Should the Goverment of the day do CBA on ALL their Policies from now on?

If so why should they, if not why not?

If the government of the day had to do a Cost Benefits Analysis on every piece of legislation nothing would ever get done. Plus the cost to the tax payer would be enormous.

The opposition are just playing politics by asking for a CBA and the opposition cheer squad are too stupid to realise this.

I went not every government because if the government did a CBA on EVERYTHING, we wouldn't have any Centrelink payments that the Libs complain about and when they receive it, they don't say a thing.

You lot are such retards. It seems you understand not the least smidgen of the notion of judging the benefit of a policy or decsion. You embarrass yourself with your stupidity. ROADS get a CBA. It might not be called that but EVERY road has a process involved that weighs up the benefit of the proposed road against the cost. this is called a COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. CBAs dont just apply to commercial operations. they also apply to any large expense of money. when you buy a new car you generally do an alalysis of the cost vs the benefit.

you are all just embarrassing yourselves by showing how little you know about decision making and in the process revealing how few decisions you ever get to make.

If you look at who is demanding a Cost Benefit Analysis, you will see only two types, the totally disingenuous, and the totally clueless.
I thought Miss could not get sillier, but then another post shows she can, with her current belief that policy costings and Cost Benefit Analyses are the same thing.
The sad thing is that it is only the wackiest extremists that oppose the NBN, and they like to create the impression that their position is representative of a wider community feeling of discontent, when it is not.
They are like Global Warming denialists that say that huge numbers of scientists do not agree there is Anthropogenic Climate Change, but never quote the statistical fact that 82% of all scientists surveyed do accept it, and 97% of climatologists accept it, but they will never offer those figures, instead preferring to name individual dissenters and try to imply they spearhead significant numbers of like minded scientists, when they do not.

The whole point of a CBA is to give an indication of return on investment for company money, which does not take into account any of the human benefits that we demand our governments to provide us with, so a CBA on it's own is almost completely irrelevant when it comes to government infrastructure spending, and any who fail to recognise that simple fact are totally kidding themselves, I just wish they would stop trying to kid me, because I am not buying that line of BS.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 12:28pm:

If you look at who is demanding a Cost Benefit Analysis, you will see only two types, the totally disingenuous, and the totally clueless. I thought Miss could not get sillier, but then another post shows she can, with her current belief that policy costings and Cost Benefit Analyses are the same thing. The sad thing is that it is only the wackiest extremists that oppose the NBN, and they like to create the impression that their position is representative of a wider community feeling of discontent, when it is not. They are like Global Warming denialists that say that huge numbers of scientists do not agree there is Anthropogenic Climate Change, but never quote the statistical fact that 82% of all scientists surveyed do accept it, and 97% of climatologists accept it, but they will never offer those figures, instead preferring to name individual dissenters and try to imply they spearhead significant numbers of like minded scientists, when they do not. The whole point of a CBA is to give an indication of return on investment for company money, which does not take into account any of the human benefits that we demand our governments to provide us with, so a CBA on it's own is almost completely irrelevant when it comes to government infrastructure spending, and any who fail to recognise that simple fact are totally kidding themselves, I just wish they would stop trying to kid me, because I am not buying that line of BS.

Well the actual truth is that you are not buying any line except your own. Any government aiming to beuild such a massive CORPORATION (and it is that) without a CBA is asking for trouble - which is exactly what they will get.

EVEN a CBA can articulate non-financial benefits. In fact, if any of you retards had ever seen or read one you will know that a CBA doesnt necessarily have to only list FINANCIAL benefits. If Gillard-the-incompetent had any faith in the NBN shoudl would order a CBA to actually articulate its benefits - financial and otherwise. But the benefits are not there as she claims and never have been.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 12:34pm:

EVEN a CBA can articulate non-financial benefits. In fact, if any of you retards had ever seen or read one you will know that a CBA doesnt necessarily have to only list FINANCIAL benefits. If Gillard-the-incompetent had any faith in the NBN shoudl would order a CBA to actually articulate its benefits - financial and otherwise. But the benefits are not there as she claims and never have been.

It can`t be presented any simpler than that.
BTW, the poll is entirely useless and biased.

Did John Howard have a CBA prepared before pouring 15 billion dollars of taxpayers money in to the super accounts of the wealthiest people in Australia?
Didn't think so.
In fact many of the rich who felt they were pressured to invest at a very bad time, because of Howard's policy, are still dirty on that too, because they had to pour their own money in as well to qualify for the government handouts, only to see the GFC make it all go up in smoke, or more literally, disappear into the smoke and mirrors of investment banking.

mozzaok wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 12:42pm:

Did John Howard have a CBA prepared before pouring 15 billion dollars of taxpayers money in to the super accounts of the wealthiest people in Australia? Didn't think so. In fact many of the rich who felt they were pressured to invest at a very bad time, because of Howard's policy, are still dirty on that too, because they had to pour their own money in as well to qualify for the government handouts, only to see the GFC make it all go up in smoke, or more literally, disappear into the smoke and mirrors of investment banking.

yes he did. there was a proper cost and benefit analysis done as there is in almost ALL major policies and infrastructure developments. and it wasnt juist the rich as you well know. it was ANYONE with money to invest which includes a lot of people.

What are you SCARED of a CBA on the NBN for? it calims to be a huge benefit and profitable so why not put it to the test? or is your problem that you recognise that it would probably fail? after all, it is proposing to spend tens of billion sof dollars in giving 85% of the population exactly wha they already have!

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:

mozzaok wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: Did John Howard have a CBA prepared before pouring 15 billion dollars of taxpayers money in to the super accounts of the wealthiest people in Australia? Didn't think so. In fact many of the rich who felt they were pressured to invest at a very bad time, because of Howard's policy, are still dirty on that too, because they had to pour their own money in as well to qualify for the government handouts, only to see the GFC make it all go up in smoke, or more literally, disappear into the smoke and mirrors of investment banking. yes he did. there was a proper cost and benefit analysis done as there is in almost ALL major policies and infrastructure developments. and it wasnt juist the rich as you well know. it was ANYONE with money to invest which includes a lot of people. What are you SCARED of a CBA on the NBN for? it calims to be a huge benefit and profitable so why not put it to the test? or is your problem that you recognise that it would probably fail? after all, it is proposing to spend tens of billion sof dollars in giving 85% of the population exactly wha they already have!

Sorry LW. I have to disagree. The NBN would actually make it cheaper for us on the Central Coast.

I can't see why we don't do a CBA. It's 93% of us. Not 85%.

Did Howard do a CBA on the war?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:

mozzaok wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: Did John Howard have a CBA prepared before pouring 15 billion dollars of taxpayers money in to the super accounts of the wealthiest people in Australia? Didn't think so. In fact many of the rich who felt they were pressured to invest at a very bad time, because of Howard's policy, are still dirty on that too, because they had to pour their own money in as well to qualify for the government handouts, only to see the GFC make it all go up in smoke, or more literally, disappear into the smoke and mirrors of investment banking. yes he did. there was a proper cost and benefit analysis done as there is in almost ALL major policies and infrastructure developments. and it wasnt juist the rich as you well know. it was ANYONE with money to invest which includes a lot of people. What are you SCARED of a CBA on the NBN for? it calims to be a huge benefit and profitable so why not put it to the test? or is your problem that you recognise that it would probably fail? after all, it is proposing to spend tens of billion sof dollars in giving 85% of the population exactly wha they already have!

Name one infrastructure project that Howard done that had a CBA done on it.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 12:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:34pm: EVEN a CBA can articulate non-financial benefits. In fact, if any of you retards had ever seen or read one you will know that a CBA doesnt necessarily have to only list FINANCIAL benefits. If Gillard-the-incompetent had any faith in the NBN shoudl would order a CBA to actually articulate its benefits - financial and otherwise. But the benefits are not there as she claims and never have been. It can`t be presented any simpler than that. BTW, the poll is entirely useless and biased.

Why do you think that poll is entirely useless and biased aussie

John S wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 1:10pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:34pm: EVEN a CBA can articulate non-financial benefits. In fact, if any of you retards had ever seen or read one you will know that a CBA doesnt necessarily have to only list FINANCIAL benefits. If Gillard-the-incompetent had any faith in the NBN shoudl would order a CBA to actually articulate its benefits - financial and otherwise. But the benefits are not there as she claims and never have been. It can`t be presented any simpler than that. BTW, the poll is entirely useless and biased. Why do you think that poll is entirely useless and biased aussie

Because it only caters for a very narrow view of the subject. Jack, it doesn`t allow for the expression of the views that :

A CBA is warranted in some cases.
or
A CBA is warranted in the case of the NBN.

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 1:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:47pm: mozzaok wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: Did John Howard have a CBA prepared before pouring 15 billion dollars of taxpayers money in to the super accounts of the wealthiest people in Australia? Didn't think so. In fact many of the rich who felt they were pressured to invest at a very bad time, because of Howard's policy, are still dirty on that too, because they had to pour their own money in as well to qualify for the government handouts, only to see the GFC make it all go up in smoke, or more literally, disappear into the smoke and mirrors of investment banking. yes he did. there was a proper cost and benefit analysis done as there is in almost ALL major policies and infrastructure developments. and it wasnt juist the rich as you well know. it was ANYONE with money to invest which includes a lot of people. What are you SCARED of a CBA on the NBN for? it calims to be a huge benefit and profitable so why not put it to the test? or is your problem that you recognise that it would probably fail? after all, it is proposing to spend tens of billion sof dollars in giving 85% of the population exactly wha they already have! Sorry LW. I have to disagree. The NBN would actually make it cheaper for us on the Central Coast. I can't see why we don't do a CBA. It's 93% of us. Not 85%. Did Howard do a CBA on the war?

cheaper for one section of the country is not the basis of supporting it. the 85% I referred to were the 85% of people in cities currently with ADLS2+ for whom the NBN offers nothing in its standard form.

We expect you to provide the Howard gov CBA on the super accounts longy, or else you'll just look like a liar, AGAIN.There's a good chappy.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 1:20pm:

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:47pm: mozzaok wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: Did John Howard have a CBA prepared before pouring 15 billion dollars of taxpayers money in to the super accounts of the wealthiest people in Australia? Didn't think so. In fact many of the rich who felt they were pressured to invest at a very bad time, because of Howard's policy, are still dirty on that too, because they had to pour their own money in as well to qualify for the government handouts, only to see the GFC make it all go up in smoke, or more literally, disappear into the smoke and mirrors of investment banking. yes he did. there was a proper cost and benefit analysis done as there is in almost ALL major policies and infrastructure developments. and it wasnt juist the rich as you well know. it was ANYONE with money to invest which includes a lot of people. What are you SCARED of a CBA on the NBN for? it calims to be a huge benefit and profitable so why not put it to the test? or is your problem that you recognise that it would probably fail? after all, it is proposing to spend tens of billion sof dollars in giving 85% of the population exactly wha they already have! Sorry LW. I have to disagree. The NBN would actually make it cheaper for us on the Central Coast. I can't see why we don't do a CBA. It's 93% of us. Not 85%. Did Howard do a CBA on the war? cheaper for one section of the country is not the basis of supporting it. the 85% I referred to were the 85% of people in cities currently with ADLS2+ for whom the NBN offers nothing in its standard form.

