I voted Green because . . .some very good points of view here....be sure to read each one....
I voted Green because I believe oil companies’ profits of 4% on a litre of petrol are obscene, but my government taxing the same litre of petrol at 27.5% isn’t.
I voted Green because I believe my government will do a better job of spending the money you earn than you would.
I voted Green because Freedom of Speech is fine as long as nobody is offended by it.
I voted Green because I believe that people who can’t tell us if it will rain on Friday can tell us that the polar ice caps will melt away in ten years if I don’t start driving a Prius.
I voted Green because I think illegal aliens have a right to free housing, health care, education, and welfare benefits – and the right to change our society to suit their cultural demands .
I voted Green because I believe that business should not be allowed to make profits for themselves. They need to break even and give the rest away to my government for redistribution as the Greens see fit.
I voted Green because I believe ‘enlightened progressive’ judges need to rewrite the Constitution every few days to suit some fringe kooks who would never get their agendas past the voters.
I voted Green because I think that it’s better to pay billions to people who hate us for their oil, but not drill our own because it might upset some endangered beetle or frog.
I voted Green because I want to convert Australia to a ‘carbon neutral green economy’ to create jobs – even after Spain has proven the green economy destroys three times as many jobs as it creates and leads to 20 per cent unemployment.
I voted Green because my head is so firmly planted up my arse, it’s unlikely that I’ll ever see another point of view.
Monday, September 5, 2011
Tuesday, November 30, 2010
Perspectives; for those who believe in freedom, reward for effort and small non-interventionist government.
A young woman was about to finish her first year of university. Like so many others her age, she considered herself to be very labor minded, and she was very much in favor of higher taxes to support more government programs – in other words, the redistribution of wealth.
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch blue-ribbon liberal, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had attended, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing at university.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 90% average, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many university friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 20% off your average and give it to your friend who only has 50%. That way you will both have a 70% average, and certainly that would be fair and equal.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, “That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Liberal side of the fence.”
If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Liberal and Labor/Greens, I'm all ears.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Liberal doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Labor/Green doesn't like guns, they want all guns outlawed.
If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Labor/Green is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Liberal is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Labor/Green is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Liberal is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Labor/Green wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Labor/Greens demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a Liberal is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Labor/Green non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a Liberal reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Labor/Green will delete it because he's "offended."
She was deeply ashamed that her father was a rather staunch blue-ribbon liberal, a feeling she openly expressed. Based on the lectures that she had attended, and the occasional chat with a professor, she felt that her father had for years harboured an evil, selfish desire to keep what he thought should be his.
One day she was challenging her father on his opposition to higher taxes on the rich and the need for more government programs.
The self-professed objectivity proclaimed by her professors had to be the truth, and she indicated so to her father. He responded by asking how she was doing at university.
Taken aback, she answered rather haughtily that she had a 90% average, and let him know that it was tough to maintain, insisting that she was taking a very difficult course load and was constantly studying, which left her no time to go out and party like other people she knew. She didn't even have time for a boyfriend, and didn't really have many university friends because she spent all her time studying.
Her father listened and then asked, “How is your friend Audrey doing?” She replied, “Audrey is barely getting by. All she takes are easy classes, she never studies and she barely has a 50% average. She is so popular on campus; university for her is a blast. She's always invited to all the parties, and lots of times she doesn't even show up for classes because she's too hung over.”
Her wise father asked his daughter, “Why don't you go to the Dean's office and ask him to deduct 20% off your average and give it to your friend who only has 50%. That way you will both have a 70% average, and certainly that would be fair and equal.”
The daughter, visibly shocked by her father's suggestion, angrily fired back, “That's a crazy idea, how would that be fair! I've worked really hard for my grades! I've invested a lot of time, and a lot of hard work! Audrey has done next to nothing toward her degree. She played while I worked my tail off!”
The father slowly smiled, winked and said gently, “Welcome to the Liberal side of the fence.”
If anyone has a better explanation of the difference between Liberal and Labor/Greens, I'm all ears.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you ever wondered what side of the fence you sit on, this is a great test!
If a Liberal doesn't like guns, he doesn't buy one.
If a Labor/Green doesn't like guns, they want all guns outlawed.
If a Liberal is a vegetarian, he doesn't eat meat.
If a Labor/Green is a vegetarian, he wants all meat products banned for everyone.
If a Liberal is homosexual, he quietly leads his life.
If a Labor/Green is homosexual, he demands legislated respect.
If a Liberal is down-and-out, he thinks about how to better his situation.
A Labor/Green wonders who is going to take care of him.
If a Liberal doesn't like a talk show host, he switches channels.
Labor/Greens demand that those they don't like be shut down.
If a Liberal is a non-believer, he doesn't go to church.
