Great piece from Gerrard Henderson in the smh about the original basic wage decision 100 years ago, how it is is lauded by leftwingers and how it contributed to the depression.
I wonder if rolling back workchoices in the face of an international stock market crash might cause economic damage at this time?
(Oops. Irony again)
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Santa comes to muslims, but not jews
The Australian government has doubled it's aid to the Palestinian territories to 45b with these words on French radio:
"The sense of manifest injustice about the situation in the territories is a significant cause of terrorism in the world."
So is giving them more money going to heal their sense of injustice, man?
These pro-extremist messages are coming thick and fast. What did I tell ya? Lefties think that terrorist just want to be left alone.
I got news for McMullan: You are thinking in a 20th century outdated hippie way. You are insulting the Palestinians by thinking they will be happy if you give them our money. You are also insulting Israel by implying they are so unjust and you are insulting Australia by unconditionally funding a country which is, in part, run by terrorists.
Admittedly, the people who say they are in change of the territories, Fatah, are not terrorists (any more). They are making moves toward a peace treaty with Isreal, but they can't bring all of the palestinians with them. Fatah is nominally in charge, but Hamas still controls Gaza and they are still sworn to drive the Isrealis into the sea. They were also the winners in the most recent parliamentary elections, so quite rightly claim to represent most Palestinians.
Any fool could see that what pisses the Palestnians off is not lack of money, but Israel. They want Israel to go away. That is their ideal position and all this sympathy from the world community makes them think it's going to happen. Scratch a Palestinian sympathiser and they will always admit they think Israel has no right to exist. I've never met one yet that doesn't.
Well here's the deal. Israel does exist. Israel is going to keep existing. Israel is one of the few viable democracies in the middle east and deserves our support.
(BTW I noticed how the sacked former head of Hezbollah was a 'hero' in a headline in the Australia the other day. Just how many of you anti-Israelis are out there. Be honest)
I support aid to the Palestinian territories on two conditions:
(1) The country is stable and democratically so and
(2) that the democratically elected government recognises Israel's right to exist now and for the furture, the whole future.
This is not the ALP's position. Suprize suprize. After yesterday's announcment from the 'defense' minister that we are losing in Afganistan, today we have the statement from the foreign minister and unconditional aid.
Some would say that Rudd has lost control of his cabinet. I believe that Rudd is a leftie and has no intention of being a conservative in anything more than an economic sense, and he does not have the ability or the instinct to do that properly either. Rudd has full confidence in the lunatics that are running the asylum.
The ALP is indulging its misdirected guilty conscience at your expense and what's worse, it will lead to worse results at home and abroad.
Giving money to the Palestinians unconditionally will not help a peace treaty and a two-state solution come about. Withholding money from Gaza has been the only way to force hateful Hamas to even think about dealing with Fatah, let alone recognize Israel. Palestine and Israel are economically interlocked. Palestine needs Israel, and vice versa. The resentments of the Islamists need to be reigned in before a peaceful and prosperous solution can be found. Giving money unconditionally sends the wrong message. Making statements about how unjust the situation is for the Palestinians sends the wrong message.
That message wont do the Palestinians any good in the long run.
That message will be also heard at home as I keep saying. The home grown jihad has just begun.
"The sense of manifest injustice about the situation in the territories is a significant cause of terrorism in the world."
So is giving them more money going to heal their sense of injustice, man?
These pro-extremist messages are coming thick and fast. What did I tell ya? Lefties think that terrorist just want to be left alone.
I got news for McMullan: You are thinking in a 20th century outdated hippie way. You are insulting the Palestinians by thinking they will be happy if you give them our money. You are also insulting Israel by implying they are so unjust and you are insulting Australia by unconditionally funding a country which is, in part, run by terrorists.
Admittedly, the people who say they are in change of the territories, Fatah, are not terrorists (any more). They are making moves toward a peace treaty with Isreal, but they can't bring all of the palestinians with them. Fatah is nominally in charge, but Hamas still controls Gaza and they are still sworn to drive the Isrealis into the sea. They were also the winners in the most recent parliamentary elections, so quite rightly claim to represent most Palestinians.
Any fool could see that what pisses the Palestnians off is not lack of money, but Israel. They want Israel to go away. That is their ideal position and all this sympathy from the world community makes them think it's going to happen. Scratch a Palestinian sympathiser and they will always admit they think Israel has no right to exist. I've never met one yet that doesn't.
Well here's the deal. Israel does exist. Israel is going to keep existing. Israel is one of the few viable democracies in the middle east and deserves our support.
(BTW I noticed how the sacked former head of Hezbollah was a 'hero' in a headline in the Australia the other day. Just how many of you anti-Israelis are out there. Be honest)
I support aid to the Palestinian territories on two conditions:
(1) The country is stable and democratically so and
(2) that the democratically elected government recognises Israel's right to exist now and for the furture, the whole future.
This is not the ALP's position. Suprize suprize. After yesterday's announcment from the 'defense' minister that we are losing in Afganistan, today we have the statement from the foreign minister and unconditional aid.
Some would say that Rudd has lost control of his cabinet. I believe that Rudd is a leftie and has no intention of being a conservative in anything more than an economic sense, and he does not have the ability or the instinct to do that properly either. Rudd has full confidence in the lunatics that are running the asylum.
