Political Fluff

[orangeLJ]

Not that I think its the place to get into a discussion about it,

 

But Julian Assange is a moron.

 

the bloke thinks he is above all laws and regulations, the smug ʞ©$ɟwith can rot in a cell for all I car.

 

Some of the cables etc that he released caused uproar in countries where our troops and US troops are serving. They stirred up tensions already at boiling point and converted who knows how many people to an anti-west philosophy.

 

I don't give a ʞ©$ɟ about who's ego it hurt in the US govt. But when his actions put my friends, family and hundreds of thousands of other brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers etc etc in ADDED danger, well thats not right.

 

What point was/is there to releasing that information? Seriously?

 

People say that the government should be 100% transparent, that we should be able to know anything at anytime and things like ASIO and the CIA shouldnt be able to operate covertly.... so how do we go about tracking, catching and prosecuting criminals that fall into their scope if we can't have secrets?

 

Although the government pisses me right up the wall 99% of the time, the purpose is to carry out the crap that the general populus would make an even bigger mess of....

 

 

 

On a political note, WGMG....

 

The whole pansy "lets comply with the rest of the world" bullshit. Why do we even pander to complying with policies that disadvantage our own people? Why do we even have to entertain the idea of taking in refugees? because the UN said so? because other countries do?

 

Why do we have to allow people to fish in Australian territorial waters? Why do we have to throw millions of dollars of taxpayer money to "help" other poor nations (like the 500 million for indonesian schools... seriously?)

[7shades]

Why do we have to throw millions of dollars of taxpayer money to "help" other poor nations (like the 500 million for indonesian schools... seriously?)

 

Not to delve too deeply, but that one is effectively a big tax deduction. It all comes back, though very indirectly.

Edited September 24, 2012 by 7shades

[LittleRedSpirit]

I would argue that its the government that has put the troops in danger by sending them to other nations for military action on false pretences. Whatever political revelations that happen on either side can not undermine the fact that you are already fighting a war. This has a massive element of danger. I do not believe our troops should have been deployed in the first place. I love our troops so much, I want to see them brought home safely and immediately. To be here where we need them, to help our country remain secure here, where we are, geographically isolated from most of the world. To defend our people. To take care of our own during disasters.

[towe001]

Taxpayer money, some of the wasted money could be reduced by printing on both sides of the paper and if the print job is stuffed up - recycle it or use it for jotting notes down, don't just dump it in the bin.

I might sound like a prick, but for the letters that get sent out to the public (eg centrelink letters) have them printed in english only - unless asked for a different language. It'll cut the cost on printer ink, it'll also cut the cost on unnecessary phone calls to explain the letter and maybe another one being sent out.

And just how many staff are really needed in the government public sectors ? We've got a friend who's having to deal with D.O.C.S at the moment, and the amount of crap she has to go through just to take an overnight trip from here down to the gold coast, if its to stay with friends, they need to be "blue carded" or if its a motel/hotel then docs have to inspect the place first. All this can take up to 6 months. Why ? Cause not just one person in docs signs on the red tape but a team of them who signs and counter signs.

One person ? Two people at the most to sign the red tape, not a bloody tribe of them.

Someones making the attempt to get qld back in the black by not trying to sell off assets. Yeah, might be a bit hardcore but at least most of the chaff is getting removed from the wheat.

[orangeLJ]

Taxpayer money, some of the wasted money could be reduced by printing on both sides of the paper and if the print job is stuffed up - recycle it or use it for jotting notes down, don't just dump it in the bin.

I might sound like a prick, but for the letters that get sent out to the public (eg centrelink letters) have them printed in english only - unless asked for a different language. It'll cut the cost on printer ink, it'll also cut the cost on unnecessary phone calls to explain the letter and maybe another one being sent out.

And just how many staff are really needed in the government public sectors ? We've got a friend who's having to deal with D.O.C.S at the moment, and the amount of crap she has to go through just to take an overnight trip from here down to the gold coast, if its to stay with friends, they need to be "blue carded" or if its a motel/hotel then docs have to inspect the place first. All this can take up to 6 months. Why ? Cause not just one person in docs signs on the red tape but a team of them who signs and counter signs.

One person ? Two people at the most to sign the red tape, not a bloody tribe of them.

Someones making the attempt to get qld back in the black by not trying to sell off assets. Yeah, might be a bit hardcore but at least most of the chaff is getting removed from the wheat.

 

 

I really didnt see all the need for outrage at cuts in public servants (as in your typical admin back office workers)

 

As you say, there are already FAR too many of them, and the ridiculous money you can earn by simply climbing the "you've been in your current role for 3 years, have a promotion" ladder, is insane.

 

Take one look at a local council office and its pretty obvious that there is something wrong.

 

 

WGMG today,

 

lactose intolerance. I had a dinner on sunday night that had cream (chicken and potato bake) had it for lunch yesterday too,

 

ʞ©$ɟ me, my farts stank to high heaven! my office was a reak-fest all day yesterday! haha, I actually had to get a fan and start some air movement out my door (no opening windows) so it wouldnt stink all week.