LW, you can be idiotic sometimes. We have ADSL2+ and in the cities it will be cheaper while it is making speed faster. You have to be blind if you can't see the benefits of it.

Quote:

You have to be blind if you can't see the benefits of it.

The silly old bugger can see it James, its just that its not Abbott party policy ATM,so longy being the good little neo con sheeple that he is must condemn it. Once Abbott gets the ass as leader of the Libs, and the Libs embrace it, so will longy.
I'll bet he's the first in his street to have it.

skippy. wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 1:49pm:

Quote: You have to be blind if you can't see the benefits of it.     The silly old bugger can see it James, its just that its not Abbott party policy ATM,so longy being the good little neo con sheeple that he is must condemn it. Once Abbott gets the ass as leader of the Libs, and the Libs embrace it, so will longy. I'll bet he's the first in his street to have it.

Time will tell if the sheep will follow their master....

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 1:56pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:49pm: Quote: You have to be blind if you can't see the benefits of it.     The silly old bugger can see it James, its just that its not Abbott party policy ATM,so longy being the good little neo con sheeple that he is must condemn it. Once Abbott gets the ass as leader of the Libs, and the Libs embrace it, so will longy. I'll bet he's the first in his street to have it. Time will tell if the sheep will follow their master....

like you follow your daddy

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 1:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:20pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:04pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:47pm: mozzaok wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: Did John Howard have a CBA prepared before pouring 15 billion dollars of taxpayers money in to the super accounts of the wealthiest people in Australia? Didn't think so. In fact many of the rich who felt they were pressured to invest at a very bad time, because of Howard's policy, are still dirty on that too, because they had to pour their own money in as well to qualify for the government handouts, only to see the GFC make it all go up in smoke, or more literally, disappear into the smoke and mirrors of investment banking. yes he did. there was a proper cost and benefit analysis done as there is in almost ALL major policies and infrastructure developments. and it wasnt juist the rich as you well know. it was ANYONE with money to invest which includes a lot of people. What are you SCARED of a CBA on the NBN for? it calims to be a huge benefit and profitable so why not put it to the test? or is your problem that you recognise that it would probably fail? after all, it is proposing to spend tens of billion sof dollars in giving 85% of the population exactly wha they already have! Sorry LW. I have to disagree. The NBN would actually make it cheaper for us on the Central Coast. I can't see why we don't do a CBA. It's 93% of us. Not 85%. Did Howard do a CBA on the war? cheaper for one section of the country is not the basis of supporting it. the 85% I referred to were the 85% of people in cities currently with ADLS2+ for whom the NBN offers nothing in its standard form. LW, you can be idiotic sometimes. We have ADSL2+ and in the cities it will be cheaper while it is making speed faster. You have to be blind if you can't see the benefits of it.

speaking of the blind... CAN YOU READ??? even the NBN claims it wil NOT be cheaper than existing ADSL2+ and its standard speed will be no faster (12Mbs). If you want to debate then at least try and understand the flow of the argument!

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 1:19pm:

John S wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:10pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:34pm: EVEN a CBA can articulate non-financial benefits. In fact, if any of you retards had ever seen or read one you will know that a CBA doesnt necessarily have to only list FINANCIAL benefits. If Gillard-the-incompetent had any faith in the NBN shoudl would order a CBA to actually articulate its benefits - financial and otherwise. But the benefits are not there as she claims and never have been. It can`t be presented any simpler than that. BTW, the poll is entirely useless and biased. Why do you think that poll is entirely useless and biased aussie Because it only caters for a very narrow view of the subject. Jack, it doesn`t allow for the expression of the views that : A CBA is warranted in some cases. or A CBA is warranted in the case of the NBN.

If you look at the opening thread you would of seen I said ALL goverment policies.

Do you think the Goverment should of done a CBA on the $30 pension increase?

What about the Iraq war should there been a CBA done?

What about Howard and his off shore at Nanu should there been a CBA done on that?

The Alice Springs to Dawin Railway line is another one without a CBA

Or do you liberals just want pick on the NBN cause some liberal said it should be done.

John S wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 3:50pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:19pm: John S wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:10pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:34pm: EVEN a CBA can articulate non-financial benefits. In fact, if any of you retards had ever seen or read one you will know that a CBA doesnt necessarily have to only list FINANCIAL benefits. If Gillard-the-incompetent had any faith in the NBN shoudl would order a CBA to actually articulate its benefits - financial and otherwise. But the benefits are not there as she claims and never have been. It can`t be presented any simpler than that. BTW, the poll is entirely useless and biased. Why do you think that poll is entirely useless and biased aussie Because it only caters for a very narrow view of the subject. Jack, it doesn`t allow for the expression of the views that : A CBA is warranted in some cases. or A CBA is warranted in the case of the NBN. If you look at the opening thread you would of seen I said ALL goverment policies. Do you think the Goverment should of done a CBA on the $30 pension increase? What about the Iraq war should there been a CBA done? What about Howard and his off shore at Nanu should there been a CBA done on that? The Alice Springs to Dawin Railway line is another one without a CBA Or do you liberals just want pick on the NBN cause some liberal said it should be done.

ur an idiot. of COURSE the pension increase had a CBA. how do u think they know what it would cost and woul dit be affordable? Honestly, do you breathe unaided?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 4:01pm:

John S wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 3:50pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:19pm: John S wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:10pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:34pm: EVEN a CBA can articulate non-financial benefits. In fact, if any of you retards had ever seen or read one you will know that a CBA doesnt necessarily have to only list FINANCIAL benefits. If Gillard-the-incompetent had any faith in the NBN shoudl would order a CBA to actually articulate its benefits - financial and otherwise. But the benefits are not there as she claims and never have been. It can`t be presented any simpler than that. BTW, the poll is entirely useless and biased. Why do you think that poll is entirely useless and biased aussie Because it only caters for a very narrow view of the subject. Jack, it doesn`t allow for the expression of the views that : A CBA is warranted in some cases. or A CBA is warranted in the case of the NBN. If you look at the opening thread you would of seen I said ALL goverment policies. Do you think the Goverment should of done a CBA on the $30 pension increase? What about the Iraq war should there been a CBA done? What about Howard and his off shore at Nanu should there been a CBA done on that? The Alice Springs to Dawin Railway line is another one without a CBA Or do you liberals just want pick on the NBN cause some liberal said it should be done. ur an idiot. of COURSE the pension increase had a CBA. how do u think they know what it would cost and woul dit be affordable? Honestly, do you breathe unaided?

The pension increase did not have a CBA done it just had costing done which is completly different.


Do you even know the diffence between CBA and Costing. If you don't ask our "GREAT ACCOUNTANT" andrei. Don't forget he went to universty so he knows.

Bloody hell!! I just wasted time reading another Thread about this, and neither was worth the effort.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 12:47pm:

mozzaok wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: Did John Howard have a CBA prepared before pouring 15 billion dollars of taxpayers money in to the super accounts of the wealthiest people in Australia? Didn't think so. In fact many of the rich who felt they were pressured to invest at a very bad time, because of Howard's policy, are still dirty on that too, because they had to pour their own money in as well to qualify for the government handouts, only to see the GFC make it all go up in smoke, or more literally, disappear into the smoke and mirrors of investment banking. yes he did. there was a proper cost and benefit analysis done as there is in almost ALL major policies and infrastructure developments. and it wasnt juist the rich as you well know. it was ANYONE with money to invest which includes a lot of people. What are you SCARED of a CBA on the NBN for? it calims to be a huge benefit and profitable so why not put it to the test? or is your problem that you recognise that it would probably fail? after all, it is proposing to spend tens of billion sof dollars in giving 85% of the population exactly wha they already have!

Holy crap, you are a blatant outright freaking liar longy, an absolute lying fraud.
You know jackshite about anything, so just make up total bullshite to impress maroons like miss, who could not tell shite from shoe polish if she was eating it.

Did Howard do a CBA on the handout to the rich, is what I asked, and you pronounce, "Yes he did".
LIAR, FRAUD, and a waste of time.

I actually learn stuff here from people with opposing views to my own, but nobody can learn anything from you, because they could not trust a word you say.

What is the big objection to having a CBA on the NBN?  What is the problem?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 7:41pm:

What is the big objection to having a CBA on the NBN?  What is the problem?

Except to the extent it has Mellie, it will not happen.  Now.....bugger orf.

:)

The NBN will happen.


Quote:

Holy crap, you are a blatant outright freaking liar longy, an absolute lying fraud.

Well, buggar me.  Moz you know as well most of the Board that this person is mellie.  Why you, as a Mod, keep accommodating them is a  major mystery to me.

:)

This is just any infrstructure project, it is the largest single ticket item ever undertaken in Australian history.

If we can get a CBA done on that, then we dont stand a chance getting one done ever again.

We do them at work for any new projects over a certain figure, and any refurbishment of existing infrastructure over a certain figure.

And for the record, a CBA isnt just about dollars.

If the CBA comes back with ticks for the NBN, I will support it.  If a government refuses to do one I will never back it because it looks like a government has something to hide, and that scares me more than anything.

This isnt putting up a couple of school halls, its a $43billion investment, how could you consider doing that without a CBA.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 7:41pm:

What is the big objection to having a CBA on the NBN?  What is the problem?

[quote author=buzzanddidj link=1293112081/75#82 date=1293444224]  ALL government infrastucture funding is subject to Treasury costing -NBN included  
As it WAS
And as it SHOULD be


NO infrastructure investment should be the subject of any CBA or "return on (said) investment" as is the expectation in the private sector

This sets a VERY DANGEROUS PRECEDENT for future investment by governments - "if it doesn't show a projected level of sufficient financial return, don't build it" mentality - applying to public hospitals, roads, rail lines and everything inbetween

If the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the government, then of course a CBA should be done, only the idiot left would think otherwise. They are sh it scared the cost far outweighs the benefit, and it will be made clear to all.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 7:18am:

If the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the government, then of course a CBA should be done, only the idiot left would think otherwise. They are sh it scared the cost far outweighs the benefit, and it will be made clear to all.