The ALP is indulging its misdirected guilty conscience at your expense and what's worse, it will lead to worse results at home and abroad.
Giving money to the Palestinians unconditionally will not help a peace treaty and a two-state solution come about. Withholding money from Gaza has been the only way to force hateful Hamas to even think about dealing with Fatah, let alone recognize Israel. Palestine and Israel are economically interlocked. Palestine needs Israel, and vice versa. The resentments of the Islamists need to be reigned in before a peaceful and prosperous solution can be found. Giving money unconditionally sends the wrong message. Making statements about how unjust the situation is for the Palestinians sends the wrong message.
That message wont do the Palestinians any good in the long run.
That message will be also heard at home as I keep saying. The home grown jihad has just begun.
Monday, December 17, 2007
Rudd a self-writing comedy show?
Who needs YouTube parodies when the Rudd comes up with stuff like this ?
"I intend not to use COAG as a whipping boy, I have no interest in allowing COAG to become the dead horse," he said.
"I want it to be a workhorse not a dead horse, I don't want to whip it - I just want to stroke it gently."
Is it a silver bullet? No, but you know somethin'? When it comes to gaffe's Rudd is the new "dubya"
"I intend not to use COAG as a whipping boy, I have no interest in allowing COAG to become the dead horse," he said.
"I want it to be a workhorse not a dead horse, I don't want to whip it - I just want to stroke it gently."
Is it a silver bullet? No, but you know somethin'? When it comes to gaffe's Rudd is the new "dubya"
Chairman Rudd Propaganda Part II
Genius new parody of the Rudd Victory in YouTube from the same guy that brought you the Chairman Rudd propaganda video.
Another war we are 'losing'
Damn, I didn't realise we sucked so much. I thought for a second we were winning in Iraq, and had made great progress against the Taliban in Afganistan.
Not so according to the new 'defense' minister Joel Fitzgibbon.
I just realised that most of by posts today have been delivered with Irony (not to say sarcasm). So i'll wipe away a couple of layers of meaning...
I think the Rudd government is softening up the public to accept another bit of bad news, just like they they are with interest rates. They are doing this now while memories of Howard are fresh, so that we associate the bad news with him. That bad news is the withdrawal of our brave troops from Afganistan. Here's why I think that is coming.
The ALP are pacifists. They believe that terrorists only started attacking us because we treated them so badly, or rather our allies did. They believe on some level that the deaths of Aussies in the Bali-bombings was payback, and deserved - at least in part. Ideally they think people can live beside one another with no conflict, but revenge attacks against big powers are OK. The very existance of a big power to them is an affront to the natural order, which is equality (although this state have never occurred in nature, and only occurs under the most extreme human controls - and even then does not really because dome humans have to do the controlling). If we stop fighting the terrosist will leave us alone. This is the firmly held belief of the left.
Their activism extends only to immasculating Western powers, rather than applying the same liberal standards to the treatment of people, and in particular women in third world countries.
Dispite Rudd's posturing, his actions will reveal his convictions. This retreat is the first such action. The conviction it betrays is that Muslim extremists cannot and should not be resisted. Anything they do, including violence against Australian citizens must be tolerated on some level. There will be investigations and stuff, but the focus will be on the cause of their extreme views. And the cause will be us.
It is no joke that terrorists will be emboldened by our withdrawal from Afganistan. I dont think this will have an immidiate impact on our shores, but it will have an effect mainly on recruitment to the jihadi groups operating in OZ. There will be a growing tendency for young muslim youth to become marginalised and hostile to Australia from within. It's not foreign terrorists we have to worry about. It's locals.
These kids are Aussies like you and me, but will now be subtly encouraged to think otherwise and to nurture their grieviances. Their loyalties should be to the nation that nurtures them, but this nation will be tacitly seen as evil as long as we are allied to the US. Their loyalty will shift to their religion, or rather an extreme sect as they are manipulated by Mullahs already operating here.
This will take 5 years to show results. Those results will be fractured communites, increased crime and at worst bombings by home-grown perpetrators as in Britain.
The retreat will start in Iraq and Afganstan and it will end by retreating into our own homes right here in our own country. A country we would be able to share if were able to stand up for it. If we could show people Aussies are proud and strong, and not weak and cowardly, they would admire us all the more. How can we expect loyalty if we should no strength, no courage? The figure of John Howard was the hard-headed personification of pride that commanded respect from allies and enemies alike. That's gone, and the natural beligerence of young men of every creed and colour is now unchecked, and officially unrecognised. These kids need a strong person to look up to. They are not angry because of injustices in other countries. They are angry because they are kids.
The ALP honestly think that all terrorists want is to be left alone. That is the real message the 'defense' minister sent out today. It's bullshit. Phycologists call it projection. The ALP are projecting their ideals onto other people, and getting it very wrong in the process. It's the ALP, not the terrorists, who want to be left alone because they are lazy unionists that watch while others work. The terrorists are bad-asses, not sitting on their asses.
Australia is not a desert island holiday home for lazy lefties anymore. We are a proud nation ready to defend ourselves against all comers.
Show some balls, Fitzgibbon.
Not so according to the new 'defense' minister Joel Fitzgibbon.
I just realised that most of by posts today have been delivered with Irony (not to say sarcasm). So i'll wipe away a couple of layers of meaning...