A Labor/Green non-believer wants any mention of God and religion silenced. (Unless it's a foreign religion, of course!)
If a Liberal reads this, he'll forward it so his friends can have a good laugh.
A Labor/Green will delete it because he's "offended."
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Future Directions for the Left Julia Gillard
With Labor in government, the key question for the Left in determining its future direction is its relationship to government. To date the Left has responded in a variety of ways to Labor in government, most of which have been profoundly inadequate. One factor conditioning such responses has been a deep sense of disillusionment with the actions of Labor governments by many committed to the Left. Having worked for the election of Labor Governments the tendency of the left is to scream ‘sell-out’ when they fail to deliver the goods. The political constraints arising from the current nature of Australian society restricting the actions of Labor Governments are ignored. This cycle of expectation and disappointment is fuelled by the Labor Party often promising the world when in opposition, whether or not the promises can be upheld in government, and the lack of political experience with and education about the realities of government.
CURRENT RANGE OF RESPONSES BY THE LEFT TO LABOR IN GOVERNMENT
1) Total Opposition : The revolutionary Left continues, as expected, to oppose Labor Governments as hindering the prospects for revolutionary change. This perspective will not be discussed in detail here but clearly offers no strategy of advance for the Left.
2) New Left Party/Coalitions : The sense of disillusionment with Labor in government has provided old Left interests with fertile ground for ideas about new political parties or coalitions outside of the ALP. It is argued that when the Left in trade unions, social movements and inside and outside the ALP is united it wins through. Consequently what is needed is a structural formation to ensure this unity is the norm.
The implied relationship to Labor in government is one of opposition. By advocating a unification of the fragments of the Left this perspective ignores the reality that even if unity could be achieved the Left would be weak and marginalised. This very emphasis on a structural solution ensures the political constraints within Australian society that have resulted in a weak left and in Labor Governments ‘selling out’ are not recognised.
3) Trade Union Domination : Both within and outside the ALP many hold the view that the Labor Party is solely the mouthpiece of the trade union movement and Labor Governments should only be strived for on the basis that under their administration the climate for achieving industrial victories is better. This view in identifying industrial militancy as the sole force for social change ignores the role of social movements. Indeed in advocating an industrial free for all it is not even an effective strategy for maximising trade union gains. Obviously those holding this view are opposed to the Accord and in effect Labor Governments.
4) Food Preservers Union View : A commonly held perspective on Labor in government particularly within the ALP Left and one articulated by FPU officials is while the Left should in general support the election of Labor Governments it should reserve the right to analyse each decision of those governments and decide whether to support or oppose it. Persuasive at first sight, this perspective in fact ensures the Left would be locked into a separate and oppositionalist position from Labor Governments. By advocating the Left should stand aloof from Labor governments and judge their actions any possibility for the Left effecting [sic] government policies and programmes is implicitly rejected. No advances could be made as presumably the Left’s role would simply be to articulate ideal policies and oppose any Labor Government action which fell short of these policy goals. Once again the underlying political realities of Australian society are ignored in preference to blaming the ‘opportunists’ in government.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
For the Left to make any real advance all the perspectives on the relationship to Labor in government need to be rejected in favour of a concept of strategic support for Labor governments. We need to recognise the only possibility for major social change is under long period of Labor administration. Within that administration the Left needs to be willing to participate to shape political outcomes, recognizing the need to except [sic] often unpalatable compromises in the short term to bolster the prospect of future advance. The task of pushing back the current political constraints by changing public opinion would need to be tackled by the Left through government, social movements and trade unions.
While this option of strategic support for Labor in government is easily stated, providing it with real meaning by discussing the details of what is meant is a task that has not yet been undertaken, either within the Forum or outside it. Any discussion of this kind is only associated in many people’s minds with the divisions and suggestions of structural change within the Socialist Left. The tendency of this debate to collapse down to solely a question of splits and structure must be resisted. To have the debate only conducted at that level is to make the same error as those advocating a new Left political party or coalition of trying to impose a structural solution on what are essentially political problems.
Whilst over time there will be realignments within the Left generally it is the ideological basis of those changes which is important. The Forum can and should play a role particularly through its publications of stimulating discussion of the political issues surrounding the question of the Left’s relationship to Labor Governments. In particular the details of what constitutes strategic support for Labor Governments and its implications for Left political practice needs to be defined.
Charles of macleod (Reply)
Sun 01 Aug 10 (09:01am)
With Labor in government, the key question for the Left in determining its future direction is its relationship to government. To date the Left has responded in a variety of ways to Labor in government, most of which have been profoundly inadequate. One factor conditioning such responses has been a deep sense of disillusionment with the actions of Labor governments by many committed to the Left. Having worked for the election of Labor Governments the tendency of the left is to scream ‘sell-out’ when they fail to deliver the goods. The political constraints arising from the current nature of Australian society restricting the actions of Labor Governments are ignored. This cycle of expectation and disappointment is fuelled by the Labor Party often promising the world when in opposition, whether or not the promises can be upheld in government, and the lack of political experience with and education about the realities of government.
