TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Australia
-- Election time again
Pages (6): « 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 »

wow artic, this must be your first post in the Australia forums? and it isn't even a religious thread??

quote:

Originally posted by Paulie Bragi & webmeister, if stoners like yourself ran this country we would be no better off than Trinidad and Tobacco

Hate to correct you, but it's Trinidad and Tobago. If you're going to throw around random (and untrue) insults, you could at least go to the trouble of making them accurate

quote:

You cant expect to give things to people on a platter you gotta work for it Thats the problem with todays world, they think the people that are well off are just lucky. They dont believe that they worked their arses off to get where they are now. Dont they also deserve a break?

I notice you didn't address a single one of my points

And as someone who has worked extremely hard to get where I am, living in a nice house in a nice area, enjoying a well-paying and secure job at a large multinational company and having plenty of disposable income, I don't think I'm particularly lucky. And where's the problem in wanting to make it easier for others? It's nice to think of others, rather than being selfish all the time

Here's my thought for the day

quote:

Originally posted by waXology Here's my thought for the day

Excellent.

That picture is classic

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister Hate to correct you, but it's Trinidad and Tobago. If you're going to throw around random (and untrue) insults, you could at least go to the trouble of making them accurate I notice you didn't address a single one of my points And as someone who has worked extremely hard to get where I am, living in a nice house in a nice area, enjoying a well-paying and secure job at a large multinational company and having plenty of disposable income, I don't think I'm particularly lucky. And where's the problem in wanting to make it easier for others? It's nice to think of others, rather than being selfish all the time

I dont bother addressing your points because i couldnt care less what you think I know what im gonna vote and no amount of propaganda and comments on a "trance" website is gonna swing my vote. I just feel sorry for the younger people on this forum who will read some of the rubbish wrote on here, for all 3 parties, and will then use that information to make a vote.

Hence why i cbf addressing a single one of your points.

quote:

Originally posted by Paulie I dont bother addressing your points because i couldnt care less what you think I know what im gonna vote and no amount of propaganda and comments on a "trance" website is gonna swing my vote. I just feel sorry for the younger people on this forum who will read some of the rubbish wrote on here, for all 3 parties, and will then use that information to make a vote. Hence why i cbf addressing a single one of your points.

great rationalisation

That, and you can't argue against them because you're wrong

quote:

Originally posted by Paulie Hence why i cbf addressing a single one of your points.

Proving once and for all that Paulie is only a swinging voter in terms of his sexuality.

I sleep well at nite

quote:

Originally posted by arctic If you're into neo-liberal economic policy, then why vote for Howard? Latham is actually more fiscally conservative than Howard when it comes to economic policy -- hell; he recently got into a stoush with ACOSS over welfare. When was the last time you heard a Labor leader attacking a body like that because they're 'pro-welfare'.

High interest rates, weaker economy, a stronger union movement, do these sound like things money makers like . . NO. Just on my point about not knowing where Latham stands, I have to ask does he even know what he's doing? I watched that 'debate' and I never actually heard Latham say any policies. Howard would say one of his policies and Latham would say how it should be better, and what we 'deserve' but not actually what he was going to do or how. ALl I can see is that Labour = debt debt debt.

And on the thing of Howard handing over to Costello . . would Mr Latham like to explain the Hawke handover to Keating, which screwed us into the ground. (Is it any wonder that Howard destroyed Keating) If anything it seems to be a Labour trait more than a Liberal trait.

And Iraq, war, terrorism, whatever, I don't think the majority of aussie voters are going to vote because of it. Nothing has ever happened on Australian soil, in the 3 years the "War on Terror" has been happening, and that seems pretty good to me.

I like the country the way it is, and I know exactly where we are headed with Howard. With Latham our destination seems to change everyday, depending on public oppinion in the media, as that's all Latham seems to do, buckle to the media. I have respect for Howard that he always sticks by what he says. He said there would be a GST . . media critisism . . there was a GST. Plus Simon Crean would be treasurer . . euuughhhh, god help us.

Obviously im not the only one that sleeps well at nite

economic policy

As a point of interest, John Howard's economic credentials may not be all they've claimed to be:

* Foreign debt (what we owe people overseas as a country) has blown out several times under John Howard (just like they did under Paul Keating). This runs the risk of a debt crisis, where our currency rapidly drops, the RBA puts up interest rates and the economy goes into recession. Probably wont happen any time soon.

* John Howard doesn't set interest rates. Mark Latham can't set interest rates if he is prime minister. The RBA does this, politicians have NO control (if they did, the public will scream bloody murder).

