.

No word on the similarity of policy agenda between the communists and Labor.