The Forum > General Discussion > A Conversation About this Election
A Conversation About this Election
- Pages:
-
- 1
- 2
- 3
- ...
- 33
- 34
- 35
- Page 36
- 37
- 38
- 39
- ...
- 56
- 57
- 58
-
- All
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 13 May 2019 8:45:58 PM
| |
(cont'd)
I also have to justify myself to my twenty-something children who have swallowed the rhetoric hook-line and sinker, believing all I have achieved, to raise them and pay for my retirement, is through screwing my fellow man and affecting their ability to afford a home. Bill Shorten did that, while telling them I'm dumb, and worse, for questioning the cost of his climate policy. They say my generation raised the cost of university places from being free under Whitlam, but don't understand that to qualify for a free place entry requirements were much tighter because they were quite limited then. Children are pitted against parents, yet my generation was not afforded the cost of child-care to work to provide them comforts beyond the love and direct care we provided. Nobody deserves anything they haven't the capacity to afford, including living where they would like. Where your parents built a home became more desirable as urban sprawl grew, hence more valuable. Shorten is telling our children they deserve more while fanning jealousy towards those who've worked and planned under fair rules he manufactures as foul. Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 13 May 2019 8:46:21 PM
| |
I said, "Nobody deserves anything they haven't the capacity to afford..." sounded unintentionally Darwinian. I refer to aspirations beyond basic food, shelter, clothing, education and healthcare.
Posted by Luciferase, Monday, 13 May 2019 9:13:53 PM
| |
The problem is emissions and what to do about them.
Luciferace, It's so ironic that those who are vehemently bleating green power are the biggest users of coal & petroleum ! Posted by individual, Monday, 13 May 2019 11:45:20 PM
| |
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election-2019/minor-parties-flourish-across-the-spectrum-as-new-voting-system-faces-first-test-20190513-p51mpu.html
A link worth reading, it is about the impact of small party,s in the senate Right now going to say, whoever is elected, may, almost surely, consider setting up for a Double Dissolution election, even in the first year of the new parliament It confronts me, that a elected government must kowtow to minorities Even have the very mandate that won them power stalled Do not agree? ask yourself it it is YOUR SIDE being stalled would your answer change Posted by Belly, Tuesday, 14 May 2019 5:40:44 AM
| |
Dear Belly,
ĞDo not agree? ask yourself it it is YOUR SIDE being stalled would your answer changeğ I don't have a "side". I have my views, I think for myself. Your ancestors have entrenched an unfair electoral system whereby only one of some historical two "sides" can win, rule over and control the innocent population of the country. The existence of the senate mitigates this to a certain degree. Therefore I will always preference all the small parties and independents first and your two "sides" last. It seems to be your view that unless I belong to or identify with one of two historical camps, I should have no say regarding those forces that attempt to control my life, telling me what I must and must-not do. Whatever your views, just please do not call this "democracy" as this is an assault on intelligence and common sense. Posted by Yuyutsu, Tuesday, 14 May 2019 10:17:26 AM
|
The problem is emissions and what to do about them. What qualifies as a solution is one that is proven, not one based on supposition, hope and fantasy. Anyway, we've been there, done that.
Your theory on class-warfare is charming. CGT was introduced by Labor and that was not considered class warfare because income from employment was equally taxed and the cost-base of assets was indexed. Indexation was later supplanted by a concession in lieu, meaning people can make a loss in real terms yet pay CGT, and that was not considered class-warfare. By reducing this concession socialists now want more from those people who risk capital. In the same way, unless we learn something new on this before the election, socialists want to remove NG and for investors to wear income losses while their profits are taxed in the year they are made. Throw in prejudice applied to who can receive imputed credits and we have a trifecta of issues all sold to the public by Shorten as tax-loopholes and government gifts enjoyed by the 'big end of town'. He tells us these greedy folks, who turn out to be mostly ordinary folks, are stopping cancer treatments, better child-care, university opportunities, etc. I don't recall any time in the last forty years where such bald rhetoric has been the norm, such that I feel like a pariah as a working man?
(cont'd)