Talking Politics

[Azza]

I reckon you're playing games pretending to be more extreme than you are to see what sorts of arguments you can flush-out. But if I'm wrong, I seriously think you should have a chat to a mental health professional. A total lack of empathy for people is considered a disease.

I see the personal jibes are coming out now..... :hihi

If I said I thought you may have the flu would you consider it a personal jibe? It's a fact that there are sociopaths around that need help. Your posts imply you have no empathy for others (although as I said, I think it's more likely your trolling), so you may need help. It's rather an out-dated viewpoint that mental disease is an insult.

 

[t-rob]

I'm quite happy to forego tax cuts and live with my beat-up 1989 car if it means a benefit for society as a whole.

A 1989 car...

LUXURY.

We can't afford a car and have to use WW2 surplus push bikes to get around.

But what you are advocating is that the Government forgo tax breaks, and therefore deny people the right to do what they want with their money (buy things, take family on holidays, pay more off mortgage, donate to superannuation, give to chosen charities, etc)....in favour of the Government deciding for us what do with the money, and spending where they see fit.

Seriously though, I would like to see Rudd have the guts to come out after he wins the election and say that we can't afford the tax cuts and that the 32 billion dollars (sound like monoploly money) can be better used elsewhere.

Yes I know it ain't gunna happen but we can dream.

 

[Rosy]

If that is the case Rosy, why didn't you have a crack at BOTH parties in your initial post?

Because I was talking about the fact because of the despised workplace laws (Courtesy of the Libs) the nurses are able to be docked 50% although they worked full time.  Correct me if I'm wrong Livers but that isn't a state matter as far as I'm concerned, thus I didn't mention the state.  In fact Brumby is actually looking into what he can do for the affected nurses docked salary to be reinstated.  There's a Labor bit for you.

I have stated I am voting for the Libs in this election and have never hidden that fact......unlike yourself, who seems to have "memory failure" when it comes to who you voted for in the last election, and claims to be taking a 'balanced view' for this election, when all I have read is post after post criticising Howard, yet not one post criticising Rudd.
Is that a 'balanced view' and 'weighing up a situation'?
I think not.....more of a person who doesn't have the guts to come out and say who they are voting for....

You stated your persuasion long before the election was called and you knew the policies of either party.  To me that shows you're voting for a particular party no matter what, rather than taking into account what each has to offer.  There's plenty more water to flow under the bridge before votes need to be decided.

Please post some links where I've claimed to be taking a "balanced view for this election".  I'd like to see the context I said it in and did a search but didn't get any results.  I hope you're not fabricating it.  

I don't know if I'm interested enough to make a balanced view and I only really take notice of things that grab my attention or affect me in a way that makes me want to take action.  All I know is I'm not voting for Johnny for the reasons I've already given.

You've questioned my "guts" before and I think it's despicable.  Speaks volumes about you bringing that up again after I gave you the courtesy of a reply last time you judged me that way.

 

[t-rob]

Gosh...

and we have another four weeks to go...


I'll be voting independent (probably Greens) in the forlorn hope that the major parties might get the idea we think they are both are pack of lying power hungry bastards.

 

[1eyedtiger]

Agree with being disinterested about the whole political subject Rosy.
On one hand, we have the Liberals who are controlled by the big end of town.
On the other hand, we have Labor who are controlled by the unions.
In the middle, we have a bunch of smaller parties and independents who for the most part haven't got a chance.

When are we going to get a MAJOR party that stands for the PEOPLE OF AUSTRALIA?

While this debacle continues, Australia has no hope.

PS. Why is it called "Work choices" when employers persist in docking worker's wages under the guise of "having no choice" under the legislation?

 

[Liverpool]

If you want infrastructure improved, you have to pay taxes. The only reason the government can offer tax cuts is because it has let public infrastructure run down into a state of disrepair. If public infrastructure was maintained at an acceptable level and there is money left over, then tax cuts would be on the agenda. I think most people can see that as being reasonable.

I agree.
Infrastructure is something that benefits all Australians....such as roads, to give an example.
However the gist of this thread hasn't been along the lines of benefiting all Australians....it has been about taxing/punishing the rich to help the 'less fortunate'...and evening-up the ledger that way.
That is a socialist doctrine.

If I said I thought you may have the flu would you consider it a personal jibe? It's a fact that there are sociopaths around that need help. Your posts imply you have no empathy for others (although as I said, I think it's more likely your trolling), so you may need help. It's rather an out-dated viewpoint that mental disease is an insult.

