Government Stimulus package.

[Liverpool]

So, Howard was Mein Fuhrer then?

And Disco questioned how I could guess who you voted for last election.... :cutelaugh

 

[Play Centre]

And Disco questioned how I could guess who you voted for last election.... :cutelaugh

I really don't see the relevance of the question, Liverpool. You're off the mark anyways.

I am sorry I called you a hypocrite. It was a bit harsh. Maybe you're just a bit haphazard in your thinking.

You seem to be unable to give simple answers. You love a diversion or a distraction. And there's obviously lots of in jokes and agendas I am not aware of.

I just think it was silly of you to criticise the package, then accept it. That makes you part of the problem.

Berry St might be a good way out for you though. I posted the link earlier.

 

[evo]

Quite a number of economists agreed with the idea. eg.
http://business.theage.com.au/business/surprise-jobs-boost-20090507-avyz.html

I'm aware of that mate. I can have a contrary opinion to some economists though, surely.

I must admit I expected the article you linked to be that lemming Ross Gittens though.

The idea wasn't to do it in a sustainable sense, the idea was to provide an immediate stimulus to the economy to smooth out the downhill slide. The budget has provided more sustainable ideas.

If instead of this recent 'stimulus' the government said :

"I want everyone to open a credit card in their childs name and then go and charge $900 on it at your favourite store; they can foot the bill(Don't worry Ken Henry reckons there is a boom just around the corner). It's for the good of the country !!!!!"

Would you go and do it? I sure as *smile* wouldn't.

The only difference is the interest rates.

 

[Disco08]

And Disco questioned how I could guess who you voted for last election.... :cutelaugh

This post would make sense if you'd read the Mein Fuhrer comment before calling PC a fool.

 

[AngryAnt]

Berry St might be a good way out for you though. I posted the link earlier.

Livers always says charity starts at home but unfortunately you'll find he is referring to other people's wallets, not his own.

 

[Liverpool]

This post would make sense if you'd read the Mein Fuhrer comment before calling PC a fool.

I was on the money again Disco......I didn't have to wait for his "mein fuhrer" comment to make this correct judgement.
Plain as day mate! :whistle

Livers always says charity starts at home but unfortunately you'll find he is referring to other people's wallets, not his own.

C'mon Antman....you haven't got time for these one line personal digs now....work longer, work harder.

....until you're 67 at least (or dead), whatever comes first.

All hail Chairman Rudd!

 

[Disco08]

I was on the money again Disco......I didn't have to wait for his "mein fuhrer" comment to make this correct judgement.
Plain as day mate! :whistle

You're off the mark anyways.

Fact is you called PC a fool based on who you though he voted for when all you had to go on was the fact that he asked whether those opposed to the bonus would be handing it back.

 

[Liverpool]

Fact is you called PC a fool based on who you though he voted for when all you had to go on was the fact that he asked whether those opposed to the bonus would be handing it back.

Who cares what I based it on or what I had to go on.....the question is, was I wrong???

Play Centre still hasn't said who he voted for...so...

 

[Disco08]

Can you read the post of PC's I quoted?

FWIW, I care what you based it on. Calling someone a fool with no justification is obnoxious to say the least.

 

[Liverpool]

Can you read the post of PC's I quoted?
FWIW, I care what you based it on. Calling someone a fool with no justification is obnoxious to say the least.

I was called a hypocrite and I'm not whining about it.
And to be fair, i didn't see Play Centre complain about me saying that people who voted for the Chairman were fools.
So why don't you mind your own business?

Secondly......if Play Centre didn't vote for the ALP, then he isn't a fool and therefore he has nothing to worry about....and neither should you (unless youa re feeling a little guilty about voting for the Chairman? or? :hihi )

 

[Disco08]

Telling people to mind their own business on a public forum. LOL. If you can't justify your actions and are going to get annoyed if they're questioned perhaps you should think before you post for a change.

Although I'm not one of them, every single person that voted for Kev is a fool Livers?