* The great economic times we enjoy now is due to a RBA policy of inflationary targeting and pre-emptive monetary policy (economic jargon, just means we target inflation before it happens). This was put in by, you guessed it, Paul Keating (former Labour PM). It's this policy that has allowed the economy to grow magnificently in the past 10 years. This is why also interest rates are much lower under Howard (it took many years for Labour to get it right and tell the RBA how to do it).

* Alot of the "structural reforms" that lifted productivity i.e. the economy works much better, better growth, better income etc. was implemented by the former Labour Government. These include:

- Labour Market reform (chucked alot of awards and made Certified Agreements which cover most of the workforce).
- Financial Market Deregulation
- Competition Policy.
- Compulsory Superannuation.

John Howard can be proud of:
- Less union power
- AWA's (individual contracts) which cover a few hundred thousand people.
- Work for the Dole
- User pays education, choice in high school education
- Many other important reforms (and ideological as well)

* Income inequality dropped progressively every year upto Labour's death in 1996. It has progressively increased every year since John Howares

Sorry to sound biased towards labour or drown you in economic theory. Say what you want. There's probably alot of stuff I forgot.

Christopher Armstrong
[email protected]

quote:

Originally posted by waXology Here's my thought for the day

Haha, we had one of them at Malvern Train Station, till they painted over it yesterday...


But its so true, this election is more about who you hate more...

Liberals - Ruined Health and Education (USA system anyone?), sent us to war (although I really didnt give a shit about that), but our economy is going great; but when you think about it, so are alot of other economies around the world.

Labour - Mark Latham is purely incompotent and has flogged the "average Aussie" image for far too long, so much so, its getting annoying (just like the election!). And they do have a habit of spending more money than making, but so what! Heaps of countries are in debt, but its not like they send debt collectors around to gather your assets...

While their tax package seems to defy some sense of logic, today's announcement regarding education is a god send - more funding for public schools (and hopefully UNI's, havent checked), and less for private schools. You can argue all day about fairness and all that other bullshit, that private schools deserve money, but the fact is they dont deserve nearly as much as public schools...(Christ, in England and Canada, private schools dont get a cent - AFAIK)

Oh and a decent and proper education (as well as public health, which he is yet to unviel) is a right, not a privilidge (as someone pointed out earlier), so yes, your taxes will be spent on education & health - put up and shutup. (some previous arguement against HECS was utter bullshit; sorry, but it was)

Greens - dont waste your time, they are nothing more than idealistic morons.. give them power, and this country will fall flat on its arse.

Said my bit, criticise away

quote:

Originally posted by AussieTrance Greens - dont waste your time, they are nothing more than idealistic morons.. give them power, and this country will fall flat on its arse. Said my bit, criticise away

Baahahaha, love it! I'm sick of idealists, with all their fucking utopian ideals. The only way anyone could have a Utopia with the greens would be in their now legal drug induced state. The country would be like a spider trying to climb out of a sink. No matter how hard anyone tried to get ahead in life, the taxes, and trappings of the 'idealist' regime would slide them straight back down into the masses. In other words . . . why bother trying.

At least no one has said the CPA yet. As much as I love the Communist Manifesto . . just no

I can understand why people think of the current Liberals as good economic managers, but it simply isn't true.

Yes, the economy is much better now that it was 8 years ago when the Liberals took over, but how much of that is the result of economic policy, and how much is that just a function of the world economy?

Australian interest rates are low right now, historically speaking, but they're still quite high compared to other Western countries. Canada for example has 2% interest rates, the UK is about 2.5% and the US until recently had 0% interest rates.

Realistically, both the major parties are so close together in terms of economic policy, it seems absurd to vote for one or the other on that basis alone...

quote:

Yes, the economy is much better now that it was 8 years ago when the Liberals took over, but how much of that is the result of economic policy, and how much is that just a function of the world economy?

New York stock market crash of October 1987

quote:

Originally posted by matt_a High interest rates

Interest rates are going to rise irrespective of which party wins office this coming election. It's also worth noting that the government doesn't set interest rates either -- the Reserve Bank does.

This article should be of some interest as well, as it's an ex-reserve bank governor dismissing the idea that interest rates are going to rise because of a Labor government as 'complete nonsense'.

quote:

weaker economy, a stronger union movement

I'm not sure what exactly you mean by a 'weaker economy' -- but I don't see why a strong union movement is a bad thing. If workers want to organize, then good on them.

quote:

Just on my point about not knowing where Latham stands, I have to ask does he even know what he's doing? I watched that 'debate' and I never actually heard Latham say any policies.

The ALP's policies are located here. if you're interested in reading them. I didn't watch the debate too closely myself, as they're generally used as PR opportunities by both leaders.

quote:

And on the thing of Howard handing over to Costello . . would Mr Latham like to explain the Hawke handover to Keating, which screwed us into the ground.

