Coalition federal govt so far

Yes, thank you Catter. By your own definition the previous Qld state Labor government, because of their massive sell off of state assets, was "an absolute loser government". How true.

 

Hey m2catter,

I've posted heaps of stuff on previous threads, but you get the same response.....conservatives just want to point out Australia's debt but don't want to look at it in perspective. It is just blissful ignorance. I don't think anybody would deny the Howard government of doing good for the country out of good policy and management, if it were true! I bang on about the purple patch in world wide economic terms which Howard got lucky with and as a consequence of restructuring of Australia's economy by Keating! During the early 90's Australia wasn't going through an economic recession by itself, the bloody world was, but the way people react to that situation is as though it was bad economic management by the labor government. The funny thing was, we were sitting on top of the international economic pile, while still doing it tough.

Anyway, the following link puts a bit of perspective into the deceptive manner of the coalition and the deceived followers who seem to believe labor is the government to sell all out state owned assets! The libs were selling assets in good times but now "claim" they have to sell assets in bad times! Something stenches bad! If they claim labors debt is the reason they had to sell assets during Howard's term, they deceptively forget that Howard as treasurer left half of it! Howard introduced an extremely tricky game of politics that worked during a lucky period and now you have this numbskull abbott who thinks he too can pull the wool over our eyes.....well he's pulling the wool over some eyes, which is clearly evident on these threads!

Anyway, here is the link: http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2095-more-facts-behind-the-howard-governments-debt-elimination

 

Hi TV,
thanks for that.
Wow, and there are still people on this forum, who want to label Labor as the asset seller. What a bunch of dickheads...
Labor appears as a bunch of teenagers, still holding it together for all Australians, compared to the screwed Liberals.
Enjoy your weekend, regards

 

Ok, so you want to have a serious conversation about this subject do you???

Let’s get a few things straight first.
1) Do you believe you have a clear understanding of INTENT of government and what POWERS each level of government hold

2) Do you believe government should sell ANY government owned asset for ANY reason you can think of??? If so what type (e.g. buildings, business....)???

3) Do you agree with the socialistic view, the Greens hold, that government should control every aspect of your life???

4) Do you stand against corruption and all activities that led to corrupt activity???

5) Do you agree that Australian government’s stake in Medibank Private should be sold off???

Now if you need to get anything straight yourself feel free to ask.

BUT be sure to let us know if you only want to (*)(*)(*)(*) and moan because your childish spiteful arrogance is all you have...

 

Isn't that interesting??? Nothing to say about bias there??? Perhaps you could show how much of the debt WAS Whitlam’s??? No??? I find it extremely funny that many want to say the Coalition is so backward and behind the times when there detractors have to go back 20-30 YEARS to justify the economic credentials of their party??? They IGNORE six years of ALP government to return to their ONE man who was something to try and justify a party. They hold a man who turned his back on the base of the party to achieve better economic outcomes by opposing that base.

And you complain of people living in the past... Why don’t you join a serious discussion on the issue of selling government assets instead of simply pretending???

 

State Labor governments have been by far the greatest sellers of public assets yet they have never mooted asset sales before an election.

 

1) What makes my understanding of the situation different to yours is that I am not living in denial....
2) I think when it comes to selling off public assets a referendum with polls/elections (to the subject) should be held, on a state or federal level.
3) Only a dickhead would try to frame the Greens with such a cheap, narrow minded and stupid comment.
4) Yes I am against corruption, whether LIBs or Labor or Greens or else are involved.
5) I think that our health system needs a serious overhaul, and that won't be achieved in selling off medibank private.
If you have to wait for more then 2 years to get a hip replacement (medicare) things are most definitely wrong.

Regards

 

So that would be YES???

How about an answer? I did not ask what you think should be done. I asked you if you believe assets should be sold under any circumstances and what those assets would be???

Again, this is a question of YOU not the Greens. Do you intend on continuing to build little straw castles to store little half made straw men in or are you going to answer the questions???

Fair enough...

So I take that As NO???

Now you can jump up and down as much as you want, but these questions were aimed at you for you to answer and NOT what you think will be best for everybody else. That is why I asked the questions of YOU, not to get your opinion on how they should be handled but on what you think on each point.

BUT let us move on...
Government should NEVER be in business in competition to the private sector as they have direct and indirect influence over contracts and are the body that creates regulations that govern how business is done...

Do you agree with that statement???

 

There was "0" government debt from the Whitlam government!

 

Excuse my presumption in answering a question asked of another poster, Yes I agree that governments should never be "in business in competition to the private sector". Also, I believe, that the private sector should never be involved in essential services. The keyword here is essential. These are not services that we may like to have or use. These are services that we need, they are essential.

