We chose the coalition - because?

[bunsen burner]

Well it aint mental health, Timelord. Im as mad as a hatter. Happiness is my number 1. Plain old happiness.

And how is the govt going to supply that? I pity anyone who's happiness hinges on a Govt.

It's quite clear I'm talking about the priorities in someone's life that are also election issues. I'm also talking about most people who are in that situation I laid out. You may be an exception but it's evident that that is how many people think and I think it would be unreasonable to fault anyone for thinking that way.

 

[evo]

Donvale got the wooden spoon in 2000, BTW!

And no team gets on the ground looking to lose! Otherwise they shouldn't even be there! To win, you HAVE TO TAKE CHANCES! Playing percentages is a mugs game.

I played a few games for Donvale about 20 years ago.

And Bunsen Burner has summed it up pretty well in last few posts.There are many people, particularly in Melbourne Sydney and Brisbane who are sitting on mighty hefty mortgages.For those of us old enough to remember the last housing boom and bust due to rapidly increasing interest rates it is a scary scenario.I nearly lost my 1st house myself.

When you're sitting on a $2 or 300k mortgage and repayments are taking up 30 or 40% of your wage you take interest rates very seriously.
The interesting thing about rates being so low at the moment is they only have to go up about 3% to make it a 50% increase.Interesting times ahead.

 

[skipper kelly]

And how is the govt going to supply that? I pity anyone who's happiness hinges on a Govt.

It's quite clear I'm talking about the priorities in someone's life that are also election issues. I'm also talking about most people who are in that situation I laid out. You may be an exception but it's evident that that is how many people think and I think it would be unreasonable to fault anyone for thinking that way.

Not faulting anyone BB. Just giving my answer. It would also be unreasonable to fault someone who doesnt think that way.

BTW. The Govt. dictates none of my priorities.

 

[bunsen burner]

Not faulting anyone BB. Just giving my answer. It would also be unreasonable to fault someone who doesnt think that way.

1. Not referring to you specifically but there are many on here who can't grasp this simple concept and then complain that these people are making some sort of irrational decision.

2. I don't think people are unreasonable for not having interest rates et al as their first priority or unreasonable for voting Latham. What I don't think is unreasonable is for people to not understand (read deny) why many people voted with this in mind and why people felt Howard was the better option considering their priorities.

Some people should grow up and accept that many people have every right to put themselves and their familie's security first and made the obvious percentage play by preferring Howard than Latham.

 

[skipper kelly]

1. Not referring to you specifically but there are many on here who can't grasp this simple concept and then complain that these people are making some sort of irrational decision.

2. I don't think people are unreasonable for not having interest rates et al as their first priority or unreasonable for voting Latham. What I don't think is unreasonable is for people to not understand (read deny) why many people voted with this in mind and why people felt Howard was the better option considering their priorities.

Some people should grow up and accept that many people have every right to put themselves and their familie's security first and made the obvious percentage play by preferring Howard than Latham.

I agree. If interest rates and family security were an issue for me, at this stage of my life, then I would have had had no hesitation in voting Howard, as there is more chance of interest rates staying at a reasonable level under his party rather than under an ALP government. History alone tells us this. And furthermore, if I was in the situation you describe, then voting for Howard is the only option I could possibly consider.

 

[funkyfreo]

To complete the thread title:

We chose the coalition because rich people vote Liberal, so if I vote Liberal today I must be wealthier than I was yesterday.

 

[Bombers 2003]

Who are you to think that you know the reasons why other people voted?

BB=Brains of Australia.
Ha.

 

[pazza]

Not really, no.

Put yourself in a situation where 5 years ago you had nothing. Then you got married and bought a house.....then the boom happened and you bought an investment property...then you had children. Life is pretty damn good and you are happy with yourself that you own the roof over your kids' heads and have an investment property/portfolio that will fund part of your children's education and then your retirement. You are geared to the tune 40% of your pay packet. You can handle rates going up to 8.5%, but anything less is extra money in your pocket.