Latham wasn't even in parliament then from memory, so I don't know what you want him to 'explain'. I also think that Hawke went in a leadership challenge, whereas the Costello thing relates to a supposed planned handover. As for the idea that it screwed us into the ground, how? Keating had decent social policies, and his drive towards Asia was beginning to reap dividends until Howard (who's previously expressed racist sentiments towards Asians) got elected and sent us backwards. Keating's economic reforms also have a fair bit to do with the fact that the economy is performing reasonably well at present. Yes, he wasn't perfect (but neither is Howard, just look at our trade deficit and our spiralling foreign debt levels)

quote:

(Is it any wonder that Howard destroyed Keating)

It was mainly due to his perceived arrogance and aloofness in my view -- he was seen as a bit of a self-obsessed wanker, and he paid for it.

quote:

If anything it seems to be a Labour trait more than a Liberal trait.

There are leadership changes and challenges in every party, Howard himself has been toppled before. The Costello thing is just a scare tactic -- personally I'd much prefer Costello. If Labor was in government right now the Liberals would be doing the exact same thing with Simon Crean -- ultimately it means nothing.

quote:

And Iraq, war, terrorism, whatever, I don't think the majority of aussie voters are going to vote because of it. Nothing has ever happened on Australian soil, in the 3 years the "War on Terror" has been happening, and that seems pretty good to me.

I think that you're underestimating the issue's importance a little bit, as things like the embassy and Bali bombings are viewed much the same way as an attack on Australian soil would be. I'm certainly taking Iraq into account -- as will others who aren't motivated purely by self-interest and actually care what happens to Iraqis and our troops currently stationed over there.

quote:

I like the country the way it is, and I know exactly where we are headed with Howard.

Heh, I can't stand what we've become under Howard -- and because of him I honestly can't see myself ever voting for the Liberal party ever again. Anyone who locks up young children in the middle of the desert for election purposes is pure evil in my view.

quote:

With Latham our destination seems to change everyday, depending on public oppinion in the media, as that's all Latham seems to do, buckle to the media.

Not really -- Latham's been a consistent neo-liberal theorist for the duration of his political life; take a look at the books he's written.

quote:

I have respect for Howard that he always sticks by what he says. He said there would be a GST . . media critisism . . there was a GST.

Eh? Howard promised that there would "never ever" be a GST. Then when he got elected, he instituted one -- a direct lie. Then we've got children overboard, WMD, the guarantee that we'd have no $100,000+ university courses, $300 million dollars of our money wasted on political advertising. Howard frequently does the exact opposite of what he says he will; he's a pathological liar.

Heck, take a look at the government's imigration policy -- it's practically a direct copy of some of the stuff Pauline Hanson was advocating.

Well said arctic.

I agree with your Costello sentiments as well, he is the only senior Liberal member I can actually tolerate. He alone seems to have a conscience and a genuine social awareness (as opposed to Howard, who has one when it suits his political aims).

What scares me about the Costello handover though, is that Tony Abbott would most likely become the deputy leader. He scares me almost as much as John Ashcroft...

quote:

Originally posted by webmeister Well said arctic. I agree with your Costello sentiments as well, he is the only senior Liberal member I can actually tolerate. He alone seems to have a conscience and a genuine social awareness (as opposed to Howard, who has one when it suits his political aims). What scares me about the Costello handover though, is that Tony Abbott would most likely become the deputy leader. He scares me almost as much as John Ashcroft...

Costello's recent bible bashing worries me -- but I guess I can hold my nose and hope that he follows through on his comments with regards to reconciliation, children in detention and so forth. There's also the chance that his brother might be an influence on him as well, and in my mind that would be a good thing.

But yeah, Tony Abbot is a far-right religious nut job. I'm genuinely scared at what he'd do if he ever got the leadership, to the point where I'd prefer the woman who compared refugees to dogs and cats to Abbot. Bring back Malcolm Fraser I say.

I cant be fucked replying to your whole article, simply acuse I can't see the point, if you want to run in the special olymipics thats up to you.
Simple fact is the fluff that Latham is advocating, is nothing more than a superficial facard to cover his clear lack of real political insight. I havent heard anything deeper than "Ease the Squeeze" and if you watch the Labour party during question time, you might realise why. Oh another thing was when Latham was asked about Universities, he didn't mention them and proceeded to talk about giving more money to catholic and small independant schools. It seems as though his education policy is to take from the very rich private schools, and give it to the growing private schools. This is why I can't see that schooling is an issue, because the public schools look like getting jack all either way!