I think the Rudd government is softening up the public to accept another bit of bad news, just like they they are with interest rates. They are doing this now while memories of Howard are fresh, so that we associate the bad news with him. That bad news is the withdrawal of our brave troops from Afganistan. Here's why I think that is coming.
The ALP are pacifists. They believe that terrorists only started attacking us because we treated them so badly, or rather our allies did. They believe on some level that the deaths of Aussies in the Bali-bombings was payback, and deserved - at least in part. Ideally they think people can live beside one another with no conflict, but revenge attacks against big powers are OK. The very existance of a big power to them is an affront to the natural order, which is equality (although this state have never occurred in nature, and only occurs under the most extreme human controls - and even then does not really because dome humans have to do the controlling). If we stop fighting the terrosist will leave us alone. This is the firmly held belief of the left.
Their activism extends only to immasculating Western powers, rather than applying the same liberal standards to the treatment of people, and in particular women in third world countries.
Dispite Rudd's posturing, his actions will reveal his convictions. This retreat is the first such action. The conviction it betrays is that Muslim extremists cannot and should not be resisted. Anything they do, including violence against Australian citizens must be tolerated on some level. There will be investigations and stuff, but the focus will be on the cause of their extreme views. And the cause will be us.
It is no joke that terrorists will be emboldened by our withdrawal from Afganistan. I dont think this will have an immidiate impact on our shores, but it will have an effect mainly on recruitment to the jihadi groups operating in OZ. There will be a growing tendency for young muslim youth to become marginalised and hostile to Australia from within. It's not foreign terrorists we have to worry about. It's locals.
These kids are Aussies like you and me, but will now be subtly encouraged to think otherwise and to nurture their grieviances. Their loyalties should be to the nation that nurtures them, but this nation will be tacitly seen as evil as long as we are allied to the US. Their loyalty will shift to their religion, or rather an extreme sect as they are manipulated by Mullahs already operating here.
This will take 5 years to show results. Those results will be fractured communites, increased crime and at worst bombings by home-grown perpetrators as in Britain.
The retreat will start in Iraq and Afganstan and it will end by retreating into our own homes right here in our own country. A country we would be able to share if were able to stand up for it. If we could show people Aussies are proud and strong, and not weak and cowardly, they would admire us all the more. How can we expect loyalty if we should no strength, no courage? The figure of John Howard was the hard-headed personification of pride that commanded respect from allies and enemies alike. That's gone, and the natural beligerence of young men of every creed and colour is now unchecked, and officially unrecognised. These kids need a strong person to look up to. They are not angry because of injustices in other countries. They are angry because they are kids.
The ALP honestly think that all terrorists want is to be left alone. That is the real message the 'defense' minister sent out today. It's bullshit. Phycologists call it projection. The ALP are projecting their ideals onto other people, and getting it very wrong in the process. It's the ALP, not the terrorists, who want to be left alone because they are lazy unionists that watch while others work. The terrorists are bad-asses, not sitting on their asses.
Australia is not a desert island holiday home for lazy lefties anymore. We are a proud nation ready to defend ourselves against all comers.
Show some balls, Fitzgibbon.
Iraq: US media bias breaks new records!
And you thought the ABC was biased? Sure, they have stopped reporting Iraq because we are winning, but the America mainstream media is making shit up to make us look like we are losing!! Latest count six bogus news stories in six weeks.
Sorry, did I say 'us'? I'm stuck thinking we are still the fighting the bad guys. *Sigh*
If you stop fighting, are you still one of the good guys, or are you just one of the spectators?
Sorry, did I say 'us'? I'm stuck thinking we are still the fighting the bad guys. *Sigh*
If you stop fighting, are you still one of the good guys, or are you just one of the spectators?
How to get people to sign a climate declaration
Step 1: Lock the delegates in a room until they are all exhausted and say they will sign anything to get some sleep.
Step 2: When they realise they goofed the next day, lock them in a room again and subject them to herd-intimidation even the most die-hard unionist would cringe at. You want them to feel alone, un-loved, even hated - officially: 'isolated'. At all stages question their motives and make them feel guilty for defending their interests of the people they are here to represent. The more you can make them look bad, the more people will jump on your band wagon for personal and political gain. Thus increases the 'isolation' of the target(s).
Step 3: When that doesn't work change the wording of the document so that it does not commit anyone to targets binding or otherwise, just to saying they like the sound of targets; or in the case of poor countries, to making power-point presentations about how they did their best to reach non-existent targets.
Step 4: Cheer and shout and get smashed in business-class on the flight home. Arrive to rapturous applause about how you ended your country's 'isolation'. Attempt to shag idealistic impressionable young members of the ALP impressed by your 'achievements'.
Step 5: Wake up with a hangover and realise the agreement you got is a step-backward compared to John Howard's Sydney declaration where developing and developed countries actually said they would accept non-binding targets, which are better than no targets. Immediately call newspaper editors to repress this information by threat of withdrawing interviews with the new masters. Accept their supplication with calm benevolence.
Step 6: Book your flights for XMAS holiday. Job done.
Step 2: When they realise they goofed the next day, lock them in a room again and subject them to herd-intimidation even the most die-hard unionist would cringe at. You want them to feel alone, un-loved, even hated - officially: 'isolated'. At all stages question their motives and make them feel guilty for defending their interests of the people they are here to represent. The more you can make them look bad, the more people will jump on your band wagon for personal and political gain. Thus increases the 'isolation' of the target(s).
