It's a cherry picking forum post then! Glad we agree on the wider impacts! Business confidence depends on the issue arising. The carbon price etc, was considered a negative. Businesses seems to do better under labor, which is probably due to their all encapsulating policy focus! "No matter how much gravel is shoved down their throat"....strange little metaphor!
GFC really smacked the northern hemisphere but they had different circumstances and were vulnerable - we were not. What we suffered (years after the GFC) was the merging of the market effects eventually reaching us in the supply line plus the bad management of the government at the time (ALP). It was not a good time for anyone to try and threaten a mining tax and a carbon tax. It decimated shares and business confidence in those sectors. Especially to a nation who's so heavily invested on the mining industry. Then its even worse to copy European and US response strategies to the GFC (why Swan got the award, because it gave the Euro's something to justify/sell their policies). Then to stuff up the delivery of stimulus and letting unions run amok = messed up business confidence and now we're stuck with the stuffed industries trying to compete against foreign industries who are desperate to succeed and rebuild. It's a shame the ALP fan club use the GFC as a blanket excuse to cover the worst goverments ever (Rudd n Gillard).
While foreign governments and foreign companies are investing is Austraian land and everything else for the benefit of their people, is the Australian government and Australian companies investing is foreign countries for the benefit of the Australian people? NO. Australia is just being sold lock, stock and barrel.
Actually they are, using finance they call AID. Just heard that in Mexico the Australian investment in a group who are studying how to improve wheat and corn production is actually kicking goals. They are not a company but and organisation who is in part funded through the Australian aid program. Unfortunately at this time I see no result in Australia, not even talk but I am assured that current advancement break throughs in this area will soon begin to trick back. At this time, Mexico is benefiting from this advancements which I do not begrudge them but it is more in the experimental stage rather than the production phase. One would think Australia will benefit from these studies and break throughs. This simply to name one investment into Australia's future through aid. Now while I KNOW you talk about aid being given frivolously around the globe, I would suggest that this is not actually the case. Sure the ALP/Greens alliance wants to just throw the money about considering the objections they raise about the Coalition demanding returns for aid given out. And yes you would be right that there is a hell of a lot aid that is given with NO return. However, this does not detract from the fact the Coalition is demanding that aid be accountable to what return can be gained. As you see the ALP and Unions expect that the government can just give money for nothing to everybody and still balance the books, which is why Australia has been placed in a position that generations will have to repay a debt that simply assisted them to remain in office for six short years, Hardly the example of a competent government I would say. Why should my great grandchildren pay for a standard of living I want??? It is unsustainable. I still remain in hope for this government because even though they are doing things that I do not agree with, they still have the rhetoric of long term future. Unfortunately if they do not deliver a budget that reflects that rhetoric I would believe Australia is destine for failure. Who else is there to turn too??? The ALP??? Since they refuse to accept any responsibility for their failure, I don't see how anybody can believe they are the party for change. They remain in their own borrow and spending ways with absolutely no thought process. Without true reflection on how to address unsustainable activities how can they reform? A party long lived with a hundred year old philosophy is a party of decay. BUT I only say this as the current one still talks right... I can only wait and see.
What mechanisims do the coalition have in place to offer the Australian tax payers accountability that the ALP didn't have, and will the tax payer be informed of these accountabilities on a regular basis? With all due respect, how much benefit have the Australian tax payers recieved from their $80 billion investment in foreign aid over the past two decades? You are an intellignet person, so sit down and have coffee, and ponder this question. What overall benefit would have been gained and accomplished, if the $80 billion squandered in free aid over the past two decades was spent here in Australia, supporting Australian research, Australian manufacturing and the Australian people? I am not unsympathetic to the concept of helping people in need, but I wouldn't help strangers before helping my own family. I believe this is the concept where politicians and the do-gooder brigade needs to wake -up and realise they are helping strangers in a situation over their own citizens who are in the same situation. Its time to stop pretending we have $ billion to hand out to strangers, when we have destitute citizens in our own country who go hungry, and who are homeless. When a country/business doesn't grow, build and expand; it dies, and that is what's happening to Australia now. The current situation that is developing within Australia has gone beyond politics and political parties, because there is no answers left in those philosophies. We seriously need to get back to basics of 101 economics, and build from there.
