Political Discussion

[Mego Red]

And what have I said since?

And where have you acknowledged you have been wrong?

Oh - and you haven't quoted one thing that I've said that has been wrong.

Even if you want to change the subject from your massive logic fail, the least you can do is ACTUALLY quote something that I've said that has been wrong.

 

[Bicks]

We have comedians over here in the centre, so I'm sure I'd love it.

And you must be one of them!

Centre my ass!

 

[Mego Red]

And you must be one of them!

Centre my ass!

LOL.

C'mon, Bicks. Your ass would have to move about three miles to the left if it wanted to be anywhere near the centre.

 

[Bicks]

LOL.

C'mon, Bicks. Your ass would have to move about three miles to the left if it wanted to be anywhere near the centre.

And yours about 4 miles to the right to even get close to the centre.....

 

[kirky]

Well what do you know, I had a look at two QLD seats in the 2007 election, you know the Kevin 07 where Labor spanked the Coalition.

I picked the first two seats that appeared on the electoral commission and what do you know in both seats, the votes were 40k Labor, 35k Liberals. So we know there are at least 70k Liberal voters in QLD .

Where did I say there were no Lib voters?

Yes I may have bias to the left (prefer to be a centre left) and your bias is just as pronounced on the right.

 

[AmericanCrow]

 

[AmericanCrow]

I knew it was Australia's fault for this entire regime.

Clever you have Russia taking the fall

Well done Aussies

 

[kirky]

Let's see if I have this right - for 7 years, the GOP have been slagging Obama for his ACA - and I remember that douchebag, DT, saying that he had a health care policy to go from day one of his presidency.

Let's not forget that the GOP control the House of Representatives, Senate and the Presidency.

So when the bill is presented to a house they control, it is rejected and some how it is the Democrats fault? Well * me.

Oh dear, reminds me of what happened after the 2013 election here, everything that was said before it (no cuts to ABC, health etc) was turned on its head in the budget.

The train wreck is gathering pace.

 

[Mego Red]

Let's see if I have this right - for 7 years, the GOP have been slagging Obama for his ACA - and I remember that douchebag, DT, saying that he had a health care policy to go from day one of his presidency.

Let's not forget that the GOP control the House of Representatives, Senate and the Presidency.

So when the bill is presented to a house they control, it is rejected and some how it is the Democrats fault? Well **** me.

Oh dear, reminds me of what happened after the 2013 election here, everything that was said before it (no cuts to ABC, health etc) was turned on its head in the budget.

The train wreck is gathering pace.

Even Republicans hate TrumpCare. Or RyanCare - we should probably call it that now it's failed.

This disaster is fascinating.

 

[Slippery Pete]

We have comedians over here in the centre, so I'm sure I'd love it.

Don't worry we've heard of Amy Schumer and John Oliver.

 

[Bicks]

Let's see if I have this right - for 7 years, the GOP have been slagging Obama for his ACA - and I remember that douchebag, DT, saying that he had a health care policy to go from day one of his presidency.

Let's not forget that the GOP control the House of Representatives, Senate and the Presidency.

So when the bill is presented to a house they control, it is rejected and some how it is the Democrats fault? Well **** me.

Oh dear, reminds me of what happened after the 2013 election here, everything that was said before it (no cuts to ABC, health etc) was turned on its head in the budget.

The train wreck is gathering pace.

You mean like this train wreck??
Remembering when Kevibn Rudd came to power the budgetwe were in surplus...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n/news-story/ce4428ec1ce4d53202083979449f463b
PETER VAN ONSELEN
No plan to curb Australia’s growing debt means long-term pain

