News Limited vs Labor

[John]

Trying to recall what was in it. Didn't think it went that far.

Terrible terrible stuff. Poor Rupert poor poor Rupert. The Pathet Loa are everywhere and out to get him.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Yeah , spoke to a mod , apparently it was cutting too close to the bone.

That's really odd. Did they think it was going to be defamatory?

Otherwise I guess we wait and see what ads pop up on site... Carsguide? CareerOne?

 

[NSWCROW]

It was Donners i spoke to.
He said it wasn't him that moved it.

 

[noddy]

Where was it moved to & where has the Question Time graveyard board gone?

 

[Maggie5]

It was Donners i spoke to.
He said it wasn't him that moved it.

We will just have to use this thread to record our disdain for an awful man and his biased newsprint.
Still angry at the ABC for breaking into normal programming to show the hoopla around the OZ's 50th.
Such bias

 

[medusala]

The Howard government ran a structural deficit for much of his time in office.

At least you are consistent in always being wrong on economic matters.

or see chart three below.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/...e/Key Documents/PDF/Working_paper_2013_1.ashx

 

[Grin]

Ahh medusala
Whilst I doubt you'll ever understand concepts like structural deficits (no one who has received their economic education from Liberal party propaganda via the Murdoch press does).
This is worded in quite simple language for you.

The Parliamentary Budget Office reports that the structural deficit goes back to the final years of the Howard/Costello government when the actual budget was in surplus and the government was not only retiring debt but was a net lender.

Instead of accumulating greater surpluses as investment against the eventual downturn, it gave away a huge amount particularly in generous middle class welfare and significantly eroded the tax base with cuts to income tax rates and thresholds. While it looked like government finances were in good shape, the structural balance estimates present a different picture.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/23/politics/stripping-real-budget-disguise

Any how.
Please don't let this get in the way of your worship of Howard middle class welfare.

 

[Grin]

Back on topic

The power of the Murdoch media to manipulate
Rupert Murdoch uses a variety of weapons to bludgeon readers into submission.

In Australia, that includes techniques including publishing tame articles from a battery of credentialed economists.

Fairfax does the same. But Murdoch's economists are more numerous, better writers and by virtue of their broader reach have greater influence.

How do they manipulate their readers? With six strategies.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15412&page=0

 

[medusala]

Ahh medusala

Yawn. Another baseless rant. See Treasury numbers in graph form. 2006/7 is when it probably first when in to deficit. That is one year out of how many in office?

Yet you claimed

"The Howard government ran a structural deficit for much of his time in office."

 

[medusala]

[QUOTE="Grin, post: 34111290, member: 22565" writers and by virtue of their broader reach have greater influence.

How do they manipulate their readers? With six strategies.
http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=15412&page=0[/QUOTE]

Lol at your article

Take this little pearler

"The data shows compellingly that other nations with strong trade with China were not saved"

How about those that EXPORT to China like Canada?

And this piece of stupidity/ blatant mistruth

....

"One of the great myths about the GFC is that stimulus 'saved Australia'. But is this actually the case? The answer, clearly demonstrated in these pages over recent weeks, is a resounding no. China's stimulus, the Reserve Bank slashing interest rates, and the formidable inherited fiscal position were what actually put Australia in good stead

No, that has not been demonstrated. It has been asserted with no evidence. Because the actual evidence proves the opposite." [yeah sure it was - stimulus spending came after the neg gdp quarter]

...

"And absolutely never any research into how Australia's global ranking lifted during the Whitlam administration, fell under Fraser, rose through the Hawke/Keating period, slipped back badly during the dismal Howard years, but rocketed to the top with Rudd and Gillard."

Global ranking, well how about name which ranking. Like competitiveness index? As for the disadvantaged how did real wages compare under Howard to Hawke and Keating?

Another hopeless fail at attacking the Murdoch press. Mindless propaganda

Oh the humour. This explains everything

Alan Austin is an Australian freelance journalist currently based in Nîmes in the South of France.

He worked for eight years with ABC Radio

 

[clogged]

Global ranking, well how about name which ranking. Like competitiveness index? As for the disadvantaged how did real wages compare under Howard to Hawke and Keating?

Didn't this wage growth happen during a period you have previously considered part of an unsustainable credit boom?

