The Daily Wire: Gillard's Flood Levy Gamble - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4

Gillard's Flood Levy Gamble Julia Gillard announces new flood levy and spending cuts

Poll: Gillard's Flood Levy Gamble (16 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you support the levy and spending cuts?

  1. Yes (9 votes [56.25%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 56.25%

  2. No (7 votes [43.75%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 43.75%

  3. Undecided (0 votes [0.00%])

    Percentage of vote: 0.00%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#61 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 07 February 2011 - 11:00 PM

C'mon guys and wannabe gals .... where do I start?

I turn away for mere minutes to watch TJ gang up with mates Williamson & Deveny and come back to, what? Pandamonium.

JJ said:

I actually think this is a really clever move. They tried bringing in a big man of business (Lindsay Fox) last time, and it didn't help with the whole BER thing. This time there's a Liberal overseeing it, makes it harder to attack them over waste.



Yes, makes some sense. But the once-was-popular Kev also made some pretty remarkable appointments as I recall. To no avvail.

Quote

Clearly ideology of the rabid right!


Non-responsive to my point Bam. Nice try though. :)

Bam said:

At least it's not Howard-style politics where you have to be in the Liberals' old-boy network to have a chance.


How's that non-sycophant "acronyismistic" [you heard it here first] NSW state election going?


Any favourites to win?


"Sorry" :(
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#62 User is offline   Mobius Ecko 

  • Newbie
  • Pip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1
  • Joined: 28-January 11
  • LocationNowra

Posted 08 February 2011 - 10:35 AM

View Posticey, on 07 February 2011 - 11:00 PM, said:


How's that non-sycophant "acronyismistic" [you heard it here first] NSW state election going?

Any favourites to win?

"Sorry" :(


I do note that O'Farrell has already backed down on some major implications he made about fixing things where he had previously mindlessly attacked the NSW government. Years of being negative for negativities sake, something he promised he wouldn't be, are coming back to bite him now he has to come up with concrete proposals. Shades of Abbott there.

As it is in Vic and especially WA,, in the long run the Libs/Coalition will prove no better than the Labor government they replace, will be voted out to be replaced by another long term Labor government to fix things and so the wheel churns inevitably to corruption and ineptitude.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

Like a race around a Mobius Strip and repeated echoes around and around the ideological arguments go.
0

#63 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 08 February 2011 - 11:00 AM

View PostMobius Ecko, on 08 February 2011 - 10:35 AM, said:

As it is in Vic and especially WA,, in the long run the Libs/Coalition will prove no better than the Labor government they replace, will be voted out to be replaced by another long term Labor government to fix things and so the wheel churns inevitably to corruption and ineptitude.


Wow! That's a gloomy outlook on state governments. On the positive side, at least it reads as though you correctly attribute "corruption and ineptitude" to the Labor side of the cycle (quite understandable really given your location).

Pessimism aside, I do like your signature. :rolleyes:
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#64 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:01 PM

View Posticey, on 07 February 2011 - 11:00 PM, said:

Non-responsive to my point Bam. Nice try though. :)

You didn't respond to my point, either. Not that your weak point full of unfounded assumptions really deserved my time to make a refutation.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#65 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 08 February 2011 - 12:46 PM

View PostBam, on 08 February 2011 - 12:01 PM, said:

You didn't respond to my point, either. Not that your weak point full of unfounded assumptions really deserved my time to make a refutation.


I was actually originally responding to scotto who advocated trashing the subsidisation of private health insurance. You then in effect suggested that there is no place for corporate subsidisation. Why not? "Distorting the market" as a criticism is nought but pointless rhetoric which could be applied equally to a great raft of government spending.

With no intention of derailing the thread (that's probably already happened), wouldn't most leftists dream of a free tertiary education even though it would require a "distortion of the market".

A sensible fellow like you would have to admit that there is a flipside, and that is that with subsidised health insurance, the number of patients in public hospitals is distorted in the downward direction (meaning less government funding is required directly to the hospitals).
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#66 User is offline   Warrigal 

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 26
  • Joined: 20-January 11

Posted 08 February 2011 - 04:18 PM

Icey said:

"Tony Abbot (sic) shared what he's learnt by telling colleagues that "Labor was addicted to taxes, waste and its own political survival".

I would have thought that Big Ears would have his own survival on his mind right at the moment. We'd all be better served at this point Icey if you tried to contain your urges to parrot conservative catch lines and support conservative policy, if you can call it that, and perhaps gave us your thoughts on Turnbull who will obviously take the leadership some time soon.

Provided always that the completely discredited rump Howardites let him.

Time to give us the benefit of your insights. Are you a progressive conservative Icey, or are you only here to poison wells and muddy waters with anachronistic right wing ideas that have about as much utility as a porcelain hammer and serve only to continue the drag on reform and change so necessary in this changing and challenging new world.

What is it Icey; are you part of the problem or part of the solution?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#67 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 08 February 2011 - 08:02 PM

View Posticey, on 08 February 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

I was actually originally responding to scotto who advocated trashing the subsidisation of private health insurance. You then in effect suggested that there is no place for corporate subsidisation. Why not? "Distorting the market" as a criticism is nought but pointless rhetoric which could be applied equally to a great raft of government spending.

The Liberals are supposed to be supportive of the free market. Then they introduce penalty tax rates for wealthy people who do not take out private health insurance.

The Liberals are complaining loudly about waste in the budget. An uncapped handout without a means test is a clear example of a waste of taxpayers' money.

Obviously, the Liberals are all too eager to throw away their principles if there's a buck in it for them. No doubt they are getting generous contributions from the health insurance industry.

View Posticey, on 08 February 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

With no intention of derailing the thread (that's probably already happened), wouldn't most leftists dream of a free tertiary education even though it would require a "distortion of the market".

No doubt you believe that tertiary education should only be available to those who can pay for it, so you make specious claims about "distorting the market". Do you think primary and secondary education should be paid for in full by all parents too?

View Posticey, on 08 February 2011 - 12:46 PM, said:

A sensible fellow like you would have to admit that there is a flipside, and that is that with subsidised health insurance, the number of patients in public hospitals is distorted in the downward direction (meaning less government funding is required directly to the hospitals).

Some of the money is inevitably wasted because the health insurance industry makes profits while public hospitals do not. To trim this waste, the subsidy must be capped and means tested with the savings going towards removing the 1% tax surcharge on high-income earners who do not take out private health insurance.

Health insurance is not just about patients in hospitals. Most people who receive medical treatment do not visit hospitals to do so.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 4 Pages +
  • « First
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4


Fast Reply