Gough Whitlam: Messiah or Very Naughty Boy?

[Gus Poyet]

My stance is based on a societal concern and wanting to live in a society of fairness and equality rather than a society that only cares about how big your bank balance is.

No society in the history of the planet was ever equal or fair. It comes down to the individual in chosing how to live life, not forcing it upon people through Government policies and laws.

 

[Showbags]

You do realise that if taxes were dropped signifigantly people renting would then also have far more disposable income to spend or invest? Which in turn would mean they would be in a better financial position to purchase their own homes.

You and I are into purchasing pre-existing homes. These renters with a new found stream of income can move into the new home market.

Land is a finite resource. How long is that going to last before eventually there is a shortage of land and those who have already gone around and bought up all the land (because of their increased capacity to purchase speculative properties) will start charging exorbitant rates of rent or demanding huge prices. Therefore putting the squeeze on people with less capacity to enter the market.

 

[Todman]

You should do some research on how education helps a person succeed in life and how people who are poor and do not get the education that a kid from a rich family would get has a massive disadvantage even if he is very smart. Also getting the best and brightest to succeed is definitely in the nationals interest but if the best and brightest are born in a poor family then under your system where education is not free and presumably the best teachers go to the richest schools then Australia is really going so suffer as it will mean too many kids will never reach their potential.

Your opening line says it all. The better education then the person will succeed. That's why you pay for it. If you pay for it then it is not a burden on the ordinary taxpayer and so taxes remain low. If you dont have the cash then you get a loan.

The alternative, free education so everyone can afford to get educated. Everyone takes advantage, universities expand places and courses. Universities bill the government so the government increases taxes. Can't get the course you want? do another,why not its free. Can't be bothered anymore drop out, up to 60% of people did in the seventies, or transfer and do an Arts degree. Get qualified and look for work, there is a problem, businesses aren't hiring in high tax economy. you now have to decide whether to return to uni and get another degree or move overseas and get that job. If you return to uni then you still have the problem of getting work after graduating. If you head overseas for that job then you pay lower taxes to foreign government. you cant return home because you cant get a job in your field of expertise because the businesses has relocated to low tax foreign country.

The ordinary taxpayer has had to put up with higher taxes and the kids he is paying for are working overseas so he gets no benefit.

The press write stories about the Aussie brain drain overseas because our smartest and best have all working in low tax countries overseas.

 

[carnthemlions]

Sounds like you don't know what a Libertarian wants at all.

We dont want power. We want it given back to the individual. We want them to have more of their own money.

And yet you call that selfish. Awesome logic from the drone collective.

I understand perfectly what libertarians want. They want to live in some sort of fantasy land where government has little power and everyone gets along fine. Well, just the people who 'work hard'(or have lots of money or guns). Obviously I'm dumbing it down a lot, but most of the theory hardly bears repeating.

It's incredibly naive to think that what you want would be anything other than a disaster. Humans aren't just individuals, we're social animals. We live in a society, and that means power can never belong only to individuals. We don't have rights and freedoms because that's just the way things are, WE(yes, society) make it that way.

As far as I'm concerned, the only redeeming quality of most libertarians is that they aren't anarchists. There are some libertarians who really just believe in small government, but their movement was hijacked by objectivists and crazies a long time ago.

No society in the history of the planet was ever equal or fair. It comes down to the individual in chosing how to live life, not forcing it upon people through Government policies and laws.

What would you define as the possible choices? The range is pretty wide if you're not constrained by laws...

 

[Dry Rot]

Um, isn't this thread about the Whitlam govt?

 

[clogged]

Wasn't it Saddam Husseins regime that he tried to get cash from? Interesting that given current events.

No. Saddam became president of Iraq in 1979. Khemlani was of Persian extraction anyway.

What's funny is how so many men like Khemlani now own significant parts of London.

Whitlam was ahead of his time.

 

[Gus Poyet]

I understand perfectly what libertarians want. They want to live in some sort of fantasy land where government has little power and everyone gets along fine.

Well then you don't understand if that's what you think. Nothing to do with people all getting along at all. It's about letting people live their lives as they choose without interference from other individuals and Governments so long as they do it without affecting other people.

It's incredibly naive to think that what you want would be anything other than a disaster. Humans aren't just individuals, we're social animals. We live in a society, and that means power can never belong only to individuals. We don't have rights and freedoms because that's just the way things are, WE(yes, society) make it that way.

We're not naive at all. We know there's no hope at all of the vast majority people taking complete responsibility for their own lives.

But hey, if the socialists can dream of their perfect world that will never happen then so can we.

As far as I'm concerned, the only redeeming quality of most libertarians is that they aren't anarchists. There are some libertarians who really just believe in small government, but their movement was hijacked by objectivists and crazies a long time ago.