 

 

[Twinky]

I really didnt see all the need for outrage at cuts in public servants (as in your typical admin back office workers)

 

As you say, there are already FAR too many of them, and the ridiculous money you can earn by simply climbing the "you've been in your current role for 3 years, have a promotion" ladder, is insane.

 

Take one look at a local council office and its pretty obvious that there is something wrong.

 

 

I agree with the statement about the council but allot of the service cuts have been health services and defence. I work in the public service and we are definitely feeling the pinch.

My area that I work in is almost to the point of having a skeleton crew working on major projects and development that directly affects your friends and family deployed over seas.

What is worse is that the new minister for defence is willing to further cut back spending, which means even more staff and budget cuts. They say that all these cuts will not have an effect

on the safety of our troops but how is that so if we are effectively delaying major capabilities, even shit canning others as well as severely crippling our in house development all the while

politicians are agreeing on 15% pay rises to themselves and denying us a ʞ©$ɟing 3% over 3 years. As for the desk jockeys they actually help us technicians out a tonne. Say for instance

if we want to buy a simple item there is easily about a days worth of paper work to go through just to purchase a pack of nuts and bolts because we have to be held accountable for every cent spent.

Now that a big chunk of those desk jockeys are gone a large portion of that paper work goes to us, reducing our work output further.

 

All this just to put a measly budget surplus for an election?

[It's_AUDM_Yo]

Yeah I hate the fact that no politicians only care about getting voted in. So there not willing to do anything useful or make big changes because there afraid they may piss off a few over they voters and loose some votes. ITS JUST RETARDED. Like the political chick that is openly lesbian but didn't voter for same sex marriage because it will "effect votes for the party".

 

Although I don't care about gay marriage.

Edited September 26, 2012 by It's_AUDM_Yo

[ke70dave]

yerp, i don't like politics.

 

I don't know what you do about it as that is how democracy works though.

 

If policy was created that pissed everyone off, but was actaully good for the greater good but in 5-10yrs, then that goverment would be voted out, and the oppisition woudl be voted in beacuse they promised to remove it, even though they probably know its a good idea, they just said it was a crap idea to get into power.

 

lets say for isntance, tomorrow the govnment stood up and said we are completely banning cigarettes from Australia. i have absolutely no doubt that the oposition would jump in and say "if we get into power we will reverse it" even though they may not agree with what they said, they just want to disagree for the sake of disagreeing so that all those people that would have voted for the original goverment will now vote for the opposition based on this one policy change.

 

(note i don't want to sound like I'm bagging smokers, do what you want, just an example)

 

It seems to be that the pollies arent intesrted in making decisions that are good for the country, they are only intested in making decisions that the country likes so they get in next time.

 

(thiough i guess you run the risk of the other end of the spectrum, when you have a dictator with full reign, and i don't think that ever ends well)

 

Although i think cambell newman has gone at it a bit too hard and fast, and maybe hasnt been that well thought out, its great to see a politician putting his repuation on the line and actually doing something that aims to have long term positive effects (at the expense of short term negative) rather than the aiming for short term positive to hopefully stay in power at the next election.

 

Hats off to him for having a crack at it. See how it all goes....

[towe001]

Although i think cambell newman has gone at it a bit too hard and fast, and maybe hasnt been that well thought out, its great to see a politician putting his repuation on the line and actually doing something that aims to have long term positive effects (at the expense of short term negative) rather than the aiming for short term positive to hopefully stay in power at the next election.

Thats something everybody has to remember, the last government was only looking at the short term and nothing else - what was going to happen when they sold off all the assets ? And everybody was protesting over it.

And now that we a government who's looking for the long term by keeping the assets we still have and cutting the fat out of the budget. Just the same thing you and i would do if our budget was in the red. Yeah, i'd sell something of mine but only if it'd help in the long term.

Ol' Newman has gone a bit hardcore on it all and a some of the chops i don't think have been the right thing to do. Hospitals ? Thats one spot that should never be cut, unless the staff position in question is of someone who stands around day in day out with their digit up their bum and not really doing a needed job.

 

And don't get me wrong, i work in an area that has the chance of getting a budget cut.

Topic change please. Polictics is boring awwwmahhhgawwwd

:jamie:

I just had to get my 5 cents in

[philbey]

.... its great to see a politician putting his repuation on the line and actually doing something that aims to have long term positive effects (at the expense of short term negative) rather than the aiming for short term positive to hopefully stay in power at the next election.

 

Oh. You mean like..... John Howard?

[LittleRedSpirit]

John Howard made all the baby boomers think they are rich because they could buy and sell property. Now people of my generation have to pay 2-4 times as much for housing. The baby boomers will have been the last generations of australians that can afford their own home. Thanks John Howard for pushing the banks to overvalue property, putting us all in extra and unsustainable debt for the rest of our lives, for making housing unaffordable.

 

If your mum and dad don't own enough houses to keep you and your siblings off the streets then your family will never own one.

