Forum

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

Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print
Greens Party lack economic credibility (Read 25026 times)
Maqqa
Gold Member
*****
Offline


14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #45 - Apr 6th, 2011 at 7:20pm
 
astro_surf wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 11:23pm:
Maqqa wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 10:34pm:
development requires capital investments
(1) they need to have enough assets as security to borrow the money
(2) they need to have enough cashflow to afford the loan but sales and profits are down because of the tax so chances are they can't afford the loan
(3) there are no guarantees cheap exports (not affected by Carbon Tax) won't flood the market so why borrow money to invest in ne technology



Do you the slightest shred of evidence for those assumptions?

A good piece from Bernard Keane over at Crikey:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/04/05/where-does-a-carbon-price-fit-in-an-average-...



we were referring to capital investment and the facts impacting that decision

the article you referenced refers to consumption based on 8 consumer examples

so you don't even know what you are talking about
Back to top
 

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number
 
IP Logged
 
Maqqa
Gold Member
*****
Offline


14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #46 - Apr 6th, 2011 at 7:24pm
 
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 2:11pm:
1. As you brought it up: the GFC was the main reason why the government went into deficit.  I won't pretend to sit around and say that "had the GFC not happened" we'd have surpluses continually, because I am not into predicting something that can't be changed. But when stating your pathetic little slogan, at least explain WHY the government decided it was necessary to go into deficit.

2. Liberals would've gone into deficit too, had they been in power.  They admitted it and released their own policies showing it to be true.

3. Prior to the mass reforms that occured thanks to Keating and Hawke, what surpluses were the Liberals generating? I'm sorry... ... ... remind me of that blissful figure that Howard as treasurer left this country?  I forget it...

4. The mining boom occurred during Howard's time, and the debt was largely paid off by the simple sell of off Telstra, which led to the great period in our time where the telecommunications industry was competitive and giving us benefits like nothing else...Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

5. Coalition slashed and saved, and provided the surplus at the expense of things such as education (HECS going up), Health ($1 Billion dollar cut), low income welfare, skills investment, infrastructure,

6. The surplus was that important that each time Howard tried to actually do any reform we had levies imposed on us. "There isn't enough money for this, but we have a 22Billion dollar surplus."  Well done.

7. While government debt decreased, household debt went THROUGH THE ROOF.  From 3 x household income, to 6.8 times household income.  


Look forward to seeing you completely ignore this and go back to your partisan little slogan.   "Oh, uh, but, the Coalition always have a surrpllusss."  Grin Grin Grin Grin

Isn't it time you started to wave your fist in the air and grump, "What about me?"

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin




I highlighted some of the more idiotic points - but the rest are just as bad

Bottom line is you have no proof other than regurgitating the rhetoric from the ALP website
Back to top
 

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #47 - Apr 6th, 2011 at 10:22pm
 
Maqqa wrote on Apr 6th, 2011 at 7:24pm:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 5th, 2011 at 2:11pm:
1. As you brought it up: the GFC was the main reason why the government went into deficit.  I won't pretend to sit around and say that "had the GFC not happened" we'd have surpluses continually, because I am not into predicting something that can't be changed. But when stating your pathetic little slogan, at least explain WHY the government decided it was necessary to go into deficit.

2. Liberals would've gone into deficit too, had they been in power.  They admitted it and released their own policies showing it to be true.

3. Prior to the mass reforms that occured thanks to Keating and Hawke, what surpluses were the Liberals generating? I'm sorry... ... ... remind me of that blissful figure that Howard as treasurer left this country?  I forget it...

4. The mining boom occurred during Howard's time, and the debt was largely paid off by the simple sell of off Telstra, which led to the great period in our time where the telecommunications industry was competitive and giving us benefits like nothing else...Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

5. Coalition slashed and saved, and provided the surplus at the expense of things such as education (HECS going up), Health ($1 Billion dollar cut), low income welfare, skills investment, infrastructure,

6. The surplus was that important that each time Howard tried to actually do any reform we had levies imposed on us. "There isn't enough money for this, but we have a 22Billion dollar surplus."  Well done.

7. While government debt decreased, household debt went THROUGH THE ROOF.  From 3 x household income, to 6.8 times household income.  


Look forward to seeing you completely ignore this and go back to your partisan little slogan.   "Oh, uh, but, the Coalition always have a surrpllusss."  Grin Grin Grin Grin

Isn't it time you started to wave your fist in the air and grump, "What about me?"

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin




I highlighted some of the more idiotic points - but the rest are just as bad

Bottom line is you have no proof other than regurgitating the rhetoric from the ALP website


Wow, what a fantastic argument.  Here I thought you actually had something to say... oh well.

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

When you can't refute, call it idiotic, ey?  Grin Grin Grin
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: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #48 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 7:15am
 
freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 7:02pm:
Given that the Greens are being credited with driving the biggest economic reform of our generation, and it is backed by an economic consensus, it is kind of hollow to claim they lack economic credibility.


