To SteeleRedux

One last side note, based on part of your comment.

//The fact that there is little room in your ideology for something like Medicare, or the NDIS, or a decent public education system shows how bereft of care it really is. You claim the by making individual freedom sacrosanct you are showing care for others, but it doesn't really pass the muster does it?//

This part of you comment adds one more element to the discussion. It was already addressed by ttbn that the kindness of the left is not really kind at all. I'd wager to add to that that a large part of left philosophy is anger fueled. Stand up to evil kind of anger I suppose is the intent, but anger none the less. It shows itself in unrestrained outbursts that if we're lucky only remains verbal instead of vindictive, violent, or vandalized in nature.

The anger in your comment addresses me as if I am a monster that is against taking care of seniors in our populations. I assure you that this is not the case. In your anger don't let yourself tell stories that aren't true. Least you believe them. I assure you the anger is likely there because of my critism to the left (which holds merit). But it is not there because if anything I've said against taking care of those who rely on Medicare due to their disadvantages.

Dear NNS,

Me? Anger? Really? Mate go and read your supposedly 'even handed' original post.

The left are the ones apparently being lead “by lies and misdirection” and have no care “for ruining what is working”. While the right just need to find a little more individual compassion and all will be rosy.

Look I get that you are pissed off with the SSM vote and the so called 'homosexual lobby'. That anger is obviously spilling into the way you framed your post which is fine. But to then go and lecture someone else about their supposed anger is a little rich.

To your supposed support for Medicare. Give me a break. You do not support the concept of universal healthcare at all. You don't support the vision of it nor do you support its current form. You see it as a 'charity' to be doled out to those who you deem deserve it and the rest can go fend for themselves.

It is obvious from your language. For instance;

“The anger in your comment addresses me as if I am a monster that is against taking care of seniors in our populations.”

And;

“But it is not there because if anything I've said against taking care of those who rely on Medicare due to their disadvantages.”

Both describe not the visionary universal health scheme in this country but rather the insipid and bleak rightwing version of it employed in the US.

“As of 2013, Medicaid is a program intended for those with low income, but a low income is not the only requirement to enroll in the program. Eligibility is categorical—that is, to enroll one must be a member of a category defined by statute; some of these categories include low-income children below a certain wage, pregnant women, parents of Medicaid-eligible children who meet certain income requirements, low-income disabled people who receive Supplemental Security Income (SSI) and/or Social Security Disability (SSD), and low-income seniors 65 and older.”

But perhaps you are an American, if so that would make your position a little more legitimate.

Hey SteeleRedux,
Well I for one definitely mean what I say.
Outright Capitalism is flawed.
Outright Socialism is flawed.
End of story.

Only a combination of the two can allow people to live a life of their own choice, whilst providing a guaranteed standard of healthcare and education for every citizen.

Once people accept this, and toss 'Outright Capitalism' and 'Outright Socialism' on the scrapheap of history where they both belong, only then can we sit down and really fine-tune a fair and efficient system that does work for all the people living under it.

I will go nuts, if they try to mess with medicare.

- It's a red line -

I'm all for promoting Capitalism and Nationalism, but my 'ideal system' needs these socialist base-level systems in place.

- And I want to refine it and improve on it -

I'm even upset government sold off and privatised some things, like transport, because in my proposed system anyone who logged onto myGov for a work shift in the proposed base-level socialist employment system would be entitled to freely travel anywhere on public transport to go to those work shifts.

But now after privatisation, the government would have to pay private companies in order for citizens to get that same benefit.

When the government claims 'we create X amount jobs' they're full of it.
In my system I actually would create half a million jobs with the stoke of a pen and it wouldn't cost any more than what's wasted now, (with the right planning, policies and projects)

To SteeleRedux.

The right only needs "a little" more individual compassion? Apparently I didn't make myself clear. In order for the politics of the right to be balanced they need a lot of compassion to compensate. There is no "little bit" to this. I don't see this as a foreseeable future in the cooperate business culture that is part of most western societies. Especially if you add into it the stock market. Even if a businessman has the drive to take a portion of their profits and donate it to the community for any program that they see worth while, they would be stopped by stockholders who usually only want money spent in a way to greater increase the profit of that business. Without considering the stock market influence, I would wager that a generous CEO is a rare thing. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Regardless, the amount of generosity to compensate lowering taxes would have to be a lot of generosity and compassion on all levels of society. After all, the tax that is removed will stop a government sponsored program and the community would have to pick up the slack themselves or find an alternative for those that depended on that government program. This is no small matter. The reason for public education and Medicare being tax sponsored is because otherwise it wouldn't be funded at all. Those making the laws know this and made the laws and taxes for both.

(Continued)

(Continued)

As for the left. I stand by my words. Regarding lies an manipulation, I would doubt any politician to be honest nowadays until they prove otherwise by their actions. However the political narrative from the left politicians is completely manipulative and dishonest to a degree that it should be addressed. To get into office they say they will fight for X,Y, and Z, up to 15 to 20 different causes and groups of people they say they are for that are mostly forgotten once they are voted into office. They know they can't help everyone, but they make the empty promises anyways. It's not just the politicians though. It's a culture in the left to play on people's emotions over and over and over again. Manipulative to support a cause, and an active part in their activists. Worse part. Too much money and support they get goes towards paying the activists and the overhead for advertisement instead of the causes that got them support.

Regarding the left's tendency to ruin what's working, I've already explained my stance on that. Even gave an example purely in the left fields of politics where they aren't striving to make the government work well as a whole, but instead splinters off. If you want more examples I can give at least a few more. But the left doesn't even try to integrate with the people, policies, or culture that is part of the country for years. So yes, ruin what's already working is a fair criticism.

As for Medicare, and several other programs supported by taxes, I am glad that they are there. Most of them are probably needed. If you don't believe me that's fine. Believe what you want about me. That's not a point I see worth focusing on.

As I see it, mainstream Australian politics is made up of moderate thinking people who totally hold sway in the decision making process. Australian politics is not a game with rivalry between extreme forces, who hold diametrically opposing political philosophies. Its more a case of like minded political moderates, some progressive, others conservative, who argue about emphasis and priorities rather than any concepts of radical change. All major parties hold with maintaining the status quo, none offer any form of radicalism what so ever.

I don't believe in the left/right nonsense, an invention of the French. The moderates are like the Sun, with all the extremists being the size of Pluto and orbiting at a similar distance, unlike the Sun, Pluto is having no effect on the operation of the Solar System, nor are the extremists in Australian politics having any effect, and that's not going to change anytime soon, unless there is a catastrophic upheaval within society that gives the extreme the impudence to push for radical change.