Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Poll Poll
Question: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy



« Created by: Sprintcyclist on: Jan 17th, 2011 at 12:38pm »

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy (Read 4442 times)
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #15 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 7:12am
 
Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:15pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 9:56pm:
WOW you really thought no one woudl rebuff you on those, did you? well I did and the score is at BEST 3 out of 4 and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish.

Not one of your better efforts!



Sorry Longy but you really said nothing with substance: colourful though

Today there is no Carbon tax (like it or not) and still nothing before parliament no draft no recomendations nothing, The Rebate legislation is in place, The super changes were that significant I do not even remember what they were and judging by your response neither do you.


your response is pretty disingenous. Gillard, by her OWN WORDS is planning and moving towards a carbon tax. that is a clear breach of her election promise. and the super changes were significant involving the halving of the self contribution amounts and a few other periperal changes. That is also a breach of the election promise.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 18th, 2011 at 8:16am by longweekend58 »  

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #16 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 7:31am
 
Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:15pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 9:56pm:
WOW you really thought no one woudl rebuff you on those, did you? well I did and the score is at BEST 3 out of 4 and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish.

Not one of your better efforts!



Sorry Longy but you really said nothing with substance: colourful though

Today there is no Carbon tax (like it or not) and still nothing before parliament no draft no recomendations nothing, The Rebate legislation is in place, The super changes were that significant I do not even remember what they were and judging by your response neither do you.


What about this one...

"January 4, 2011, 1:08 pm
Send

EmailIMShare

DeliciousTwitterMyspaceDiggStumble UponFacebookPrint
The Federal Government has released draft legislation for its carbon farming initiative.

The scheme will allow farmers, land holders and forest growers to help to reduce carbon pollution through a range of activities.

They would be allocated carbon credits which could be traded on a national or international market.

The Government says feedback on the plan should be submitted in the next two weeks."
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
Sprintcyclist
Gold Member
*****
Offline


OzPolitic

Posts: 41835
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #17 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 8:12am
 

There is no national or international carbon credit market
Back to top
 

Modern Classic Right Wing
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #18 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 8:19am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 7:12am:
Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:15pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 9:56pm:
WOW you really thought no one woudl rebuff you on those, did you? well I did and the score is at BEST 3 out of 4 and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish.

Not one of your better efforts!



Sorry Longy but you really said nothing with substance: colourful though

Today there is no Carbon tax (like it or not) and still nothing before parliament no draft no recomendations nothing, The Rebate legislation is in place, The super changes were that significant I do not even remember what they were and judging by your response neither do you.


our response is pretty disingenous. Gillard, by her OWN WORDS is planning and moving towards a carbon tax. that is a clear breach of her election promise. and the super changes were significant involving the halving of the self contribution amounts and a few other periperal changes. That is also a breach of the election promise.



That was kinda my point.
Interesting though that he took the arguments of what is CURRENT Government policy - which is only the Liberal controlled opposition we have to thank for that!!

If there had not been Liberal opposition -

1) We would have a carbon tax.
2) We would have private healthcare rebate removed for millions of ordinary families
3) We would have further wholesale changes to super for people

All of which broke the promise of the pre-election campaign.

Not to mention the appalling blaming of John Howard for interest rate increases then when in office state 'we've done all we can do, it's a macroeconomic problem' when rate rises and cost of living increased.

That wasn't so much election promise breaking, rather poor form.
Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 61886
Here
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #19 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 9:16am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 7:12am:
your response is pretty disingenous. Gillard, by her OWN WORDS is planning and moving towards a carbon tax. that is a clear breach of her election promise. .



Funny thing is She is still saying that there is no commitment to a carbon tax. The only present point is that it will be considered by the climate change committee.

The words you have used are not correct.

Quote:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/climate/climate-change-committe...

JULIA Gillard refused today to commit to a tax on carbon despite public pressure from BHP Billiton chief executive Marius Kloppers.
The Prime Minister said the government would assess the options in “good faith” through the climate change committee.