 

[medusala]

Didn't this wage growth happen during a period you have previously considered part of an unsustainable credit boom?

part but not all of the story. Real wages fell under Hawke/ Keating due to the accord.

 

[Elroo]

part but not all of the story. Real wages fell under Hawke/ Keating due to the accord.

And?

 

[Grin]

Yawn. Another baseless rant.

Just to repeat for you Meds:
"Instead of accumulating greater surpluses as investment against the eventual downturn, it gave away a huge amount particularly in generous middle class welfare and significantly eroded the tax base with cuts to income tax rates and thresholds. While it looked like government finances were in good shape, the structural balance estimates present a different picture."

So perhaps we should just agree to disagree:
You obviously think that Howards unsustainable meddle class welfare and tax cuts were a fantastic idea, I don't.

My opinion is that, during boom times, rather than pissing all the benefits against the wall on short term programs aimed at buying votes, better to put away for the inevitable bust.
You disagree.
Fair enough.
Each to his own I suppose.

 

[geelong_boy]

Just to repeat for you Meds:
"Instead of accumulating greater surpluses as investment against the eventual downturn, it gave away a huge amount particularly in generous middle class welfare and significantly eroded the tax base with cuts to income tax rates and thresholds. While it looked like government finances were in good shape, the structural balance estimates present a different picture."

So perhaps we should just agree to disagree:
You obviously think that Howards unsustainable meddle class welfare and tax cuts were a fantastic idea, I don't.

My opinion is that, during boom times, rather than pissing all the benefits against the wall on short term programs aimed at buying votes, better to put away for the inevitable bust.
You disagree.
Fair enough.
Each to his own I suppose.

I heard a great story on ABC Radio National's Bush Telegraph segment about the mining boom and how badly it was managed (by both sides ) as compared to how a Norway utilises it's North Sea oil reserves. They basically contended how it was a failure of long term public policy to save as many proceeds of the mining boom as possible (ie. a real sovereign wealth fund and not one that just protected us from pensions) and how the Norwegians did it better by for example keeping their dollar as low as they could to avoid the worst of the two speed economy.

 

[Grin]

medusala really hates that example.
His type argue that unless we give away our resources for little profit to kindly foreign owned multinationals, they won't invest here.

Of course, the Norway example makes a lie of this obvious myth.

Following the Norway example would, of course, be best for most Australians but not so good for Gina Rinehart et. al. and foreign owned multinationals.

This brings us back to the role of the Murdoch press.
It's job is to convince the majority of Australians to vote against their own interests.
It also explains the Rineharts of this world and (what Malcolm X would have referred to as) their 'house negroes'* fear and loathing of quality, independent journalism.

*No offence intended
The term comes from a speech "Message to the Grass Roots" (1963) by African American activist Malcolm X, wherein he explains that during slavery, there were two kinds of slaves: "house Negroes", who worked in the master's house, and "field Negroes", who performed the manual labor outside.

He characterizes the house Negro as having a better life than the field Negro, and thus unwilling to leave the plantation and potentially more likely to support existing power structures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Negro

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Where was it moved to & where has the Question Time graveyard board gone?

Not Footy Related > Question Time

It hasn't been removed:
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/the-lets-all-lol-at-limited-news-thread.1042045/page-17

Perhaps someone realised it would be better to just remove whichever posts they thought were racist and then put the thread back?

 

[romeoh]

Now Rup has his preferred govt in power here, he is going after Obama so he can get the tea party in there. It will cost him a pretty penny tho.

 

[Chief Ten Beers]

Pretty similar to North's form week by week actually.

 

[medusala]

medusala really hates that example.

Norway has how much oil, how many people, how big a current account and budget surplus?

How typical that it came up on the ABC

 

[Power Raid]

medusala really hates that example.
His type argue that unless we give away our resources for little profit to kindly foreign owned multinationals, they won't invest here.

Of course, the Norway example makes a lie of this obvious myth.

Following the Norway example would, of course, be best for most Australians but not so good for Gina Rinehart et. al. and foreign owned multinationals.

This brings us back to the role of the Murdoch press.
It's job is to convince the majority of Australians to vote against their own interests.
It also explains the Rineharts of this world and (what Malcolm X would have referred to as) their 'house negroes'* fear and loathing of quality, independent journalism.