What would you define as the possible choices? The range is pretty wide if you're not constrained by laws...

You seemed rather confused. Seems your relating what you think is the Libertarian views to those of the present Tea Party which was hijacked by certain people who are not Libertarians.

The Libertarian movement rejects the likes of the Tea Party.

There is only one choice. Live life how you wish and do it and in a manner which does not affect others

 

[Ripper]

No. Saddam became president of Iraq in 1979. Khemlani was of Persian extraction anyway.

What's funny is how so many men like Khemlani now own significant parts of London.

Whitlam was ahead of his time.

Saddam formally rose to power in 1979, although he had been the de facto head of Iraq for several years prior.

 

[clogged]

.

Thanks wikipedia. Do you have anything substantive to add?

 

[clogged]

We dont want power. We want it given back to the individual.

LOL. As moronic as a Green Left Weekly reader.

 

[Malifice]

Anyone can live a comfortable life if they aren't ******* stupid and live within their means.

Do you really think this?

That we all have an equal opportunity to be millionares and s**t?

Wow.

 

[medusala]

No. Saddam became president of Iraq in 1979. .

Were not the Baathists in power then?

People have a crack at Thatcher over Pinochet and South AFrica (this despite Mandela praising her) yet most (not all in fairness) gloss over Gough's willingness to engage with dictatorial regimes . East Timor was hardly a credit to him. Oddly enough many who praise him are extremely pro illegal immigrants coming by boat. Gough certainly wasn't.

.

What's funny is how so many men like Khemlani now own significant parts of London..

Yep plenty of rich Persians around Knightsbridge.

Do you really think this?
That we all have an equal opportunity to be millionares and s**t?
Wow.

Can we leave the 1st year arts stuff out of the thread please.

 

[Malifice]

There is no way out of this s**t we're in now and with enablers like you about the welfare/handout mentality that the Government needs to look after everyone and fix all our problems with flourish for generations to come. Oh what joy!

In my time I have used and benefitted from:

• Free tertiary education. Without it I couldnt have put myself through uni.
• Medicare.
• Austudy and Newstart allowance (at various periods of unemployment and study)

I work in the Community legal sector (free legal aid for the poor and disadvantaged). Since getting my Law degree (that I wouldnt have but for Gough), I have been able to help countless other people, mainly in avoiding and ameliorating homelessness and in housing and tenancy matters.

None of this would have been possible but for the Whitlams reforms.

For the record, for every family I save from homelessness, I save the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars. I also contribute to the system to allow other people to take advantage of the same programs I did.

Why do you have such a problem with the above?

 

[medusala]

For the record, for every family I save from homelessness, I save the taxpayer hundreds of thousands of dollars.

On what basis?

 

[Malifice]

On what basis?

Ive just come back from a tenancy forum here in Perth WA.

A commisioner for WA Police was telling a story about a 'trouble family'. Theyre social housing tenants (Dept of Housing) so 'last resort' housing. The station where this copper was working was recieving 2-3 calls a day from or in relation to this family (whom were facing eviction for antisocial behaviour pursuant to s75A of our residential tenancies act).

This particular police officer calculated that it was costing the station something like 60 percent of its resources to deal with. It would have been cheaper to actually literally train and station a police officer in the house in question full time.

He went on to say that he had got an independent report on what exactly this family would cost the State should they become homleless (say over a 20 year period). Got Price Waterhouse to do a cost analysis of the whole thing. Apparently (his figures not mine) they figured this family becoming homeless would cost the State something like 170 million dollars over a 20 year period; factoring in Police time, imprisonment, Dept of child protection, legal aid, etc etc

Just the legal action to evict them would have cost the Dept of Housing, Courts, Legal Aid, WAPOL etc hundreds of thousands of dollars - and thats before they even got evicted into homelessnes in the first place.

He went on to say that every homeless person costs the State a fortune. Move on notices by Police (which are inevitably breached as these people have nowhere to 'move on' to) and fines and conviction and subsequent imprisonment (not to mention the crime, community drain etc caused by homeless people).

His solution by the way was more 'front end' policing. Tackle the problem before It becomes a problem. He was able to persuade his superiors to come together with this family (and Dept of Housing, Community legal grounds and social workers etc) and enter into a support plan that (so far) seems to be working.

Homeless people cost the State a fortune Meds. In Police work alone.

First copper to oppose extra police too. Rightly pointed out that more cops only increases the crime rate - it doesnt drop it. Rexommended that money be spent on community programs to stop crime and homelessness before it happens, rather than use Police to mop up the problem after the fact.

 

[The Speaker]

How many posts in this thread have been about Gough Whitlam?