Quote:

The Leader of the New South Wales Opposition says he wants to be known as the infrastructure premier and will forfeit his leadership if he cannot deliver on key promises. If elected, Barry O'Farrell has pledged to complete Sydney's north-west and south-west rail links and begin building either the M4 East or the M5 duplication in his first term.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/12/27/3102222.htm


So if O'Farrell wins the NSW state elections in March will he do a CBA on these infrastructure projects. If he does what benefit will I get out of them.

He is spending taxpayers money on them.

Repeat for those who can't read or comprehend:

If the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the government, then of course a CBA should be done, only the idiot left would think otherwise. They are sh it scared the cost far outweighs the benefit, and it will be made clear to all.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 7:43am:

Repeat for those who can't read or comprehend: If the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the government, then of course a CBA should be done, only the idiot left would think otherwise. They are sh it scared the cost far outweighs the benefit, and it will be made clear to all.

You can cite a previous example ?

Without getting CBA's confused with Treasury costings



Or is this new standard being demanded by the 'government in exile' one that should apply to Labor Governments - that Coalition governments, past and future, never were and never should be ?

John S wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 3:50pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:19pm: John S wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:10pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:34pm: EVEN a CBA can articulate non-financial benefits. In fact, if any of you retards had ever seen or read one you will know that a CBA doesnt necessarily have to only list FINANCIAL benefits. If Gillard-the-incompetent had any faith in the NBN shoudl would order a CBA to actually articulate its benefits - financial and otherwise. But the benefits are not there as she claims and never have been. It can`t be presented any simpler than that. BTW, the poll is entirely useless and biased. Why do you think that poll is entirely useless and biased aussie Because it only caters for a very narrow view of the subject. Jack, it doesn`t allow for the expression of the views that : A CBA is warranted in some cases. or A CBA is warranted in the case of the NBN. If you look at the opening thread you would of seen I said ALL goverment policies. Do you think the Goverment should of done a CBA on the $30 pension increase? What about the Iraq war should there been a CBA done? What about Howard and his off shore at Nanu should there been a CBA done on that? The Alice Springs to Dawin Railway line is another one without a CBA Or do you liberals just want pick on the NBN cause some liberal said it should be done.

As you openly admit, the poll is totally useless in this instance, just a pre schooler`s WOFTAM.

John S wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 3:50pm:

If you look at the opening thread you would of seen I said ALL goverment policies. Do you think the Goverment should of done a CBA on the $30 pension increase? What about the Iraq war should there been a CBA done? What about Howard and his off shore at Nanu should there been a CBA done on that? The Alice Springs to Dawin Railway line is another one without a CBA Or do you liberals just want pick on the NBN cause some liberal said it should be done.

Don't you think that the NBN is a big government expenditure?
Don't you think that the pension increase is insignificant compared to the NBN?
Don't you think that Defence & Border protection are intangible issues?
Don't you think that issues that occurred decades ago are not relevant?
Don't you think that if the ALP demand CBA's of Liberal policies then the ALP should also undergo such CBAs?
Don't you think that if the ALP want to get the green light on this MASSIVE expenditure then they should have a CBA?
Don't you think?

viewpoint wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 7:18am:

If the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the government, then of course a CBA should be done, only the idiot left would think otherwise. They are sh it scared the cost far outweighs the benefit, and it will be made clear to all.

Not only are the ALP scared of the expense being massive and the benefits being minimal the ALP are also scared that all of the costs would be discovered.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 7:41pm:

What is the big objection to having a CBA on the NBN?  What is the problem?

The truth being publicised.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 4:01pm:

John S wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 3:50pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:19pm: John S wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:10pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 12:34pm: EVEN a CBA can articulate non-financial benefits. In fact, if any of you retards had ever seen or read one you will know that a CBA doesnt necessarily have to only list FINANCIAL benefits. If Gillard-the-incompetent had any faith in the NBN shoudl would order a CBA to actually articulate its benefits - financial and otherwise. But the benefits are not there as she claims and never have been. It can`t be presented any simpler than that. BTW, the poll is entirely useless and biased. Why do you think that poll is entirely useless and biased aussie Because it only caters for a very narrow view of the subject. Jack, it doesn`t allow for the expression of the views that : A CBA is warranted in some cases. or A CBA is warranted in the case of the NBN. If you look at the opening thread you would of seen I said ALL goverment policies. Do you think the Goverment should of done a CBA on the $30 pension increase? What about the Iraq war should there been a CBA done? What about Howard and his off shore at Nanu should there been a CBA done on that? The Alice Springs to Dawin Railway line is another one without a CBA Or do you liberals just want pick on the NBN cause some liberal said it should be done. ur an idiot. of COURSE the pension increase had a CBA. how do u think they know what it would cost and woul dit be affordable?

Can we accept the distinction, here, between a TREASURY COSTING and a COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS ?

Some seem to think they are one in the same

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 8:25am:

viewpoint wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 7:43am: Repeat for those who can't read or comprehend: If the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the government, then of course a CBA should be done, only the idiot left would think otherwise. They are sh it scared the cost far outweighs the benefit, and it will be made clear to all. You can cite a previous example ? Without getting CBA's confused with Treasury costings Or is this new standard being demanded by the 'government in exile' one that should apply to Labor Governments - that Coalition governments, past and future, never were and never should be ?

That is the trouble buzz there is at least 3 on here that thinks that treasury costing is the same as a CBA.

Here is a example of the diffence between costing and CBA for those that don't know. I make it simple so 3 of you can understand it.

2 people want to buy a car.

The first guy want a Commodore so he goes to all the Holden dealerships and get the best price for his car and buys it.

That would be class as costing.

The second guy doesn't care what type of car he gets. He knows roughly what kind of car he wants so he goes to all different dealerships and gets prices for the type of car he wants.

That would be class as the cost.

He goes home and weights up all the benefit he can get out of each different cars he has look at.

That would be class as the benefit.

Then he would see which one would have the best resale value when he wants to sell it.

That would be class as analysis.

The first guy brought his car on costing the second guy done a cost benefit analysis before he brought his car.

After the massive rorts that have already been uncovered from the ALP policies (eg BER, pink batts) then EVERY policy from the ALP MUST now undergo a CBA.
Only stupid fools would allow the ALP to spend without a CBA, and that would include just running acrosss to the corner milk bar to get the milk, bread & newspaper.
No one trusts the ALP anymore, this is why the CBA is a mandatory requirement.

Aussie wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 8:12pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 7:41pm: What is the big objection to having a CBA on the NBN?  What is the problem? Except to the extent it has Mellie, it will not happen.  Now.....bugger orf. :) The NBN will happen. Quote: Holy crap, you are a blatant outright freaking liar longy, an absolute lying fraud. Well, buggar me.  Moz you know as well most of the Board that this person is mellie.  Why you, as a Mod, keep accommodating them is a  major mystery to me. :)

LOL Aussie,  she uses proxies, probably hidemyfatass.

FRED. wrote on Dec 27^th, 2010 at 2:06pm:

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:56pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:49pm: Quote: You have to be blind if you can't see the benefits of it.     The silly old bugger can see it James, its just that its not Abbott party policy ATM,so longy being the good little neo con sheeple that he is must condemn it. Once Abbott gets the ass as leader of the Libs, and the Libs embrace it, so will longy. I'll bet he's the first in his street to have it. Time will tell if the sheep will follow their master.... like you follow your daddy

What.... and you don't??

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 12:28pm:

FRED. wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 2:06pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:56pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:49pm: Quote: You have to be blind if you can't see the benefits of it.     The silly old bugger can see it James, its just that its not Abbott party policy ATM,so longy being the good little neo con sheeple that he is must condemn it. Once Abbott gets the ass as leader of the Libs, and the Libs embrace it, so will longy. I'll bet he's the first in his street to have it. Time will tell if the sheep will follow their master.... like you follow your daddy What.... and you don't??

Sorry son  back to maccas for you

FRED. wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 12:35pm:

James Bluntus wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 12:28pm: FRED. wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 2:06pm: James Bluntus wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:56pm: skippy. wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 1:49pm: Quote: You have to be blind if you can't see the benefits of it.     The silly old bugger can see it James, its just that its not Abbott party policy ATM,so longy being the good little neo con sheeple that he is must condemn it. Once Abbott gets the ass as leader of the Libs, and the Libs embrace it, so will longy. I'll bet he's the first in his street to have it. Time will tell if the sheep will follow their master.... like you follow your daddy What.... and you don't?? Sorry son  back to maccas for you

Nah, I'm sure you would feel more at home doing the hard work for a change.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 8:57am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 27th, 2010 at 7:41pm: What is the big objection to having a CBA on the NBN?  What is the problem? The truth being publicised.

Looks that way.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 8:25am:

viewpoint wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 7:43am: Repeat for those who can't read or comprehend: If the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the government, then of course a CBA should be done, only the idiot left would think otherwise. They are sh it scared the cost far outweighs the benefit, and it will be made clear to all. You can cite a previous example ? Without getting CBA's confused with Treasury costings Or is this new standard being demanded by the 'government in exile' one that should apply to Labor Governments - that Coalition governments, past and future, never were and never should be ?

do u honestly think the only consideration in any infrastructure project is accurate costing by treasury?? are you seriously that naive/dumb/stupid? EVERY large infrastructure project has to justify itself. there isnt enough mponey for everything to be approved so only the ones with the greatest need/benefit/effectiveness get approved.

and then there's the NBN...

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 2:56pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 8:25am: viewpoint wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 7:43am: Repeat for those who can't read or comprehend: If the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the government, then of course a CBA should be done, only the idiot left would think otherwise. They are sh it scared the cost far outweighs the benefit, and it will be made clear to all. You can cite a previous example ? Without getting CBA's confused with Treasury costings Or is this new standard being demanded by the 'government in exile' one that should apply to Labor Governments - that Coalition governments, past and future, never were and never should be ? do u honestly think the only consideration in any infrastructure project is accurate costing by treasury?? are you seriously that naive/dumb/stupid? EVERY large infrastructure project has to justify itself. there isnt enough mponey for everything to be approved so only the ones with the greatest need/benefit/effectiveness get approved. and then there's the NBN...