Step 3: If the delegates who don't want to sign are from poor countries lock them outside because they dont count. You would not want them siding with the target(s) of your intimidation, and exposing the myth of their 'isolation'.
Step 3: When that doesn't work change the wording of the document so that it does not commit anyone to targets binding or otherwise, just to saying they like the sound of targets; or in the case of poor countries, to making power-point presentations about how they did their best to reach non-existent targets.
Step 4: Cheer and shout and get smashed in business-class on the flight home. Arrive to rapturous applause about how you ended your country's 'isolation'. Attempt to shag idealistic impressionable young members of the ALP impressed by your 'achievements'.
Step 5: Wake up with a hangover and realise the agreement you got is a step-backward compared to John Howard's Sydney declaration where developing and developed countries actually said they would accept non-binding targets, which are better than no targets. Immediately call newspaper editors to repress this information by threat of withdrawing interviews with the new masters. Accept their supplication with calm benevolence.
Step 6: Book your flights for XMAS holiday. Job done.
Econobabble
News is running an article about Howard's economic wrongs written by a guy from ACCESS economics. Economists looking to ingratiate themselves with the new masters are quick to join the grotty media mob uprising against Howardian Royalty. Avert your eyes, scum, and stifle your all too frequent bodily noises in the presence of him with the divine right to rule. Above all, do not touch. Howards' head may lie in a basket at the bottom of a guillotine but it still has more wisdom in it than all of yours put together.
A guy from Access economics, i'm guessing the same guy, was a regular guest on the 7:30 report this year whenever they wanted some favourable comment on interest rates that tarnished Howard. Is ACCESS's core business economic advice or public relations?
I'd love to spend all day calling their motives into question, but I suppose I should attack their rediculous arguments aswell.
This guy's main beef with howard is his spending 'splurge'.
Mr Richardson described the Howard government's spending in recent years as "positively Whitlamesque", saying the Coalition had handed back more than half the China-driven revenue windfall in a series of personal income tax cuts, with the rest directed to increased spending.
My beef is with all these 'experts' who deliberately misrepresent the information they portray. Why do they keep saying that tax cuts are the same as government expenditure? They aren't. One is when the government takes peoples money are spends it elsewhere. The other is when the give the money back, or better yet dont take it in the first place. In the latter option the money is not necessarily spent. The taxpayers might save on invest it- exactly as the government would do if they did not spend it themselves. A tax cut does not necessarily increase demand. Like transfer payments (welfare, childcare rebates etc) they are not counted as spending when calculating GDP, because the money has been given to another person to spend, rather than exchanged for goods and services.
I repeat tax-cuts are NOT government spending. They are the OPPOSITE of government spending. How can he use the world 'splurge' when the government is not taking the money in the first place? (actually it was the journalist that used this specific work, see UPDATE below)
The argument that both tax-cuts and government spending increase demand and inflationary pressure is not an argument for blurring the distincting between the two. I shudder to think what a left-wing government has planned when they are encouraging the electorate to think that giving them money back is the same as taking it away.
This bollocks started with the whinging of the economically-challenged labor-voters about middle class welfare. Why are the people who support the welfare state all of a sudden against this sort of welfare? Because it's a tax cut that's why!!! The people who earned the money are getting it back, so they can spend it themselves, albeit in ways pre-approved by the government. The left believe that the middle class don't deserve to have their money. End of Story. They are re-distributionists trying to overcome the 'injustices' of the past. They want to take your money are give it to people that didn't earn it. The more permanent their lack of motivation the more they deserve your money.
Of course it's not just those are obviously unproductive who will get your money. Other people who appear to be doing something helpful, but aren't are also in the running. People who provide consulting services to the incoming government will recieve big contracts. People like ACCESS economics. They will get paid your money to oversee the process whereby lost more of your money goes into areas that the government thinks it should go (hint: not your wallet).
Before they get your money they have to toe the labor line. They firstly have to explain that all the rate-rises to come are Howard's fault, and nothing to do with Labor's inflationary IR policy. Next they have to help blur the line between governement spending and tax cuts, so you wont notice you are being bled dry. If you get a feeling that you are, you will experience a confusing sensation as the concepts in your brain diverge from the 'variable certainty'. Will you fall foul of the double-think, or will shake off this creeping malaise and get hang on to reality?
Snap out of it, taxpayers! It's not just your cash they want, but your soul!!!
UPDATE: After re-reading the article I can see that at no stage were tax-cuts actually equated with government spending by the guy from ACCESS economics, but in collusion with the journalist that impression was firmly given. 'Splurge' was the world used in the article by the journalist to talk about the combination of tax-cuts and spending. It was used immidiately after these lines:
But he said much of the growth in spending under John Howard had been in areas such as security and family benefits, and the new Government would require political courage to make cuts in these areas.
We see here that 'family benefits' i'm guess thing child rebates and other tax breaks that families get which fall under the middle-class welfare banner outlines above were bunched together. As stated transfer payments are strictly speaking not expenditure in economic sense, in that they dont buy a good or service, although i think they are counted as expenditure by the Aus govt (but not the NZ govt) because they reflect a passing of money away from the govt. That money happens to be going back to the people that earned it. So as I said it's a tax cut or sorts and doubly should not be counted as expenditure in any serious economic analysis.
