Opinion Politics (warning, may contain political views you disagree with)

[wahooo]

He wasn't presenting any kind of argument. He's asserting without evidence that you can't get hired once you're over 50 in Australia. Something so obviously false that it's laughable.

45-54 year olds are the highest earners in Australia.

That's much better than your initial response, at least you engaged with the argument somewhat there.

Although his point was around discrimination that people over fifty face when applying for jobs. Your argument that they earn more (whether true or not) doesn't at all refute the idea that they face discrimination when applying for jobs. Some stat looking at the proportion of people employed based on their age is probably a better indicator of potential discrimination rather than income.

I did screenshot a graph from the abs that supports witch's comment but can't post it because I'm technologically inept.

I suggest you stop accusing people of "making stuff up" or making "false statements", I think the last few pages of this thread show it's a case of the kettle calling the pot black.

I mean "keynesian economics was proven false" is the most laughable thing I've read in a while chooky.

 

[Witch1]

He wasn't presenting any kind of argument. He's asserting without evidence that you can't get hired once you're over 50 in Australia. Something so obviously false that it's laughable.

45-54 year olds are the highest earners in Australia.

Yes, you're sitting pretty if you are 45-54 and ALREADY HAVE a nice, permanent job you've been in for years.

Obviously I was talking about the unemployed, many of whom are homeless, couch surfing or sleeping in cars - because they can't get work. I thought most people knew this.

 

[wahooo]

Yes, you're sitting pretty if you are 45-54 and ALREADY HAVE a nice, permanent job you've been in for years.

Obviously I was talking about the unemployed, many of whom are homeless, couch surfing or sleeping in cars - because they can't get work. I thought most people knew this.

I think old mate chooky prefers to deny their existence, this is the same bloke who advocated against a minimum wage and the existence of basic human rights.

 

[bushchook]

I think old mate chooky prefers to deny their existence, this is the same bloke who advocated against a minimum wage and the existence of basic human rights.

It's funny that you seemingly believe the minimum wage is a great thing while at the same time bemoaning the difficulty of finding unskilled work.

The minimum wage is what causes this unemployment.

It's difficult to debate with people who can't seem to wrap their heads around even the most basic economic concepts.

 

[freowho]

It's funny that you seemingly believe the minimum wage is a great thing while at the same time bemoaning the difficulty of finding unskilled work.

The minimum wage is what causes this unemployment.

It's difficult to debate with people who can't seem to wrap their heads around even the most basic economic concepts.

Removing the minimum wage won't help. It will just mean you now have to work and live in poverty. The world is over populated.

 

[wahooo]

It's funny that you seemingly believe the minimum wage is a great thing while at the same time bemoaning the difficulty of finding unskilled work.

The minimum wage is what causes this unemployment.

It's difficult to debate with people who can't seem to wrap their heads around even the most basic economic concepts.

So if we accept your argument that a minimum wage=unemployment we'd surely expect a high unemployment rate in Australia right?

When in fact the Australian unemployment rate is hovering around 5%, with growing evidence that our natural unemployment rate is actually coalescing around 4-5%. So in reality, if we're near this natural rate of unemployment we're at full employment.

Old people struggling to find a job is not evidence of minimum wages causing unemployment. The fact that people over the age of 50 struggle to find work while our unemployment rate is low is evidence of witch's argument.

 

[bushchook]

The fact that people over the age of 50 struggle to find work while our unemployment rate is low is evidence of witch's argument.

I must have missed where anyone established that "fact".

 

[mightymouse75]

Nah, if you look it up in the dictionary this is what you see...

You would be smug too if you had just won the unwinnable election.
He had no right winning it, leftards had to hand it to him in on a plate..

 

[raffrox]

You would be smug too if you had just won the unwinnable election.
He had no right winning it, leftards had to hand it to him in on a plate..

Cool dude.

Burn the planet for political point scoring?

"Lol, I'm destroying the planet for future generations"

And what the hell is 'leftards'? What word are you combining with left? Any other archaic 'gems' you got for me?

No wonder you like ScoMo.

 

[Witch1]

I must have missed where anyone established that "fact".

Here you go -

The surprising age group that is the most reliant on Newstart

What if everything we knew about the people on the dole was wrong? What if the largest single group of Australians on Newstart were over 55s?

thenewdaily.com.au

And paywall prevents me from accessing the article here, but PM's own office of over 2000 employs only one person over 65. If memory serves, Freidenberg's office is even more blatant. These hypocrites openly push older Australians to work longer.

 

[wahooo]

Cool dude.

Burn the planet for political point scoring?

"Lol, I'm destroying the planet for future generations"

And what the hell is 'leftards'? What word are you combining with left? Any other archaic 'gems' you got for me?

No wonder you like ScoMo.