The uncomfortable truth that no politician wants to confront is that Australia doesn’t have a plan to pay down the national debt. Worse still, there isn’t even a plan to develop a plan.There’s lots of rhetoric about improving the budget bottom line, from both sides. But there is little or no focus on reducing the debt that has already accumulated. So bad has our addiction to debt become that we barely even discuss ways of paying down the accumulated debt any more. At best the focus is on lowering the deficit, which is a different thing entirely. Even if we do get to a point, years from now, where the deficit transforms into a surplus, at best it will be wafer thin. Smaller deficits interposed with tiny surpluses will persist for years beyond what is currently projected, dictated by small adjustments in the growth numbers. The days of a healthy surplus year on year (which can be used to pay down debt or save for a rainy day) are long gone. This begs the obvious question: if all the long-term forecasts show a return to surplus but without that surplus building into a substantial one, how do we ever pay down the hundreds of billions of dollars of accumulated debt? Projections that show a wafer-thin surplus flatlining year on year out into the future can’t pay down national debt. There is no plan for doing so, from either side. Labor likes to claim its long-term structural changes to negative gearing and capital gains tax concessions will help. More likely they will help fund some of Labor’s larger government programs. While some like to compare our relatively low national debt to more problematic debt levels abroad, this misses the point. Where’s the comfort in Australia having a healthier debt position when debt levels are nevertheless unhealthy? Second, such comparisons ignore the warnings about the trajectory of debt and the fear among ratings agencies that our pathway to surplus is dubious. Third, who honestly thinks any government fortunate enough to chart a pathway back to surplus would thereafter let future surpluses run into the tens of billions so that the leftover cash could be ploughed into paying down debt?

 

[kirky]

You mean like this train wreck??
Remembering when Kevibn Rudd came to power the budgetwe were in surplus...
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n/news-story/ce4428ec1ce4d53202083979449f463b
PETER VAN ONSELEN
No plan to curb Australia’s growing debt means long-term pain

The Coalition has been in power for 4 years - relevance now.

You do understand that the ALP had to deal with the greatest financial crisis ever in 2008? The Coalition had created structural, yes structural issues for the budget with there reckless middle class welfare and superannuation concessions.

Please tell me what is your occupation?

 

[Bicks]

The Coalition has been in power for 4 years - relevance now.

You do understand that the ALP had to deal with the greatest financial crisis ever in 2008? The Coalition had created structural, yes structural issues for the budget with there reckless middle class welfare and superannuation concessions.

Please tell me what is your occupation?

you're delusional...

Self funded retiree, as if it's any of your business anyway.

 

[kirky]

you're delusional...

Self funded retiree, as if it's any of your business anyway.

Oh one of the very favoured beneficiaries of the superannuation concessions that Howard introduced and costing the budget a shitload!

 

[Bicks]

Oh one of the very favoured beneficiaries of the superannuation concessions that Howard introduced and costing the budget a shitload!

As I said you're delusional, favoured beneficiaries my ass, most of us actually worked hard all our working life to be in the position we are, I wouldn't expect you to get that, not rich but comfortable, but hey that doesn't suit your agenda does it?

 

[DD#23]

As I said you're delusional, favoured beneficiaries my ass, most of us actually worked hard all our working life to be in the position we are, I wouldn't expect you to get that, not rich but comfortable, but hey that doesn't suit your agenda does it?

everybody works Bicks - the boomers were just privileged enough to do so at a time of unprecedented prosperity.

 

[kirky]

As I said you're delusional, favoured beneficiaries my ass, most of us actually worked hard all our working life to be in the position we are, I wouldn't expect you to get that, not rich but comfortable, but hey that doesn't suit your agenda does it?

Not delusional at all, I was born in 1961, so I know what it will be like. Been working in finance since I was 17 (nearly 39 years ago) and also worked after high school (so effectively since I was 13), you don't know me.

I don't believe the concessions as they stand should be so generous and whilst I will be a beneficiary of the system that doesn't make it right as they stand.

Working in finance I have seen how people have manipulated the system - I've seen it more than most would have.

 

[WCE1987]

The Coalition has been in power for 4 years - relevance now.

You do understand that the ALP had to deal with the greatest financial crisis ever in 2008? The Coalition had created structural, yes structural issues for the budget with there reckless middle class welfare and superannuation concessions.

Please tell me what is your occupation?

Kirky, In relation to the gfc I thought the fact the Australian banking is different to US and our big 4 are such strong banks we were never going to be hit has hard as the US was. Hindsight always helps but I also think the way the labor government handed out money during that period wasn't wise.

 

[WCE1987]

Even Republicans hate TrumpCare. Or RyanCare - we should probably call it that now it's failed.

This disaster is fascinating.

They definitely do things different in the US with Medicare and Medicaid. My understand is a lot of work places provided the health covers. From I can see with the ACA the issue with the rollout is in how the states adopt it then take on the costs.

What's the semantics of trumps idea vs obama's?

 

[Mego Red]

everybody works Bicks - the boomers were just privileged enough to do so at a time of unprecedented prosperity.

Exactly. I'm not a boomer or a millennial, but if shits me how one "worked hard" and one "has had it easy", when everyone works hard and everyone has challenges.

