• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

Why NOT to vote Lib this year

^^ yes, Howard is a right cunt, and deserves to be tarred and feathered and paraded down George St to be laughed at and kicked repeatedly...

I too will cry if Howard, and George W for that matter, win this year...the prospect frightens me to no end. I mean it. And i am telling the truth that if I could wish for one thing for my birthday/christmas/anzacday/queensbday/unbirthday it would be to see Howard out of office....fuck my 2 front teeth, i want that cunt in the gutter....

I am worried by what Munted says.....yes he is a strong leader who follows his head and goes for what he thinks is right...those qualities are extremely admirable and desirable and neccesary in a leader....but, and this is a big BUT, if that leader has the wrong ideas, motives and beliefs, God help us all.....you will all know the type of leader I speak of.....the world has had some very famous leaders in the past with all these qualities in spades, unfortunatley they became famous for all the wrong reasons. Johnny is a bigot....he is all for helping the rich and big business becoming more successful (cause he knows darn well if he scratches their back, they'll fuck him up the arse good and proper....and he fucking loves that idea)...He is Bush's little man in Australiasia....

I don't really know where else to go with this argument except to say that I'll be voting Labor.....i agree with most of what they have said, and know that voting for them will give the most clout my vote can to ousting Howard and the Liberals.

God i hope he doesn't win......
 
Capital Gains Tax Cut: How do you spell "fiscally responsible"?


The Democrats have accused the Federal Government of relying on a conservative right-wing think tank that lists Dan Quayle as one of its assets rather than the more considered research of US Treasury in developing its revenue estimates of the impact of a capital gains tax cut.

Democrats' Leader, Senator Meg Lees, said the Government's capital gains tax cut was likely to fall $2.8 billion short of revenue neutrality because the Government had used unreliable analyses to calculate the extra revenue from taxpayers selling assets early to capitalise the lower tax.

"Where is the justification for what is effectively a $2.8 billion unfunded tax cut for the wealthy when Budget cuts are being talked about for health, education and welfare because of our defence commitments," she said.

In Senate Question Time today, Senator Lees urged the Government to consider a major book released recently by the US Assistant Deputy Security for Tax Policy, Leonard Burman, which rejects most of the assertions accepted by the Ralph Report about the effect of lower capital gains taxes on revenue.

Senator Lees also released a discussion paper which cites 10 other US research papers which show that Government estimates of revenue flowing from a capital gains tax cut are almost certainly overstated, especially in the longer term.

The researchers include senior economists from US Treasury, the Congressional Budget Office, the Congressional Research Service, the Federal Reserve, and the Brookings Institute.

"Isn't it fiscally irresponsible to continue to endorse the Reynolds Report, upon which Ralph largely relies, against this greater weight of evidence?" Senator Lees asked in the Senate today.

"Isn't Australian Treasury more likely to endorse the views of Mr Burman & the US Treasury, rather than those of a US think-tank which has Dan Quayle in charge of part of its research program?

"If so, isn't the Government's view at odds with Treasury?" Senator Lees asked.

The Democrats also wrote to the Treasurer today calling for the Treasury's analysis of the capital gains tax figures to be released.







Printed: 10 June 2004
Authorised by: Marianne Dickie , 16 National Cct, Barton ACT 2604.
http://www.democrats.org.au/news/index.htm
 
Last edited:
Costello's debt reduction could leave us all in debt
By Kenneth Davidson
April 4 2002


Despite inadequate budget accounts, there is accumulating evidence of financial mismanagement by the Howard-Costello government.

Between 1996 and 2001, the government reduced its debt by $48 billion, according to the Australian Office of Financial Management - $38 billion from the sale of Telstra and Commonwealth Bank shares and $10 billion mainly from the sale of airports, property, railways and radio and telephone spectrum.

Over the same period the government ran up a net surplus of $15 billion, or 2.2 per cent of gross domestic product.

The government is proud of this record. It was the centrepiece of its claims to superior economic management in the recent federal election campaign.

But, really, how good a record is it?


Most commentators take the government and financial market line. They compare the record of the Labor government in the first half of the 1990s (during the downswing in the business cycle) with the record of the Coalition government in the second half of the '90s (during the upswing in the business cycle).

Prudent governments run surpluses during the good times, and this creates greater scope for running up budget deficits during the bad times.

Thanks to a boom in housing construction, fed by low interest rates and $2 billion in subsidies to first home buyers, the domestic economy is forecast to grow 4 per cent this financial year - yet the cash surplus is expected to be only $500 million.

In the argot of economics, this suggests the budget is already running an underlying deficit of around $200 million to $300 million, based on an underlying long-term GDP growth rate of 3 to 3.5 per cent.

In the previous upswing in the business cycle, in the five years to 1990-91, the Hawke-Keating government ran up a net budget surplus of $12.7 billion, equal to 3.4 per cent of GDP.