A) it is only 'the biggest economic reform of our generation' in your mind and that of a few other silly people. a lot of economists are dead against it

B) choosing to push a 'reform' that has been tried and failed elsewhere is not a praiseworthy policy

C) ONE POLICY does not grant anyone credibility in a particular area
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
 
progressiveslol
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 17029
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #49 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 7:18am
 
longweekend58 wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 7:15am:
freediver wrote on Apr 4th, 2011 at 7:02pm:
Given that the Greens are being credited with driving the biggest economic reform of our generation, and it is backed by an economic consensus, it is kind of hollow to claim they lack economic credibility.


A) it is only 'the biggest economic reform of our generation' in your mind and that of a few other silly people. a lot of economists are dead against it

B) choosing to push a 'reform' that has been tried and failed elsewhere is not a praiseworthy policy

C) ONE POLICY does not grant anyone credibility in a particular area

The reform is that they can tax the rich and buy poor peoples vote. Carbon tax is about politics and the dirty politics these days are to buy poor peoples vote.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Maqqa
Gold Member
*****
Offline


14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #50 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 7:19am
 
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 6th, 2011 at 10:22pm:
Wow, what a fantastic argument.  Here I thought you actually had something to say... oh well.

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

When you can't refute, call it idiotic, ey?  Grin Grin Grin


The argument is that you have no proof to back the points you've raised

Your reference is from the ALP rhetoric

Point 1
You have no proof

Point 2
You have no proof

Point 3
You have no proof

Point 4
You have no proof

Back to top
 

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number
 
IP Logged
 
sir prince duke alevine
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #51 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 8:53am
 
Maqqa wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 7:19am:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 6th, 2011 at 10:22pm:
Wow, what a fantastic argument.  Here I thought you actually had something to say... oh well.

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

When you can't refute, call it idiotic, ey?  Grin Grin Grin


The argument is that you have no proof to back the points you've raised

Your reference is from the ALP rhetoric

Point 1
You have no proof

Point 2
You have no proof

Point 3
You have no proof

Point 4
You have no proof



Wow, talk about a nut.

OK.

Point 1: If it wasn't the GFC, what was it? You nut.
Point 2: I distinctly recall our fat old friend Joe Hockey admitting that the liberal party was voting against the 2nd stimulus package because of the 20B in handouts; and when they produced their alternative policy it was EXACTLY the same other than 20B in handouts. I know it's hard for you to remember past 2 days, heck it's just hard to use your brain I'm sure, but don't sit there trying to hide from fact.
Point 3: budget.gov.au has the 1983 budget - feel free to have a look.
Point 4: budget.gov.au has the budgets from 1996-2007.  Feel freeto have a look.

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

Seriously, I've seen some nutter right wingers on this forum.  But you are definitely the most hilarious! And redundant.
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
 
vegitamite
Ex Member


Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #52 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:31pm
 
  Grin Grin maqqa ~  'the Green Party lack economic credibility" , REALLY. Well read this, and weep, and may your joker smile become a frown.

Wednesday, April 06, 2011
Where Gillard gets the Greens wrong
Just about everywhere. Wednesday column:

Never has it been more important to understand the Greens. Never has a prime minister had less of a clue.

From July the Greens will decide which bills become law and which don’t. The prime minister says they "will never embrace Labor’s delight at sharing the values of every day Australians, in our cities, suburbs, towns and bush, who day after day do the right thing, leading purposeful and dignified lives, driven by love of family and nation”. Maybe, but that’s not what they will be called on to do.

They will be asked to vote on tax bills, on corporate regulation and on all manner of measures relating to economic management.

There are clues as to how they will vote, and if we are to believe her, the prime minister has missed every one.

Gillard thinks the Greens don’t get economics. They “wrongly reject the moral imperative to a strong economy,” she told the Whitlam Institute.

Her sidekick Anthony Albanese says they “tend to be a grab-bag of issues, tend not to have a coherent policy that adds up”.

Her resources minister Martin Ferguson says they want to “sit under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs”.

Its a forgivable impression until you examine what their supporters actually think...

Asked to rate issues in order of importance in an Essential Media poll in January more Greens rated economic management number one than rated protecting the environment number one.The gap was closer amongst Greens voters than other voters, but the point is there was a difference - Greens put the economy number one.

Polled in November about a specific issue - regulation of the banks, Greens voters were on every measure more closer to economic orthodoxy than Labor voters.

Asked if banks should be restricted to lifting rates only in line with Reserve Bank, 87 per cent of Labor voters said yes. Even amongst Coalition voters 82 per cent said yes. But amongst Greens voters the result was 73 per cent, suggesting they are more likely to have studied economics.

Asked if bank fees should be kept to the cost of providing the service, 93 per cent of Labor and also 93 per cent of Coalition voters agreed. Only 90 per cent of Greens voters thought so.

