another government debt binge in the making.

Jonesy said:
lucky luke said:
Jonesy said:
At this point she is borrowing money to make welfare payments and to pay the public service.

ahhhhh. So it gets back to blaming that segment of the Australian population for all our current woe's? Mate, the Libs stink as bad as Labor. Aren't you following the F35 thread? Last time I looked, it was Howard that indebted us with that bright initiative. Not to mention the hidden costs (losses) to the Australian economy with the Free Trade agreement. Why don't we look at the real problem at hand ie the highest levels of control over the Australian economy, instead of looking at the scapegoats?

What on earth are you talking about? How did you read "So it gets back to blaming that segment of the Australian population for all our current woe's?" into my post? Where did I mention the Liberal party?

I was simply using two fundamental and necessary government expenses to highlight the fact that this government is now borrowing money to pay for everything. That's why they had to raise our debt ceiling to 270 billion dollars.

If you are going to comment on someone's post at least try and read it first.
By dumbing the debt issue down to "welfare payments and to pay the public service", area's that Labor are traditionally proponents of, you are implicitely ignoring all other aspects of debt (and the liberals contribution to it). Your intent was clear enough. My message to you is that the debt ceiling being raised to 270 billion dollars isn't simply because of welfare and public service with both governments equally as guilty of reprehensibly wasteful expenditure and/or initiatives.

I read your post clear enough.
 
Again. I used welfare and public service as two examples of fundamental and necessary government spending. I could have just as easily used defence and heath care. There is nothing whatsoever implied by my choice of those two sectors. Seriously, you really need to stop inserting your own biases and assumptions into other peoples posts. It is tedious.
 
Silverthorn said:
hiho said:
I have no issue with funding the right infrastructure with debt.

Is it though. sounds like this is overkill to me with the debt to be hanging over it for donkeys.

I (think) I understand what you mean - it is terrible that the next two or three generations on kids will be paying off the debt that we already have and it makes sense that if you are in serious debt that the thing to do is to stop spending.

The point I put forward is that it may be that certain projects may possibly be worth getting into more debt now for in order to save money in coming decades. I use public transport as an example. Given the (fantasy) scenario where a visionary and well designed mass inter and intra city public transport system could be built, (and remembering that for example Sydney until the mid 1960's had the second largest tram system in the world), imagine if in 15 years that a large percentage of the residents of Sydney (or any other city) began to seriously say "public transport is so good that we got rid of our car" and "I can live anywhere between Canberra and Newcastle out of the city but easily commute to work in any of 4 cities each day via high speed rail. Would that not then offset the debt by virtue of increased productivity, reduced congestion, pollution and stress? I am thinking of things like the Snowy River hydro scheme, the concept of irrigating and farming Australia's North and so on.
 
Sure but when you hear buzz words like future proofing and they are also talking about building an expensive stadium and the like and think its looking like overkill. its all likely to lead to a blow out in costs as well.
 
Silverthorn said:
Sure but when you hear buzz words like future proofing and they are also talking about building an expensive stadium and the like and think its looking like overkill. its all likely to lead to a blow out in costs as well.

Well, I did say "fantasy scenario" :) You are of course in my opinion perfectly correct in that the reality of projects are ill conceived and overpriced. I can dream of some visionary infrastructure though. To get there we will need an alternative to the Liberal and Labor parties. Neither of them are viable for our future as an evolving society.
 
What I see is a LOT of people saying things, but no one really prepared to do anything. Most people will not stand for a position in Government. Local, State or Federal. While I don't agree with everything they are the only choices we have. If you don't want to run or do something about it then that is all we have.

If you feel you have such good ideas why don't you do something about it, either run or strongly push your local candidate into your way of thinking. I would hazard a guess that 99% of us haven't even contacted or spoken to a MP about any of these issues. I know some of you would have but still is only 1%

I am not being judgmental I am exactly the same, Do you really think debating on a forum makes any difference. If you want to make a difference do something about it.

It is easy to point a finger, just remember 4 fingers are pointing back at you !
 
Silverthorn said:
hiho said:
I have no issue with funding the right infrastructure with debt.

Is it though. sounds like this is overkill to me with the debt to be hanging over it for donkeys.

wish I had more time on this, anyway

VFT melb canberra sydney, take 100's of flights out of the sky a day

Flood tunnel under brisbane, save thousands on insurance every year

Proper Unerground rail systems in every capital city, take millions of cars off the raods every year

Can you begin to see with a broad mind the benefits of going in to relatively short term debt?