Today's logic award winner goes to longweekend.
Congratulations longy.  :)

---

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 2:56pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 8:25am: viewpoint wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 7:43am: Repeat for those who can't read or comprehend: If the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the government, then of course a CBA should be done, only the idiot left would think otherwise. They are sh it scared the cost far outweighs the benefit, and it will be made clear to all. You can cite a previous example ? Without getting CBA's confused with Treasury costings Or is this new standard being demanded by the 'government in exile' one that should apply to Labor Governments - that Coalition governments, past and future, never were and never should be ? do u honestly think the only consideration in any infrastructure project is accurate costing by treasury?? are you seriously that naive/dumb/stupid? EVERY large infrastructure project has to justify itself. there isnt enough mponey for everything to be approved so only the ones with the greatest need/benefit/effectiveness get approved.and then there's the NBN...

That is NOT a Cost Benefit Analysis
It's NOT even CLOSE


A CBA is a VERY structured, audit process of costing and business plan
And the reality is VERY little infrastructure would meet a CBA commercial viability standard

Nor should it HAVE to

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 4:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 2:56pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 8:25am: viewpoint wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 7:43am: Repeat for those who can't read or comprehend: If the taxpayer’s money is being spent by the government, then of course a CBA should be done, only the idiot left would think otherwise. They are sh it scared the cost far outweighs the benefit, and it will be made clear to all. You can cite a previous example ? Without getting CBA's confused with Treasury costings Or is this new standard being demanded by the 'government in exile' one that should apply to Labor Governments - that Coalition governments, past and future, never were and never should be ? do u honestly think the only consideration in any infrastructure project is accurate costing by treasury?? are you seriously that naive/dumb/stupid? EVERY large infrastructure project has to justify itself. there isnt enough mponey for everything to be approved so only the ones with the greatest need/benefit/effectiveness get approved.and then there's the NBN... That is NOT a Cost Benefit Analysis It's NOT even CLOSE A CBA is a VERY structured, audit process of costing and business plan And the reality is VERY little infrastructure would meet a CBA commercial viability standard Nor should it HAVE to

Of course not because an Analysis of the plan to build a road works out the Costs and the Benefits - CBA.

Have you ever had a job that required any independant thought? CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is.

and of COURSE infrastructure meets a CBA standard you uninformed moron. do u see any mention of PROFIT in the words COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS, hmm? Profit CAN be a benefit in a CBA but it it not an essential element. Benefits for infrastructure that have no income of course do not include profit.

serious, you should get out more.

Quote:

CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is.

Not on national infrastucture
CBA's were unheard in the government realm till the opposition attempted to "demand" one on the NBN



Quote:

you uninformed moron

(note the resort to personal abuse when ALL else fails)

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 6:28pm:

Quote: CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is. Not on national infrastucture CBA's were unheard in the government realm till the opposition attempted to "demand" one on the NBN [quote] you uninformed moron

(note the resort to personal abuse when ALL else fails)





[/quote]


as usual VERY wrong. CBAs are part and parcel of ALL major infrastructure. no govt is ever going to agree to a massive spend on a rod or a bridge or a hospital without some analysis of the costs and the benefits.

Honestly, Buzz are you REALLY that silly that you cant see that a CBA is a little more than just a profit and loss statement? I dont value your opinion that much but i never really thought you were a fool. but Im starting to wonder whether Ive granted you more than you deserve. What exactly do you think forms the decision making process in building a road or hospital? It isnt Sim City. People actually need to define the costs and benefits. and in a COMMERCIAL operation, operating expenses and income is one of the benefits that needs to be quantified. Im not going to say it again. If you fail to see that a CBA doesnt apply in much of govt decision making then I wil just put u inthe same box i place people like Green_loses: the place of fools.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 6:28pm:

Quote: CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is. Not on national infrastucture CBA's were unheard in the government realm till the opposition attempted to "demand" one on the NBN

Worryingly, I think he is serious.

I genuinely think the guy would want to go ahead with a national project with no cost-benefit analysis and no payback return....

Still, pretty easy when somebody else is footing the bill I suppose.

If CBAs are so routine and crucial for public infrastructure projects in Australia, then why is it that there appears to be no legislated protocol for undertaking and publishing them on a bipartisan basis - and scant evidence of CBAs being done as a matter of course in the past!?

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 8:37pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 6:28pm: Quote: CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is. Not on national infrastucture CBA's were unheard in the government realm till the opposition attempted to "demand" one on the NBN [quote] you uninformed moron (note the resort to personal abuse when ALL else fails)

as usual VERY wrong. CBAs are part and parcel of ALL major infrastructure. no govt is ever going to agree to a massive spend on a rod or a bridge or a hospital without some analysis of the costs and the benefits.

Honestly, Buzz are you REALLY that silly that you cant see that a CBA is a little more than just a profit and loss statement? I dont value your opinion that much but i never really thought you were a fool. but Im starting to wonder whether Ive granted you more than you deserve. What exactly do you think forms the decision making process in building a road or hospital? It isnt Sim City. People actually need to define the costs and benefits. and in a COMMERCIAL operation, operating expenses and income is one of the benefits that needs to be quantified. Im not going to say it again. If you fail to see that a CBA doesnt apply in much of govt decision making then I wil just put u inthe same box i place people like Green_loses: the place of fools.[/quote]


longy name one policy or infrastructure that has had a cost benefit analysis that any federal or state goverment has ever done. They might have done a cost benefit but not a cost benefit analysis.

I bet my bottom dollar that O'Farrell won't do any cost benefit analysis on any infrastructure he starts if he come Premier of NSW.

If people want to shoot for this pie-in-the-sky social equality and social advancement and 'good of the people' bollox then let it pass a CBA.

Because if it doesn't and you lead policy based on social goals only -

well, ladies and gentlemen, you have the Soviet Union, which went bankrupt.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 9:38pm:

If people want to shoot for this pie-in-the-sky social equality and social advancement and 'good of the people' bollox then let it pass a CBA. Because if it doesn't and you lead policy based on social goals only - well, ladies and gentlemen, you have the Soviet Union, which went bankrupt.

And, then you will get the Julia Gillard outburst demanding that her policy pass through both houses, unchallenged, unquestioned and done immediately.
Yes, the Kremlin will be recruiting Julia very very soon.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 9:38pm:

If people want to shoot for this pie-in-the-sky social equality and social advancement and 'good of the people' bollox then let it pass a CBA. Because if it doesn't and you lead policy based on social goals only - well, ladies and gentlemen, you have the Soviet Union, which went bankrupt.

The USA has gone bankrupt under a Republican goverment if they haven't why are they printing more money.

John S wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 9:53pm:

The USA has gone bankrupt under a Republican goverment if they haven't why are they printing more money.

LOL

A CBA has probably been done on every single govt infrastructure project.

That's if you consider a CBA to be somebody getting an idea, doing a bit of research then kicking that idea around a meeting full of pollies and public servants supplied with lashings of assorted sandwiches and muffins.

But if you're thinking of a CBA as something more formal and extensive, then forget it. At best you'll get a funding proposal which is little better than a prettily bound and colourfully illustrated advertising brochure.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 8:37pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 6:28pm: Quote: CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is. Not on national infrastucture CBA's were unheard in the government realm till the opposition attempted to "demand" one on the NBN [quote] you uninformed moron (note the resort to personal abuse when ALL else fails)

as usual VERY wrong. CBAs are part and parcel of ALL major infrastructure. no govt is ever going to agree to a massive spend on a rod or a bridge or a hospital without some analysis of the costs and the benefits.

Honestly, Buzz are you REALLY that silly that you cant see that a CBA is a little more than just a profit and loss statement? I dont value your opinion that much but i never really thought you were a fool.


[/quote]



I never thought YOU were, either
A P&L is a record on past business, not a projection or prediction for the future

John S wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 9:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 8:37pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 6:28pm: Quote: CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is. Not on national infrastucture CBA's were unheard in the government realm till the opposition attempted to "demand" one on the NBN [quote] you uninformed moron (note the resort to personal abuse when ALL else fails) as usual VERY wrong. CBAs are part and parcel of ALL major infrastructure. no govt is ever going to agree to a massive spend on a rod or a bridge or a hospital without some analysis of the costs and the benefits. Honestly, Buzz are you REALLY that silly that you cant see that a CBA is a little more than just a profit and loss statement? I dont value your opinion that much but i never really thought you were a fool. but Im starting to wonder whether Ive granted you more than you deserve. What exactly do you think forms the decision making process in building a road or hospital? It isnt Sim City. People actually need to define the costs and benefits. and in a COMMERCIAL operation, operating expenses and income is one of the benefits that needs to be quantified. Im not going to say it again. If you fail to see that a CBA doesnt apply in much of govt decision making then I wil just put u inthe same box i place people like Green_loses: the place of fools.

longy name one policy or infrastructure that has had a cost benefit analysis that any federal or state goverment has ever done. They might have done a cost benefit but not a cost benefit analysis.

I bet my bottom dollar that O'Farrell won't do any cost benefit analysis on any infrastructure he starts if he come Premier of NSW.[/quote]


'cost benefit' vs 'cost benefit analysis'??

how do u think the two differ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 10:04pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 8:37pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 6:28pm: Quote: CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is. Not on national infrastucture CBA's were unheard in the government realm till the opposition attempted to "demand" one on the NBN [quote] you uninformed moron (note the resort to personal abuse when ALL else fails) as usual VERY wrong. CBAs are part and parcel of ALL major infrastructure. no govt is ever going to agree to a massive spend on a rod or a bridge or a hospital without some analysis of the costs and the benefits. Honestly, Buzz are you REALLY that silly that you cant see that a CBA is a little more than just a profit and loss statement? I dont value your opinion that much but i never really thought you were a fool.

I never thought YOU were, either
A P&L is a record on past business, not a projection or prediction for the future



[/quote]

profit and loss PROJECTION was what I meant to say. and still u maintain that govt infrastruture is built without any analysis as to what it wil cost and what its benefits are.  Truly, you are remarkable. Stupid and stubborn yet REMARKABLY so.

Equitist wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 9:30pm:

If CBAs are so routine and crucial for public infrastructure projects in Australia, then why is it that there appears to be no legislated protocol for undertaking and publishing them on a bipartisan basis - and scant evidence of CBAs being done as a matter of course in the past!?