How long will it take these idiot Australians to finally realise they have been conned by politicians for decades? By allowing another Australian company to slip through their incompetent fingers into more foreign ownership demonstrates the coalition has already lost its way, and has no understanding on the basic concept of 101 ecconomics. Australian politicians appointed that moron Alan Joyce to become the CEO of QANTAS, just like they appointed that moron Sol Trujillo to be the CEO of Telstra, and both idiots have trashed both Australian owned companies - thanks to these idiot politicians, who have proven they don't have the intellect to run a lemonaid stand on a front lawn. My businesses are not as big as QANTAS or Telstra, but even I have the intellectual ability to determine who will be a competent manager, and I think that speaks volumes about the intellectual ability of politicians to hire CEO's. If I was as stupid and as incompetent as Australian politicians, our family would be living in tents.
Nothing just as the ALP. This is an area that both parties agree on and only the fact of what they invest in is subject. The results of much aid are the simple fact Australia punches well above its weight in the world scene. In other words it is PR which has much indirect benefit for the government in that people do listen. It does not take a genius to work out exactly how badly that has gone with governments of the past. With the last ALP being so inept and arrogant as to tell the world how to do business and let us not forget the entire AWB affair under Howard. With all due respect, A hell of a lot more than is deserved. Buying seats on UN councils because Australia is in NO place to earn it on its own. To being part of the G20 economic council. Imagine what the present would be like without the aid... Well to be honest I do wonder, as the benefits of trade deals and business opportunities have risen considerably due to the aid one has to question if that money was used for a short term stop gap of granting further assistance to Australians and the Australian politicians went out and sold the nation to the world instead of trying to buy it. A considerable amount. BUT one has to remember that should the nation have not contributed to the assisting other less fortunate nations the Australian government would actually have to work for the people by restructuring an economy that is sustainable. Which in my considered opinion is not now... Do you really see anybody in the entire political scene that has that ability??? Well I think we sit on the same side with the do-gooders in this nation who show absolutely NO compassion for their own kind but to whatever agenda they want to pursue at the time. While I do believe you are a considerate person, I just think youre a little misguided in not understanding how much the nations does benefit from having such great international name (yes, considerable purchased but essentially good). Using your analogy of family before friends is good but if you were aware that by assisting your friend you are securing your families welfare far into the future, would you ignore the friend over your struggling family??? And that is the far more to the truth at present than in the past. During Howards years, we had the spare finances to address both, The politicians did not have the urge to do both. They only saw benefit in buying both PR and votes. The ALP simply did not care, just spend, spend, spend if you run out of money borrow MORE. Why assist the homeless??? No advantage in that, but lets buy a seat on the UN security council, that will make them look good. Shame they only used it to bugger Australian relations with more nations... Well the Coalition has stopped the growth in aid to other nations due to the fact Australia has not got the funds. Nobody in their right mind would borrow money to give to somebody else without a guarantee of return, Not like the ALP/Greens philosophy that it will magically be repaid by the money fairies. Aid should be measured by ability not by simply thought of inept people who have no ability to understand how to procure it. I do understand where youre coming from with the parties philosophies and I do agree. BUT again, the Coalition is talking a good game of restructuring the economy. BUT of course the ALP and Unions simply want to remain in ignorance and ignore the realities of the present situation Australia is in. They simply show they want to continue to gouge the Australian worker, Business and foreign interest for everything they can get to buy their next election votes. They are so short sighted that they think this is sustainable and innovative so they will not even consider reforming proactively to build a better Australia. The only innovations the ALP, Greens and unions show is how to create more taxes and gouge the Australian population. However, the Coalition is talking the talk, at present that is all they are doing so we have to wait until their first budget to see if they intend to walk the walk. Unfortunately, it is something that has been lost in Australian politics for almost 100 years so I gravely doubt it.
I don't think anybody can simply blame the Coalition for this, as this issue has been coming for some time. The problem is that the bank balance has been taken away. BUT in all consideration, I always considered that the appointment of both Sol Trujillo and Alan Joyce as simply another job for the boys. Neither to me were good enough for these position. I know many will run about flapping but one can have the so called credentials does not mean they are capable. A Also it will give you an indication of WHO appointed him. BUT we cannot blame either party for over this as they both put up with him and allowed the situation to occur. This is a situation that all involved have to accept their own share of the blame and move on...
The number one purpose of foreign aid is to pursue Australian interests, any other effects are incidental. This is even more obvious now that DFAT has consumed AusAID. "Foreign aid" is misleading, "strategic government spending overseas to pursue Australia's interests", is a better description. As for Qantas, the government should either renationalise it, or remove the legislative restrictions and let it fail. Can't have it both ways.