Just for interest sake, as an alternative for all you pessimists out there, and workers, visit the one and only greatest political party in the world! CPA

Higher Education

quote:

A Federal Labor Government will: Expand the opportunities to get a TAFE or university qualification �create 20,000 new Tafe/ university places each year by 2008/09 to be distributed throughout Australia �provide $35 million to support secondary school students from disadvantaged backgrounds to progress to university or TAFE. Ensure fair access to affordable tertiary education �stop the Howard Government's 25% Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) fee hike and the deregulation of HECS fees �abolish full fees for all new Australian undergraduate students which can cost as much as $200,000. etc

http://alp.org.au/policy/education/aimhigher.php
thanks to Arctic for the link


*EDIT* And you were asking about private schools?

quote:

Labor's Plan for Fairer Schools Funding A Federal Labor Government will fund Australian schools more fairly on the basis of need. Labor will end the damaging funding debate between government and non-government schools. There are needy schools in both sectors that need more government support and resources. Labor will increase funding to government schools and maintain overall funding for the non-government sector. Labor will establish a national standard by which all schools � government, Catholic and Independent � will be funded. Schools below the standard will receive more funds. Labor also guarantees that under our fairer funding model, the vast majority of Catholic and Independent schools will be better off. The Howard Government has given the wealthiest schools the largest funding increases. For example, The King's School has received 215 per cent increase at the same time, government, Catholic and low-fee independent schools who educate the vast majority of Australian students have had to make do with smaller adjustments � just 20 per cent for government schools and 25 per cent for Catholic schools.

Economically, Howard and Latham are pretty much the same. Both are from the neo-liberal, free-market, economic rationalist school, whatever you want to call it. Budget surpluses, minimal government regulation and interference.

Foreign policy again fairly similar. Both want to fight the war on terror. Both support the American alliance. Howard sucks up to Bush a bit more. Labor traditionally has better relationship with Asia.

Where the real difference is is in social policy. Do you believe that all Australians should have health care, the ability to have a good free education and to go to university? Whoever was talking about removing HECS, how do you think people from working class or poorer backgrounds will ever go to university then? They have to work for 10 years until they can afford to go? There are already rich people 'jumping the queue' and taking university places ahead of poor people who have a better UAI but cant afford full fees.

Shouldnt everyone have the opportunity in Australia to better themselves and make something of their lifes? Equality of opportunity is what its about.

Should we just think of ourselves like Americans or should we care about our fellow Australians? Howard is trying to make our society like America's, where the rich are getting richer and 20% of people are living in poverty in mobile homes with no health insurance at all? Not to mention all the crime as a result of inequality.

Do we want to fuck up our environment and the earth anymore than we already have done? We have probably the best natural environment of any country yet we are just exploiting it. Why not sign the Kyoto agreement? Don't we care about the world our children and grandchildren will be living in?

Shouldnt Australia be a tolerant society? Since Howard came to power we have had the Tampa incident, refusing to say sorry to Aboriginals and children and innocent people in detention for years. I dont think this is what Australia is about.

Australia has always been the land of opportunity and mateship. We should be looking after our country for our children, helping each other out and creating a society which anyone would be happy to live in.

Under Howard we are heading towards a society of selfishness, intolerance and inequality. In fact society has already changed since he has been in power.

quote:

Originally posted by matt_a I cant be fucked replying to your whole article, simply acuse I can't see the point, if you want to run in the special olymipics thats up to you. Simple fact is the fluff that Latham is advocating, is nothing more than a superficial facard to cover his clear lack of real political insight.

I disagree with the economic rationalist/neo-liberal stuff that he peddles, but you can hardly say that he lacks 'real political insight'. Read his books if you're interested in what he advocated -- there are actually some pretty radical ideas in them.

quote:

I havent heard anything deeper than "Ease the Squeeze" and if you watch the Labour party during question time, you might realise why.

Howard repeats inane phrases as well -- all political leaders do it. It appeals to stupid people unfortunately, and the rest of us just have to put up with it.

quote:

Oh another thing was when Latham was asked about Universities, he didn't mention them and proceeded to talk about giving more money to catholic and small independant schools.

Again, he debate is more about image and impression. He evidently felt that the independent school point would get him more votes/traction. Look on the ALP website for policy, you're better off to ignore the debate (that goes for the Coalition as well).

quote:

It seems as though his education policy is to take from the very rich private schools, and give it to the growing private schools. This is why I can't see that schooling is an issue, because the public schools look like getting jack all either way!

Not really he's giving it to struggling private and public schools. That being said, I disagree with his policy, which is why i'm not voting for him.

arctic, ASL???

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.