I don't expect Longweekend, Andrei_Hicks or the "political blonde" to be jumping in too fast on THAT challenge

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 10:10pm:

John S wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 9:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 8:37pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 6:28pm: Quote: CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is. Not on national infrastucture CBA's were unheard in the government realm till the opposition attempted to "demand" one on the NBN [quote] you uninformed moron (note the resort to personal abuse when ALL else fails) as usual VERY wrong. CBAs are part and parcel of ALL major infrastructure. no govt is ever going to agree to a massive spend on a rod or a bridge or a hospital without some analysis of the costs and the benefits. Honestly, Buzz are you REALLY that silly that you cant see that a CBA is a little more than just a profit and loss statement? I dont value your opinion that much but i never really thought you were a fool. but Im starting to wonder whether Ive granted you more than you deserve. What exactly do you think forms the decision making process in building a road or hospital? It isnt Sim City. People actually need to define the costs and benefits. and in a COMMERCIAL operation, operating expenses and income is one of the benefits that needs to be quantified. Im not going to say it again. If you fail to see that a CBA doesnt apply in much of govt decision making then I wil just put u inthe same box i place people like Green_loses: the place of fools. longy name one policy or infrastructure that has had a cost benefit analysis that any federal or state goverment has ever done. They might have done a cost benefit but not a cost benefit analysis. I bet my bottom dollar that O'Farrell won't do any cost benefit analysis on any infrastructure he starts if he come Premier of NSW.

'cost benefit' vs 'cost benefit analysis'??

how do u think the two differ?[/quote]


Look at this exmple


Quote:

Here is a example of the diffence between costing and CBA for those that don't know. I make it simple so 3 of you can understand it. 2 people want to buy a car. The first guy want a Commodore so he goes to all the Holden dealerships and get the best price for his car and buys it. That would be class as costing. The second guy doesn't care what type of car he gets. He knows roughly what kind of car he wants so he goes to all different dealerships and gets prices for the type of car he wants. That would be class as the cost. He goes home and weights up all the benefit he can get out of each different cars he has look at. That would be class as the benefit. Then he would see which one would have the best resale value when he wants to sell it. That would be class as analysis. The first guy brought his car on costing the second guy done a cost benefit analysis before he brought his car.

 


Now if three guys brought a car and the third guy did what the second guy did but didn't worry about the resale value.

That would be a cost benefit.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 10:13pm:

Equitist wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 9:30pm: If CBAs are so routine and crucial for public infrastructure projects in Australia, then why is it that there appears to be no legislated protocol for undertaking and publishing them on a bipartisan basis - and scant evidence of CBAs being done as a matter of course in the past!? I don't expect Longweekend, Andrei_Hicks or the "political blonde" to be jumping in too fast on THAT challenge

Im sure you think you are smart Buzz, but be assured that the more you try and maintain this fiction that govts never do analysis on the costs and benfits of infrastructure projectsm the more posters like me wil hold you in utter contempt. I dont expect you to agree with me on politics or policy. I dont expect us to have much common ground on pretty much anything But I had hoped that intelligence and logic and the like might be the narrow thread we shared. You seem to think that government is like sim city where  you build a bridge or a road or a hospital because it 'looks nice'. Yet I cant beleive you are actually that stupid despite your ever-present attempts to do just that.

As we've seen with your truly embarrassing and desperate attempts to smear the new Lib govt, it appears you have had to choose between your party and your personal integrity. And you chose wrong. the party is all that matters. You are clearly an intelligent person and unlike Green -who is obviously dumber than snot - you have no excuse to behave in the blatantly and obviously partisan manner you have been. It would be partisan to say the NBN doesnt need a CBA and to toe the party line you clearly love so much. I could accept that. To say that CBAs are never done merely puts you in with the rest of the idiots and morons who infest this place.

Welcome to the irrelevance you asked for.

John S wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 10:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 10:10pm: John S wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 9:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 8:37pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 6:28pm: Quote: CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is. Not on national infrastucture CBA's were unheard in the government realm till the opposition attempted to "demand" one on the NBN [quote] you uninformed moron (note the resort to personal abuse when ALL else fails) as usual VERY wrong. CBAs are part and parcel of ALL major infrastructure. no govt is ever going to agree to a massive spend on a rod or a bridge or a hospital without some analysis of the costs and the benefits. Honestly, Buzz are you REALLY that silly that you cant see that a CBA is a little more than just a profit and loss statement? I dont value your opinion that much but i never really thought you were a fool. but Im starting to wonder whether Ive granted you more than you deserve. What exactly do you think forms the decision making process in building a road or hospital? It isnt Sim City. People actually need to define the costs and benefits. and in a COMMERCIAL operation, operating expenses and income is one of the benefits that needs to be quantified. Im not going to say it again. If you fail to see that a CBA doesnt apply in much of govt decision making then I wil just put u inthe same box i place people like Green_loses: the place of fools. longy name one policy or infrastructure that has had a cost benefit analysis that any federal or state goverment has ever done. They might have done a cost benefit but not a cost benefit analysis. I bet my bottom dollar that O'Farrell won't do any cost benefit analysis on any infrastructure he starts if he come Premier of NSW. 'cost benefit' vs 'cost benefit analysis'?? how do u think the two differ?

Look at this exmple


Quote:

Here is a example of the diffence between costing and CBA for those that don't know. I make it simple so 3 of you can understand it. 2 people want to buy a car. The first guy want a Commodore so he goes to all the Holden dealerships and get the best price for his car and buys it. That would be class as costing. The second guy doesn't care what type of car he gets. He knows roughly what kind of car he wants so he goes to all different dealerships and gets prices for the type of car he wants. That would be class as the cost. He goes home and weights up all the benefit he can get out of each different cars he has look at. That would be class as the benefit. Then he would see which one would have the best resale value when he wants to sell it. That would be class as analysis. The first guy brought his car on costing the second guy done a cost benefit analysis before he brought his car.

 


Now if three guys brought a car and the third guy did what the second guy did but didn't worry about the resale value.

That would be a cost benefit.[/quote]

look at the english you uneducated MORON. CBA is actually Cost/Benefit Analysis. Cost and Benefit are two columns of a spreadsheet that are LINKED by the analysis. without the analysis cost and benefit are pointless.

Oh why do I bother, you and Buzz can join Green-goober is the dumber-than-snot bucket. Honestly, if someone asked you if 1+1=2 You'd have to consult the ALPs policy platform to decide. It makes me wonder if any of you have ever had a job anywhere higher than BOTTOM of the pile where no decisions and no thinking are involved.

;D

John S wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 10:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 10:10pm: John S wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 9:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 8:37pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 6:28pm: Quote: CBAs are done all the time and nthe bigger the project the bigger and more important the CBA is. Not on national infrastucture CBA's were unheard in the government realm till the opposition attempted to "demand" one on the NBN [quote] you uninformed moron (note the resort to personal abuse when ALL else fails) as usual VERY wrong. CBAs are part and parcel of ALL major infrastructure. no govt is ever going to agree to a massive spend on a rod or a bridge or a hospital without some analysis of the costs and the benefits. Honestly, Buzz are you REALLY that silly that you cant see that a CBA is a little more than just a profit and loss statement? I dont value your opinion that much but i never really thought you were a fool. but Im starting to wonder whether Ive granted you more than you deserve. What exactly do you think forms the decision making process in building a road or hospital? It isnt Sim City. People actually need to define the costs and benefits. and in a COMMERCIAL operation, operating expenses and income is one of the benefits that needs to be quantified. Im not going to say it again. If you fail to see that a CBA doesnt apply in much of govt decision making then I wil just put u inthe same box i place people like Green_loses: the place of fools. longy name one policy or infrastructure that has had a cost benefit analysis that any federal or state goverment has ever done. They might have done a cost benefit but not a cost benefit analysis. I bet my bottom dollar that O'Farrell won't do any cost benefit analysis on any infrastructure he starts if he come Premier of NSW. 'cost benefit' vs 'cost benefit analysis'?? how do u think the two differ?

Look at this exmple


Quote:

Here is a example of the diffence between costing and CBA for those that don't know. I make it simple so 3 of you can understand it. 2 people want to buy a car. The first guy want a Commodore so he goes to all the Holden dealerships and get the best price for his car and buys it. That would be class as costing. The second guy doesn't care what type of car he gets. He knows roughly what kind of car he wants so he goes to all different dealerships and gets prices for the type of car he wants. That would be class as the cost. He goes home and weights up all the benefit he can get out of each different cars he has look at. That would be class as the benefit. Then he would see which one would have the best resale value when he wants to sell it. That would be class as analysis. The first guy brought his car on costing the second guy done a cost benefit analysis before he brought his car.

 


Now if three guys brought a car and the third guy did what the second guy did but didn't worry about the resale value.

That would be a cost benefit.[/quote]


Amazing!  This helps to explain how one can bring one`s self to vote for the the ALP, or the "party for daydreams & decor".

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 10:30pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 10:13pm: Equitist wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 9:30pm: If CBAs are so routine and crucial for public infrastructure projects in Australia, then why is it that there appears to be no legislated protocol for undertaking and publishing them on a bipartisan basis - and scant evidence of CBAs being done as a matter of course in the past!? I don't expect Longweekend, Andrei_Hicks or the "political blonde" to be jumping in too fast on THAT challenge Im sure you think you are smart Buzz, but be assured that the more you try and maintain this fiction that govts never do analysis on the costs and benfits of infrastructure projectsm the more posters like me wil hold you in utter contempt. I dont expect you to agree with me on politics or policy. I dont expect us to have much common ground on pretty much anything But I had hoped that intelligence and logic and the like might be the narrow thread we shared. You seem to think that government is like sim city where  you build a bridge or a road or a hospital because it 'looks nice'. Yet I cant beleive you are actually that stupid despite your ever-present attempts to do just that. As we've seen with your truly embarrassing and desperate attempts to smear the new Lib govt, it appears you have had to choose between your party and your personal integrity. And you chose wrong. the party is all that matters. You are clearly an intelligent person and unlike Green -who is obviously dumber than snot - you have no excuse to behave in the blatantly and obviously partisan manner you have been. It would be partisan to say the NBN doesnt need a CBA and to toe the party line you clearly love so much. I could accept that. To say that CBAs are never done merely puts you in with the rest of the idiots and morons who infest this place. Welcome to the irrelevance you asked for.

Due credit to Longy, for jumping in - blubber 'n' all!

It's a shame that his half-baked deflection wasn't up to the challenge, tho'...

longy I ask in another thread that was started by sprintcyclist that is about 7 pages and I ask a heaps of times

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1293112081/0

What goverment has ever done a CBA?

Now you are so bloody smart answer that or are you an idiot and you can't answer.

None of you liberals can answer a simple question.

With the greatest respect Jack, you're as thick as two short planks sideways.

It'd be like trying to explain advanced algebra to a monkey.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 10:58pm:

With the greatest respect Jack, you're as thick as two short planks sideways. It'd be like trying to explain advanced algebra to a monkey.

so andrei tell me what wrong with my example of CBA

Exerpt ...



The NBN was costed, and it seems to be either $43b or $27b depending on your accountant, but she can hardly complain that it wasn’t costed.