With all due respect, I don't believe Australian politicians squandering $80 billion of Australian tax payers money on free aid over the past two decades was worth a non-permament seat on the UN Security Council for two years, or being part of the G20 economic council. Australian politicians have squandered this money to pursue Australians interests overseas, but I don't see any direct financial benefits flowing back into Australia for the benefit of the Australian people, for the obscene amount money that has been squandered. Being a temporary member on a World Council, whereby five permanent members can Veto any resolution, seems a pompous and disingenuous overture of pretence. I also don't believe the ways in which Australian politicians force the Australian people to constantly acquiesce to UN demands is worth being a member. Australian politicians signed UN agreements without the referendum consent of the Australian people. I would seriously like to know what the hell these politicians are being paid to do? It would appear they are doing nothing, except galavanting around the world or being interviewed by the media like a bunch of over-paid celebrities at the tax payers expense. I suppose this reasoning would demonstrate why the country is in such a bloody mess; they are never here to do anything. If anyone is talking the talk, its Clive Palmer. I have respect for this man.
Abbott is an idiot. He is not even man enough to admit his maternity leave scheme is a financial disaster to the Australia people, and is only genuflecting to his own ego by continuing it. Then he has the audicity to tell everyone else they have to start doing things hard because of this pompous ego trip. If you are man enough Mr Abbott to admit you made a policy mistake, then its time for you to pack up your caravan and move to another trailer park.
Now, Now, let us not attack this policy. I support this policy strongly due to the intent. My criticism is the fact it is caped, BUT I also have to agree that money is not abundant so a line needs to be drawn and in my opinion, THAT is the only thing debatable about this policy...
These are my logical questions. 1) Are human beings considered an endangered species considering there is over 7 billion on the planet? 2) Human beings could not be considered an endangered species. Therefore, if individuals choosing to have children cannot afford to care of these infants within the first six months of their lives, then why should other peoples money be spent on the care of these infants? Remembering, human beings are NOT an endangered species, and its not important or practical for the planet that human beings reproduce like rabbits. Its one of most ridiculous concepts I have ever heard of: paying a woman $5000 to have a baby, and then paying a family to care for their own child, as if human beings are some kind of endangered species. It really make me wonder how many children are being born because they are genuinely wanted, and how many are born, because they could be afforded to be born. I thinks its obscene that some people have placed a $ sign over the heads of their children. This maternity leave policy is nothing more than a welfare hand-out to women by Abbott trying to prove he is not a misogynist. Lizard-man just doesn't know when to step-back and admit he made a policy mistake.
Pointless and irrelevant as this is actually subjective... This has nothing to do with maternity leave but more to do with welfare such as family assistance and child care. As this policy is NOT to address the care and wellbeing of infants this is actually not relevant. Well I do agree with this, but the one off payment was meant to be a stop gap measure to address an issue of ageing population. The fact that politicians did NOTHING more to address the situation should be of considerable concern as this is a serious situation of the population. Again Family payments in my opinion are also wasted and irrelevant welfare that needs considerable effort in many areas to eradicate as it is still needed simply for a family to survive. The ALP considered this a good thing to make the people dependent on government allowing them to intrude in all aspects of their life. I wait to see if the coalition are going to address this situation by promoting ideas that make the need for such welfare redundant and removing it from the Australian economy. However, with respect to maternity payments, again the intent of the policy is different to these two you are discussing. I have to agree here, I do wonder and I suspect a great deal. I also consider this to be one of the main causes of why children are so much more disrespectful of laws and common decency. So you believe maternity payment is nothing but welfare??? Interesting, do you know what the intent of the policy is and why so many agree with it??? I am sure if you knew the intent you would agree with the policy. Now while people condemn policy without knowing the intent is the demonstration far more than they wish too. I do realise that there are many ways to attack the issues such as this without welfare by making industry pay the entire bill. BUT the fastest and most expedient way of making this policy happen is through government intervention.