What is the number one priority in your life? Most likely your security which hinges on interest rates. So if this is your number one priority, who is your best bet? If you are to play the percentages, who do you choose? JOHN HOWARD.

Now that's why a lot of people voted Howard. Why you can't see that and why you can't accept that it is the percentage play for many is beyond me. If you're hingeing on this "But how do you know until you give it a go", you're in denial. Yes Latham may have come through, but the percentage play is to vote Howard.

Tell me, when you watch the footy do you want your beloved Kangaroos to hold the ball up in a 50/50 or go for the boundary, or do you want them to take a chance. What do you think Laidley would want them to do? PLAY THE PERCENTAGES.

Number one priority..well getting a job would be it..had an interview in Nunawading this morning as an example.

Yeah I do accept the result...just posing a question in regards to risk (maybe it's the punter in me coming out a bit )

Not sour grapes at all..just something that crossed my mind a bit, particularly when I made my vote on Saturday (in regards to percentage play).

As others have said, yes I am a proud Essendon supporter and to answer your question...I am sick of the way we don't seem to kick the ball long these days..but, I am old-time football fan, brought up on a diet of seeing the likes of Hafey and Barassi show how footy should be played..not what it is now.

 

[timelord]

I agree. If interest rates and family security were an issue for me, at this stage of my life, then I would have had had no hesitation in voting Howard, as there is more chance of interest rates staying at a reasonable level under his party rather than under an ALP government. History alone tells us this. And furthermore, if I was in the situation you describe, then voting for Howard is the only option I could possibly consider.

Personally, I consider a socially viable society more important to family security than interest rates. That's the problem, and it's why (I go back to this again) I used the word "greedy" in the description line of those who voted for the Coalition. People can say "That's the way it is. Live with it" all they want. The fact is such an attitude is socially destructive, and the ALP know it. The sooner the message gets through to the people the sooner we will have an ALP federal government.

 

[medusala]

Personally, I consider a socially viable society more important to family security than interest rates. That's the problem, and it's why (I go back to this again) I used the word "greedy" in the description line of those who voted for the Coalition. People can say "That's the way it is. Live with it" all they want. The fact is such an attitude is socially destructive, and the ALP know it. The sooner the message gets through to the people the sooner we will have an ALP federal government.

Well the libs have helped the some of the poorest in society by helping them to get a job. Given the unemployment rate is so low I reckon those people are damn happy. Years of unbroken growth has also allowed real spending increases in welfare, something which is harder to do when you run a $10b deficit like Keating did. How is having high interest rates and high unemployment conducive to a socially viable society? Such an attitude far from being socially destructive is good. If everyone created more wealth for themselves and their family then more wealth would be redistributed to others via the tax system. The sooner the alp drop such a dumb message the sooner they might get into govt.

 

[timelord]

Well the libs have helped the some of the poorest in society by helping them to get a job. Given the unemployment rate is so low I reckon those people are damn happy. Years of unbroken growth has also allowed real spending increases in welfare, something which is harder to do when you run a $10b deficit like Keating did. How is having high interest rates and high unemployment conducive to a socially viable society? Such an attitude far from being socially destructive is good. If everyone created more wealth for themselves and their family then more wealth would be redistributed to others via the tax system. The sooner the alp drop such a dumb message the sooner they might get into govt.

First off, the unemployment rate is much higher than the official figure so don't give me that nonsense. The figures don't count those who have given up - and I believe they should be counted. So we have high unemployment! And it is socially destructive!

I have not seen one cent in increased welfare, except for the inadequate pay rises in my DSP (which has been that way since the GST was introduced!). And I am nowhere near the only one in that bracket!

And don't give me this "creating more wealth" nonsense - because that's impossible. The money isn't there to sustain it. You obviously think money grows on trees! News Flash! IT DOESN'T! When one family creates more wealth, another suffers from the loss. Simple mathematics!

 

[medusala]

And don't give me this "creating more wealth" nonsense - because that's impossible. The money isn't there to sustain it. You obviously think money grows on trees! News Flash! IT DOESN'T! When one family creates more wealth, another suffers from the loss. Simple mathematics!