“I think the rule in, rule out games are a little bit silly,” Ms Gillard said this morning.

“Obviously many members of the business community, Mr Kloppers included, have made statements and have called over quite a long period of time now for government to deal with the question of pricing carbon.”

Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price.



longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 7:12am:
and the super changes were significant involving the halving of the self contribution amounts and a few other periperal changes. That is also a breach of the election promise


A bit of a fiddle with self contribution amounts - whatever that means  (do you mean co contribution amounts) .

A few other periferal changes = Significant?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #20 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 10:48am
 
Quote:
Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price.



so what was this? and it was YOUR quote.

and as for super changes, it was you who asserted that the govt kept to their promise of no changes to superannuation. and yet they did. they halved the self-contribution limits as well as some other changes i dont remember. anyway you spin that it is a CHANGE ie a breach of an election promise. How do you possibly figure it as being anything else?
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #21 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 11:01am
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 8:19am:
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 7:12am:
Dnarever wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 10:15pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 17th, 2011 at 9:56pm:
WOW you really thought no one woudl rebuff you on those, did you? well I did and the score is at BEST 3 out of 4 and the fourth is pretty dubious since it is nothing more than a waffle promise subject to any interpretation you wish.

Not one of your better efforts!



Sorry Longy but you really said nothing with substance: colourful though

Today there is no Carbon tax (like it or not) and still nothing before parliament no draft no recomendations nothing, The Rebate legislation is in place, The super changes were that significant I do not even remember what they were and judging by your response neither do you.


our response is pretty disingenous. Gillard, by her OWN WORDS is planning and moving towards a carbon tax. that is a clear breach of her election promise. and the super changes were significant involving the halving of the self contribution amounts and a few other periperal changes. That is also a breach of the election promise.



That was kinda my point.
Interesting though that he took the arguments of what is CURRENT Government policy - which is only the Liberal controlled opposition we have to thank for that!!

If there had not been Liberal opposition -

1) We would have a carbon tax.
2) We would have private healthcare rebate removed for millions of ordinary families
3) We would have further wholesale changes to super for people

All of which broke the promise of the pre-election campaign.

Not to mention the appalling blaming of John Howard for interest rate increases then when in office state 'we've done all we can do, it's a macroeconomic problem' when rate rises and cost of living increased.

That wasn't so much election promise breaking, rather poor form.


I love how conservative loonies love to remind us of election promises.

You really want to start a list of the election promises between 1996-2007?  Let's not get ahead of ourselves and pretend one side is so much better than the other.

Politicians are exactly that - politicians. They change and wriggle each time there is a change in public mood or in general circumstances.

So do me a favour and get over it.    After all, maybe they just weren't "core" promises?

Not to mention that you can blame your littletard for the way he dealt with the electorate over his 12 year reign of nothing. Mr "I'll promise you a pet hippo in the backyard if it'll get me your vote."  Now all we have is the media during elections running around crazy off their nutter waiting to hear the next one-liner, that is somehow meant to be policy.  And the electorate eats it up.  

Maybe if you actually got out of your little partisan bubble and start to think about politics more broadly we might actually get decent leadership and people with some convictions.  As it stands both are retarded and both lie out of their cracks just so they can score an extra vote here and there.  

And it's only rational people who understand this, and who don't bitch about it and whinge about it.  It's the nutters who let it happen that then will start crying at every opportunity.  Sad sucks.
Back to top
 

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #22 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 11:03am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 10:48am:
Quote:
Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price.



so what was this? and it was YOUR quote.

and as for super changes, it was you who asserted that the govt kept to their promise of no changes to superannuation. and yet they did. they halved the self-contribution limits as well as some other changes i dont remember. anyway you spin that it is a CHANGE ie a breach of an election promise. How do you possibly figure it as being anything else?


See post above, Mr WFPAEDADMBRC. Sad sod.
Back to top
 

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 61886
Here
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #23 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 12:53pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 10:48am:
Quote:
Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price.


so what was this? and it was YOUR quote.