 

[AngryAnt]

C'mon Antman....you haven't got time for these one line personal digs now....work longer, work harder.

....until you're 67 at least (or dead), whatever comes first.

All hail Chairman Rudd!

I'll step out of my one liner mode that gets such good results for a while to give you a history lesson and a lesson in strategic policy thinking.

65 as the retirement age was set in Australia around 1910 I believe. In fact the average life expectancy for men was around 63 then so you could say you retired two years after you were dead. Of course, higher infant mortality brought the average down quite a bit. But people then did work harder, die younger and retire much later in relative terms.

Nowdays average life expectancy is around 83 for males in Australia. We also have an aging demographic, so it makes sense that people who are in general healthier and live longer should work a bit longer. It also makes sense to have long lead times on these sorts of changes. Other OECD countries are taking a similar approach.

Thank goodness the Chairman is prepared to plan even beyond the term of his government or prime ministership!

All hail Chairman Rudd!!!!

 

[Liverpool]

Although I'm not one of them, every single person that voted for Kev is a fool Livers?

Naive....didn't think....and obviously didn't listen to Liverpool! :hihi

I'll step out of my one liner mode that gets such good results for a while to give you a history lesson and a lesson in strategic policy thinking.
65 as the retirement age was set in Australia around 1910 I believe. In fact the average life expectancy for men was around 63 then so you could say you retired two years after you were dead. Of course, higher infant mortality brought the average down quite a bit. But people then did work harder, die younger and retire much later in relative terms.
Nowdays average life expectancy is around 83 for males in Australia. We also have an aging demographic, so it makes sense that people who are in general healthier and live longer should work a bit longer. It also makes sense to have long lead times on these sorts of changes. Other OECD countries are taking a similar approach.
Thank goodness the Chairman is prepared to plan even beyond the term of his government or prime ministership!
All hail Chairman Rudd!!!!

Well, seeing as you have your 'strategic policy hat" on:

Yeah...sure...those statistics about life expectancy may point towards upping the retirement age....but in your statistics book, what does it say about people gaining employment as they get older? and that we are going to be expecting more people to live on unemployment benefits when they get to 65, which is about half of what the old-age pension is....meaning we are going to have even more Australians, and older ones at that, expecting to survive on very little.

Its very difficult, especially in times of high unemployment (like we have now and for the next few years even) that people over 50 years of age can gain new employment if their current job is terminated......so what are the chances do you think of someone who is 65 years of age gaining new employment? or are they then expected to live on the dole?

The Chairman has a plan?
Ha! Tell him he's dreamin'! :spin

 

[Play Centre]

Liverpool, it makes no difference who people vote for, they don't need to be a political scientist to continue your weak joke comparing Rudd to Mao by comparing Howard to Hitler. It's a nonsense isn't it, but it doesn't indicate who anyone voted for, Liverpool.

 

[AngryAnt]

Naive....didn't think....and obviously didn't listen to Liverpool! :hihi

Well, seeing as you have your 'strategic policy hat" on:

Yeah...sure...those statistics about life expectancy may point towards upping the retirement age....but in your statistics book, what does it say about people gaining employment as they get older? and that we are going to be expecting more people to live on unemployment benefits when they get to 65, which is about half of what the old-age pension is....meaning we are going to have even more Australians, and older ones at that, expecting to survive on very little.

Its very difficult, especially in times of high unemployment (like we have now and for the next few years even) that people over 50 years of age can gain new employment if their current job is terminated......so what are the chances do you think of someone who is 65 years of age gaining new employment? or are they then expected to live on the dole?

Ah yes - the classic Liverpuddlian technique - lose one argument so pretend it was all about something else. Feel free to explain why adding two years to the retirement age in 2017 will make the problems faced by older Australians seeking work much, much worse. Someone here has a plan but it ain't you Livers.

 

[evo]

Yeah. Raising the age of the pension is probably well overdue.

Has anyone seen Steven Fielding's work of late? I'm a big fan of the westminster system but it must be seen as a negative that this buffoon can wield so much power.