*No offence intended
The term comes from a speech "Message to the Grass Roots" (1963) by African American activist Malcolm X, wherein he explains that during slavery, there were two kinds of slaves: "house Negroes", who worked in the master's house, and "field Negroes", who performed the manual labor outside.

He characterizes the house Negro as having a better life than the field Negro, and thus unwilling to leave the plantation and potentially more likely to support existing power structures.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Negro

so you support putting the nation's finances at risk by co-investing in mining projects?

As I understand it, if Norway wants 78% of the profit, they also invest 78% of the equity. Further, the total resource industry investment in norway is much much smaller than Oz, meaning if losses are incurred they are manageable compared to the governments funds.

We wouldn't be too far off the 78% between all the taxes anyway, without any of the risk. So who taxes resources better?

 

[Maggie5]

Of course I want a realistic answer not political party spin. now provide an honest answer and go into the detail. Please feel free to provide positives and well as the reality.

oh....Care to disclose your alignment?


let's start with these lower power bills you talk about...
let's talk about the con jobs on the school halls...what about the $10B robbed fromthe education fund???
let's talk about the major f up NDIS and how it is sabotaging the state system and replacing it with a failed scheme.....
let's talk about our inability to absorb a little pain and how we over cooked the economy during the GFC.....
let's talk about bribing Africa to buy votes for a UN seat.....
a robust NBN which going to cost how much when announced??????
an ETS????? you mean the lie........
1,000,000 jobs created???? how many lost????/ the net gain????
low inflation because of government policy???? love to hear this one
a clean energy foundation.....leading to the double capex amortisation
JSFs......we both know we have to do this but we both know this is a F up waiting to happen

So which of these was worth burdening the next two generations with debt for?


feel free to be honest for a change

Surprised at you PR
let's talk about the major f up NDIS and how it is sabotaging the state system and replacing it with a failed scheme..... - yes let's, latest report very positive.
let's talk about our inability to absorb a little pain and how we over cooked the economy during the GFC..... let's talk about it - what pain?
let's talk about bribing Africa to buy votes for a UN seat.....Doesn't look so bad now does it?
an ETS????? you mean the lie........As opposed to the numerous lies by this government? Now we have nothing.
1,000,000 jobs created???? how many lost????/ the net gain???? - This is my favourite!
Could add quite a few of my own but not worth it.

 

[geelong_boy]

Norway has how much oil, how many people, how big a current account and budget surplus?

How typical that it came up on the ABC

Gee mate it was on a program called Bush Telegraph on Radio National, it relates to all things rural Australia, from eg. sheep to public policy. Why bring ABC bias into this?

It's great and I must say interesting program for someone like me who has only ever lived in a city. The actual segment was about the mining boom: http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/bushtelegraph/mining-value/5543658

 

[Power Raid]

Surprised at you PR
1) let's talk about the major f up NDIS and how it is sabotaging the state system and replacing it with a failed scheme..... - yes let's, latest report very positive.
2) let's talk about our inability to absorb a little pain and how we over cooked the economy during the GFC..... let's talk about it - what pain?
3) let's talk about bribing Africa to buy votes for a UN seat.....Doesn't look so bad now does it?
4) an ETS????? you mean the lie........As opposed to the numerous lies by this government? Now we have nothing.
5) 1,000,000 jobs created???? how many lost????/ the net gain???? - This is my favourite!
Could add quite a few of my own but not worth it.

1) I can only go by what is being communicated by the disabilities services commission. I can't believe people would put their, I love federal politics before the needs of the disabled.
2) That's the point. We don't want to feel pain so we pass it onto our kids via a debt that will take 2 or more decades to repay.
3) OK, if you think using the public purse to buy oneself a job is OK then great.
4) I don't believe in a price on carbon as it is too narrow a view on both pollution and incentive to invest to improve processes.
5) Mine too

 

[Grin]

so you support putting the nation's finances at risk by co-investing in mining projects?

Do you support pissing away the profits of the largest boom in Australia's history on middle class welfare and vote buying as John Howard did? Or do you think much more should have been put away for economic stimulation for the inevitable bust?