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

If so why should they, if not why not?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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


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?

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


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

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


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.