 

[Mego Red]

Kirky, In relation to the gfc I thought the fact the Australian banking is different to US and our big 4 are such strong banks we were never going to be hit has hard as the US was. Hindsight always helps but I also think the way the labor government handed out money during that period wasn't wise.

The issues with the massive international banks being hit during the GFC was finance became very difficult to get, and business started to tighten across the globe.

This leads to a bit of a house of cards scenario, where all business starts to contract which leads to less spending which leads to businesses contracting further.

Stimulus spending by the US and Australian governments saved those economies.

Australia DID have a series of other advantages - resources income, not having to bail out banks - but would have been hit by the flow on from larger economies if we didn't have the decent economic management of the time.

 

[Elite Crow]

I think the majority of Australians are aligned with the Labor Party (as compared to the Libs, the Nats or any minor party) and a vast minority of Australians are union members.

That means, despite the efforts of the majority of our media, more Australians are aligned with Labor values than Lib.

Having members of Unions within the Labor Party is only problematic if they're pulling the party away from what is best for voters.

Voters don't seem to believe that.

Many union leaders have come from a background of service for the good of their members. That is arguably the best possible background for political and public service.

You hate unions. You've made that clear. Others don't agree.

You wanted proof where you've been wrong? Well here it is. You've not proven that more Australians are aligned to Labor and their values. Because you can't. You are making assumptions based on what you think the LNQ split would be, but you can never prove that and relying on State votes doesn't cut it, they are two different elections.

What I've shown you is the last 2 elections prior to the LNQ merger, in 07 Labor led and in 04, the Libs led. But you already know that, but you've put it on ignore.

 

[Elite Crow]

You clearly do not read what I post.

I didn't say "the Coalition". The Coalition is an alignment for political expediency between two parties that often have very different values.

I said the Libs and the National Party - separately. The Labor Party traditionally has more supporters than either of those parties, hence their need to have their arranged marriage.

Wrong

 

[Elite Crow]

Sigh. The Queensland results of the last two elections before the LNP merger.

2004 Election

Labor 1,011,630
Liberal 398,147
National 365,005

2006 Election

Labor 1,032,617
Liberal 442,453
National 392,124

What can we learn from this?

1. Labor was more popular then either party individually.
2. The LNP is roughly half Lib supporters and roughly half Nats supporters.

Now can we put this to rest? It's obvious that, compared to INDIVIDUAL parties, Labor is the most popular, hence the need for parties to merge into a coalition.

Wrong, as I've been saying you have used state votes to try and justify a federal position. I can't believe I didn't do this sooner but you can actually drill down state votes in a federal campaign.

In 2007, the last federal vote before the LNP merger, this was the QLD result:

Libs 818k
Nationals 239k
Result 77% Lib vote

Now if we work on the same assumption for the last two elections:

2016
Libs 3882
77% of LNP vote 887
Total Libs 4769

Labor 4702

Result, Libs ahead just

2013 Election

Libs 4132
77% of LNP 887
Total Lib 5029

Labor 4311

And it's a Lib smashing.

I've also supported this by showing the Libs won the 2004 vote easily.

So it seems I've been right when I've said:

1) you can't say that the majority of Aussies vote Labor
2) you can't use State figures to explain national results
3) results change between elections
4) you were wrong

And it seems you've been wrong when:

1) you claimed Labor was the leading party
2) worked on the assumption the Nationals were the leading party in QLD, pretty embarrassing considering you live there
3) we need the Coalition to beat Labor based on the primary vote
4) I've been wrong

Let's face it, after a whole lot of argy bargy, the only thing we can deduce is I have been RIGHT and you my friend have been very WRONG. Now can you point that out to Vader kirky

Oh and just in case you are wondering, in 2004 the Libs won 80% of the Lib Nationals combined vote.

 

[kirky]

Kirky, In relation to the gfc I thought the fact the Australian banking is different to US and our big 4 are such strong banks we were never going to be hit has hard as the US was. Hindsight always helps but I also think the way the labor government handed out money during that period wasn't wise.

After the collapse of Lehmann Bros in Sept 2008, effectively the banking system worldwide froze. Capital markets collapse which is why the Governments had to come in and provide guarantees on deposits.

Our banks were stronger than most however still needed backing from the government.

Are people away that banks in Australia generally get 35% of their funding from overseas? Australia is a borrower nation not a saving nation. That's is why banks are having to up interest rates even though the RBA isn't moving its cash rate.