Instead of the 50B dollar white elephant of the NBN, we could have had 50% of the above, which one would you choose, fast internet or a cleaner environment wthout a ridiculous carbin tax.
 
Austacker said:
What I see is a LOT of people saying things, but no one really prepared to do anything. Most people will not stand for a position in Government. Local, State or Federal. While I don't agree with everything they are the only choices we have. If you don't want to run or do something about it then that is all we have.

Haven't you noticed the kind of people who inhabit these positions? They are the scum of society. How can you work with them? Surely, you've noticed good, well-meaning people getting churned up and spit out by the political system?

It's fine to say, why don't you get involved, but the reality is you can't change the nature of the system. It is what it is. And if all it took was good people standing up, getting elected and doing what is necessary then someone would have done it by now. Maybe we should examine the structure of the system itself and see why it is failing us consistently rather than pretending we just need to get some good people in.
 
Yippe-Ki-Ya said:
renovator said:
Jonesy said:
+1 of course

-1

What a bunch of tools
Still firing blanks i see yippee..

What do you suggest they use the money for ?

Or they shouldnt borrow money ?

Should they just spend only the money they have from your taxes ?

Should they stop all infrastructure spending & not improve anything ?

Do you believe everything is working to a standard where nothing needs improving & no more money needs to be spent ?

What would you do if you do with the taxpayers money if you had it ? ps the answer isnt you would give it back or you wouldnt take it to begin with

Serious questions .
 
I just dont believe in the very recent western "standard" of high taxation - which amounts to theft.

I believe the model we had pre WW1 before the advent of income tax, where most government revenue was raised through import and excise duties is the ONLY LEGITIMATE way to go!

Simple truth is that government is WAY TOO BIG and should get the f.. out of about 95% of the things it currently sticks its big fat nose into!!

yes, certain infrastructure items are a must and these can all be funded via a minimalist government model - as we had 100 years and more ago.

The only reason for big government - and therefore large scale theft of private property - is to finance:
1. WAR
2. infinite WELFARE

I dont support either of the above!!!
 
Yippe-Ki-Ya said:
I just dont believe in the very recent western "standard" of high taxation - which amounts to theft.

I believe the model we had pre WW1 before the advent of income tax, where most government revenue was raised through import and excise duties is the ONLY LEGITIMATE way to go!

Simple truth is that government is WAY TOO BIG and should get the f.. out of about 95% of the things it currently sticks its big fat nose into!!

yes, certain infrastructure items are a must and these can all be funded via a minimalist government model - as we had 100 years and more ago.

The only reason for big government - and therefore large scale theft of private property - is to finance:
1. WAR
2. infinite WELFARE

I dont support either of the above!!!

Then you should run for Prime Minister and change it. I hear that the position will be vacant soon :D
 
The places the greens and hysterical public transport advocates most strenuously want light rail are already well serviced by buses. I am yet to see any analysis or think tank or interested citizen put forward anything that details what the benefits of inflexible trams are over flexible-routed buses. Worse, the plan Clover No Moore has to close off a section of George Street, Sydney will

a) close off the only free flowing road that runs north/south through the city (Elizabeth St is even slower).
b) take road surface away from buses from whom so many now enter the city that they queue the whole length of the Harbour Bridge in the morning peak hour - where will all these buses now go every morning? A couple of unventilated tunnels just wide enough for 2 cars built in the 19th Century and leased as parking space?
c) close off deliveries to all businesses on George Street (where people shop!) during daylight hours. How does Myer whose dock runs hot with deliveries run their business when they can't take deliveries during regular business hours? Much less the hundreds of small shops who need courier deliveries each and every day - during business hours.
d) to cross the city by any route from the south except Elizabeth St would require changing from a bus you may have been on for 15 km, get off, line up again at Railway Square to take a tram running half the speed of the bus, just to get to work at Circular Quay. Or get off that bus and walk 20 minutes to get a train thats already been full since Parramatta just to take it for 3 train stops in the stinky hot tunnels.
e) Where is the tram depot going to be? Not anywhere east or south or north of Darling Harbour. So are you going to have to dig up half of Chinatown for tramway to get them back to the existing small depot the Linfield light rail uses?
f) Users of Sydney city for work/shopping/recreation are still scarred by the 2 years the place was a construction zone before the Olympics. And you want that to begin all over again? No thanks!
g) How many trees will we have to lose from the City/ANZAC Parade/UNSW area to put up the tram lines?
h) And I state again, trams are no better, and in many ways worse, than buses!