Hard to say leftards handed him the election with Clive Palmer's preferences (from a very misleading campaign) going to the libs.

Not to mention the growing evidence of them pork barrelling every marginal electorate under the sun.

 

[Bigger]

I am a rather casual observer of Australian politics, but it strikes me this this current Federal coalition government is the most corrupt government we have ever had or certainly features highly among the pantheon of the corrupt.

WTF is going on? Seriously, who can support the idea that the AFP is directed to investigate journos looking into s**t the govt doesn't want looked into? Who can morally countenance the sheer ******* frivolity of the pork-barrelling the auditor-general is drawing our attention to?

It's weird. They genuinely seem to think they are above the law.

And re minimum wages? An industry which, even under normal circumstances, is not in a position to pay wages corresponding to what wages are supposed to accomplish, is lacking in economic justification.

 

[wahooo]

I am a rather casual observer of Australian politics, but it strikes me this this current Federal coalition government is the most corrupt government we have ever had or certainly features highly among the pantheon of the corrupt.

WTF is going on? Seriously, who can support the idea that the AFP is directed to investigate journos looking into s**t the govt doesn't want looked into? Who can morally countenance the sheer ******* frivolity of the pork-barrelling the auditor-general is drawing our attention to?

It's weird. They genuinely seem to think they are above the law.

And re minimum wages? An industry which, even under normal circumstances, is not in a position to pay wages corresponding to what wages are supposed to accomplish, is lacking in economic justification.

It strikes me as incredibly troublesome that we have a government who has ministers that are knowingly exceeding their powers and arbitrarily distributing funds that they do not have the constitutional authority to distribute, for what seems, a government wide program to extort political gain at the polling station. Sports Australia is responsible for the distribution of those grants, and they advised the minister that it would be an overreach of her power to make the decisions she did.

There was no act permitting their behaviour, they usurped the powers of an independent statutory body, it's as corrupt as it gets.

You'd think if we have an entire government implicitly involved in the misappropriation of taxpayer funds that the governor general would intervene to protect the rule of law?

 

[Square Peg]

Sports rorts was a farce but the idea that the GG should get involved is a hell of a lot scarier.

 

[salim malik]

The fish rots from the head down.
You have a lying corrupt leader and the rest will follow suit.
The truth is coming out now and Morrison was up to his neck in the stealing of tax payers money to assist their re election.

 

[wahooo]

Sports rorts was a farce but the idea that the GG should get involved is a hell of a lot scarier.

When you have a government showing complete disregard for the rule of law for electoral gain, I think the involvememt of the GG is a fair question. There's certainly an argument for it, I'm not necessarily in favour of it.

Federal ICAC would be nice.

 

[Square Peg]

When you have a government showing complete disregard for the rule of law for electoral gain, I think the involvememt of the GG is a fair question. There's certainly an argument for it, I'm not necessarily in favour of it.

Federal ICAC would be nice.

There is no argument for it at all, unless one wants to fundamentally destroy the nation and live in a country where the GG intervenes before parliament or the courts have even had a chance to resolve issues.

 

[raffrox]

There is no argument for it at all, unless one wants to fundamentally destroy the nation and live in a country where the GG intervenes before parliament or the courts have even had a chance to resolve issues.

Fair point.

For arguments sake how would you see "parliament or the courts" resolving the current issues? I don't see it.

Basically it was the "court" of public opinion that sealed Bridget McKenzie's fate. Surely that's not a satisfactory way to "resolve issues" either.

There will be very little other consequence for the government.

 

[Square Peg]

Fair point.

For arguments sake how would you see "parliament or the courts" resolving the current issues? I don't see it.

Basically it was the "court" of public opinion that sealed Bridget McKenzie's fate. Surely that's not a satisfactory way to "resolve issues" either.

There will be very little other consequence for the government.

How is it not being resolved currently by our system? The minister has resigned. The parliamentary inquiry is being conducted to establish if there were any breach of the law. If there is some possibility there has been, Dreyfus will be off to the federal police asking them to investigate.
And in two years time, the greatest court of all, the court of public opinion will cast their votes.
All of which seems marginally superior to a monarch ( representative ) stepping in like it's the year 1600

 

[raffrox]

How is it not being resolved currently by our system? The minister has resigned. The parliamentary inquiry is being conducted to establish if there were any breach of the law. If there is some possibility there has been, Dreyfus will be off to the federal police asking them to investigate.
And in two years time, the greatest court of all, the court of public opinion will cast their votes.
All of which seems marginally superior to a monarch ( representative ) stepping in like it's the year 1600

I wasn't advocating for the GG. Not sure if it sounded that way. More challenging the idea that the current way of doing things leads to anything of note either.