After allowing for the changed size of the economy, the surplus built up in the upturn of the last business cycle during the watch of the Hawke-Keating government was more than 50 per cent greater than the surplus built up in the first five fat years of the current business cycle.

The Coalition appears to have built in a structural deficit as a result of its privatisation program in which the government has exchanged high-yielding assets such as airports, Telstra, the Commonwealth Bank and Commonwealth real estate for low-yielding or even loss-making assets.

For instance, it appears that already this financial year the Australian Office of Financial Management has realised losses of $800 million on currency swaps.

(Last week your correspondent put in a series of written questions to the Treasury on this issue. The verbal response - that the questions would not be answered - I take as unofficial confirmation that the claim made in Treasury "Press Release No. 1" to the effect that so far this financial year Treasury had made gains of $43 million on currency swaps is wrong.)

The former auditor-general of New South Wales, Tony Harris, asserted in a recent article in The Australian Financial Review that the Commonwealth stood to lose $4.8 billion on currency swaps. This has not been denied or challenged officially.

Interest rates are about to rise; it is now a matter of when, not if. Age financial markets expert Stephen Dabkowski wrote yesterday that bond markets have already factored in an interest rate rise of 1.75 percentage points by the end of the year. This translates into a loss on the $32 billion in interest-rate swaps entered into by the Treasury since 1997 of $2.8 billion.

These losses are all the more galling because they were unnecessary, given the government's announced policy of eradicating debt.

The government's asset eradication program has been undertaken utterly heedless of the cost to the commonweal.

For instance, the government decided to flog off government properties worth $1 billion for no better stated purpose than that they weren't yielding a rate of return of 15 per cent - even though the industry rate of return on property is 9 per cent. According to the Australian National Audit Office, 70 per cent of the properties were yielding a return to the government of 12 per cent or more. The cash from these sales was then put into buying back government bonds, yielding 5-6 per cent.

The government is now renting these properties back at exorbitant rents, which still manage to push most of the risks normally associated with property ownership on to the government.

The indulgent financial misadventure embarked upon by the Coalition government, if unchecked, will lock Australia into substandard, high-cost public services - which will eventually affect every taxpayer.

Kenneth Davidson is a staff columnist.
E-mail: [email protected]

This story was found at: http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2002/04/03/1017206220409.html
 
john-howard-Scumbo-web.jpg


=D =D 8o
 
That's not strong leadership either, more of an astute skill of deflecting the blame for his mistakes onto others. You gotta wonder how much longer those around him are going to continue accepting the blame for his actions. It is demise of that autocratic style which would be one of the most refreshing things about an ALP government because, regardless of their wishes, the PM is always beholden to caucus and, to some degree, the rank-and-file members.
 
Last edited:
I agree with your previous point, selling everything off isn't brilliant fincial management, it just temporarily fixes the problem, which this govt is extremely adept at- smoke and mirrors and deflection of public debate and blame. What inevitably happens is the privatised services turn to shit, whilst you the customer has to pay more and in many cases the govt still has to bail these companies out- see private transport in Melbourne (A big fuck you to Connex!). My point is what happens next time there's a recession and there is nothing left to sell- well we're boned thank you kennett and howard govt. I'm not saying labour is any different just from an ideological point of view there the lesser of two evils- which counts for jack shit with politicians. It distresses me the amount of people who take what the lib govt says at face value or is more concerned who looks more mature in question time squabbles- it the policies of these fuck-trucks that should be object of your critical gaze! This country is going downhill fast, i actually think we're getting more moronic by the minute- oh wait we are when a uni degree costs 30k and you'd prolly make more money being a labourer anyway (+ without a huge HECS)!
 
Odds on 10/1 we'll be living in a fascist state withing 10 years. Think about it...

Police will be introducing a "drug swabbing" campaign on the nations drivers, conveniently allowing them to keep a sample of DNA on file.

Laws being introduced in Victoria that allow the state to seize a persons assets, who is under an onus of proof to demonstrate they were paid for in illegally gained money.

ANZAC day has been turned from a rememberence service for ex-servicemen to remember their fallen comrades, into an oppurtunity to whip the country into a jingoistic, patriotic fervour.

The corproratisation of everyday life in Australia, of which the privatisation of public services is just a part of, is something that harks back to a darker era. Mussolini once insghtfully noted that... "Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because it is a merger of corporate and state power." There is no question, the biggest benefactors of Howard's eight years in power has been the corporate world.

And, to top it all off, even astrology is stacked against us...


Uranus goes retrograde at 7 deg Pisces on 11 June, opposite Jupiter by wide orb...With Uranus in Pisces, a smell of fascism hangs in the air. The next few months of retrograde movement is likely to see this percolate and become stronger. Events in Iraq and Palestine could not have been better planned if the US-Israel axis had set out to drive the population into the arms of extremists. Similarly, in the West, secrecy, propaganda and heavy-handed security seem aimed at creating a docile population ready to accept, without question, any gross excesses by the State.