Don't get me started on very fast trains. A system designed to travel between countries (eg Amsterdam to Spain) that somehow people think in Australia will get to very fast speeds then slow down again safely between Sydney Central and Strathfield. Some people (not read it on here though) seem to think VFT can run all stops...? Have they ever thought of the cost and physics????
 
I think that our pollies need a pay cut.I'm just dreaming now but if I was to go for gov. the first thing I'd do is cut government paychecks to a more realistic level.My local member here in Braddon (which has an unemplyment rate around 9.5%) receives about $250k a year.Personally I find that too much for someone who produces nothing.
The problem I would face if I was to go for gubmint with cutting pollies pay as my 'thing', not one person in gov. would support it.
As for Nicola Roxon's reason for retirement, well I too would like to retire before my kids got to high school.What a croc!

Rant over.Now I feel Better..Not
 
hawkeye said:
Austacker said:
What I see is a LOT of people saying things, but no one really prepared to do anything. Most people will not stand for a position in Government. Local, State or Federal. While I don't agree with everything they are the only choices we have. If you don't want to run or do something about it then that is all we have.

Haven't you noticed the kind of people who inhabit these positions? They are the scum of society. How can you work with them? Surely, you've noticed good, well-meaning people getting churned up and spit out by the political system?

It's fine to say, why don't you get involved, but the reality is you can't change the nature of the system. It is what it is. And if all it took was good people standing up, getting elected and doing what is necessary then someone would have done it by now. Maybe we should examine the structure of the system itself and see why it is failing us consistently rather than pretending we just need to get some good people in.
+1 and worth repeating.

The Seven Rules of Bureaucracy:

Rule #1: Maintain the problem at all costs! The problem is the basis of power, perks, privileges, and security.
c.f. The War on Poverty; The War on Drugs

Rule #2: Use crisis and perceived crisis to increase your power and control.
Rule 2a. Force 11th-hour decisions, threaten the loss of options and opportunities, and limit the opposition's opportunity to review and critique.

Rule #3: If there are not enough crises, manufacture them, even from nature, where none exist.

Rule #4: Control the flow and release of information while feigning openness.
Rule 4a: Deny, delay, obfuscate, spin, and lie.

Rule #5: Maximize public-relations exposure by creating a cover story that appeals to the universal need to help people.

Rule #6: Create vested support groups by distributing concentrated benefits and/or entitlements to these special interests, while distributing the costs broadly to one's political opponents.

Rule #7: Demonize the truth tellers who have the temerity to say, "The emperor has no clothes."
Rule 7a: Accuse the truth teller of one's own defects, deficiencies, crimes, and misdemeanors.

The Road Less Traveled from Here
We offer a series of antidotes to the scourge of bureaucracy.

1. "Bureaucrat" should not be thought of as a career path. History has proven that "career bureaucrats" do much more harm than good and we must characterize such people as pariahs and scallywags, not saviors of this country.

2. If the Government comes up with a new "war against," we should fight it, no matter what the war is against. The federal government's track record is abysmal and the equivalent of a taxpayer boat a hole in the water that you sink your money in.

3. Send all newly elected officials to the state or national capital with the specific goal to reduce legislation. The nation's bureaucracies have forgotten that resources are scarce, and most legislation builds bigger government and demands more tax dollars.

4. Sowell (1999) has long advocated that we use an economic analysis to examine our legislative initiatives before they become law. To stem the tide of fiscal irresponsibility leading to unsustainable government size and debt, no bill should pass from committee to a full chamber vote without first being carefully analyzed by the Government Accountability Office using a four-step rubric, the results of which must be presented to the people before the vote. First, an analysis of what we can do about a problem, including its importance to the economic competitiveness of our country, and how much it will cost. Second, an analysis of what we should do collectively as a nation and what should be left up to individual initiative. Personal health and education are splendid examples. Third, a careful analysis must be undertaken of who will be helped and who will be hurt by any new legislation. As Bastiat warned us more that 150 years ago, political bureaucrats ignore who will be hurt by a new law. Fourth, a careful, econometric analysis must be made of the possible long-term unintended consequences of proposed legislation. Had our legislators done this, instead of trying to seize the political moment and the headlines, much of the federal legislation of the last two decades would never have been passed.
 
Back
Top