In all seriousness except for the greatest court of all (where Clive Palmer can sway the vote with phat wads of cash anyway) there is little consequence to run the gauntlet and just be corrupt. Have parliamentary inquiries ever resulted in anything of note? The idea that the current system resolves these issues in any kind of satisfactory manner is just not true.

I have little faith in inquiries or parlimentary structures. The joint standing committee and ongoing inquiries into the NDIS seem to be going great guns in getting that dogs breakfast sorted . Hasn't stopped the government from 'repurposing' $3.9 billion of NDIS money either. How do you have an inquiry into something and just remove $3.9 billion from it at the same time?

NDIS funds to be 'repurposed' for drought relief under Morrison plan

Disability advocates have slammed Prime Minister Scott Morrison's decision to "repurpose" $3.9 billion originally set aside for the NDIS to pay for drought relief, which has been cautiously welcomed by farmers.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Square Peg]

I wasn't advocating for the GG. Not sure if it sounded that way. More challenging the idea that the current way of doing things leads to anything of note either.

In all seriousness except for the greatest court of all (where Clive Palmer can sway the vote with phat wads of cash anyway) there is little consequence to run the gauntlet and just be corrupt. Have parliamentary inquiries ever resulted in anything of note? The idea that the current system resolves these issues in any kind of satisfactory manner is just not true.

I have little faith in inquiries or parlimentary structures. The joint standing committee and ongoing inquiries into the NDIS seem to be going great guns in getting that dogs breakfast sorted . Hasn't stopped the government from 'repurposing' $3.9 billion of NDIS money either. How do you have an inquiry into something and just remove $3.9 billion from it at the same time?

NDIS funds to be 'repurposed' for drought relief under Morrison plan

Disability advocates have slammed Prime Minister Scott Morrison's decision to "repurpose" $3.9 billion originally set aside for the NDIS to pay for drought relief, which has been cautiously welcomed by farmers.

www.smh.com.au

Got it.
Process fails to produce outcome I want = something must be wrong with the process.

 

[raffrox]

Got it.
Process fails to produce outcome I want = something must be wrong with the process.

Poor comeback is poor. Well terrible actually.

How can you hold an inquiry (or series of inquires in the case of the NDIS) on something that isn't working right by admission BUT before theres any outcomes from the inquiry you remove $3.9 billion from its budget?

Why bother having the inquiry at all if it is not going to have any kind of effect in any direction at all?

Come on then? From a pure logic chain perspective regardless of outcome it shows inquires do nothing if a $3.9 billion dollar adjustment can be made on something that has several inquires currently still active.

 

[Square Peg]

Poor comeback is poor. Well terrible actually.

How can you hold an inquiry (or series of inquires in the case of the NDIS) on something that isn't working right by admission BUT before theres any outcomes from the inquiry you remove $3.9 billion from its budget?

Why bother having the inquiry at all if it is not going to have any kind of effect in any direction at all?

Come on then? From a pure logic chain perspective regardless of outcome it shows inquires do nothing if a $3.9 billion dollar adjustment can be made on something that has several inquires currently still active.

You're talking about two totally different things. One was about (alleged) illegality. The other is policy. Are you seriously suggesting the government is acting illegally by reducing the amount of taxpayer money allocated to one priority over another?

 

[wahooo]

There is no argument for it at all, unless one wants to fundamentally destroy the nation and live in a country where the GG intervenes before parliament or the courts have even had a chance to resolve issues.

Yeah look, I wasn't clear. I'm happy for the matter to proceed through the relevant legal processes. I assumed that was widely accepted, perhaps I should have spelt it out more explicitly.

For any involvement of the GG events would need to transpire in a rather extraordinary fashion from this point, I do accept that. It just on face value certainly seems that the coalition has acted with complete disregard for the rule of law to extract electoral gain, I'm not confident that will be exposed through parliamentary inquiries and it could take years to progress through the courts.

I'm not saying I support the idea of the GG getting involved, was more trying to create some form of discussion.

I really can't understand why you're so dismissive of people's doubts in a potentially corrupt government's ability to expose the truth. Maybe I'm too pessimistic.

Edit: I'd say to even be at this point there's some inherent flaws in the system, why should we trust the process?

 

[raffrox]

You're talking about two totally different things. One was about (alleged) illegality. The other is policy. Are you seriously suggesting the government is acting illegally by reducing the amount of taxpayer money allocated to one priority over another?

You're argument has slid again.

Parliamentary inquires don't determine the legality of things. Its outside their scope. They're not a court of law. Very few if any (do you know of any?) arrests come from inquires. They don't determine legal or illegal acts.

I'd say how $3.9 billion is spent might be in the public interest though.

Both are pork barrelling.

Ones paying to win an election, one to absolve ScoMo's sins for s**t leadership on the drought, climate change and a national disaster.

Inquires failed to scrutinise both in any real way.