So, what's changed? Not much, except that we are now aware of what's going on, even in other people's backyards. Truly, it would be terrible to live in Chechnya, or the Gaza Strip, but it would have been no less terrible to live as a Cherokee in the US in 1875, or in Jerusalem under Roman occupation. As Genghis Khan swept south with his Mongol armies, he is said to have ordered all herbivores to be slaughtered in the territories they invaded, so there would be no competition for feed with his horses -- a sort of manual Agent Orange. Bad luck if you were hunter or herdsman.

It's just too big out there. The tides of the world are too strong. How can we respond effectively? One of the slogans of the Green movement is, "Think globally, act locally." I'd take it further. Know what is going on out there, but know also that your real power lies within, which is as local as you can get. It begins with acknowledgement of ourselves and opening to love. It means inviting in the twin goddesses, grace and courage, and creating the world you want. It's a small step for the Earth, but the greatest of all for eachother

http://www.groundedheavens.com/month.html


Feeling paranoid yet? 8o ;)
 
<------ 21 & still not on the electoral roll.

Not sure how im sposed to feel about that
 
considering the sorry state of our politics, i can semi understand this. but do you really not care enough to not want to vote at all? i'm not knocking you, honestly, i just want ot know wwhy?? :)
 
I've never voted cos I'm an anarchist!

I am now going to stay up past midnight, cos I'm an anarchist!

Anarchist's (like pirates) are badarse.
 
1234: He's a lazy, selfish pick. :p

That's why he doesn't vote and after serious consideration I don't think he should either considering what he thought about people holding up signs asking for work in the CBD. The poor lad doesn't really put much effort into understanding political issues of the day.

killarava2day: Very nice quote, I'm impressed with your reasoning.

cuddles :)
 
I thought the fact that it was the liberal party was reason enough not to vote for them... We are the middle class, people!
 
Urbanhog said:
^^^ I am nearly 26 and still not on electoral roll.
Click to expand...

Ahh wicked im not alone.

1234: I dunno why really. My dads 47 this year, an australian citizen and never voted a day in his life either. They never showed interest in politics, I never really did either.
Recently however, I have considered being on the roll and having my say, simply because im born and bred here. Also, I been takin more interest in our state of affairs lately.
I gave up caring lately though, due to the fact that, if I want to be on the roll, I have to go out of my way to put myself on there.
If they want me on there, they can come and get me, I won't say no. Until then I'm not going out of my way to get on the roll, unless of course the state of out affairs does change or if we some new pollies that can make sense of themselves and what they say.

So as you say, I guess i dont care enough to care.
 
I didn't enrol as soon as I turned 18 as a protest against this pseudo-democracy... Then Howard got voted in for the second time and I realised what a stupid stance this was to take...

My one vote won't change a thing but it makes me feel better that there is one more voice raised in opposition...
 
ButrosButros_Grantos said:
You are all uninformed Labor lackeys. Peter Garrett... Need I say more, he's a sell out like all of the labor party.
Click to expand...

Don't go putting words into anyone's mouth, you're only asking for trouble.

I'm not so much sure about the Australian public not caring about the Government's actions and lies so much as there are so many people that are not aware of it. So long as they get their paycheck at the end of the week and their material objects, the need to be informed about politics takes a backseat until the last minute at election days when they go "Aw yeah, better pick a bloke, eh?"

8(
 
Oh and like you have offered any insightful political commentary, a few jargonistic references to trickle-down economics doesn't make you anymore than a LP lackey 8( I don't support the ALP, I just hate them less than the Libs and their phoney economic responsibility.

The original article was writtern by Clive Hamilton, a fully fledged economist who would undoubtedly have a clearer understanding of thr trickle-down theory than you (not meaning to sound condescending, just stating the facts), he rejects the current economic paradigm and its emphasis on unbridled growth. Instead, he tries to calculate the value of social capital and its worth to the community. You ought to check out his book called "Growth Fetish", I haven't read it yet but it's at the top of my 'to read' list. It's smart economics that look beyond the immediate short-term economic gain and strive for a sustainable future, something that the current models actively erode any hope of.

But, I agree with your attitude to Garrett, he has compromised any political integrity he may once have had. Frankly, the fact that the Libs don't pretend to be anything other than neo-liberal economic crusaders does give them more credibility in some respects, Labor are like wolves in sheeps clothing. But I think that given the choice between tweedle-dum and tweeedle-dee, the ALP will be more likely to provide assistance to the victims of the economic vandalism. Also, I simply can't abide by what Howard has done to Australia's cultural landscape, he has exposed a very nasty, cold-hearted, miser-like streak that I find quite disturbing.

I'm no party's lackey, to me the ALP the best of a bad bunch, but what the fuck else is one supposed to do in a two-party system? At least I have thought about things, something you haven't demonstrated in your posts and until you do I suggest you try being a little less dismissive in your replies.

:)`
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top