 

[Malifice]

How many posts in this thread have been about Gough Whitlam?

Its time.

 

[KGBeast]

I think Whitlam gave Australia a shot in the arm after years of conservative government. His time in power changed Australia for the better and extinguished the last vestiges of British domination over us. Pity the yanks got rid of him.

 

[pokerspiv]

Gough achieved some great things - most of all ending conscription which is just slavery by another name.

However he won't be fondly remembered by West Papuans, Timorese or Vietnamese who he sold under the bus.

As for his effect on domestic policy I offer this graph.

Australian government expenditure (and therefore taxation) increased by 50% in the Whitlam era and has never returned to its previous levels since.

As for free education, all that did was make it necessary to get a degree to get jobs that people previously did without having a degree. Complete and absolute waste of money. You need a degree for basically any office job nowadays. Previously only engineers and doctors needed degrees. If the idea was to allow people from poor families access to those occupations, then the funding should have been restricted to professional degrees only, and means tested.

 

[B4Bear]

My ideal system is nobody gets taxed highly and people get to decide what their money is spent on. Not have Governments take it from them in great amounts and then waste it in countless bullshit ways.

Work hard and anyone can do well in life in that system.

People like Whitlam are only too happy to tax the s**t out of us and then decide for us how best to spend OUR money, not theirs, other peoples money.

It was very easy for him to spend other peoples money when it wasn't his.

Then we had to keep being over taxed to help contribute to his ridiculous pension.

To para-phrase that Woolworth's ode to the bogan: If you don't like it leave.

The airport is over there ----->

There are plenty of people in America that share your view, I am sure they would welcome you into their caring arms.

BTW, it is not your money, it is the Government's money. Pleae point out to me the place in the constitution where it says that it is your money, nah didn't think so.

You are happy to reap the benifits of a society where you can while stomping on the face of anyone that is less fortunate than yourself, and who might need a hand up.

Churlish, childish and just down right spiteful. Do you have a picture of the Mincing Poodle or Andrew Bolt on your wall? If not you should, they are fellow travelers on your hate filled life.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

If people were means tested private non-religious schools would be viable businesses if public schools were only made available to those who truly couldnt afford a private education.

Plenty of non religious people send their kids to religious schools already anyway.

To simply ignore money as the motivation is also laughable. Chortles all round.

And you see, therein lies the problem.

Reasonable people want education seen as a right, not as a business.

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

Gough achieved some great things - most of all ending conscription which is just slavery by another name.

However he won't be fondly remembered by West Papuans, Timorese or Vietnamese who he sold under the bus.

As for his effect on domestic policy I offer this graph.

Australian government expenditure (and therefore taxation) increased by 50% in the Whitlam era and has never returned to its previous levels since.

As for free education, all that did was make it necessary to get a degree to get jobs that people previously did without having a degree. Complete and absolute waste of money. You need a degree for basically any office job nowadays. Previously only engineers and doctors needed degrees. If the idea was to allow people from poor families access to those occupations, then the funding should have been restricted to professional degrees only, and means tested.

This graph is scurrilous.

After two generations of right-wing government, where next to nothing was spent on social services and infrastructure Whitlam had a mandate to do what he did. Then Fraser and his cronies decided to throw the toys out of the cot and stop supply.

 

[haden1999]

Were not the Baathists in power then?

People have a crack at Thatcher over Pinochet and South AFrica (this despite Mandela praising her) yet most (not all in fairness) gloss over Gough's willingness to engage with dictatorial regimes . East Timor was hardly a credit to him. Oddly enough many who praise him are extremely pro illegal immigrants coming by boat. Gough certainly wasn't.
.

Who is pro "illegal immigrants" coming by boat?

I think you're confusing Australians who want Australia to fairly process genuine refugees (rather than locking them up in jail) with something else.

 

[little graham]

FYI the alternative question choice was "Great Prime Minister or Greatest Prime Minister?"

He was an Australian prime minister. We've only had a handfull of them. Unless you understand that, your opinion is worthless.

 

[Nikita Blue]

People have a crack at Thatcher over Pinochet and South AFrica (this despite Mandela praising her) yet most (not all in fairness) gloss over Gough's willingness to engage with dictatorial regimes . East Timor was hardly a credit to him. Oddly enough many who praise him are extremely pro illegal immigrants coming by boat. Gough certainly wasn't.

Sorry I know this thread is about Gough but above is absolute rubbish

Thatcher not only supported Pinochet she did everything she possibly could to help him evade answering for his crimes. Forget the coup which overthrew the democratic government of Allende and the mass torture, rape and murder of Chileans - what did she have to say Thank you for bringing democracy to Chile

and Mandela was just exhibiting the grace and dignity she clearly lacked.