Election..2007...Howard promises $61 billion, Rudd promises $57 worth of goodies. Vote for me, hold out your hand here comes the PM handing goodies around. Welcome aboard and you'll get the shaft, all the pollies are too clever by half. Some of the promises of past PM's No child will live in poverty. Interest rates will alway be lower under a liberal government. Politicians of both parties have no guts when it comes to standing up against Indonesia, we believe in democracy right, well how come we don't support the West Papua New Guinea freedom party..These people are not Indonesian but pacific islanders.. Tricked by their own leaders, bullied by an Australian trained force of enforcers and forgotten by the great nation of Australia by every Australian government since 1972. Foreign minister Bob Carr is a disgrace when you hear him telling the same story of how Australia supports Indonesian control. I am a political atheist and proud of it. They are all the same I tell you. Lets see how smart they all are when TSHTF. Regards Errol 43
I used to be Labor to the core but now I'd say I'm a political atheist. I see no difference between the parties - Politician on the Right, Politician on the Left. The only difference is which they listen to first; Goldman Sachs or US Government. Labor needs to elect some small business owners and Liberals need to elect some unionists to soften the Parties relative idiocies. The Liberals used to be 'small l' liberals, meaning for the individual and human rights, Labor used to be for the downtrodden. Both strove for 'equality' in their own ways and you voted for the way you thought best served equality in your neighbourhood or if you were thinking globally, in the country. But now we have 30 second sound grabs and a naively conciliatory PM hamstrung by the lunatic left and self-interested 'independent' kingmakers feathering their nests, vs 'oppose everything' Abbot, with Howard on speed dial and a Goldman Sachs plant waiting in the wings for his go-ahead. I believe that patriot PMs ended at Keating, whose government, by the way puts the lie to Labor can't manage economically. He also recognised that Australia MUST be part of Asia if it is to prosper. None of the clowns in the Government cars since have followed that bit of wisdom to a conclusion. Good point above also about the disgraceful charge into Iraq by Howard. The most shame inducing moment for Australia since its blindly obedient journey into Vietnam. Howard was probably the best politician Australia has seen. He knew how to tap the populist vote, keep his house divided and his throne safe. And of course, serve the US interests well, avoiding their destabilising influences, which was the defining difference between the Lib and Labor mobs until Rudd got in: recalcitrant obedience versus tailwagging enthusiasm. Julia will get thrown out because she's a woman leading a bunch of political ignoramuses. Tony will be elected because he's Howard's protege and he's announced nothing but wishful thinking and 'non-core promises' as Howard would say, that don't scare the marginal voters - as if the population of Oz care about any of that. They've just had enough and they'll vote in someone new just to make the noise stop, as they usually do when the media hectors them enough. Or as someone once said, politics is the art of making people unaware of matters which should actually concern them.
If there is no debate there is only resignation and submission to the system. The issue is worthy of debate because the attitude of "There is no difference between the parties so why discuss it" serves the two parties perfectly.
I don't think they care if it serves or not actually. It's not even on their radar. They know a small portion of the population think they're full of shit, they know they can't change it and until it affects the democratic majority they'll either outright ignore it or marginalise it. Discussion on an assumed surmation is relevent only with those who appreciate the reality of the situation. That is, we are already preaching to the choir for those that agree and are just nutbags to those that don't. SS is awash with threads which 'discuss' this topic and similar to the bull/bear property 'debates' over the years here, it's a perpetual stalemate. I don't try and change the opinion of those who don't want their opinion to be changed, they'll just resent me for trying. Just like precious metals - property - politics - religion or any other fundamental paradigm, you simply won't be able to change everyone's attitudes and mindset, no matter how logical or rational the discussion. I think the two party preferred, 'democratic' political paradigm of Australia is a contradiction, in and of itself. But try and tell that to the red / blue / green flag wavers and all you get is a slap in the face. Honestly, what's the point?
what a load of bollocks!! It really isn't rocket science... Labor stand for MASSIVE GOVERNMENT - pure socialism - and the Libs stand for smaller government (although still way too big!!) with a more watered down version of socialism. Both a bad systems, but the prior is still way worse and requires the theft of even more money by govenment from private citizens in order to support its bloated public service and plethora of handouts to undeserving bludgers.