 

[RemoteTiger]

Has anyone seen Steven Fielding's work of late? I'm a big fan of the westminster system but it must be seen as a negative that this buffoon can wield so much power.

Wish we followed what our forefathers wanted from "our" Westminster system. They wanted the upper house (The Senate) to be an even representation of all the states within the Commonwealth of Australia. Somewhere along our political history The Senate became aligned with political parties and forgot about its orginal job of looking after its home states.

And that is when the wheels fell off as oxygen thieves like Fielding and Brown have become the power mongers in our political system.

Time for a new constitution and to bring the number of tiers of government in Australia back to 2 instead of 3.

The views of this post are owned by RT and are not necessarily the views of PRE. No correspondence will entered into and the winner is RT (oh *smile* thats not the right conditions for this thread - ya goose - thats the competitions thread!)

 

[Liverpool]

Liverpool, it makes no difference who people vote for, they don't need to be a political scientist to continue your weak joke comparing Rudd to Mao by comparing Howard to Hitler. It's a nonsense isn't it, but it doesn't indicate who anyone voted for, Liverpool.

I voted for the Libs last election and the one before that as well.

Unlike some posters on here, I am quite open about who I vote for and do not try to pretend that I am "neutral" or a swinging-voter while slagging off one particular party.

If the so-called "swinging-voters" on this forum posted links/articles/views admonishing and praising both sides of politics, then these chameleons would receive much more credit.

Ah yes - the classic Liverpuddlian technique - lose one argument so pretend it was all about something else. Feel free to explain why adding two years to the retirement age in 2017 will make the problems faced by older Australians seeking work much, much worse. Someone here has a plan but it ain't you Livers.

If that is the plan, then its not a very well thought out one.

For a start, you have Australians in this age-bracket (65+), if they are not employed being on the dole instead of an old age-pension.
If you were in this age bracket, which one would you prefer to be on and be able to live more comfortably on?
The one which provides the most money, of course.
Therefore we will have older Australians on much less of an income, which wil surely affect the living standards of these people as well as putting extra pressure on charity organisations.

Secondly, if you have people staying at work for another 2 years...they are then holding onto jobs longer because of the rise in the age of retirement.
Therefore the unemployment levels will rise in the younger age-brackets (16-25) as they will find it harder to move into a company where they are holding onto older personnel because they more or less have to.

Finally.....if you are upping the retirement age, then you are pushing companies into having an older workforce.
The company I work.....we have an arm of it that has an average age of 48 years old.....and we have found that this group has more sick days, more likely to be injured at work, and they find it harder to adapt to new methods and procedures. They are not as flexible as a younger workforce and just their decision making skills slow down.
So we have had comapny-paid mandatory annual medicals introduced for all staff as we realise that we have a large group of our employees in an age group that starts to have medical problems.
What I am saying is that by having an older workforce, it will cost companies a hell of a lot.....whether it be extra medicals, workcover claims, injury/fatalities at work due to slow decision making, loss of production time due to sick days, and older people get to a stage where they physically can't do certain tasks due to their physical condition which puts more pressure on other employees.

So there is a lot more involved in this 'plan' than simply looking at the life expectancy of a human increasing and then upping the retirement age to match.
It may seem like a good idea on the surface until you start to look deeper into it.

 

[jb03]

Yeah. Raising the age of the pension is probably well overdue.

Has anyone seen Steven Fielding's work of late? I'm a big fan of the westminster system but it must be seen as a negative that this buffoon can wield so much power.

Received something like 1.5% of the primary vote yet is practically the most powerful politician in Australia. Amazing.

 

[Tiger74]

Has anyone seen Steven Fielding's work of late? I'm a big fan of the westminster system but it must be seen as a negative that this buffoon can wield so much power.

not a big fan. At least that twit from Tasmania knew when to blink for the greater good. This guy is just miffed that Xenophon got a better deal than him on the Murray, and he now wants to show he is the hard man of the senate.