Imagine your car breaks down in the desert. It's 45 degrees and your 100km from the nearest town, and you have only a little water with you. It is essential that you are, found and helped, it is essential because there is a good chance you will not survive. A car pulls up. "Hello", they say. "Looks like your in a spot of bother". "I am" you reply, "I should have taken more water with me." "It's OK" they say, "I have plenty of water, by the way, I'm Garry". "Hi, Adultmale is my name, thank God you came along Garry". "No problem" Garry says, "you need water and I have some, it's supply and demand. The water is $500 per litre, how many do you want."

With some services it is not just demand, but regulation or just the way it is. Take banks for example, demand doesn't enter into the equation, you really have no choice, if you do not have a bank account, for all intents and purposes, you do not exist.

Things that should be supplied as they are IMHO essential services. All health except elective surgery. All education up to high school. Electricity, some foods, bread, milk, eggs for example, shelter, housing.

None of these things are things we really have a choice about, they are essential services and should not be governed by supply and demand. Government regulation, strict control or ownership of these services, done properly (but that's another story), would ensure that nearly no one would go hungry, cold or have no where to sleep, or be unnecessarily sick or not be able to access the best treatment, and after all, why should the factor that determines who gets the BEST treatment be how much money they have.

 

Got evidence of such??? Considering one of the scandals of the Whitlam governance was the fact he borrowed billions from the Middle East illegally, I would suggest you will struggle to find some and would be very WRONG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loans_Affair

 

Well that is very interesting, confabulated but interesting. However, if you could answer the questions posted to CAT we could move on. I figure that if we can get through to the guts of the issue we will see a completely different attitude.

The government must provide essential services people demand but to say private sector should not be involved is a little narrow minded. Fact is, the private sector is actually better at providing essential services at a cheaper cost than government. Look to search and rescue for example, many areas are carried out with conjunction of private and public action. In you little scenario the people to come to your rescue would be the private sector more readily than not. The fact you then want to say that payment is a demand is pervasion of actual events today.

No, essential services are not simply the realm of government BUT government must provide the services in one way or another, EVEN if they are paying the private sector to provide it. BUT where the government is awarding contracts to private sector to carry out those services they must not corrupt the situation by competing with the services provider. Privatizing services should only be carried out to the benefit of the people and NOT the bottom line.

Everybody bashes Howard as the government who sold off assets to pay loans, but little do they see the fact they are now complain about such with the values of the assets and returns it could make... Do you see what Howard did??? No longer do the people look to government to provide what the private sector will not, the look to see if the government can make money of an asset... Even in detraction of asset sales the detractors use Howard’s ethos to attack it... Did nothing??? He changed the way people look at government both in support and attack... THAT is amazing... Pretty stupid, BUT amazing...

 

Garry ... I have always believed that you have me all wrong. To begin with, I am not an ALP follower nor a greens supporter. Once I was a National Party supporter, since then I have become disillusioned with party politics entirely and instead of just casting a "donkey" vote, or really protesting and not voting and fighting the fines etc, I believe in government. Although unlike CD and others here, I do not believe businessmen, or people with experience and qualifications would necessarily be better in government.

I now vote for the representative I feel will best represent the electorate, even if I sometimes do not agree with them, it is better to be represented. Now this is often an independent, sometimes one of the major parties, sometime a minor one, it's immaterial, I want to be represented.

When it comes to the type of government, I would dearly love a free capitalist democracy, but alas I feel I will never see that. Instead I see what we have is greed. Greed for power or money or both. Daily I watch the news. Crooked business are only more prevalent as their are more businesses than politicians. Their numbers would however outnumber the common crook, the break and enter guy etc.

 

All very interesting but a little irrelevant. Relevance only lies in the last statement of who is best to run Australia. I believe my point of how Howard changed the political view of Australians answers that point...

Again irrelevant except to the point that you vote to your popular opinion rather than policy and trust that the party you are voting for (be it group or individual) will do as you expect and not simply lie. As Gillard did to buy her way back to office...

Well, if you watch the news to get that information you have to understand that the news finds crooked business far more interesting than the common crook. You will also find that the mundane government actions also get no voice. BUT still Greed has been promoted to the community as government corrupt a system that in itself is considerably good. BUT as in communism everything in its essence can be good, it is people who bugger it all up...

However, all this has little to do with the claim of Abbott selling of Government assets. Do you agree that government should sell certain assets??? The stupidity of how this started is incredible, and at the very first sale of asset we will see "I told you so". The fact remains that both parties have been busy selling government assets to cover unfinanced promises that they rarely keep. We have people trying to tell us that commonwealth government of Australia is selling off state assets when if they had a clue of HOW the powers of government worked they would see who has the power...