Analysing the quote above, the equating tax-cuts with spending could have been the work of the journalist not the econmist. The structure of the sentence includes tax cuts as a part of expenditure, then mentions expenditure seperately, as a part-component of itself ?????
Mr Richardson described the Howard government's spending in recent years as "positively Whitlamesque", saying the Coalition had handed back more than half the China-driven revenue windfall in a series of personal income tax cuts, with the rest directed to increased spending.
The rest spending was directed to spending. WTF??? By implication the other spending , the tax cuts, was also spending. Confused?? It looks like the journalist was. I still place the blame firmly on the economist who lead the journalist, and me and the rest of the public firmly to the belief that tax-cuts are govt expenditure are the same, and not opposites as is truly the case. But i'll call the journalist a conman too if you like.
A guy from Access economics, i'm guessing the same guy, was a regular guest on the 7:30 report this year whenever they wanted some favourable comment on interest rates that tarnished Howard. Is ACCESS's core business economic advice or public relations?
I'd love to spend all day calling their motives into question, but I suppose I should attack their rediculous arguments aswell.
This guy's main beef with howard is his spending 'splurge'.
Mr Richardson described the Howard government's spending in recent years as "positively Whitlamesque", saying the Coalition had handed back more than half the China-driven revenue windfall in a series of personal income tax cuts, with the rest directed to increased spending.
My beef is with all these 'experts' who deliberately misrepresent the information they portray. Why do they keep saying that tax cuts are the same as government expenditure? They aren't. One is when the government takes peoples money are spends it elsewhere. The other is when the give the money back, or better yet dont take it in the first place. In the latter option the money is not necessarily spent. The taxpayers might save on invest it- exactly as the government would do if they did not spend it themselves. A tax cut does not necessarily increase demand. Like transfer payments (welfare, childcare rebates etc) they are not counted as spending when calculating GDP, because the money has been given to another person to spend, rather than exchanged for goods and services.
I repeat tax-cuts are NOT government spending. They are the OPPOSITE of government spending. How can he use the world 'splurge' when the government is not taking the money in the first place? (actually it was the journalist that used this specific work, see UPDATE below)
The argument that both tax-cuts and government spending increase demand and inflationary pressure is not an argument for blurring the distincting between the two. I shudder to think what a left-wing government has planned when they are encouraging the electorate to think that giving them money back is the same as taking it away.
This bollocks started with the whinging of the economically-challenged labor-voters about middle class welfare. Why are the people who support the welfare state all of a sudden against this sort of welfare? Because it's a tax cut that's why!!! The people who earned the money are getting it back, so they can spend it themselves, albeit in ways pre-approved by the government. The left believe that the middle class don't deserve to have their money. End of Story. They are re-distributionists trying to overcome the 'injustices' of the past. They want to take your money are give it to people that didn't earn it. The more permanent their lack of motivation the more they deserve your money.
Of course it's not just those are obviously unproductive who will get your money. Other people who appear to be doing something helpful, but aren't are also in the running. People who provide consulting services to the incoming government will recieve big contracts. People like ACCESS economics. They will get paid your money to oversee the process whereby lost more of your money goes into areas that the government thinks it should go (hint: not your wallet).
Before they get your money they have to toe the labor line. They firstly have to explain that all the rate-rises to come are Howard's fault, and nothing to do with Labor's inflationary IR policy. Next they have to help blur the line between governement spending and tax cuts, so you wont notice you are being bled dry. If you get a feeling that you are, you will experience a confusing sensation as the concepts in your brain diverge from the 'variable certainty'. Will you fall foul of the double-think, or will shake off this creeping malaise and get hang on to reality?
Snap out of it, taxpayers! It's not just your cash they want, but your soul!!!
UPDATE: After re-reading the article I can see that at no stage were tax-cuts actually equated with government spending by the guy from ACCESS economics, but in collusion with the journalist that impression was firmly given. 'Splurge' was the world used in the article by the journalist to talk about the combination of tax-cuts and spending. It was used immidiately after these lines:
But he said much of the growth in spending under John Howard had been in areas such as security and family benefits, and the new Government would require political courage to make cuts in these areas.
We see here that 'family benefits' i'm guess thing child rebates and other tax breaks that families get which fall under the middle-class welfare banner outlines above were bunched together. As stated transfer payments are strictly speaking not expenditure in economic sense, in that they dont buy a good or service, although i think they are counted as expenditure by the Aus govt (but not the NZ govt) because they reflect a passing of money away from the govt. That money happens to be going back to the people that earned it. So as I said it's a tax cut or sorts and doubly should not be counted as expenditure in any serious economic analysis.
Analysing the quote above, the equating tax-cuts with spending could have been the work of the journalist not the econmist. The structure of the sentence includes tax cuts as a part of expenditure, then mentions expenditure seperately, as a part-component of itself ?????
Mr Richardson described the Howard government's spending in recent years as "positively Whitlamesque", saying the Coalition had handed back more than half the China-driven revenue windfall in a series of personal income tax cuts, with the rest directed to increased spending.