Tony Abbott must have said $43b a hundred times, and The Australian surely reported it, at least every other paper did.  

However no cost-benefit analysis was done, which is what she might be talking about, but that is also true of every other government and opposition policy.







Quote:

Cost-benefit analysis is never done on policy, otherwise most of the decisions of the Howard government would have been still-born.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/13/the-australians-election-coverage/





 If ANYONE can find evidence to DISPUTE the claim in this quote, I'd be prepared to listen

Otherwise, might I suggest a new strategy in trashing a National Broadband Network, new technology - and the Government's determination to deliver on 2007 and 2010 election policy





(Admittedly, finding a major infrastructure project started by the Howard Government may be quite a chore in itself)






 

LW you can’t teach a pig to play the piano…….    

Be careful, they're shouting again and the colouring book is out.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 28^th, 2010 at 10:58pm:

With the greatest respect Jack, you're as thick as two short planks sideways. It'd be like trying to explain advanced algebra to a monkey.

My monies on the monkey.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 7:22am:

LW you can’t teach a pig to play the piano…….     Be careful, they're shouting again and the colouring book is out.

dont forget the c& p.. ha.ha..

what are those little wires called that they put across the roads from time to time.. sometimes only on one way traffic lanes..

costing.

benefit.

or analysis.

or maybe just for the hell of it and keeping someone in a job.

I find this topic somewhat irrelevant.. it wouldnt matter how much was spent on CBA.. it wouldnt make any difference to the outcome to the tax payer..they would still get stuck with paying for white-elephants. stop start tunnels to nowhere.CBDs that never get off the plans.

yet all manage to cost fortunes.. that would be better spent on hospitals.or even police stations..instead they close them to pay for white-elephants.. andddddddddddddddddddddd.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 6:49am:

Exerpt ... The NBN was costed, and it seems to be either $43b or $27b depending on your accountant, but she can hardly complain that it wasn’t costed. Tony Abbott must have said $43b a hundred times, and The Australian surely reported it, at least every other paper did.   However no cost-benefit analysis was done, which is what she might be talking about, but that is also true of every other government and opposition policy. Quote: Cost-benefit analysis is never done on policy, otherwise most of the decisions of the Howard government would have been still-born. http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/13/the-australians-election-coverage/  If ANYONE can find evidence to DISPUTE the claim in this quote, I'd be prepared to listen Otherwise, might I suggest a new strategy in trashing a National Broadband Network, new technology - and the Government's determination to deliver on 2007 and 2010 election policy (Admittedly, finding a major infrastructure project started by the Howard Government may be quite a chore in itself)

Well ...

THAT was certainly a "conversation stopper"

(Admittedly, finding a major infrastructure project started by the Howard Government may be quite a chore in itself



paying off a  bloody HUGE DEBT... was a CHORE they were pretty proud of.

and by golly I bet the rudd/gillard mob were glad they did..not that they have ever said so!!...

but just think what crap we would be in if the Libs hadnt bothered and just added to the bloody HUGE DEBT instead.

and built monuments to nowhere.or green loans. plaques on schools.
or waste watch oopp.. grocery watch .fuel watch NBN watch. hospital watch. ETS watch,... so much they could have spent our hard earned money on.. silly billies.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:20am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 10:58pm: With the greatest respect Jack, you're as thick as two short planks sideways. It'd be like trying to explain advanced algebra to a monkey. My monies on the monkey.

You think a CBA is the same as Treasury costing so you must be the monkey.

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:23am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 6:49am: Exerpt ... The NBN was costed, and it seems to be either $43b or $27b depending on your accountant, but she can hardly complain that it wasn’t costed. Tony Abbott must have said $43b a hundred times, and The Australian surely reported it, at least every other paper did.   However no cost-benefit analysis was done, which is what she might be talking about, but that is also true of every other government and opposition policy. Quote: Cost-benefit analysis is never done on policy, otherwise most of the decisions of the Howard government would have been still-born. http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/13/the-australians-election-coverage/  If ANYONE can find evidence to DISPUTE the claim in this quote, I'd be prepared to listen Otherwise, might I suggest a new strategy in trashing a National Broadband Network, new technology - and the Government's determination to deliver on 2007 and 2010 election policy (Admittedly, finding a major infrastructure project started by the Howard Government may be quite a chore in itself)   Well ... THAT was certainly a "conversation stopper"

Buzz it is no good arguing  with LW he won't admitted that he is wrong.

You beat him on Yahoo with a argument and he still didn't admitt he was wrong.

Look back at the last two and half pages he is the only one saying there should be a CBA done on the NBN.

codswal wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:37am:

(Admittedly, finding a major infrastructure project started by the Howard Government may be quite a chore in itself paying off a  bloody HUGE DEBT... was a CHORE they were pretty proud of. and by golly I bet the rudd/gillard mob were glad they did..not that they have ever said so!!... but just think what crap we would be in if the Libs hadnt bothered and just added to the bloody HUGE DEBT instead. and built monuments to nowhere.or green loans. plaques on schools. or waste watch oopp.. grocery watch .fuel watch NBN watch. hospital watch. ETS watch,... so much they could have spent our hard earned money on.. silly billies.

That "huge debt" was FAR less than the revenue raised by the sale of Australia's airports, gold reserves and national telco

But BACK "on topic" ...

Where is the evidence of ANY Howard Government policy being held accountable by a Cost Benefit Analysis ?

and the shrill little 'girl' continues to trumpet her complete lack of knowledge on how major decisions are made in govt.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

and the shrill little 'girl' continues to trumpet her complete lack of knowledge on how major decisions are made in govt.

No goverment has ever done a CBA on any policy, infrastructure or project.

They have done costing which is completing different to CBAs.

Can't you get that through you thick head.

If you think they have done a CBA lets see it don't keep us in the dark.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

and the shrill little 'girl' continues to trumpet her complete lack of knowledge on how major decisions are made in govt.

You can come on with all the gay jibes you LIKE, as an attempt at diversion
It ALL washes over me




And it DOESN'T answer the question ...i



Quote:

Where is the evidence of ANY Howard Government policy being held accountable by a Cost Benefit Analysis ?

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:49am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:23am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 6:49am: Exerpt ... The NBN was costed, and it seems to be either $43b or $27b depending on your accountant, but she can hardly complain that it wasn’t costed. Tony Abbott must have said $43b a hundred times, and The Australian surely reported it, at least every other paper did.   However no cost-benefit analysis was done, which is what she might be talking about, but that is also true of every other government and opposition policy. Quote: Cost-benefit analysis is never done on policy, otherwise most of the decisions of the Howard government would have been still-born. http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/09/13/the-australians-election-coverage/  If ANYONE can find evidence to DISPUTE the claim in this quote, I'd be prepared to listen Otherwise, might I suggest a new strategy in trashing a National Broadband Network, new technology - and the Government's determination to deliver on 2007 and 2010 election policy (Admittedly, finding a major infrastructure project started by the Howard Government may be quite a chore in itself)   Well ... THAT was certainly a "conversation stopper" Buzz it is no good arguing  with LW he won't admitted that he is wrong. You beat him on Yahoo with a argument and he still didn't admitt he was wrong. Look back at the last two and half pages he is the only one saying there should be a CBA done on the NBN.

Indeed !

It's all a bit "deja vu"

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:18am:

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 9:01am: and the shrill little 'girl' continues to trumpet her complete lack of knowledge on how major decisions are made in govt. You can come on with all the gay jibes you LIKE, as an attempt at diversion It ALL washes over me

Where is the gay jibe?

Just a tad precious aren't we?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:29am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 9:18am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 9:01am: and the shrill little 'girl' continues to trumpet her complete lack of knowledge on how major decisions are made in govt. You can come on with all the gay jibes you LIKE, as an attempt at diversion It ALL washes over me Where is the gay jibe? Just a tad precious aren't we?

And the English bigot can't answer the question EITHER

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:34am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 9:29am: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 9:18am: longweekend58 wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 9:01am: and the shrill little 'girl' continues to trumpet her complete lack of knowledge on how major decisions are made in govt. You can come on with all the gay jibes you LIKE, as an attempt at diversion It ALL washes over me Where is the gay jibe? Just a tad precious aren't we? And the English bigot can't answer the question EITHER

He can't tell me what's wrong with my example of CBA.

He must be a "GREAT ACCOUNTANT" then

buzz ever notice the pommy bigot has never said what university he went to.

You never asked.

The University of Durham in the UK.

What the bugger has that got to do with anything? It's pretty obvious you are as thick as mince though.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 11:37am:

You never asked. The University of Durham in the UK.

"Our Business, Marketing, Accounting and Finance programmes are based at Queen's Campus"


http://www.dur.ac.uk/dbs/degrees/undergrad/business/





HA ...HAAAH !

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:43am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:20am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 28th, 2010 at 10:58pm: With the greatest respect Jack, you're as thick as two short planks sideways. It'd be like trying to explain advanced algebra to a monkey. My monies on the monkey. You think a CBA is the same as Treasury costing so you must be the monkey.

Knew the monkey was a better bet than Jack.
Matter of fact the two short planks are as well.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 9:01am:

and the shrill little 'girl' continues to trumpet her complete lack of knowledge on how major decisions are made in govt.

Don't worry he's also wondering why we weren't using metric in the 1960s!

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 11:50am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 11:37am: You never asked. The University of Durham in the UK.   "Our Business, Marketing, Accounting and Finance programmes are based at Queen's Campus" http://www.dur.ac.uk/dbs/degrees/undergrad/business/ HA ...HAAAH !

Buzz you are an idiot......a bent one at that!

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 11:50am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 11:37am: You never asked. The University of Durham in the UK.   "Our Business, Marketing, Accounting and Finance programmes are based at Queen's Campus" http://www.dur.ac.uk/dbs/degrees/undergrad/business/ HA ...HAAAH !

We have a Queen in England you know.
In fact she's the same head of state for both of us - by choice of the people too.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 12:55pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 11:50am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 11:37am: You never asked. The University of Durham in the UK.   "Our Business, Marketing, Accounting and Finance programmes are based at Queen's Campus" http://www.dur.ac.uk/dbs/degrees/undergrad/business/ HA ...HAAAH ! We have a Queen in England you know. In fact she's the same head of state for both of us - by choice of the people too.

Don't mean we have to like her

Now I'm sure she'd lose sleep over that!

The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse.

To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed MBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice.

Quote:

The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity.