Not really bud. Labor wants to take the tax revenue and give it to the non-workers Liberal wants to take the tax revenue and give it to their business partners. Both want to take (forcibly) from one and give to another. They are one and the same fundamental paradigm, it's just the beneficiary of their policy that differs. People get caught up in the whole bullshit 'who's more deserving' of the thievery and use that as their moral justification for support of the process. I contend that both are immoral. Why do we even debate the moral justification of who gets the proceeds of the robbery at all?
you're right there mate - "good" would be to have a Ron Paul running this country. The Libs are only a couple of steps away from Labor on the way to Ron Paul ... they have another mile and a half to go!! but in saying that - a step in the right direction towards a smaller less intrusive/coercive government is certainly a step in the right direction, and anybody in their right mind (i.e. excluding Labor/Greens supporters) would support that.
I agree with most of what you say, EXCEPT for the fact that the slimy commies we have in government at present steal MORE of my hard earned money than the other side. This can be seen with the introduction of over a 100 new/increased taxes since the barstads took power in 2007.
I still find it baffling that some obviously intelligent people believe that a political party can actually manage an economy, let alone bother to debate on wether one party can do it better than another. The context should really be: which party harms the economy less? Every single government action distorts the market. The market is the most efficient use of resources and in the majority of cases will provide most of our needs if we (the government) let it. I am personally moving from being simply dismayed at my choices of who to vote for-bad (LNP), really bad (Labor), or I've had a labotomy (green), to one of anger. So much so, that I'm having pie in the sky aspirations of starting a true third party based on very limited libertarian government.
I'm not quite sure about that one mate. For sure the Libs are a lot more sensitive to the needs of business than the simpletons currently running (or should i say ruining) the show, but that makes sense if you want to keep the economy going strong. I dont really see that as similar to handing out (MY) money indefinately to people who dont want to work.
G. S. T. courtesy of the Liberals. More theft than the Labour crew could ever organise in one fell swoop. and ask one of those small business owners how wonderful the accounting system is for it.
Come on they're both terrible. I'll never ever vote for either side as long as I live. Liberal gave us GST, Work Choices, a housing bubble and stricter work for the dole BS schemes. and Labor gave us $900, with an evil smile, carbon tax and not much else. Personally I just think they get more worse than each other as time goes on. As long as that annoying ugly red headed bitch is gone, I'll be happy.
GST would have been a better move (than it turned out to be) had the Labor state governments kept to their side of the bargain and dropped the theft they call stamp duty and a whole bunch of other morally backward taxes. At least that way tax is collected from a wider base that simply just hammering those who purchase property. (it makes sense to encourage people to buy property - NOT punish them with taxes like stamp duty). So no, i dont agree with that assertion of yours. GST as a tax is still theft, but it's a slightly more "fair" form of theft (if you absolutely MUST have taxes besides excise duties - which i dont believe is justified) than simply gouging one group of people - those purchasing property and/or vehicles through stamp duty. Of course the Labor state governments decided to keep these filthy taxes and simply add the GST revenue to help feed their black hole budgets. So no, i dont think that the Libs quite deserve the honour for this that you imply.
So those state taxes would be why the Federal Budget accumulated 20-30 or so billion of extra taxes giving the illusion that the Libs knew what they were doing. GST is an unfair tax and it was accompanied by token income tax reform when it was touted as the big saviour. Just another politician's money grab. Tax on Tampons. Ignorant. Meg Lees worst traitor in Australia's history.
GST is no more unfair than any other form of taxation in Australia. I hate all taxes, but in my opinion GST is the least unfair of all the taxes.
Again, we go back to the 'my crook is better than your crook' debate. Skip the fundamentals and straight to the details, when it was the fundamental philosiphy that was the problem in the first place. I really don't understand why anyone would want to defend two parties based on which one robbed you more or less. They still both robbed you, did they not? It has to be the biggest broad scale example of Stockholm syndrome in human history. You people are 'educated' stackers ffs... WAKE UP!
once again i agree with you auspm, but when it comes time to vote there aint no Ron Paul on the card. the choice is between the lesser of two evils. of course with our preferencing system i can afford to entertain my fantasies and put a '1' next to Ron Paul, or whoever is closest to standing for Libertarianism, but invariably i have to decide where my number 2 or 3 goes, and where my LAST goes... so not sure what the issue is? should i spoil my ballot paper and (assuming that there are 10 candidates) put a '10' next to both the Lib and ALP candidates? This is basically what you're saying.
i agree with the principles but dont see how that relates to voting time. i still gotta decide who to place last and second last dont i?? Should i say eenee meenee mienee moe? and see who comes up - Lib or ALP and put that one last? No i dont think so.... i know whose the most f..d out of all the choices, and so i'll keep putting those two parties last and 2nd last!! The Libs may not be in my number '1' position on the ballot paper, but they're going to be a lot higher up than the two scumbag parties currently running the show. it aint rocket science mate