Since when does the market impliment taxes?



longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 10:48am:
and as for super changes, it was you who asserted that the govt kept to their promise of no changes to superannuation. and yet they did. they halved the self-contribution limits as well as some other changes i dont remember. anyway you spin that it is a CHANGE ie a breach of an election promise. How do you possibly figure it as being anything else?


I do not even accept that their was a promise of no changes to Superanuation.

What the max self contribution including carry forward is $450,000 in one year.

Not enough for you?
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Andrei.Hicks
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #24 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 1:07pm
 

Pack of liars. How they call this non substantive is a disgrace.
They target decent hard working people like my parents who need assistance.



PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has defended breaking an election promise to leave super unchanged, saying the tweaks are not substantive.

Mr Rudd batted away suggestions he'd flip-flopped, saying pledges to keep existing superannuation arrangements had been kept and the changes were merely finetuning.

"Substantive goes to the entire system, as opposed to let's call it finetuning at the edges," he told Fairfax Radio today.

"If we make any changes, yes, that would be subject to what people said at the next election."

Labor's election promise became an issue after a talkback caller complained about how the cap on superannuation contributions had been reduced.

"That's it for super from me, you've lost me," he said.

The cap on concessional super contributions for people aged over 50 was slashed to $50,000 from $100,000 in the 2009 budget.

Back to top
 

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde
 
IP Logged
 
gizmo_2655
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 16010
South West NSW
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #25 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 1:24pm
 
Sprintcyclist wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 8:12am:
There is no national or international carbon credit market



I think you mean 'YET' Sprint
Back to top
 

"I just get sick of people who place a label on someone else with their own definition.

It's similar to a strawman fallacy"
Bobbythebat
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #26 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 1:27pm
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 1:07pm:
Pack of liars. How they call this non substantive is a disgrace.
They target decent hard working people like my parents who need assistance.



PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has defended breaking an election promise to leave super unchanged, saying the tweaks are not substantive.

Mr Rudd batted away suggestions he'd flip-flopped, saying pledges to keep existing superannuation arrangements had been kept and the changes were merely finetuning.

"Substantive goes to the entire system, as opposed to let's call it finetuning at the edges," he told Fairfax Radio today.

"If we make any changes, yes, that would be subject to what people said at the next election."

Labor's election promise became an issue after a talkback caller complained about how the cap on superannuation contributions had been reduced.

"That's it for super from me, you've lost me," he said.

The cap on concessional super contributions for people aged over 50 was slashed to $50,000 from $100,000 in the 2009 budget.



1. If you parents needed real government assistance then I'm sure they wouldn't even have an ability to contribute $100,000.  If they do then quite clearly you are over-exaggerating their situation.

2. if you cared for your parents you would've accepted the idea of increasing company super contributions that came along with the SPRT.

Stop crying poor, hick whinger.
Back to top
 

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #27 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 4:37pm
 
Dnarever wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 12:53pm:
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 10:48am:
Quote:
Ms Gillard said the government was committed towards working towards a price on carbon and that a market-based mechanism could provide that price.


so what was this? and it was YOUR quote.


Since when does the market impliment taxes?



longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 10:48am:
and as for super changes, it was you who asserted that the govt kept to their promise of no changes to superannuation. and yet they did. they halved the self-contribution limits as well as some other changes i dont remember. anyway you spin that it is a CHANGE ie a breach of an election promise. How do you possibly figure it as being anything else?


I do not even accept that their was a promise of no changes to Superanuation.

What the max self contribution including carry forward is $450,000 in one year.

Not enough for you?


Now you are just being contrary for its own sake. We could argue black and blue and you would still maintain the position that Gillard has not breached any election promises. You would take either some 'technical' out or you would just deny the truth.

and the superannuation promise issue isnt changed by virtue of the amount. NO CHANGE means no change not change that doesnt affect you. Your arguing style is beginning to sound like lastnail and that is not good.