 

And don't get me started on these people that got free education, cheap housing, cheap fuel, cheap or free land and food their whole lives and now they want to tell me I have to pay what for a house, while paying 5 x the amount to live also.

[philbey]

[quo

John Howard made all the baby boomers think they are rich because they could buy and sell property. Now people of my generation have to pay 2-4 times as much for housing. The baby boomers will have been the last generations of australians that can afford their own home. Thanks John Howard for pushing the banks to overvalue property, putting us all in extra and unsustainable debt for the rest of our lives, for making housing unaffordable.

 

If your mum and dad don't own enough houses to keep you and your siblings off the streets then your family will never own one.

 

And don't get me started on these people that got free education, cheap housing, cheap fuel, cheap or free land and food their whole lives and now they want to tell me I have to pay what for a house, while paying 5 x the amount to live also.

 

Policy aside, the point I was making is that he was the last politician that we've seen who could implement policy with actual conviction and stick with it. He made, implemented and stuck out the shitstorm over some pretty full on policies. Half of our constituents wouldn't even remember the GST smear campaign and scare tactics that were trolleyed out at the time! Possibly one of the most difficult bits of legislative change in the last 30 years!

 

Look at how many times the current labor governernment have backflipped on policy lately simply because they copped a hard time in the polls; the latest one was the bloody supertrawler!

 

Howard didn't make housing unaffordable, good interest rates and easily available credit came as an upside to a strong economy. Plus, it was Hawke who reinstated negative gearing, possibly one of the major drivers for the boom growth in the housing market.

 

Never Fear! Some day, the commodities market will dive, we'll be back in the economic doldrums like the early 90s, interest rates will be in double digits and houses will become affordable again!

Edited September 28, 2012 by philbey

[Tume]

Houses will never become affordable. Should look at the housing market in Darwin and then compare it to any other place. For the size and room available, a $400,000 house with 4 bedrooms, 2 bathrooms and 2 car garage in Adelaide is about $1 mil here. Sad thing is I'm not even rounding up a bit. A tiny block of land around the corner from me is $450,000 and its pretty much undeveloped.

 

I have to like Howard just for his views on the boats, what worked back then must be able to work now. No problem with helping people escape from places of need and integrate into society as a member of the workforce; but to live off of our system and hard earned money is not right. This also accounts for the welfare recipients indigenous or not. Bring on the drug testing for welfare! I have to be tested to work why shouldn't they!

[7shades]

I have to like Howard just for his views on the boats, what worked back then must be able to work now. No problem with helping people escape from places of need and integrate into society as a member of the workforce; but to live off of our system and hard earned money is not right. This also accounts for the welfare recipients indigenous or not. Bring on the drug testing for welfare! I have to be tested to work why shouldn't they!

 

*cough*

 

Must interject here.

 

Few points on the refugee 'thing'. For the sake of convenience, I'll call these points, 'facts'.

 

1. They only cost so much because we keep insisting on offshore processing. 40k per head offshore, 4k onshore.

2. Genuine refugees/asylum seekers want nothing more than, and DO integrate into our society.

Most find legitimate, gainful employment within months after being granted asylum, and 'pay back' the investment we as taxpayers have spent on them within a few years. The majority are completely unskilled, so are guided into training and apprenticeships, eventually learning a trade. The 'skills shortage' you keep hearing about? These people are obtaining those skills, and utilising them.

3. When I hear someone say "Spend the money on Australians instead!!!" I have to remind them that currency is a cyclical thing.

Its not like it disappears completely when spent, It just moves.

Out of the reserve bank, spent in Australia, buying Australian products and services from all the Australians involved with refugees.

None of it goes offshore.

 

Except... Except for Nauru. A lot of your money goes to Nauru for a little holiday before coming back.

Because Nauru is a tax haven.

Won't delve too deeply into that here though, other than to say there's a reason most of the steps in the refugee 'process' are handled by contracted private companies rather than government departments.

 

 

Still wanna 'stop the boats'? Ok, fair enough. Can't just open the floodgates completely.

We need to stop spending ʞ©$ɟtons of money dragging them out of the water and flying them to various island prisons.

Its pointless. If they make it onto a boat, its too late. Welcome to Australia, eventually.

Instead, spend that money sending a massive task force to Indonesia to stop the smugglers putting them ON the boats in the first place.

 

 

 

 

Second rant. Welfare drug testing.

 

Stupidest... Idea... EVER.

 

Proof: http://www.inquisitr...ts-state-46000/

Edited September 28, 2012 by 7shades

[Willis]

Shady, I don't quite agree with welfare drug testing but if you're using money as an argument against it then wouldn't what you were saying about currency being cyclical kind of negate that? It was written in the article you linked that the size of the test windows in both states were very small and didn't take many variables into account. Maybe if the tests were also carried out in areas where drug use is more prevalent the test failure rate may have been higher? And even so, the money can't really be "lost". Where do the dollars spent on this drug testing go and how are they fed back into the economy?