 

Do you need more evidence that your beloved coalition are a bunch of lying, deceptive and conniving bunch of incompetent clowns?

 

I knew you would post Tanner, so how about this

http://barnabyisright.com/resources-articles/column-tanner-lied-about-whitlam-debt/
Apparently Tanner was telling fibs, after all Treasury shows NOTHING of the sort. So where is the evidence??? Fact remains Whitlam spending far exceeded income shown by budget deficits WHICH means MONEY was sourced elsewhere, which is shown by his attempts to illegally borrow from the Middle East... Simply posting blogs from ALP bias supporters does nothing to show evidence of YOUR claim…

Posting blogs full of lies to say that the Coalition are lying, surely you do not believe such is credible??? So a blog for a blog except my blog has links to where they sourced their information unlike your blog which is simply lies and opinions of somebody else. NOT real evidence of such...

 

So you are saying Barnaby Joyce is providing an independent and unbiased view... That is such a vague nothing piece you have provided. It demonstrates absolutely nothing and it certainly doesn't provide any proof opposing market economics. Dig a bit deeper gazza.

 

Yes, just as you provide that bias of Tanner. BUT, Joyce does link his effort where Tanner just expects everybody to take it at their word. As to what is vague and what is not, obviously you are unable to comprehend the articles and their value of evidence. As obviously Joyce provides much more supporting evidence, obviously you have been found lacking. But then again obviously Tanner is in your realm of believing what he states is fact and not simply his own opinion.

So, as it is YOUR claim it would be YOUR onus to provide that evidence, to either support Tanner which is obvious you cannot or provide real evidence of your claim. As obvious you cannot (simply because you seem far too easily led) then I assume you will simply throw insult at everybody in the hope they forget your failure...

 

The other source was "market economics" ya doodle! You were being a bit tricky trying suggest there was only one source! That's a conservative trait! There are many other sources that provide the same information!

 

I did not suggest one source, that is YOUR construct. I point out that both are opinions of bias without collaborating information and that one actually lies…

Yes, that is one of the source, No more credible than Tanner. Again perhaps you could supply the evidence of your claim??? As you believe Tanner who provides nothing but his own commentary and the market economics Author with nothing but his words and Joyce is simply bias in your opinion when he provides links to his data and far more in depth analysis of the claim, I suggest you have still provided nothing.

So credibility of sources and information seems to swing away from your proclaimed sources as they provide no evidence of their statement which you accept as FACT. Again this reverts back to your belief that OPINION is fact. No evidence, no credibility... that simple.

 

Make clear for us where Barnacle Joyce demonstrates Whitlam debt! He does a lot of unsubstantiated waffling like you!

I'm going to remind you that I cant read all of your posts gazza. I don't know what it is but your style seems messy. Maybe you could try to be a little more concise with your response rather than trying to be meticulous! Some write fantastically on here and easy to read......in saying that I'm not saying I'm the best writer!

 

Again, You claim, your onus. Got nothing so out with the "you prove your source" ...

We all know you only read what you like. BUT as we all know when you have nothing subterfuge and here we see you do not even have enough imagination to actually figure out something new to baffle the crowd because it is obvious you cannot dazzle them...

 

Once again you have made a fool of yourself and by your own words.

is what you stated, then you post a link. It wasn't a fact, the fact was he "attempted to borrow", you stated that in the quote you posted .. and, if you had read your own link, it says ...

So the fact is NOT that he borrowed money, but that he attempted to. Again it shows the power of our system, as we all knows what the outcome was.

 

Err... I think you maybe on something there, pedantic of my words, he did not borrow the money from the Middle East but the problem with your supposed refute of the fact of moneys being borrowed is the quote you posted actually states he turned to the US... Perhaps you believe this makes the case that Whitlam had ZERO debt, BUT it does not. As indicated by such Whitlam was securing funds to cover budget deficits he presided over. IF you want to enter the argument I would suggest you find the evidence TV is struggling to find, As all TV can find is opinion with no basis of fact, which one has been found to be telling fibs, Again the fact he attempted to borrow from the Middle East, US and anybody else you want to say shows that the "zero debt" opinion needs to be supported. NOT my position, of not believing opinion and believing this claim to be a crock of poo.

So who is the fool??? No evidence, no support yet all you have is my word to refute....

 

You are, like you say, you have no evidence, no support, just your word. My evidence is your link, the one you posted, now it is not the end all, but it does state in your link....

and that is the FIRST paragraph in the link, no mention of getting the budget out of the red, which I am sure it would have if that was indeed the situation.