The above has just shown you have zero grasp of economics even at an extremely basic level. If this was the case then how would the economy ever grow? It couldnt if wealth was a zero sum game. Dont even bother with simple mathematics stick to your playdough.

 

[timelord]

The above has just shown you have zero grasp of economics even at an extremely basic level. If this was the case then how would the economy ever grow? It couldnt if wealth was a zero sum game. Dont even bother with simple mathematics stick to your playdough.

Don't start talking economic. If one creates more money inflation goes up!

This is fact - and don't deny it. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The rich are the ones who are creating the wealth for themselves and creating the gap.

Another fact, prices are also going up - contrary to the intentions of competition.

If that's a growing economy and a growing economy is a good thing, then we need a serious change in direction! No wonder we are stuffed socially!!

 

[skipper kelly]

Personally, I consider a socially viable society more important to family security than interest rates. That's the problem, and it's why (I go back to this again) I used the word "greedy" in the description line of those who voted for the Coalition. People can say "That's the way it is. Live with it" all they want. The fact is such an attitude is socially destructive, and the ALP know it. The sooner the message gets through to the people the sooner we will have an ALP federal government.

I dont know if you have children Timelord.

When you are blessed with the birth of a child, your priorities do change and one thing most parents seek is stability for that child. A settled home environment can help with stability and one way is owning the house you live in. That is only part of it, and a small step in raising your child. Often it is stability for the parent, but that stability nurtures happiness, which filters to the children. For many people owning the house they live in is a priority and the 1st step in a stable family structure. That is there choice. Most people have to borrow money to get that house, stability etc, so interest rates is a huge issue.

I dont see it a greed to want to own your own house.

BTW. This is only a guess, but if hypothetically every adult was married/defacto had 2-3 children and owned/buying their own house, wouldnt the price of property decrease?

 

[timelord]

I dont know if you have children Timelord.

No I don't and I never will - because (and this is only one reason) I wouldn't want to inflict this socially bankrupt world on my child.

When you are blessed with the birth of a child, your priorities do change and one thing most parents seek is stability for that child. A settled home environment can help with stability and one way is owning the house you live in. That is only part of it, and a small step in raising your child. Often it is stability for the parent, but that stability nurtures happiness, which filters to the children. For many people owning the house they live in is a priority and the 1st step in a stable family structure. That is there choice. Most people have to borrow money to get that house, stability etc, so interest rates is a huge issue.

Stability starts with a loving family - no matter what the living circumstances may be. You can't beat that.

Owning a home is impossible in the current economic climate - especially in the cities. What people should be doing is saving up the money for a home and then buying it out right. A lot of patience is required, but the trouble is that too many people are like out of work doctors - no patience. Debt is an instant stability killer, so one has to avoid it at all costs. And putting back the purchase of a home is a good start. You do not need to own a home to have a stable family life IMHO.

I dont see it a greed to want to own your own house.

It's greed if you go after it before you are financially ready to do so.

 

[bunsen burner]

Personally, I consider a socially viable society more important to family security than interest rates. That's the problem, and it's why (I go back to this again) I used the word "greedy" in the description line of those who voted for the Coalition. People can say "That's the way it is. Live with it" all they want. The fact is such an attitude is socially destructive, and the ALP know it. The sooner the message gets through to the people the sooner we will have an ALP federal government.

So people who own their own homes and what to protect it (and hence their family's future) are greedy?

You're a fool.

 

[bunsen burner]

So we have high unemployment!

get your hand off it.

I have not seen one cent in increased welfare,

Our welfare system is very good. Doesn't need to be increased.

Fancy you calling others greedy when you're asking for more money for doing nothing.

You're a joke.

except for the inadequate pay rises in my DSP

Me me me. You have some nerve calling others greedy.

You obviously think money grows on trees!

You're the one who wants a pay rise for no extra work.

When one family creates more wealth, another suffers from the loss. Simple mathematics!

Wrong. Not necessarily.