The rest spending was directed to spending. WTF??? By implication the other spending , the tax cuts, was also spending. Confused?? It looks like the journalist was. I still place the blame firmly on the economist who lead the journalist, and me and the rest of the public firmly to the belief that tax-cuts are govt expenditure are the same, and not opposites as is truly the case. But i'll call the journalist a conman too if you like.
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Arguing and Silencing the opposition: two different things
Janet Albrechsten has written a good piece attacking the call from who must be the most non-democratic blogger in the world, Guy Rundle of Crikey.
My comment on the piece is repeated here:
I'm prepared to stand up an be counted as a conservative and I fully support what Janet has said. So what if the tone was harsh. Her job is on the line. I'd prefer she fight back rather than than whine like an actor in an ALP election advert.
Might I remind the other commentators here that arguing against another's opinion, say by describing left-wing opinions (correctly) as 'anti-american', and asking for opposing opinions to be silenced are two completely different things. Janet does one. The left does the other. Arguing against you is an invitation for you to try to justify yourselves. You cannot, or at least not very well, so instead of argue back you demand that the argument be ended my herd intimidation of the media.
The gloating of the cultural left will be short-lived when they realise that Rudd is just a populist. He will not be implementing your agenda if he wants to stay in power.
I lived in Britain under New Labour. I know all I have to do is sit back and wait for you all to turn on Rudd.
Soon you will wish you had Howard back so you could fantasize that conservatives were what was wrong with the world.
This is going to be a right laugh.
My comment on the piece is repeated here:
I'm prepared to stand up an be counted as a conservative and I fully support what Janet has said. So what if the tone was harsh. Her job is on the line. I'd prefer she fight back rather than than whine like an actor in an ALP election advert.
Might I remind the other commentators here that arguing against another's opinion, say by describing left-wing opinions (correctly) as 'anti-american', and asking for opposing opinions to be silenced are two completely different things. Janet does one. The left does the other. Arguing against you is an invitation for you to try to justify yourselves. You cannot, or at least not very well, so instead of argue back you demand that the argument be ended my herd intimidation of the media.
The gloating of the cultural left will be short-lived when they realise that Rudd is just a populist. He will not be implementing your agenda if he wants to stay in power.
I lived in Britain under New Labour. I know all I have to do is sit back and wait for you all to turn on Rudd.
Soon you will wish you had Howard back so you could fantasize that conservatives were what was wrong with the world.
This is going to be a right laugh.
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
Et tu, Abbot?!!
Abbott has written a decent if slightly boring piece for fairfax here. Where he defends the previous government and its legislation, and poo-poos the idea that labor has any mandate for change because of their me-too stance. He does not mention Howard by name but apart from that he has totally agreed with me, so what grounds would I have for complaint, I hear you ask.
I'll tell you what. This:
Abbott has adopted the expressionless mona lisa smile of Rudd!
Lord help us! Abbot!!!! of all people. Our kead-kicker in chief brought low before the alter of trendy metrosexual androgeny.
For me his haste to proove his 'people skills' here has just put Abbot even further out or reach of the leadership. He shouldn't hang up his boots thought. Based on what he wrote and not what he looks like he is perfectly qualified to defend Nelson against the (almost irresistable) forces dragging the party left.
If the ALP gets in by moving right it does not mean we have to move left. We do not have to go all touchy-feely in substance or in style(*). It might make the ABC like us but it's tasteless and we'll have to retract it to get taken seriously by our base, as David Cameron has had to do in England.
We should not become the party of bullshit ande hypocrisy. People will be sick of that from Rudd and co soon enough. We have to wait for that to happen.
(*) Note this comment does not contradict my recommendation of showing feelings. Being determined and hard is a feeling too!
I'll tell you what. This:
Abbott has adopted the expressionless mona lisa smile of Rudd!
Lord help us! Abbot!!!! of all people. Our kead-kicker in chief brought low before the alter of trendy metrosexual androgeny.
For me his haste to proove his 'people skills' here has just put Abbot even further out or reach of the leadership. He shouldn't hang up his boots thought. Based on what he wrote and not what he looks like he is perfectly qualified to defend Nelson against the (almost irresistable) forces dragging the party left.
If the ALP gets in by moving right it does not mean we have to move left. We do not have to go all touchy-feely in substance or in style(*). It might make the ABC like us but it's tasteless and we'll have to retract it to get taken seriously by our base, as David Cameron has had to do in England.
We should not become the party of bullshit ande hypocrisy. People will be sick of that from Rudd and co soon enough. We have to wait for that to happen.
(*) Note this comment does not contradict my recommendation of showing feelings. Being determined and hard is a feeling too!
Monday, December 3, 2007
Rudd rolls over on IR rollback
Nelson's decision to right the ALP on the rollback of WorkChoices is already paying off. Gillard is delaying the rollback of unfair dismissal laws until mid next year at the earliest, knowing that the legislation had no chance of passing in the meantime (unless Turbull rolls Nelson).
I told you. Rudd will want to me-too the Liberals even in government. His policy is still a work-in-progress. If he gave in to his lefty bureaucratic insicts he would be out on his ear like Whitlam in no time. He want's to tread very carefully and never stray far from the path set by Howard.
If Rudd wants to be PM for all Australians he will listen to the Liberals who understand business, and especially small business - the engine of jobs growth. If Rudd want's to stay PM he will doing everything possible to avoid the unemployment rate going up.
