Government Stimulus package.

[Play Centre]

And a troll, with a history of harassing Livers, Phantom and rosy, and who registers in a thousand different names, strikes again. How about you try having some genuine discussion rather than being a sh!tstirrer with your attention seeking agenda?

In the interests of accuracy, I have not had a thousand different names, I have had genuine discussion and I am not seeking attention.

As for harrassment, well that's a matter of opinion. Indeed, earlier in this thread, Rosy agreed with my assessment of Liverpool as a 'hyprocrite' in regards my assessment of him as someone who was endlessly criticising the stimulus package, yet was prepared to accept it.

Furthermore, I have contributed to recent Phantom discussions civilly and I have not harrassed (Rosy's word) Rosy at all lately.

So, i apologise to Liverpool for making his life a misery. Sorry Livers, you deserve better.

 

[RemoteTiger]

So, i apologise to Liverpool for making his life a misery. Sorry Livers, you deserve better.

And he does - I have always admired a person who stands by their beliefs and who does not waver when opposed to popular opinion.

 

[Play Centre]

And he does - I have always admired a person who stands by their beliefs and who does not waver when opposed to popular opinion.

No, really, I am sorry i hurt his feelings. I thought it was just friendly banter, but I admit I have taken it too far. :-\

 

[1eyedtiger]

The laughs keep on coming:

Rich taxpayers receiving multiple stimulus bonus payments
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25558462-661,00.html

I don't know why you would have issue with this. You've spent many a long hour on another thread arguing that the rich should be able to get whatever they can get their greedy little hands on to, as long as it was legal. You've clearly stated that your position is that morals and ethics aren't a consideration.

The article you've linked to clearly states that these people has received the stimulus payment legally.

So what's your problem?

 

[RemoteTiger]

I don't know why you would have issue with this. You've spent many a long hour on another thread arguing that the rich should be able to get whatever they can get their greedy little hands on to, as long as it was legal. You've clearly stated that your position is that morals and ethics aren't a consideration.

The article you've linked to clearly states that these people has received the stimulus payment legally.

So what's your problem?

Got to admit that was a great passing shot straight down the line - its love 40 on your serve Livers..........

 

[Liverpool]

I don't know why you would have issue with this. You've spent many a long hour on another thread arguing that the rich should be able to get whatever they can get their greedy little hands on to, as long as it was legal.

That is correct.
And why are they greedy for accepting something they are legally entitled to?

So what's your problem?

My problem isn't that people are legally taking the money.
I have no problem with that whatsoever.

The problem I have and what I am laughing about is that here we have groups with a much lower income (you know, the "working families" scenario) not able to access this stimulus package yet others with a higher income can access it multiple times.....which shows you how ad-hoc and rushed this "stimulus package" idea was to begin with.
Add the dead-people who received it as well as ex-pats/backpackers who will spend Australian money overseas, and it shows you what a joke of a system it is.

Got to admit that was a great passing shot straight down the line - its love 40 on your serve Livers..........

Pfffft... :cutelaugh

Straight down the line?

Couldn't even get it over the net!

 

[Play Centre]

Anyways, i received my 900 dollars late last week and have wisely invested it getting my car serviced and repaired. I have been putting this off for awhile and I was glad to get the cash so that I could afford it. Used a local small business which employs men and women from my community.

 

[Liverpool]

Anyways, i received my 900 dollars late last week and have wisely invested it getting my car serviced and repaired. I have been putting this off for awhile and I was glad to get the cash so that I could afford it. Used a local small business which employs men and women from my community.

Good for you.
Mine is still under the mattress.

 

[Play Centre]

With yr old copies of Playboy?

 

[1eyedtiger]

That is correct.
And why are they greedy for accepting something they are legally entitled to?

What is your definition of greedy Livers?

My problem isn't that people are legally taking the money.
I have no problem with that whatsoever.

The problem I have and what I am laughing about is that here we have groups with a much lower income (you know, the "working families" scenario) not able to access this stimulus package yet others with a higher income can access it multiple times.....which shows you how ad-hoc and rushed this "stimulus package" idea was to begin with.

Maybe you're right but at the end of the day, those who were not able to access the stimulus package were not legally entitled to. Why should lower income families get the payment if they're not legally eligible? According to you, those on lower incomes are their on their own accord and need a swift kick up the butt, not handouts. Why do you stand up for them now?

You defend "working families" now, but not when Bonds sacks 1800 workers just so a few wealthy board members can get a bonus when they already have more than enough.

Add the dead-people who received it as well as ex-pats/backpackers who will spend Australian money overseas, and it shows you what a joke of a system it is.

I agree with your point regarding ex-pats and backpackers but not the deceased. My view point has already been posted on that.