I don't believe combining the issues of maternity leave, and the fact that the planet has over 7 billion people is irrelevant or subjective for the following reasons. businesses and tax payers should not be financially burdened by paying individuals maternity leave, who personally decide to have children. By paying maternity leave, it is demonstrating these individuals obviously cannot afford to have these children when they leave employment. Why should a business and tax payers be financially burdened by paying an individual to stay at home caring for "their" child, and also have to be financially burdened by paying another persons wages to cover for that individuals work responsibilities until they decided "when" and "if" they will to return to work after having the child. We don't need to pay someone maternity leave in the hopes they will return to a job, considering there are hundreds of millions of people on this planet unemployed desperately wanting jobs - that's not subjective; those are facts. For every Australian family getting paid maternity leave in hopes the woman will return to work, there are thousands of unemployed individuals with the same skills and qualifications ready to step-in and do it without wanting maternity leave welfare. All Government subsidised child care welfare should be stopped. If you cannot afford to raise your own child, then don't have one. What kind of mentally retarded moron gets a pet, and suddenly realises they cannot afford to feed it; vaccinate it; house it; and train it without government or third party assistance? Every society throughout history has faced an aging population without the need to pay for baby births, or forcing their aged citizens to work unitl they drop dead. Unfortunately, Australians have a pair of incompetent clowns in control of our society with only two seriously flawed methodologies. Lizard-man knows if he backs away from this flawed maternity leave scheme, the ALP will once again step-up their misogynist campaign against him, and he will be in serious trouble by losing the female vote. This flawed schem is going to cost the tax payers $5 billion at a time when we can least afford it to pay some individual to stay at home to look after "a" child that they obviously cannot afford to have without assistance. Children are being born with NO parental responsibility or involvement. The parents get paid for having the child. The parents get paid for looking after the child. The parents get paid for someone else to look after the child. The parents get paid to feed & cloth the child. What the hell are the parents really responsible for -they are completely removed form the experience, and seem more like "window -shoppers" who occasionally walk by and look in to give Mark & Mary a pat on the head like good dogs. These children seem more like community children, and its no wonder they grow-up feeling little to no connection with their parents.
First and foremost the intent of this policy is to address inequality in the sexes. That is so women have the same job advantage as men. NOTHING MORE. What gives ANY person the right to determine HOW equal men and women are to be??? IF you want to complain about women in the workforce, so be it. BUT face the truth women are not the same as men. When I hear people complaining about how many women are doing this or that and how men dominate this and that, when a policy designed to address the very inequality that is used to keep them in place one has to ask??? When people refer to Abbott just trying to show how he is NOT a misogynist by creating a policy such as this, one has to ask, Why do they hate women so much??? When women stand there and say they believe it is TOO generous one has to ask, why is it you want to decide WHO should be equal and What level of equality they believe their own sex should be??? When MAJORITY wants a maternity leave policy and all sides of politics are promoting their own, why is it such bad policy??? As a whole the entire child care and family payment is not achieving proper outcomes for the children themselves in such situations. BUT this policy has nothing to do with those points because it is NOT to pay them to have children. IT IS to pay them IF they are having children to remove that cost to business. Why should ANYBODY be held back because of their sex???
I'm not really sure how you connected inequality in the sexes with being paid to perform a natural biological function like having offspring, and caring for that offspring? Maternity leave, and paying individuals to have babies are BAD policies in general, because they are turning someone into being a prostitute by paying them money to perform what should be priviliged biological functions. Having a child and caring for that child should be very special events, and no one needs to be paid for the priviliges of creating life & caring for life. WTF? So, I have the right to go out and buy a $800,00 Ferrari knowing I cannot afford it, but its ok, because I can get Government welfare at the expense of tax payers to help me pay it off? Is this the message we are sending society; that its okay to have anything we want (including children), because we can financially burden other people to help us pay for it? I now understand why we heard a 10 year abuse his mother in Big W last Saturday for not buying him a computer game. She told him, she could not afford the game, and he responded by saying: you don't pay for it anyway -centrelink does. Obviously even a 10 year old had the intellect to comprehended that the parents didn't financially support him, but someone else did. Besides the act of rape, and the so-called split condom syndrome, the majority of individuals decided to have children by making an informed conscious decision. If individuals could not have these children without any Government welfare hand-outs or third party assistance, then why the hell have them, and financially burden the rest of society and the community with their up-keep? No one should be discriminated against because of their sexuality or gender, but biology dictates that males and female are biologically different and perform different biological functions. Giving birth and caring for children is predominately a human female biological and psychological characteristic trait. No government legislation or discrimination act is going to change that fact. I will ask you a reasonable questions, and expect a reasonale responses. Why should we (strangers) be financially responsible for paying another stranger to have a baby, and be financially responsible for that stranger to care for that baby for set period of time? Where is the financial to us as employers, especially if the stranger decides to stay at home and go on a pension like the majority do after having a kid?
So the majority of women that have a baby go home and get on the pension. Now I know you have lost your grip on reality.