I told you. Rudd will want to me-too the Liberals even in government. His policy is still a work-in-progress. If he gave in to his lefty bureaucratic insicts he would be out on his ear like Whitlam in no time. He want's to tread very carefully and never stray far from the path set by Howard.
If Rudd wants to be PM for all Australians he will listen to the Liberals who understand business, and especially small business - the engine of jobs growth. If Rudd want's to stay PM he will doing everything possible to avoid the unemployment rate going up.
SMH: Libs need a hero
Opinion piece in the smh that agrees with me that the biggest risk for the Liberal Party is that it will turn away from Howard's legacy.
The dumping at the poll is just as likely to be a vote against Costello's proposed take-over. Howard's approval ratings were still way higher than Keating's at the end of his term. The polls shifted at the when Rudd took over, but had shited back by election day.
Some people in the Libs, according to the article are lamenting that Howard stayed too long and 'this was our chance to have a hero' and he blew it. He's still my hero, all the more so for not stepping aside.
Hawke never stepped aside. He's an ALP hero.
Keating was beating out of office with baseball bats by the electorate. He's and ALP Hero.
Whitlam was sacked, beaten and dispised by the entire population. He's an ALP hero.
The fact that some Libs don't see Howard as a hero says more about them than about Howard.
I'm beginning to think there's alot of immaturity in the Liberal Party. They can't stick by someone who's had a hard time. When Howard was winning he was god. Now he's lost he's the devil.
This is too much of a beugious attitude. Howard is bad for business. If the customers dont want him well take him off the shelves like a product.
We are not a nation of shopkeepers. We are a nation of battlers. Pull your fucking socks up Libs. Show some of Howard's warrior instinct.
Howard was well-liked by the electorate, the only reason Rudd got it was because he looked and sounded and acted like Howard, minus the part that insisted you work for a living rather than sit on your union-protected arse.
The Rudd me-too approach in opposition and now in government is the proof that nobody knew the electorate better than him. We forget Howard and his achievments at our electoral peril.
Whether or not you can endure the shame of disloyalty and dishonour of betrayal is up to you. You can be a jerk if you like, but it wont help you win in this case.
The dumping at the poll is just as likely to be a vote against Costello's proposed take-over. Howard's approval ratings were still way higher than Keating's at the end of his term. The polls shifted at the when Rudd took over, but had shited back by election day.
Some people in the Libs, according to the article are lamenting that Howard stayed too long and 'this was our chance to have a hero' and he blew it. He's still my hero, all the more so for not stepping aside.
Hawke never stepped aside. He's an ALP hero.
Keating was beating out of office with baseball bats by the electorate. He's and ALP Hero.
Whitlam was sacked, beaten and dispised by the entire population. He's an ALP hero.
The fact that some Libs don't see Howard as a hero says more about them than about Howard.
I'm beginning to think there's alot of immaturity in the Liberal Party. They can't stick by someone who's had a hard time. When Howard was winning he was god. Now he's lost he's the devil.
This is too much of a beugious attitude. Howard is bad for business. If the customers dont want him well take him off the shelves like a product.
We are not a nation of shopkeepers. We are a nation of battlers. Pull your fucking socks up Libs. Show some of Howard's warrior instinct.
Howard was well-liked by the electorate, the only reason Rudd got it was because he looked and sounded and acted like Howard, minus the part that insisted you work for a living rather than sit on your union-protected arse.
The Rudd me-too approach in opposition and now in government is the proof that nobody knew the electorate better than him. We forget Howard and his achievments at our electoral peril.
Whether or not you can endure the shame of disloyalty and dishonour of betrayal is up to you. You can be a jerk if you like, but it wont help you win in this case.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
Liberal Emotions, and Turnbull's lack thereof
The one thing Liberals need to do to their image is to show the emotion that has been a part of their decision making all along. When Brendan Nelson shows this emotion by choking up when he is elected leader what does Turbull his main opponent do? He strides into his office and berates him on his first day as leader.
Turnbull talks of softening the Libral image. He might like to start with his own.
If Turnbull wants to act like a bully I suggest he go join a union. If Turnbull wants to invade other people's offices and verbally abuse them he should join a union. If Turnbull wants to trespass into the bosses office and use his large physical presence to intimidate he sould join a union. Preferably a construction union. He'll find plenty of friends there. He'll be able to disrupt progress really well there.
Turnbull's behaviour is a bad look. He has, like Costello, vindicated the party's decision not to back him. He is an opportunist and only in it for his own ambition. He would rather see the whole thing go down than accept the party's judgement and play second fiddle. Turbull wants to bury Howard by riding the wave of media condemnation. He wants to sacrifice th progress we have made for his own ambition. His selfish lack of consideration is now on display for all to see.
The thing that boggles me is the Turnbull would think showing emotion is so bad. Nelson showing emotions will do alot more to convince people that Liberals are people too than tagging along behind the Mardi Gras like Turnbull.
Being PC does not make you a good person. Rudd's wholesale acceptance of Howards cultural approach is the final nail in the electoral coffin of the PC agenda. Only the media still go on about it. Soon the media will move on to the next story. We need to resist the tempation to joing their bonfire of the vanities.