I don't understand what all the fuss is about regarding stimulus payments to the deceased. The money is not going to be buried with them, is it? These people had worked and paid taxes throughout their lives and I don't see why their next of kin shouldn't benefit from these payments.

 

[Liverpool]

What is your definition of greedy Livers?

I'm not the one who called them 'greedy' so maybe you should explain that one.

Maybe you're right but at the end of the day, those who were not able to access the stimulus package were not legally entitled to. Why should lower income families get the payment if they're not legally eligible? According to you, those on lower incomes are their on their own accord and need a swift kick up the butt, not handouts. Why do you stand up for them now?

I'm not standing up for anyone....I'm saying what a mockery it is that the Chairman goes on about "working families" and slugging the rich with extra tax hikes, yet because something like the stimulus is rushed through then it contradicts what this Government is on about....a bit hypocritical don't you think?

 

[1eyedtiger]

I'm not the one who called them 'greedy' so maybe you should explain that one.

I would define greed as continually wanting more simply for the sake of it without real need. In an ideal world with infinite resources, I wouldn't care but this isn't an ideal world and resources are finite. So those who are greedy and taking more and more for themselves are doing so at the expense of everyone else. Eventually, there comes a point where this difference between the rich and poor becomes unacceptable, especially when you consider that there would be enough for everyone if only some would take a little less. But while a lot of people struggle to keep a roof over their heads and their families fed, others sack workers so they can keep their bonuses and buy a new boat, car, plane, take a nice holiday, whatever.

Seems unjust to me.

I'm not standing up for anyone....I'm saying what a mockery it is that the Chairman goes on about "working families" and slugging the rich with extra tax hikes, yet because something like the stimulus is rushed through then it contradicts what this Government is on about....a bit hypocritical don't you think?

I agree with that.

 

[Scoop]

No recession? Hmmm.

"Now presenting for the Liberal Party why this is not tue... Liverpool"

 

[Liverpool]

No recession? Hmmm.

"Now presenting for the Liberal Party why this is not tue... Liverpool"

Thats easy...the lefty ABC sum it up here:

Chris Caton, one of the wise old men of economics here, says: "The so-called "technical" definition of a recession - two successive quarters of declining GDP - is nonsense; we know we're in a recession because of what has already happened to unemployment!"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/03/2588151.htm?section=australia

And on the stimulus package:

Stimulus boost? Unsustainable and unlikely
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/02/2586915.htm


Hmmm...I'm starting to like this ABC mob... :hihi

 

[IanG]

And on the stimulus package:

Stimulus boost? Unsustainable and unlikely
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/06/02/2586915.htm

Of course its unsustainable, it wasn't meant to be sustainable. It was meant to smooth the downward trend in the short term and todays figures show its done exactly that. The measures in the budget are the longer lasting measures.

 

[Play Centre]

Thats easy...the lefty ABC sum it up here:

Hi Livers, given that only two members of the ABC board have been appointed since the the last Federal Election, how do you account for the ABC being 'lefty'?

The rest look pretty conservative to me. Might be more accurate to call them 'rightys.'

http://www.abc.net.au/corp/board/board_members.htm

 

[Disco08]

LOL @ Windschuttle being a lefty.

 

[Play Centre]

I hate to apportion blame to past governments, cos that's oh so easy, but it really does seem like it's Howard's fault.

 

[Liverpool]

Of course its unsustainable, it wasn't meant to be sustainable. It was meant to smooth the downward trend in the short term and todays figures show its done exactly that. The measures in the budget are the longer lasting measures.

I know what the longer lasting measures are: 20+ years of deficit.

Surplus blown on this "stimulus package"

Hi Livers, given that only two members of the ABC board have been appointed since the the last Federal Election, how do you account for the ABC being 'lefty'?
The rest look pretty conservative to me. Might be more accurate to call them 'rightys.'
http://www.abc.net.au/corp/board/board_members.htm

Look PlayCentre....the ABC has been a renowned bastion of the left-wing for a while now.
You only need to watch Kerry O'Brien in action when interviewing, lets say Howard, and then a Rudd to see that.

There was also a ruling by the media watchdog a couple of years ago when Four Corners gave a left-wing biased account about the Tasmanian forest industry.

Even in 2006, their new boss said this:

New ABC boss vows no more bias
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,20594326-601,00.html

So...granted....(and going by my last 2 links)...maybe they are now trying to be more impartial with their views....and about time to.
I welcome it.

 

[AngryAnt]

And this is why big infrastructure projects cannot solve the problem in the short term - they require a long lead time and so have a long delay before they have real economic effects.

To their credit the Rudd government did immediately fast track as many "shovel ready" projects as possible, in addition to the short term stimulus packages (once-offs) and long term big infrastructure. Ross Gittins describes the trade off here.

http://business.smh.com.au/business/stimulus-strategy-sorted-down-to-a-t-20090529-bq7g.html