Azza,
If I had been a "troll", I certainly wouldn't have survived 3,500+ posts...
I have empathy for others who are having a go...not people who sit around waiting for people to help them.
I find it funny that I am accused of having no empathy or sympathy, because I don't want people to be punished for being successful...when many of those people that are successful and have money DO help the less fortunate, whether it be donations, starting foundations, sponsorships, and having their own business so people are employed and can support their families, own a house/car, etc.
Would any of these successul people exist if all they got for their troubles were huge tax hikes? would their businesses flourish if all they got was taxed to the eyeballs? would their businesses have even got off the ground if they weren't able to use any tax breaks they got to spend it on investing on new equipment or hiring more people, and instead the Government spent it on what they saw fit?
It'd be like me going to work...and sacrificing some of my pay to help the blokes on the production floor, when it was me who worked hard to get where I have got. It is me that has the responsibility to my boss, the company as a whole, and it's shareholders....while some of the boys on the production floor had no interest or ambition to get anywhere, and clock off and go home right on the dot each and every day.
Why should they be rewarded? why should I be punished?
What incentive would it be for me to encourage my kids to go down the same path and try to do well for themselves?
If this attitude is classed as an antipathy of sorts, then I think it is not I should be seeking professional help.

 

[Azza]

A 1989 car...

LUXURY.

We can't afford a car and have to use WW2 surplus push bikes to get around.

Rubber bands aren't getting any cheaper y'know t-rob ...

 

[1eyedtiger]

I agree.
Infrastructure is something that benefits all Australians....such as roads, to give an example.
However the gist of this thread hasn't been along the lines of benefiting all Australians....it has been about taxing/punishing the rich to help the 'less fortunate'...and evening-up the ledger that way.
That is a socialist doctrine.

I don't think the gist of the thread is about punishing the rich to help the less fortunate. I see it as being a case of the Howard government favoring the wealthy at the expense of all others and the need to return to a more reasonable balance.

 

[Liverpool]

Because I was talking about the fact because of the despised workplace laws (Courtesy of the Libs) the nurses are able to be docked 50% although they worked full time. Correct me if I'm wrong Livers but that isn't a state matter as far as I'm concerned, thus I didn't mention the state. In fact Brumby is actually looking into what he can do for the affected nurses docked salary to be reinstated. There's a Labor bit for you.

The Workplace laws are there to stop the unions coming in, stopping productivity, and causing strikes and economic chaos which we have witnessed time and time again in the past under the ALP.
In areas like nursing, where they are critical towards the well-being of innocent people, then I fully support such pay-docking laws.
They are there to try and encourage disputes to end as quickly as possible and if it wasn't for the arrogance of the Brumby-led ALP state government, then this dispute would have been over long before now.
That is why the nurses union are criticising Brumby and calling for his ALP state government to compensate the nurses for any pay docked.
Yet you seem to disagree with the nurses union and are calling for Howard to compensate....why?
Both Brumby and the nurses knew the laws, and should abide by the laws....and if anyone should be compensating the nurses, it is the ALP.....and it seems the nurses union agrees.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22655490-661,00.html

The nurses have also vowed for further industrial action throughout 2008....and also, the teachers in thsi state are vowing to go on strike in 2008 as well:

http://bringelly.yourguide.com.au/news/national/general/victorian-teachers-prepare-for-strikes/1076379.html

Add an ALP federal government to the mix with revamped IR laws checked by the unions beforehand......and good times ahead for all. :-\

You stated your persuasion long before the election was called and you knew the policies of either party. To me that shows you're voting for a particular party no matter what, rather than taking into account what each has to offer. There's plenty more water to flow under the bridge before votes need to be decided.

I stated my persuasion long before this election because the Coalition are more aligned to what I believe.
The ALP are showing insincerity with their constant agreeance with the Government. They are also showing no guts by standing by what they believe in, and would rather try and hoodwink the Australian people into believing they are 'economic conservatives', when they are anything but.
They'll get in using this tactic, because many Australians just want a 'change' and I think even if the Devil himself was a running candidate this election, he would have had a good chance at becoming PM.
It's Rudd's lucky day, I'm afraid. :-\
The Greens, Democrats, and Socialists are small parties that I regard as 'nuisance value' and end up aligning their votes with the ALP or they stand-alone but don't do anything.