John Howard and the Liberal Party are not evil. We are the staunch supporters of individuals freedoms and virtues like individual responsiblity. We are the defenders of democracy, which is not the ALP model of a tyranny of the majority, or the media. We are ready to make huge sacrifices and suffer long for what we think, believe, know is right - not that I want to measure the value of a person by the amount they have sufferred as the Left do.
We do all this because we have deep, strong powerful feelings. Does anyone suggest that we do it make money? Any or all of us have lucrative careers beconing in the private sector we could have gone for if we wanted money. Instead we wanted to make a difference. To make the world a better place.
Do you think we do it for the Glory? There is precious little glory handed to conservatives in the modern world. We endure the lack of glory because we know what we are doing is right in our hearts.
I am a staunch Liberal and am proud of my emotions: the highs and the lows.
I am also proud of the empathy I feel towards other people. I have musicians, preachers and psychiatrists in my family tree. I know my own feelings and those of others.
I am writing a book about feelings, and how much bullshit is written about them.
The the Labor party to whoop and holler in the tally room at the suffering of the liberals and then to turn around and accuse us of lacking empathy simply shows their self-delusion and hypocrisy. They think they are empathetic but they empathise most with others that share their resentment of an outside group, namely the privaledged.
We have been portrayed by the media and the not-so-intelligencia as being heartless. Howard was the focus for all that venom. It was all bullshit.
Hooray for Brendan Nelson showing that Liberals are real people that suffer in defeat. Sportmen, the most most macho of all people, cry when the lose a final because they put every last drop of their blood, sweat and tears into the game. They had no reserves left in defeat because they fought with all their hearts.
It is not half-time as Turnbull suggests. We just lost the world cup and have 3 years to go before we get a chance to win it back. Introspection is good and necessary at this time. Hastily adopting other team's cynical playing style is not. Let us feel as well as think ourselves out of this sad situation.
If this is all too woosy for you, then think of it like Bruce Lee. In Enter the Dragon he instructs his student to punch as hard as he can by saying,
"What we need is emotional content."
Let's deliver the ALP a big whack of serious-ass emotional content.
Love,
A Liberal
Turnbull talks of softening the Libral image. He might like to start with his own.
If Turnbull wants to act like a bully I suggest he go join a union. If Turnbull wants to invade other people's offices and verbally abuse them he should join a union. If Turnbull wants to trespass into the bosses office and use his large physical presence to intimidate he sould join a union. Preferably a construction union. He'll find plenty of friends there. He'll be able to disrupt progress really well there.
Turnbull's behaviour is a bad look. He has, like Costello, vindicated the party's decision not to back him. He is an opportunist and only in it for his own ambition. He would rather see the whole thing go down than accept the party's judgement and play second fiddle. Turbull wants to bury Howard by riding the wave of media condemnation. He wants to sacrifice th progress we have made for his own ambition. His selfish lack of consideration is now on display for all to see.
The thing that boggles me is the Turnbull would think showing emotion is so bad. Nelson showing emotions will do alot more to convince people that Liberals are people too than tagging along behind the Mardi Gras like Turnbull.
Being PC does not make you a good person. Rudd's wholesale acceptance of Howards cultural approach is the final nail in the electoral coffin of the PC agenda. Only the media still go on about it. Soon the media will move on to the next story. We need to resist the tempation to joing their bonfire of the vanities.
John Howard and the Liberal Party are not evil. We are the staunch supporters of individuals freedoms and virtues like individual responsiblity. We are the defenders of democracy, which is not the ALP model of a tyranny of the majority, or the media. We are ready to make huge sacrifices and suffer long for what we think, believe, know is right - not that I want to measure the value of a person by the amount they have sufferred as the Left do.
We do all this because we have deep, strong powerful feelings. Does anyone suggest that we do it make money? Any or all of us have lucrative careers beconing in the private sector we could have gone for if we wanted money. Instead we wanted to make a difference. To make the world a better place.
Do you think we do it for the Glory? There is precious little glory handed to conservatives in the modern world. We endure the lack of glory because we know what we are doing is right in our hearts.
I am a staunch Liberal and am proud of my emotions: the highs and the lows.
I am also proud of the empathy I feel towards other people. I have musicians, preachers and psychiatrists in my family tree. I know my own feelings and those of others.
I am writing a book about feelings, and how much bullshit is written about them.
The the Labor party to whoop and holler in the tally room at the suffering of the liberals and then to turn around and accuse us of lacking empathy simply shows their self-delusion and hypocrisy. They think they are empathetic but they empathise most with others that share their resentment of an outside group, namely the privaledged.
We have been portrayed by the media and the not-so-intelligencia as being heartless. Howard was the focus for all that venom. It was all bullshit.
Hooray for Brendan Nelson showing that Liberals are real people that suffer in defeat. Sportmen, the most most macho of all people, cry when the lose a final because they put every last drop of their blood, sweat and tears into the game. They had no reserves left in defeat because they fought with all their hearts.
It is not half-time as Turnbull suggests. We just lost the world cup and have 3 years to go before we get a chance to win it back. Introspection is good and necessary at this time. Hastily adopting other team's cynical playing style is not. Let us feel as well as think ourselves out of this sad situation.
If this is all too woosy for you, then think of it like Bruce Lee. In Enter the Dragon he instructs his student to punch as hard as he can by saying,
"What we need is emotional content."
Let's deliver the ALP a big whack of serious-ass emotional content.
Love,
A Liberal
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)