Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 12:16pm:



under a GOVERNMENT budget! a budget that already expects to pay 3 times what private industry would do the job for. Private schools have already shown that when they manage the process they get 3 times the value. 'under budget' means nothing if your budget is to spend $3M on a $1M house.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 12:16pm:


It might be coming under budget, but that isnt the point.

If I set my budget to build our house at $600,000, and it only costs me $550,000 am I infront considering I could have had it built by someone of equal quality and size for $220,000.

I know a building costing $1,005,000 for 12 x 14m unfurnished and the school wont complain for fear of not getting further funding.

There is a difference between hitting budgets and actually getting value for money.

In an embarrassing set-back for the Gillard Government, US President Barack Obama has ditched his plans for an emissions trading scheme in favour of a direct action plan to tackle climate change.

In the wake of the US mid-term election results, the President has now conceded that:

“Cap and trade was just one way of skinning the cat; it was not the only way.  It was a means, not an end.  And I’m going to be looking for other means to address this problem.”

He wants to:  “…find ways that we can solve these problems that don’t hurt the economy”.

Those ways and means highlighted by the President overnight included greater use of gas energy, support for electric cars and improved fuel efficiency standards for vehicles.

The President has announced that cap-and-trade is now dead, buried and cremated in the US.

He’s clearly signalled he wants to look at options now that “don’t hurt the economy”.

When you had a Democrat Senate candidate, Joe Manchin, literally shooting a bullet through the US Cap-and-Trade Bill in a campaign video it was clear that the US ETS was in trouble.  (Joe won.)

President Obama’s announcement that he wants to scrap his ETS in favour of direct action is a massive set-back for Julia Gillard’s plan to impose a carbon price on Australian householders and businesses.

If she won’t listen to Coalition plans for direct action, perhaps she might listen to the US.

The American people have voted with their feet: they don’t want their economy “hurt” by higher electricity prices and tax burdens.

President Obama will now examine direct action models, just as has been put forward by the Coalition here in Australia.  By contrast, Julia Gillard has refused to support plans to convert Victoria’s Hazelwood power station from coal to gas.

This new paradigm should be explored when Julia Gillard meets Secretary of State Hilary Clinton this weekend.

Please delete wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 1:54pm:


My apoligies, I found it on the Liberal site while looking at their banking reforms policy.

No matter who posted it, has or has not Obama dropped an ETS and is heading to a Direct Action plan?

"Is it better to send the money and HOPE it's used to help the poor, or use the money ourselves to build what the poor need??"

How do you do it, gizmo? Occupy the country so you can spend your own money? Worked well in Iraq, didn't it.

Although, in some cases...it'd probably better easier to invade, depose the rulers and start from scratch...

But that's a little extreme....And not always successful

Dsmithy70 wrote on Dec 14^th, 2010 at 2:41pm:


Or even 'sort of' like they did in the 18th and 19th centuries.....similar to the colonial system, but with much much more respect for the culture and 'rights' of the native population...treat them like real people (which, admittedly, the English, Spanish and Dutch did NOT do), raise the education,technology and living standards a lot, then leave..