CURRENT RANGE OF RESPONSES BY THE LEFT TO LABOR IN GOVERNMENT
1) Total Opposition : The revolutionary Left continues, as expected, to oppose Labor Governments as hindering the prospects for revolutionary change. This perspective will not be discussed in detail here but clearly offers no strategy of advance for the Left.
2) New Left Party/Coalitions : The sense of disillusionment with Labor in government has provided old Left interests with fertile ground for ideas about new political parties or coalitions outside of the ALP. It is argued that when the Left in trade unions, social movements and inside and outside the ALP is united it wins through. Consequently what is needed is a structural formation to ensure this unity is the norm.
The implied relationship to Labor in government is one of opposition. By advocating a unification of the fragments of the Left this perspective ignores the reality that even if unity could be achieved the Left would be weak and marginalised. This very emphasis on a structural solution ensures the political constraints within Australian society that have resulted in a weak left and in Labor Governments ‘selling out’ are not recognised.
3) Trade Union Domination : Both within and outside the ALP many hold the view that the Labor Party is solely the mouthpiece of the trade union movement and Labor Governments should only be strived for on the basis that under their administration the climate for achieving industrial victories is better. This view in identifying industrial militancy as the sole force for social change ignores the role of social movements. Indeed in advocating an industrial free for all it is not even an effective strategy for maximising trade union gains. Obviously those holding this view are opposed to the Accord and in effect Labor Governments.
4) Food Preservers Union View : A commonly held perspective on Labor in government particularly within the ALP Left and one articulated by FPU officials is while the Left should in general support the election of Labor Governments it should reserve the right to analyse each decision of those governments and decide whether to support or oppose it. Persuasive at first sight, this perspective in fact ensures the Left would be locked into a separate and oppositionalist position from Labor Governments. By advocating the Left should stand aloof from Labor governments and judge their actions any possibility for the Left effecting [sic] government policies and programmes is implicitly rejected. No advances could be made as presumably the Left’s role would simply be to articulate ideal policies and oppose any Labor Government action which fell short of these policy goals. Once again the underlying political realities of Australian society are ignored in preference to blaming the ‘opportunists’ in government.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
For the Left to make any real advance all the perspectives on the relationship to Labor in government need to be rejected in favour of a concept of strategic support for Labor governments. We need to recognise the only possibility for major social change is under long period of Labor administration. Within that administration the Left needs to be willing to participate to shape political outcomes, recognizing the need to except [sic] often unpalatable compromises in the short term to bolster the prospect of future advance. The task of pushing back the current political constraints by changing public opinion would need to be tackled by the Left through government, social movements and trade unions.
While this option of strategic support for Labor in government is easily stated, providing it with real meaning by discussing the details of what is meant is a task that has not yet been undertaken, either within the Forum or outside it. Any discussion of this kind is only associated in many people’s minds with the divisions and suggestions of structural change within the Socialist Left. The tendency of this debate to collapse down to solely a question of splits and structure must be resisted. To have the debate only conducted at that level is to make the same error as those advocating a new Left political party or coalition of trying to impose a structural solution on what are essentially political problems.
Whilst over time there will be realignments within the Left generally it is the ideological basis of those changes which is important. The Forum can and should play a role particularly through its publications of stimulating discussion of the political issues surrounding the question of the Left’s relationship to Labor Governments. In particular the details of what constitutes strategic support for Labor Governments and its implications for Left political practice needs to be defined.
Charles of macleod (Reply)
Sun 01 Aug 10 (09:01am)
Saturday, March 27, 2010
The Rudd Debt
Regardless of your political leanings, these facts need your consideration.....................
Quoted by : Ross Greenwood of Money News.
Right now the Federal Government is at pains to tell everyone - including us the mug-punters and the International Monetary Fund that it will not exceed its own, self-imposed, borrowing limits. How much? $200 billion. And here's
a worry. If you work in a bank's money market operation; or if you are a politician; the millions turn into billions and it rolls off the tip of the tongue a bit too easily. But every dollar that is borrowed, some time, has to be repaid. By you, by me and by the rest of the country.
Just after 5 o'clock tonight I did a bit of maths for Jason Morrison. But it's so staggering its worth repeating now. First though; here's what Chairman Rudd has been saying about - what he calls - these temporary borrowings. Remember Those Words : Temporary Deficit. but the total Government debt could end up around $200 billion. So here's a very basic calculation ... I used a home loan calculator to work it out ... it's that simple. $200 billion is $200,000 million (using the US version of billion). The current 10 year Government bond rate is 4.67 per cent. I worked the loan out over a period of 20 years.