Please post some links where I've claimed to be taking a "balanced view for this election". I'd like to see the context I said it in and did a search but didn't get any results. I hope you're not fabricating it.

'Balanced view' or 'judging things on their merits' (your words)....same thing.
It all comes under the banner of "fence sitting" at the end of the day.

You've questioned my "guts" before and I think it's despicable. Speaks volumes about you bringing that up again after I gave you the courtesy of a reply last time you judged me that way.

Yes, I have questioned it before.
You may have replied to my post, but if I think your reply is a rubbish reply, then I'll say so.
Your posts have been contradictory to say the least, and hence why I have replied the way I have.

You say you are judging things on their merits......yet continually only post anti-Howard posts.
It seems Rudd and the other parties are clean with no faults.

You bag the new IR laws....yet Brumby is the one the nurses union want to compensate for their pay being docked.
You don't mention a word about that.

You question what we're going to get if we vote for Howard....because we don't know what Costello's policies are going to be.
Yet, there was not one word from you about Bracks being re-elected by the Victorian people and then proceeding to resign not long afterwards, leaving the job to Brumby.

You say that there's plenty of water to flow under the bridge before votes are decided and then question why I have aligned myself so early in the campaign to the Libs.........yet you aligned yourself against Howard well before the campaign started, even though we still have a lot of water to flow under the bridge.

I have stated I am voting Libs and people know to take that into account when reading my posts.
I know Sixpack is going Green....so I take that into account when reading his posts, because I understand what angle he is coming in from.
From your posts, I could have a guess at which way you are leaning...but I don't exactly know, you haven't said....and that is why I have replied the way I have replied. If you said you were an ALP sheila, then I could understand why you are posting so much anti-Howard/anti-Government posts.....but it does annoy me when people complaing and have pot-shots, but don't show the balls to say who they are going for.
It's like someone bagging the crap out of Richmond constantly, but they won't admit who they support....I find that weak also.

 

[Rosy]

'Balanced view' or 'judging things on their merits' (your words)....same thing.
It all comes under the banner of "fence sitting" at the end of the day.

Not the same thing at all so please don't making false claims about me.

You might be able to explain it better than what I've read Livers. I was of the unterstanding the nurses pay was docked under the IR laws and they are a Federal, rather than a state, matter. Is that incorrect?

I fully support the nurses action. Pity things need to come to that for them to be taken seriously. In this case more power to the unions. The nurses get better pay and conditions whcih will result in better health care for the general public.

 

[Liverpool]

'Balanced view' or 'judging things on their merits' (your words)....same thing.
It all comes under the banner of "fence sitting" at the end of the day.

Not the same thing at all so please don't making false claims about me.

Maybe we just have different views on what it means...but to me, people taking a balanced view and people judging things on their merits...and still undecided on who they are going to vote for.....are fence-sitters.
That is just MY opinion.

You might be able to explain it better than what I've read Livers. I was of the unterstanding the nurses pay was docked under the IR laws and they are a Federal, rather than a state, matter. Is that incorrect?
I fully support the nurses action. Pity things need to come to that for them to be taken seriously. In this case more power to the unions. The nurses get better pay and conditions whcih will result in better health care for the general public.

No, you are correct...and I haven't disagreed with you there.
The nurses pay was docked due to the Federal laws.
But both the nurses and the State Government knew full well before any industrial action was taken what the federal laws were.....and you have to realise and understand that these laws were put in place to bring disputes to an end as quickly as possible.
In the past under the old system, and especially when the ALP were in power, strikes dragged on and on....and these newer IR laws are in place to stop this from happening.
The fact that these federal laws meant nurses' pay was docked, isn't a blight on the laws trying to protect the health care of innocent people being forced to wait due to industrial action.....the blight is on the State Government (and to a lesser degree, the nurses union) for not coming to an amicable agreement sooner rather than later.
Hence why the nurses union are calling for the State Government to foot the bill of compensation.

The real test will be in 2008...when the nurses take further action, the teachers take action, and the ALP are in both State and Federal parliament.
I am looking forward to your posts judging things on their merits then.

 

[Rosy]

Maybe we just have different views on what it means

You're welcome to your own views but I'd appreciate you stick to them rather than falsely attributing comments to me please.

 

[Liverpool]

You're welcome to your own views but I'd appreciate you stick to them rather than falsely attributing comments to me please.

I still don't think I falsely attributed anything to you, to be honest.....however, if that is your view, then you are welcome to it.