Gillard promise NO CARBON TAX and is now actively working towards it. by any half-reasonable definition of the term, that is an election promise breach. this so-called Carbon Committee has an interesting qualification. No one is on the committee that doesnt already support a carbon tax. it was a PREREQUISITE for being on the committee. No tell me that is not a breach of an election promise!

You will of course. But the only one you are fooling is you.
Back to top
« Last Edit: Jan 18th, 2011 at 4:45pm by longweekend58 »  

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
longweekend58
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #28 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 4:43pm
 
Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 1:07pm:
Pack of liars. How they call this non substantive is a disgrace.
They target decent hard working people like my parents who need assistance.



PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd has defended breaking an election promise to leave super unchanged, saying the tweaks are not substantive.

Mr Rudd batted away suggestions he'd flip-flopped, saying pledges to keep existing superannuation arrangements had been kept and the changes were merely finetuning.

"Substantive goes to the entire system, as opposed to let's call it finetuning at the edges," he told Fairfax Radio today.

"If we make any changes, yes, that would be subject to what people said at the next election."

Labor's election promise became an issue after a talkback caller complained about how the cap on superannuation contributions had been reduced.

"That's it for super from me, you've lost me," he said.

The cap on concessional super contributions for people aged over 50 was slashed to $50,000 from $100,000 in the 2009 budget.




I think Buzz's disease is spreading. You may have noticed that normally intelligent and logical labor supporters are now abandoning that position and adopting lastnail-style rhetoric ie ignoring the facts and just adopting a position regardless.  Ive never been really enamoured by the thinking patterns of the average labor supporter since most of them have knee-kerk reactions rather than considered opinions. But now even the brighter ones says adelcrow and dna seem to be abandoning thinking for the buzz-like complaining and whining.

no one expects woody or lastnail to have a shred of logic or facts in their posts, but most other posters have ahistory of at least acknowledging them. It seems that when labor's support dips - as it is doing so heavily across the country - the integrity of labor dips with it.

We've seen the very public implosion of Buzz, a poster who was once a worthy debating adversary. Now we are seeing a whole slew of once-intelligent posters do the same thing. At this rate, vegy and pansi will soon have a lot of intellectual equals.

are ALL labor supporters bad losers?
Back to top
 

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."
 
IP Logged
 
Dnarever
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 61886
Here
Gender: male
Re: Which Party Has The least practical greeny policy
Reply #29 - Jan 18th, 2011 at 8:20pm
 
longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 4:37pm:
Now you are just being contrary for its own sake. We could argue black and blue and you would still maintain the position that Gillard has not breached any election promises. You would take either some 'technical' out or you would just deny the truth.


No I have not said that Gillard has not broken any election promises - just not this one - not yet anyway, It could get to the point that she does break that commitment but it has not happened and it may not.




longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 4:37pm:
the superannuation promise issue isnt changed by virtue of the amount. NO CHANGE means no change not change that doesnt affect you. Your arguing style is beginning to sound like lastnail and that is not good.


You mean Like the way that Howard promised no changes to IR and then introduced workchoices or the way he said never ever a GST and then implimented one.

I doubt that many would think the change is substantial to limit the input into super in one year to a maximum of $150,000 I would not think unreasonable and would affect a very small number of people.



longweekend58 wrote on Jan 18th, 2011 at 4:37pm:
Gillard promise NO CARBON TAX and is now actively working towards it. by any half-reasonable definition of the term, that is an election promise breach.

this so-called Carbon Committee has an interesting qualification. No one is on the committee that doesnt already support a carbon tax. it was a PREREQUISITE for being on the committee. No tell me that is not a breach of an election promise!




Was their a promise to put people who disagree with global warming.

I think you are incorrect it is not a prerequisate to support a carbon tax just to believe that the problem is real. While I do not agree with having a PREREQUISITE it does not constitute a breach of promise.

Still the point is very much a promise to not impliment a carbon tax and I still do not see one on the horizon. In fact she has said that she is not locked in to that outcome and other solutions may be employed.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print