Stop the boats. 5k a head. (cont. in Part 2)

[Brown Bottle]

I know you are but what am I?

I believe I responded with something very similar to the very same poster not that long ago. At least I think it's the same poster. It's interesting trying to read a thread like this when you ignore the mindless. You lose a bit of context but gain a great deal on a personal level.

 

[smokingjacket]

Triggs actions both a. Falsely making claims about the govt actions and b. Her own issues in relation to human rights are directly relevant here. If you can't see this then you're deluded.

Yeah must be that.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Name them.

Oh so lazy, GJ. See the second sentence in that post? I know logic isn't your strong point, so I'll make it clear. The answer to your question is in the links in my signature on Mod bias.

Oh the terrible irony. Lou's literally pointing out her own human treatment...

Mottrain - louismaxwell is the poster who I thought you were when you started posting on here again. Apparently you were around a while back, so I reckon this alias is an imitation. And you know what they say about imitation...

Thanks to Labor we already have at least 50,000 welfare seekers in the country with no means of identifying them

Why don't you share your abilities to identify these 50,000 with the govt, Xsess? You're wasting your talents on BF, mate!

Then there's 239 people missing on MH370 which the world would love to find. Let us know what we can do to help you.

 

[medusala]

If you're referring to the fact that Joe Hockey once supported, not only cheap higher education but free higher education then I'm struggling to see how that doesn't play a role in an argument regarding fee increases for higher education.

Are not people allowed to change their minds? At uni I got taught a certain stream of economics that I was led to believe had some validity. It wasn't until years later that I had cause to believe it was utter nonsense. Should I have stuck with my original belief?

If only more politicians would come out and say they were wrong I think it would be a good thing (still waiting for Wayne Swan to apologise)

In fairness to the last government they realised that their policy re illegal immigrants was wrong and they changed course. Whilst not going far enough I think they should be applauded for having recognised this. Its a pity so many on here cant recognise the obvious ie the original ALP policy was a hopeless failure.

 

[Max zero]

Sorry Max I was away for a bit. I know it's a bit off topic but I had to pull you up on both.



I'm aware of the difference Max that's why I put real in quotation marks. Your initial post referred to "has there been real growth?" I'll refrain from sarcasm in the future, it's a bad habit.

The problem with what you're saying is laying straight in front of you in the figures. In fact in your own sentence. What's wrong with growing our population and maintaining a small amount of growth in what is one of the highest GDP per capita in the world? Many of those people will hopefully go on to be drivers of future economic growth. We are privileged in many ways in this country. None more so than that we're considered an attractive destination for the best and brightest of the world to come and contribute their skills and knowledge here.

Demand on it's own is hardly useless when we're talking over the cycle. We don't live in a model. No modern government is going to accept taking 10, 20, 30 years to get back to a 'pure' equilibrium and nor should they.

I have no idea what that last bit means.

Indeed max, it's actually not a new concept at all. It's been a part of the discussion of arguments around Australian agriculture for years. Not enough hands on the land in this country has led to unsustainable exploitation of it's resources. For example the squatters stripped the pasture bare for short term economic gain rather than the long health of the land itself because they thought they could always find some other place to move the stock once it was ruined. The same mindset has infected most of Australian society because we're so sparsely populated. Take water for example. As we're constantly being told, we inhabit one of the driest countries in the world and yet even basic water recycling measures like storm runoff are only now being implemented. Same goes for housing. Why build denser communities when you can just flatten another swamp for an estate? Our sparse population has given us the illusion of never ending abundance when in fact our country is incredibly fragile.

It's been a while but I don't remember reading Keynes say that a government's role was to be heavily indebted. On a basic level it's about balance across the cycle. Save in the good times, spend in the bad. A well managed neo-Keynesian strategy would be that of the Clinton administration that paid off nearly all of US Federal deficit during a property boom. If Bush didn't piss it all away in a series of wars and wanton fiscal irresponsibility, he or Obama might have had a great deal more room to stimulate the economy without putting pressure on its deficit.