 

[barty boy]

I must ask the question,has there ever been a wage case or dispute where employers or employer groups have ever said to the employees"yes you guys have earnt this pay rise take it with our blessing"

 

[Six Pack]

Nuisance value the minor parties may be, but we live in a democracy, Livers, and we can vote for who we want. if u want to vote for a middle of the road party then that's yr right. if others want to vote for smaller, narrow based parties, then that's their right.

Remember that every long journey starts with a single step.

 

[Hayfever]

I must ask the question,has there ever been a wage case or dispute where employers or employer groups have ever said to the employees"yes you guys have earnt this pay rise take it with our blessing"

It happens all too frequently around some Board tables of companies when it comes to directors and senior executives awarding themselves big bonuses for cutting jobs/wages and essential services. e.g. Telstra

 

[barty boy]

Its interesting how industrial relations are conducted,because its in the interests of management (capital) and labour to ensure that the enterprise is a success.Yet we have this confrontational approach ,which is supposed to result in a happy medium for all parties.what would happen if we decided to drop this confrontational approach .
For example I think its germany where a member of labour sits on the board of directors.i think this would be a fantastic way to start turning things around in the industrial relations world.steps such as this would start to bring trust,and transperancy in Industrial relations.Including labour in the share register would be another way I would imagine.This i think is being done by some companies.
I feel we have to get away from confrontation,because in the end I'm sure angst brings nothing but heartburn and makes Jack a very unhappy boy

 

[Azza]

Azza,
If I had been a "troll", I certainly wouldn't have survived 3,500+ posts...
I have empathy for others who are having a go...not people who sit around waiting for people to help them.
I find it funny that I am accused of having no empathy or sympathy, because I don't want people to be punished for being successful...when many of those people that are successful and have money DO help the less fortunate, whether it be donations, starting foundations, sponsorships, and having their own business so people are employed and can support their families, own a house/car, etc.
Would any of these successul people exist if all they got for their troubles were huge tax hikes? would their businesses flourish if all they got was taxed to the eyeballs? would their businesses have even got off the ground if they weren't able to use any tax breaks they got to spend it on investing on new equipment or hiring more people, and instead the Government spent it on what they saw fit?
It'd be like me going to work...and sacrificing some of my pay to help the blokes on the production floor, when it was me who worked hard to get where I have got. It is me that has the responsibility to my boss, the company as a whole, and it's shareholders....while some of the boys on the production floor had no interest or ambition to get anywhere, and clock off and go home right on the dot each and every day.
Why should they be rewarded? why should I be punished?
What incentive would it be for me to encourage my kids to go down the same path and try to do well for themselves?
If this attitude is classed as an antipathy of sorts, then I think it is not I should be seeking professional help.

There are 2 possibilities here:
1. You didn't read my posts properly. That's not what I said. I suggested you had a lack of empathy becuase you didn't seem able to comprehend that people might be prepared to make sacrificies to help others.
2. You understood my posts but are choosing to misinterpret them. If this is so, it suggests weakness in your arguments because you're not letting them stand on their own merits but need to misrepresent an opposing argument.

 

[Six Pack]

i wonder how Livers will interpret the Howard/Turnbull Kyoto debacle?

 

[Liverpool]

There are 2 possibilities here:
1. You didn't read my posts properly. That's not what I said. I suggested you had a lack of empathy becuase you didn't seem able to comprehend that people might be prepared to make sacrificies to help others.

People might be prepared to make sacrifices?
I'm sure there are people who might be prepared to do this. I'm not arguing with you there.
And I'll even go another step for you and say that there are people who say they will support this and happy to sacrifice that, etc....but when crunch time comes, and its time for action, people look after their own backyard first....others come second.

i wonder how Livers will interpret the Howard/Turnbull Kyoto debacle?

Debacle? :rofl
Why is it a debacle?
Turnbull is a minister who thought it might be a good idea for his portfolio and his seat to sign the Kyoto agreement.
He and the rest of Cabinet decided that was against what they wanted to achieve.
If anything, that is how you want a Government to run...for ministers to say what they think and then the Cabinet decide behind closed doors what course of action they want to take as a team...and then all move forward in the one direction.
It is similar to how the majority of businesses run and so I don't see a big deal with a similar philosophy being used to run the country.
That is why now, after Cabinet have decided that Kyoto was not the right thing for this country....Turnbull is towing the party line, as all good employees should once a decision has been reached, whether the individual agrees with it or not.
So debacle?
I think not.