 

[bunsen burner]

The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer.

Imposible to be any different. Wouldn't expect you to understand why though. You not too bright.

 

[bunsen burner]

No I don't and I never will - because (and this is only one reason) I wouldn't want to inflict this socially bankrupt world on my child.

Good thing that people like you don't breed.

Stability starts with a loving family - no matter what the living circumstances may be. You can't beat that.

And can be enhanced by a stable place to live (your own home)

Owning a home is impossible in the current economic climate

Nonsense. Stop exagerating and lose the sorrowful outlook.

What people should be doing is saving up the money for a home and then buying it out right.

Stop being stupid.

 

[timelord]

I think it's easy to assume that at least one of the above posts is for me, and BB persists in trying to get my attention.

You want my attention? Apologise for telling me to commit suicide first. Otherwise - tell someone who cares, because I sure as heck don't care about you or what your blinkered brain thinks.

(And someone else will have to let me know that he has)

 

[bunsen burner]

I think it's easy to assume that at least one of the above posts is for me, and BB persists in trying to get my attention.

You want my attention? Apologise for telling me to commit suicide first. Otherwise - tell someone who cares, because I sure as heck don't care about you or what your blinkered brain thinks.

(And someone else will have to let me know that he has)

There will be no apology.

If you had any subsance you'd address my posts. All it looks like is your avoiding defending the major flaws in your arguments that I have pointed out.

 

[medusala]

Don't start talking economic. If one creates more money inflation goes up!

This is fact - and don't deny it. The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. The rich are the ones who are creating the wealth for themselves and creating the gap.

Another fact, prices are also going up - contrary to the intentions of competition.

If that's a growing economy and a growing economy is a good thing, then we need a serious change in direction! No wonder we are stuffed socially!!

Money supply can increase without inflation, there have been historically large periods of time where prices have barely gone up. The economy can not in fact grow without money supply growing.

If someone has $1m and another person has $10k and they both earn 10% on their money then of course the gap in wealth would increase. The person with $1m would have to be taxed at close to 100% to have them both increase their wealth by the same amount. Is this the sort of economic policy you are advocating? Who says we are stuffed socially? What errant nonsense.

 

[timelord]

If this country was socially OK we would have full employment.

And yes, I advocate a high tax rate for the rich - if they don't spread their wealth around in the way they should. Through employment. I don't advocate a 100% top tax rate though. I advocate 90%.

Money supply from where? From the mint (new money) then no, that is impossible. You'd better explain to me how introducing brand new money into the economy doesn't push inflation up. I remember vividly that printing new money was one of the Ipswich bitch's ideas and she was shot down in flames for exactly that reason. Inflation.

 

[otaku]

If this country was socially OK we would have full employment.

And yes, I advocate a high tax rate for the rich - if they don't spread their wealth around in the way they should. Through employment. I don't advocate a 100% top tax rate though. I advocate 90%.

Money supply from where? From the mint (new money) then no, that is impossible. You'd better explain to me how introducing brand new money into the economy doesn't push inflation up. I remember vividly that printing new money was one of the Ipswich bitch's ideas and she was shot down in flames for exactly that reason. Inflation.

a 90% tax rate?? get your hand off it.

So, you wish to punish someone becuase they have had a better time in their life that you have?

Man, get over you "the world owes me" attitude. It is people with a "poor mans" mentality like you that stuff up our society. You want to punish the smarter, harder working people, just because you think you got shafted somehow.

 

[timelord]

a 90% tax rate?? get your hand off it.

So, you wish to punish someone becuase they have had a better time in their life that you have?

Man, get over you "the world owes me" attitude. It is people with a "poor mans" mentality like you that stuff up our society. You want to punish the smarter, harder working people, just because you think you got shafted somehow.

Punish those who don't pay their fair share of tax, you mean! Kerry Packer for example!

The world owes me because they are trying to push me up a path that I can't go, and they won't explain why. I want to punish the cheats. Not the smart people, because the smart people wouldn't be affected by such things. The hard workers also.