You're trying too hard to disagree with me Max and it's showing. Aren't developers capitalists too? Am I not also entitled in the free market to live in a "shoebox?"

Or in this instance do you support the regulation of planning to preserve the carbon intensive, car commuter, banal, lifeless suburbia we've created?

Have your big house with the picket fence in the suburbs. I'd just like a vibrant inner city.

I would question whether we are actually maintaining our standard of living in some areas. If we need high density housing to keep our cities functional is that actually a good thing. How many people actually want to live in high density housing?

And how easy is the argument to make that overpopulation causes environmental damage? I would argue that environmental damage from overpopulation is a far more prevalent and serious threat then environmental damage from underpopulation.

The funny thing with keynesian-type economy stimulus is that its always a question if it actually worked. Take for example Rudd's stimulus. Did it save us? Or was it the mining boom? Judging by the gap between WA, Queensland and the rest of the nation it seems clear which had the biggest effect.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/05/13/did-the-stimulus-work/

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-05-18/34496

RMIT Professor (and my IPA colleague) Sinclair Davidson ran the calculation again, this time with all 19 countries included. And - surprise! - the correlation disappears. There is no statistically significant relationship between stimulus package size and economic performance.

What you call "carbon intensive, car commuter, banal, lifeless suburbia" is the dream for a large number (if not the majority) of people in Australia. How many people flock to Australia for the very reason that it ISN'T like the rest of the world?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

If only more politicians would come out and say they were wrong I think it would be a good thing (still waiting for Wayne Swan to apologise)

For promising a surplus?

 

[medusala]

For promising a surplus?

For wasting $200bn odd.

Noone with a clue believed the surplus promise (or anything the tosser said - look at his career)

Just as no one ex Lib fanbois believe Hockey will cut spending enough to deliver one in the next two years.

 

[smokingjacket]

Are not people allowed to change their minds? At uni I got taught a certain stream of economics that I was led to believe had some validity. It wasn't until years later that I had cause to believe it was utter nonsense. Should I have stuck with my original belief?

I appreciate editing for clarity but you've cut off the answer to your question from the bottom of my post.

Treasurer Hockey is welcome to defend himself as he has, but his past thoughts on the matter, something he was willing to organise, rally and write about, have a part to play for the electorate to make a decision on whether this is a good policy.

It was a question of pertinence. Of course The Treasurer is allowed to change his mind, however equally if he's held opposing views previously then it's pertinent to the debate to ask him to justify why he's changed his mind.

Unlike Ms Griggs child rearing abilities and Australia's asylum seeker policy.

 

[smokingjacket]

I would question whether we are actually maintaining our standard of living in some areas. If we need high density housing to keep our cities functional is that actually a good thing. How many people actually want to live in high density housing?

Moved it to a more appropriate thread if that's kewl.

 

[pokerspiv]

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...lumseeker-deaths/story-fn9hm1gu-1227089412935

Labor party policy led to over 200 deaths per year on average. So far there has been 1 death in 2014.

Congratulations to the Liberal party for immediately putting a stop to the epidemic of deaths at sea.

 

[Floor Pie]

What about deaths in captivity?

 

[stormee]

Gotta laugh at the Shine lawyers guy being interviewed this morning. Their client is a Tamil Christian who left Sri Lanka... to India. Well surely once he reached India he's no longer in the danger he was in Sri Lanka right? No need to jump on a boat to Australia?

 

[Brown Bottle]

Gotta laugh at the Shine lawyers guy being interviewed this morning. Their client is a Tamil Christian who left Sri Lanka... to India. Well surely once he reached India he's no longer in the danger he was in Sri Lanka right? No need to jump on a boat to Australia?

Hysterical. You had me rolling in the aisles.

 

[Xsess]

What about deaths in captivity?

Rioting is dangerous.

 

[Floor Pie]

Rioting is dangerous.

Yeah? How dangerous is a small cut on your foot?
Turns out its deadly...