Well, at least SOMEONE'S prepared to admit it


The double standard practice of the Abbott Liberals is it's "demand" (funny term, when you're in no position to) a whole new standard and hurdle to a Government it never applied to itself - and never willi

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 2:34pm:

Quote: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. Well, at least SOMEONE'S prepared to admit it The double standard practice of the Abbott Liberals is it's "demand" (funny term, when you're in no position to) a whole new standard and hurdle to a Government it never applied to itself - and never will

WTF are you on about Buzz?

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 2:43pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:34pm: Quote: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. Well, at least SOMEONE'S prepared to admit it The double standard practice of the Abbott Liberals is it's "demand" (funny term, when you're in no position to) a whole new standard and hurdle to a Government it never applied to itself - and never will WTF are you on about Buzz?

That CBA's have NEVER applied to government infrastructure projects - before Turnbull had this brainwave of a delaying tactic



First "demand" was the Treasury costings ...

DONE


Second "demand" was the Business Plan ...

DONE



Then they pulled THIS one - to stall things a little further - try and scuttle it - all so they could use "Labor's failed broadband" along with such cliches as "great big new tax"


ENOUGH was ENOUGH

Why on earth would you spend money on a national project that wasn't going to make you any return?

The economic reasoning of a project is the number one driver, always.

I really couldn't care less for social factors.

I also have no intention of showing any kind of support to this broadband plan.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:00pm:

I really couldn't care less for social factors.

That's probably why you never fitted into Australia
We're more "socially orientated" than South African and British cultures

Yeah I saw that in Cronulla in 2005.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:04pm:

I also have no intention of showing any kind of support to this broadband plan.

Oh that means sooooooooo much.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:09pm:

Yeah I saw that in Cronulla in 2005.

I don't class Alan Jones and his rabble of devotees as being mainstream Australian society

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:15pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 3:09pm: Yeah I saw that in Cronulla in 2005. I don't class Alan Jones and his rabble of devotees as being mainstream Australian society

That was quite a lot of people to be dismissed as 'just a rabble of devotees'.

Then of course there are the numerous race attacks in Melbourne on Indians.
The ethnic gang violence from the Chinese in the city.

Yep, it's just a hotbed of 'social awareness' down there eh?

hands up anyone that has actually worked in govt costings dept.even treasury will do. because its stupid to think you know how govts work if you havent... btw andrei did you hear the Poms won the cricket>LOL

that will upset the righteous!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:18pm:

buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 3:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 3:09pm: Yeah I saw that in Cronulla in 2005. I don't class Alan Jones and his rabble of devotees as being mainstream Australian society That was quite a lot of people to be dismissed as 'just a rabble of devotees'. Then of course there are the numerous race attacks in Melbourne on Indians. The ethnic gang violence from the Chinese in the city. Yep, it's just a hotbed of 'social awareness' down there eh?

I find its the poms and those white South Afrikans who cant hold their piss that course the most trouble .

skippy. wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:21pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 3:18pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 3:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 3:09pm: Yeah I saw that in Cronulla in 2005. I don't class Alan Jones and his rabble of devotees as being mainstream Australian society That was quite a lot of people to be dismissed as 'just a rabble of devotees'. Then of course there are the numerous race attacks in Melbourne on Indians. The ethnic gang violence from the Chinese in the city. Yep, it's just a hotbed of 'social awareness' down there eh? I find its the poms and those white South Afrikans who cant hold their piss that course the most trouble .

Ah the Cultural Cringe rears its ugly head again…… a terrible affliction to feel inferior………..lol

Never mind, feel content in the fact that you are...... ;D

viewpoint wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 3:21pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 3:18pm: buzzanddidj wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 3:15pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 3:09pm: Yeah I saw that in Cronulla in 2005. I don't class Alan Jones and his rabble of devotees as being mainstream Australian society That was quite a lot of people to be dismissed as 'just a rabble of devotees'. Then of course there are the numerous race attacks in Melbourne on Indians. The ethnic gang violence from the Chinese in the city. Yep, it's just a hotbed of 'social awareness' down there eh? I find its the poms and those white South Afrikans who cant hold their piss that course the most trouble . Ah the Cultural Cringe rears its ugly head again…… a terrible affliction to feel inferior………..lol Never mind, feel content in the fact that you are...... ;D

I didn't think your head was that ugly ,biased view.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:09pm:

Yeah I saw that in Cronulla in 2005.

What did the Prime Minister of the day, do or say at the time of the riots SFA

That how racist he is

Surely you can improve on that..... ;D

viewpoint wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:33pm:

Surely you can improve on that..... ;D

Well you didn't give me much to work on to begin with,spermy. ::)

;D ;D ;D

In Britain we learn French at 11 and German at 12. We also travel outside our own country from an early age.

Aussies do neither.

By teenage years, everyone my mother knew could speak two languages fluently Afikaans and English and also had a considerable appreciation of the differing cultures that made up the country. Namely British and Afrikaner.

You can say a few things about the differences between Australia and the two nations you mentioned - more culturally advanced are not two.

PS - as regards holding drinking. It isn't us that serves beer in milk beaker sizes instead of pints.

Quote:

In Britain we learn French at 11

Wow, yea well I'll leave that to you, jungle jim, I'm not into French from blokes. Not that there's anything wrong with that. :P

Being a country lass, you probably enjoy pigs.

viewpoint wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:45pm:

Being a country lass, you probably enjoy pigs.

I think he'd prefer boers.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:39pm:

In Britain we learn French at 11 and German at 12. We also travel outside our own country from an early age. Aussies do neither. By teenage years, everyone my mother knew could speak two languages fluently Afikaans and English and also had a considerable appreciation of the differing cultures that made up the country. Namely British and Afrikaner. You can say a few things about the differences between Australia and the two nations you mentioned - more culturally advanced are not two. PS - as regards holding drinking. It isn't us that serves beer in milk beaker sizes instead of pints.

While I am not going to suggest skippy is correct in his opinion that Aussies are more culturally aware than the Brits and South Africans, I will say that Australia has not had a national curriculum but the MAJORITY of our public schools make it compulsory to learn a language, be it Koren, Japanese, German, French, etc in Year 7 and 8.  You can then continue in Years 9 and 10, 11 and 12.

As for travelling, Aussies travel just as much as the rest of the western world and your assertion is incorrect.  

As for us being more culturally advanced...debatable. Do we have less crime per capita than England and the US? Yes.  Have we become more acceptive of multiculturalism? With the debate around refugees AND the past issues such as the muslim mosque, cronulla, etc, probably not.

Quote:

While I am not going to suggest skippy is correct in his opinion that Aussies are more culturally aware than the Brits and South Africans

Skippy didn't say that, only a pompous ass would assert his heritage was more cultured than another, Hi Andrei.

notice how the Liberals turn the debate around when they can't answer the question or they are losing the debate.

So I will ask again

What goverment in Australia history, either Federal or State has even done a CBA?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 3:39pm:

In Britain we learn French at 11 and German at 12. We also travel outside our own country from an early age. Aussies do neither. By teenage years, everyone my mother knew could speak two languages fluently Afikaans and English and also had a considerable appreciation of the differing cultures that made up the country. Namely British and Afrikaner. You can say a few things about the differences between Australia and the two nations you mentioned - more culturally advanced are not two. PS - as regards holding drinking. It isn't us that serves beer in milk beaker sizes instead of pints.

must all your references refer to your mother or father? dont you have any unrelated friends? and visiting other countries is a tad easier when you can literally SWIM to them and a plane flight is under an hour.

And if Europe is so 'advanced' how come it is bankrupt from coast to coast while we are not?

John S wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 4:02pm:

notice how the Liberals turn the debate around when they can't answer the question or they are losing the debate. So I will ask again What goverment in Australia history, either Federal or State has even done a CBA?

EVERY SINGLE ONE HAS - labor and liberal. the problem is you have absolutely no idea of cost benefit analysis or even what it is.  everytime you repeat this rubbish you look stupider and stupider.

longweekend58 wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 4:10pm:

John S wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 4:02pm: notice how the Liberals turn the debate around when they can't answer the question or they are losing the debate. So I will ask again What goverment in Australia history, either Federal or State has even done a CBA? EVERY SINGLE ONE HAS - labor and liberal..

BULLSHIT !

They do TREASURY COSTINGS

That's IT


Do you think all the "pork barrelling" that goes on before elections (by ALL parties) is run by any CBA ?

For Christ's sake - they throw in freeways 10 minutes before the booths open  





If this were the case, there would be evidence in Hansard - or Senate inquiries transcripts

i

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 2:20pm:

The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice.

exactly.
Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts)


Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA.

Soooo, what is to fear so much from a CBA?
The truth?

tell you one govt that wouldnt have ever done a CBA NSW Labor Govt..

they are now digging up the Victoria Road in Sydney only one of the main arteries.for the second time because the first time they didnt lay the correct heavy duty bitumen so it all get done over again...lol.. typical Labor everything gets done twice... only another $1million dollars to be spent as well as instead of six lanes only two for weeks on end..btw Keanelly says it was all costed in they new the first road they resealed wouldnt hold the skips that they use to move the concrete blocks they use  to open up and divide the lanes..lol..

how she can stand there and say this stuff is amazing.

Quote:

tell you one govt that wouldnt have ever done a CBA NSW Labor Govt..

I'll agree with that for most cases. BUt neither did the previous NSW State Govt - again in most cases.

I saw them spend tens of millions on education infrastructure which started off as lobbying by one particular group within a department and progressed with nothing more than rough costings and an effective sales pitch followed by a collective nodding of heads.

The end result was a bunch of big new buildings (all of whom have been put to excellent use ever since), lots of new equipment and a photoi op for the premier at the time.

But was any kind of unbiased or detailed CBA done? no.

But in your example, a cost benefit analysis wouldn't have made any difference. The fault with that is with the acceptance of an improperly spec'd out project.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29^th, 2010 at 8:17pm:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA.

Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?  

And the whole point as to why the question of other CBAs performed by other governments has been arked on so much about was because Miss Anne decided she would point out all other governments did one, without offering a source.  Then she hid.  Bravo.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:03am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:05am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

got nothing I see? Now there is a great "tactic"

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:07am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:05am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D got nothing I see? Now there is a great "tactic"

I'd be interested to know if you even know how a CBA is conducted.  Please, oh please, do tell us.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:03am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   And the whole point as to why the question of other CBAs performed by other governments has been arked on so much about was because Miss Anne decided she would point out all other governments did one, without offering a source.  Then she hid.  Bravo.

LOL


Let's play pretendies huh.
LOL


Oh nice new nick too there greeny LOL

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:13am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   And the whole point as to why the question of other CBAs performed by other governments has been arked on so much about was because Miss Anne decided she would point out all other governments did one, without offering a source.  Then she hid.  Bravo. LOL Let's play pretendies huh. LOL Oh nice new nick too there greeny LOL

Darling, check my profile to see just how new my nick is.