Now here's where it gets scary ... really scary. The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year ... $733 for every man woman and child - every year. The total interest bill over the 20 years is - get this - $108 billion. Remember, this is a Government that just 18 months ago had NO debt. NO debt. In fact it had enough money to create the Future Fund to pay the future liabilities of public servants' superannuation ... and it had enough to stick $20 billion into the Building Australia Fund last year ...
Money News Presenter, Ross Greenwood
Who exactly were the dick-heads who voted these spin-doctoring bozo's into office?
Alan Jones Comment - this is frightening: Hmmmmm??
He continues... a note that was sent to me which explains that the six leading members of the Government from Mr. Rudd down, the top six have a collective work experience of 181 years, but only 13 in the private sector.
We must take out of those 13 years the number that were spent as trade union lawyers, that total = 11, ergo, of the 181 years only two years were spent in the private sector.
So the people who will rack up a net Federal debt of a minimum of $188 billion, the highest in our history, have virtually no experience in business.
So out of those 181 years:
- no years spent running their own business
- no years spent starting their own business
- no years spent as a director of a family business or a company
- no years as a director of a public company
- no years in a senior position in a public company
- no years in a senior position in a private company
- no years working in corporate finance
- no years in corporate or business restructuring
- no years working in or with a bank
- no years of experience in the capital markets
- no years in a stock-broking firm
- no years in negotiating debt facilities with banks
- no years running a small business
- no years at the World Bank or IMF or OECD
- no years in Treasury or Finance.
But these people have plunged Australia into unprecedented debt, and now threaten to torpedo employee share schemes which they plainly don't understand.
Well, in a way you can't blame them. It's clear the electorate did not do their homework, because this Government is there by right.
If you have read this you may like to pass it on to your friends as you, they and I, will be repaying the above.
Quoted by : Ross Greenwood of Money News.
Right now the Federal Government is at pains to tell everyone - including us the mug-punters and the International Monetary Fund that it will not exceed its own, self-imposed, borrowing limits. How much? $200 billion. And here's
a worry. If you work in a bank's money market operation; or if you are a politician; the millions turn into billions and it rolls off the tip of the tongue a bit too easily. But every dollar that is borrowed, some time, has to be repaid. By you, by me and by the rest of the country.
Just after 5 o'clock tonight I did a bit of maths for Jason Morrison. But it's so staggering its worth repeating now. First though; here's what Chairman Rudd has been saying about - what he calls - these temporary borrowings. Remember Those Words : Temporary Deficit. but the total Government debt could end up around $200 billion. So here's a very basic calculation ... I used a home loan calculator to work it out ... it's that simple. $200 billion is $200,000 million (using the US version of billion). The current 10 year Government bond rate is 4.67 per cent. I worked the loan out over a period of 20 years.
Now here's where it gets scary ... really scary. The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year ... $733 for every man woman and child - every year. The total interest bill over the 20 years is - get this - $108 billion. Remember, this is a Government that just 18 months ago had NO debt. NO debt. In fact it had enough money to create the Future Fund to pay the future liabilities of public servants' superannuation ... and it had enough to stick $20 billion into the Building Australia Fund last year ...
Money News Presenter, Ross Greenwood
Who exactly were the dick-heads who voted these spin-doctoring bozo's into office?
Alan Jones Comment - this is frightening: Hmmmmm??
He continues... a note that was sent to me which explains that the six leading members of the Government from Mr. Rudd down, the top six have a collective work experience of 181 years, but only 13 in the private sector.
We must take out of those 13 years the number that were spent as trade union lawyers, that total = 11, ergo, of the 181 years only two years were spent in the private sector.
So the people who will rack up a net Federal debt of a minimum of $188 billion, the highest in our history, have virtually no experience in business.
So out of those 181 years:
- no years spent running their own business
- no years spent starting their own business
- no years spent as a director of a family business or a company
- no years as a director of a public company
- no years in a senior position in a public company
- no years in a senior position in a private company
- no years working in corporate finance
- no years in corporate or business restructuring
- no years working in or with a bank
- no years of experience in the capital markets
- no years in a stock-broking firm
- no years in negotiating debt facilities with banks
- no years running a small business
- no years at the World Bank or IMF or OECD
- no years in Treasury or Finance.
But these people have plunged Australia into unprecedented debt, and now threaten to torpedo employee share schemes which they plainly don't understand.
Well, in a way you can't blame them. It's clear the electorate did not do their homework, because this Government is there by right.
If you have read this you may like to pass it on to your friends as you, they and I, will be repaying the above.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