 

[CLUBMEDhurst]

Rioting is should not be dangerous.

EFA, twat

 

[Xsess]

Yeah? How dangerous is a small cut on your foot?
Turns out its deadly...

Indeed. By my reckoning its about 1:1199th as deadly as attempting a boat crossing to the land of free welfare.

 

[Gough]

Why do you pretend to care about deaths at sea? You want to keep the Muslims out, you've said as much, and with a PM as equally dull in his thinking as you are, you've got your way.

 

[Floor Pie]

Indeed. By my reckoning its about 1:1199th as deadly as attempting a boat crossing to the land of free welfare.

So, death at sea, compared to death in our captivity...

Yeah, you're not just flag waving, you actually care about people!

 

[Xsess]

Why do you pretend to care about deaths at sea?

It upset my appetite watching those poor bastards getting smashed against the rocks while I was eating my dinner.

Why do you pretend to care about deaths at sea?

 

[Xsess]

So, death at sea, compared to death in our captivity...

No 1200 deaths as a direct result of inept government policy, as opposed to a successful policy thats reduced it down to 1. Dont you care?

 

[Floor Pie]

No 1200 deaths as a direct result of inept government policy, as opposed to a successful policy thats reduced it down to 1. Dont you care?

Not even close to the same thing. And you know it.

People that we arrest, without ever charging for a crime. And keep in captivity using tax payers money...

Vs people dying at sea because they want to make it to Australia.

 

[Riseupaustralia]

See, I am trying REALLY hard to not be cynical about the current governments policy, and I am honestly over joyed with this outcome for these Vietnamese "boat people" as my missus is Vietnamese, and I have lived there for years and seen the VN governments crackdown on Catholics first hand...(which is far more to do with the Vaticans arrogance than the parishioners intransigence).

And no, no-one was dying, but life was made difficult for them.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-10-...ers-to-be-released-into-the-community/5813064

But I can't help but think that some preferential treatment is at play here because of their Christian background

A spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Scott Morrison said it was routine for the department to grant bridging visas to "eligible illegal maritime arrivals" and release them into the community pending resolution of their immigration status.

Hang on...Eligible illegal maritime arrivals?? Say what now?

Aren't all of these people escaping persecution of some sort? And don't play the "economic refugee" card, as these people were, and are, cashed up to the hilt.

Again, no Viet Catholics are dying, getting bombed, r*ped or dispossessed...the Commies, (LOL), just discriminate against them. And yes, that is wrong!! But it pales in comparison to what some of "other" asylum seekers have been through.

That couldn't possibly be one rule for some and another for the rest, (Muslims), now could it?

 

[midorigreenwood]

That couldn't possibly be one rule for some and another for the rest, (Muslims), now could it?

don't know the specifics but the Vietnamese probably just have a stronger lobby group considering their long history in Oz. Also if they're not on nauru/christmas island/manus they probably came before Labor started cracking down. (many got transferred to the mainland when the numerous policy changes was implemented.

Not much different to the lobbying that led to a near unrestricted welcome of Lebanese from the civil war decades ago (many of whom were muslim). No doubt religious organisations like church groups have the ear of politicians too.

 

[Play by Numbers]

This man is genuinely a monster.


http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...five-years-20141013-1157jt.html#ixzz3G7OOzWo3

Anti-whistleblowing law being used to pursue Save the Children staff used only twice in five years


Only two people over five years have been charged using the anti-whistleblowing section of the Crimes Act the federal government is using to pursue Save the Children staff, according to the Australian Federal Police.

Section 70 of the Crimes Act is being used by Immigration Minister Scott Morrison against 10 staff from the aid organisation on Nauru accused of communicating privileged information to non-Commonwealth workers.

He has referred the matter to the AFP for investigation.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...five-years-20141013-1157jt.html#ixzz3G7OOzWo3

Absolutely sickening, that a man better suited to being a third world despot, destined for the Hague, has a position in government.