And not pretendies... let's hypothesise because I am really curious as to what you'd like to see in the CBA to give you rest of mind that this is a good project.  You continue to harp on about it.  Surely you're not just singing the liberal tune here?  Surely you want a CBA because you want some specific issues being played around in your mind resolved?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:07am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:05am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D got nothing I see? Now there is a great "tactic"

I think it`s fair to reply to nothing with nothing.

the Federal Goverment gave $1 million to Queesland flood appeal yesterday.

All you liberals are saying that all goverment project has had a CBA done.

I wonder if this one did as well?

;D

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:26am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:07am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:05am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D got nothing I see? Now there is a great "tactic" I think it`s fair to reply to nothing with nothing.

Didn't realise we were in 5th grade ;)

I hope that 2011 brings you a little growth and enables you to express your own opinions rather than follow Abbott like a little white sheep.  

Perhaps he'll release a statement with what he wants to see in a CBA, and then you'll have yourself something to say.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:16am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:13am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   And the whole point as to why the question of other CBAs performed by other governments has been arked on so much about was because Miss Anne decided she would point out all other governments did one, without offering a source.  Then she hid.  Bravo. LOL Let's play pretendies huh. LOL Oh nice new nick too there greeny LOL Darling, check my profile to see just how new my nick is. And not pretendies... let's hypothesise because I am really curious as to what you'd like to see in the CBA to give you rest of mind that this is a good project.  You continue to harp on about it.  Surely you're not just singing the liberal tune here?  Surely you want a CBA because you want some specific issues being played around in your mind resolved?

Awww so you got found out there with your new nick.
Never mind, you can always go back to playing pretendies. Like pretend that no one found you out.
LOL

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:29am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:26am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:07am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:05am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D got nothing I see? Now there is a great "tactic" I think it`s fair to reply to nothing with nothing. Didn't realise we were in 5th grade ;) I hope that 2011 brings you a little growth and enables you to express your own opinions rather than follow Abbott like a little white sheep.   Perhaps he'll release a statement with what he wants to see in a CBA, and then you'll have yourself something to say.

5th Grade? Or as Australians say, grade 5. Most children have grown out of "pretendies" games by grade 5.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:31am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:29am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:26am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:07am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:05am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D got nothing I see? Now there is a great "tactic" I think it`s fair to reply to nothing with nothing. Didn't realise we were in 5th grade ;) I hope that 2011 brings you a little growth and enables you to express your own opinions rather than follow Abbott like a little white sheep.   Perhaps he'll release a statement with what he wants to see in a CBA, and then you'll have yourself something to say. 5th Grade? Or as Australians say, grade 5. Most children have grown out of "pretendies" games by grade 5.

Hence I ask you if you are in 5th grade.  Are you?  Or have I gone too high in my guess?

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:30am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:16am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:13am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   And the whole point as to why the question of other CBAs performed by other governments has been arked on so much about was because Miss Anne decided she would point out all other governments did one, without offering a source.  Then she hid.  Bravo. LOL Let's play pretendies huh. LOL Oh nice new nick too there greeny LOL Darling, check my profile to see just how new my nick is. And not pretendies... let's hypothesise because I am really curious as to what you'd like to see in the CBA to give you rest of mind that this is a good project.  You continue to harp on about it.  Surely you're not just singing the liberal tune here?  Surely you want a CBA because you want some specific issues being played around in your mind resolved? Awww so you got found out there with your new nick. Never mind, you can always go back to playing pretendies. Like pretend that no one found you out. LOL

So, do you have an answer yet? Or are you going to hide again until someone comes up with an opinion for you?

John S wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:28am:

the Federal Goverment gave $1 million to Queesland flood appeal yesterday. All you liberals are saying that all goverment project has had a CBA done. I wonder if this one did as well? ;D

Are you suggesting that donations should be analysed?


Do you understand what a donation is?
Do you understand what flood relief is?

goldfish doesn't give answers to questions which show up her lack of understanding.

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:31am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:29am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:26am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:07am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:05am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D got nothing I see? Now there is a great "tactic" I think it`s fair to reply to nothing with nothing. Didn't realise we were in 5th grade ;) I hope that 2011 brings you a little growth and enables you to express your own opinions rather than follow Abbott like a little white sheep.   Perhaps he'll release a statement with what he wants to see in a CBA, and then you'll have yourself something to say. 5th Grade? Or as Australians say, grade 5. Most children have grown out of "pretendies" games by grade 5.

It really is a sad pathetic loser who has to create a new nick to support their own opinion.


I wonder if pretendy boy also has invisible friends.

skippy. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:36am:

goldfish doesn't give answers to questions which show up her lack of understanding.

She should just hide then.  Perhaps we should buy her a nice rock as a late christmas present :D :D :D

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:37am:

aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:31am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:29am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:26am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:07am: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:05am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:03am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 8:17pm: aussiefree2ride wrote on Dec 29th, 2010 at 2:20pm: The point I`d like to make is. Whether CBA`s have been done before or not is totally irrelevant, and to harp on about prior Government projects in this vein is nothing more than declared stupidity. The use of this "tactic" in debate is exactly equal to declaring that one is too stupid to continue the debate, and needs to stall all inteligent discourse. To request a CBA ofr a project of the magnitude of the proposed NBN is reasonable and sensible. To oppose a CBA on this project is an admission of shonky practice. exactly. Especially given the ALP's pathetic history in the last 3 years of shonkiness and rorts. Together with the ALP's massive over spending (eg BER, pink batts) Only a complete twit would give Julia Gillard's NBN the green light without a CBA. Let's pretend the CBA was done. Considering how subjective CBA's actually are, what would it need to say for you to get over it and accept this is a good project?   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D got nothing I see? Now there is a great "tactic" I think it`s fair to reply to nothing with nothing. Didn't realise we were in 5th grade ;) I hope that 2011 brings you a little growth and enables you to express your own opinions rather than follow Abbott like a little white sheep.   Perhaps he'll release a statement with what he wants to see in a CBA, and then you'll have yourself something to say. 5th Grade? Or as Australians say, grade 5. Most children have grown out of "pretendies" games by grade 5. It really is a sad pathetic loser who has to create a new nick to support their own opinion. I wonder if pretendy boy also has invisible friends.

Hey BTW, what would you like to see in the CBA that will put your mind at ease in regard to the NBN?

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:35am:

John S wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:28am: the Federal Goverment gave $1 million to Queesland flood appeal yesterday. All you liberals are saying that all goverment project has had a CBA done. I wonder if this one did as well? ;D Are you suggesting that donations should be analysed? Do you understand what a donation is? Do you understand what flood relief is?

Do YOU know what a donation is?
Do YOU know what flood relief is?
Do YOU know what a CBA is?
Do YOU know what 5x5 is?  Ooh..let's try something easier: Do YOU know what 1x5 is?

PS: Donations and the amount of donation are analysed. Not a CBA, but an analysis to determine how much. Der.

Would one of you neo cons post up a CBA, from either party.
goldfish is very confused,so whats new, with a COST BENIFIT ANALYSIS and party policies which are always put up for analysis. We all remember the Liberal party policy costings from the last election, it is the main reason they are not in gov today, the independents could not support something that was  out by so many billions of dollars.
But that was not a CBA, goldfish, post up a CBA, mel lies,then you wont look like such a lying sock.

skippy. wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:48am:

Would one of you neo cons post up a CBA, from either party. goldfish is very confused,so whats new, with a COST BENIFIT ANALYSIS and party policies which are always put up for analysis. We all remember the Liberal party policy costings from the last election, it is the main reason they are not in gov today, the independents could not support something that was  out by so many billions of dollars. But that was not a CBA, goldfish, post up a CBA, mel lies,then you wont look like such a lying sock.

Think she is still googling what a CBA actually is.  Or what 5x1 is. Might take a while...

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:35am:

John S wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:28am: the Federal Goverment gave $1 million to Queesland flood appeal yesterday. All you liberals are saying that all goverment project has had a CBA done. I wonder if this one did as well? ;D Are you suggesting that donations should be analysed? Do you understand what a donation is? Do you understand what flood relief is?

All the liberals are saying that any money the goverment spends is subject to a CBA not matter what. Someone said that the $30 that the pensioners got had a CBA done.

So was a CBA done on the $1 million? Just a simple yes or no will do.

John S wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:53am:

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:35am: John S wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:28am: the Federal Goverment gave $1 million to Queesland flood appeal yesterday. All you liberals are saying that all goverment project has had a CBA done. I wonder if this one did as well? ;D Are you suggesting that donations should be analysed? Do you understand what a donation is? Do you understand what flood relief is? All the liberals are saying that any money the goverment spends is subject to a CBA not matter what. Someone said that the $30 that the pensioners got had a CBA done. So was a CBA done on the $1 million? Just a simple yes or no will do.

So you don't understand what a donation is.
And you don't understand what flood relief is.

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

John S wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:53am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:35am: John S wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:28am: the Federal Goverment gave $1 million to Queesland flood appeal yesterday. All you liberals are saying that all goverment project has had a CBA done. I wonder if this one did as well? ;D Are you suggesting that donations should be analysed? Do you understand what a donation is? Do you understand what flood relief is? All the liberals are saying that any money the goverment spends is subject to a CBA not matter what. Someone said that the $30 that the pensioners got had a CBA done. So was a CBA done on the $1 million? Just a simple yes or no will do. So you don't understand what a donation is. And you don't understand what flood relief is.

Think someone's gone a little loopy  :'(

Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30^th, 2010 at 8:55am:

John S wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:53am: Miss Anne Dryst wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:35am: John S wrote on Dec 30th, 2010 at 8:28am: the Federal Goverment gave $1 million to Queesland flood appeal yesterday. All you liberals are saying that all goverment project has had a CBA done. I wonder if this one did as well? ;D Are you suggesting that donations should be analysed? Do you understand what a donation is? Do you understand what flood relief is? All the liberals are saying that any money the goverment spends is subject to a CBA not matter what. Someone said that the $30 that the pensioners got had a CBA done. So was a CBA done on the $1 million? Just a simple yes or no will do. So you don't understand what a donation is. And you don't understand what flood relief is.

I know what a donation is.
I know what flood relief is.

I am not knocking it I think the goverment should of gave more

You liberals are saying when the goverment spends and money anywhere it should have a CBA done.

Like I said one of you liberals said that there was a CBA done on the $30 increase the penisoners got.

So was there a CBA done on the $1 million donation then?