One of the main reasons women are passed over for majority of jobs is the fact they may fall pregnant. You alluded to such yourself when you question why business should bare the responsibility of paying for women to have babies and pay somebody to fill in while she is off. By removing the spectre of this financial burden the idea is that women will have a far more equal opportunity to get the job. Let us face it, women are different in the fact that men don't get pregnant so to try and address this situation maternity leave is the best solution, at this time. Remember the saying, behind every good man is a good (great) women. How about we employ those great women to do the jobs these women are doing indirectly??? As agreed the payment of baby bonus is simply ludicrous. This type of policy does detract from decent actions such as maternity leave to give the population this very perception. BUT, they are two different policies, which have different intentions. Nobody should be financially responsible for anybody else's children unless the choose too. BUT as this policy is not designed to make anybody responsible for any children but to remove the gross burden of maternity leave by spreading the pain across the business sector. This ensure that the burden is cheaper for individual companies and that working mothers have the ability to return to work contributing to the community and economy and not simply sit on their bums and collect welfare. All up this should reduce the welfare budget by assisting women in returning to work.
The whole lot of 'em are out of their depth. Abbott has not been able to transition from opposition to government. He is locked into an opposition mentality and can't break out of it. This is easily seen in his intransigence and his continued verbal tic of saying things twice. It's almost as if he says it twice to make an impact. It does but in the wrong way. It makes him look like a fool. And he isn't. Well he's not un-intelligent, he's just not up to the job of being a PM or even a half-decent minister in government who has to develop policy. He's finished, Turnbull is probably waiting for the final misstep and bingo, he'll go for it. Now while that might not be good for Labor it might be okay for the country. Not that I believe MT is anything other than a pure Tory, at least the bloke has some policy ability, Abbott has zero. And so do most of his front bench. Hockey is a joke. Lucky for him he's Treasurer in a governmen that thinks governments don't have to do anything with economic policy. The markets will take care of everything. Yes that's right, the economy will collapse before these fools realise it and then they'll be chanting "the market will fix it" while we're in utter bloody chaos. One term this lot, one term. The new Senate won't save them, even if they had the numbers all it would do would be to bring about their downfall quicker. In the various States and Territories there will be a shift as well. NSW, Qld, Victoria will go back to Labor as they have their elections. Tas and SA not sure, but if SA is won by Labor it will be a bellwether for the others. WA is always a special case but as I understand it the Barnett govt isn't travelling that well. Pendulum is going to swing far earlier and more savagely than anyone thought.
I wonder if the people in the States will remember "WHY" they voted out the ALP in peference of a coalition government? I wonder "why" they are so eager to vote in the same ALP incompetent State clowns again?
Maternity Leave is a policy specificially designed to financial burden the community into paying individuals to stay at home and care for a child. A quick "Google" search will also tell you that only 50% of mothers return to work before the childs first birthday, and most of these mothers return only wanting part-time work. http://www.smh.com.au/national/more...-work-preferably-parttime-20130518-2jtlh.html So what happens to the 50% of mothers who don't return to work? The community and the business has just paid them welfare to stay at home and care for "their" child they elected to have, and now they have decided NOT to return to work, and will seek more welfare by claiming a pension. How has the business socially and financially benefitted by these 50% of women who don't return to work, or by the women returning to work only wanting part-time work? So a business has to be financially and socially responsible for restructuring, because a woman wants her cake and eat it too - she wants a child, but only wants part-time employment so she can spend time caring for "her" child. I have another solution. How about families being made to take 100% financial responsibility for their own children. Plan, and financially save for the children they are going to have, without the need for being paid social & community welfare to have a child or being paid social & community welfare to care for a child. Have the money saved to support the child and family until the mother is ready to return to work without Government & community welfare hand-outs. People are forced to save a deposit to get a house or major item, but they are forced to save "nothing" to have their own children, because community welfare pick-up the tab for the children they have. Do these children really belong to the parents, or are they community children, considering the community has financially supported them, and the parents have given nothing? This method would have an instant effect on stopping human beings breeding like a virus on the planet; would save tax payers tens of billions; and would stimulate business productivity. This planet is not in danger of being under populated any time soon, and there are millions of people world wide (including women past child-bearing age) capable of filling skilled jobs, while mothers stay at home caring for their young children. My philosophy is this; I would prefer to hire one individual unemployed male/female who then has the financial capability to feed and support their whole family, rather than hire two women to do two part-time jobs, so they can have the best of both worlds -