Asked about a cap on bank salaries 88 per cent of Labor voters were for it. Coalition voters were far less keen at 83 per cent. In the middle, less in favour of hobbling the market than Labor voters although more so than Coalition voters, were the Greens at 86 per cent.

The views of Greens supporters are not outside the mainstream, except that they are likely to be more in touch with orthodox economics than the mainstream.

Greens voters are far more likely than either Labor or the Coalition to support higher taxes on mining profits, a view in line with the International Monetary Fund, the Henry Review and the Australian Treasury.

They are less likely than the majors to be fussed about a return to a budget surplus by exactly 2012-13 (as are orthodox economists although interestingly slightly keener than labor voters on spending cuts in the budget to come.

They are more likely than Labor voters to act against self interest. Only 17 per cent of Labor voters would accept a tax on products purchased online form overseas. A higher 19 per cent of Greens voters would.

And they know more.

An astonishing 10 per cent of Labor voters and 12 per cent of Coalition votes are deluded enough to think half our migration intake is boat people. Only 6 per cent of Greens voters think so.

They are accepting of the mainstream scientific position on climate change - that it is happening and caused by human activity; far more accepting than supporters of either Labor or the Coalition.

And they believe market mechanisms rather than regulations are the best way to get emissions down.

Their tax policies echo those of the Henry Tax Review. Tax breaks for high income earners would go, fringe benefits tax concessions that encourage the needless driving of cars would be scrapped and capital gains would no longer be tax-preferred over other returns from saving.

All income received in whatever form would be taxed at the standard rate and the scales would be rejigged to remove the high effective rates faced by Australians trying to get off welfare.

Henry would do this by flattening the scales and making the first $25,000 earned tax-free.

The Greens aren’t so sure about that, but neither are Labor of the Coalition. The point is that on nearly every area where the Greens diverge from Henry, the Coalition and Labor do too.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
vegitamite
Ex Member


Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #53 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:31pm
 
On most of the areas where then Coalition and Labor are reluctant to embrace Henry the Greens are keen to.

The big parties won’t touch the Private Health Insurance Rebate. The Greens would kill it, as would Henry.

The big parties aren’t attracted to a death duty. The Henry Review is, and the Greens would bring it in with a threshold of $5 million and an exemption for the family home, farm and small business.

The big parties are grudging about making the mammoth superannuation tax concessions more progressive. Henry isn’t, and the Greens would do it, after a “full review”.

This isn’t an argument in favour of the Greens policies, although as it happens I find them attractive. It is an argument that they fit within the economic mainstream. They are coherent, readily available on the web, and far more than a grab-bag from a “party of protest” that sits “under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs”.

If the Greens have got it wrong on economics, then so too have the economics text books they seem to have read and so too has Ken Henry.

Their real position is important because it is their real position that will determine what gets passed into law in the two to three years ahead, not the misleading dumbed-down characterisations of a prime minister and ministers who should know better.

Published in today's SMH and Age
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88048
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #54 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 1:59pm
 
can we assume this artical was written by a greeny veg?...I dont know about you but I find economics rather difficult these days.. I mean no two days are alike when it come to every day cost of living.. I can only presume all those that "understand" economics dont live in the same world that I do.

I dont have a chrystal ball either and to tell the truth I am glad if we had any inkling as to what we have to look forward to I feel like leemings quite a few of us would be heading for the clifftop.

dont tell me this hideous Tax will make my life better or anyone elses to be quite frank.its the biggest scam any govt has perpetrated and to tell us its all about economics.. well come in spinner!! thats all I can say . maybe the greens are linked to Nigeria...lol.. I believe aussies are still falling for that con.. we must be a race of gullible twits.
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
BigOl64
Gold Member
*****
Offline



Posts: 14438
Townsville QLD
Gender: male
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #55 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:13pm
 
Quote:
On most of the areas where then Coalition and Labor are reluctant to embrace Henry the Greens are keen to.

The big parties won’t touch the Private Health Insurance Rebate. The Greens would kill it, as would Henry.

The big parties aren’t attracted to a death duty. The Henry Review is, and the Greens would bring it in with a threshold of $5 million and an exemption for the family home, farm and small business.

The big parties are grudging about making the mammoth superannuation tax concessions more progressive. Henry isn’t, and the Greens would do it, after a “full review”.

This isn’t an argument in favour of the Greens policies, although as it happens I find them attractive. It is an argument that they fit within the economic mainstream. They are coherent, readily available on the web, and far more than a grab-bag from a “party of protest” that sits “under the tree and weave baskets with no jobs”.

If the Greens have got it wrong on economics, then so too have the economics text books they seem to have read and so too has Ken Henry.

Their real position is important because it is their real position that will determine what gets passed into law in the two to three years ahead, not the misleading dumbed-down characterisations of a prime minister and ministers who should know better.

Published in today's SMH and Age



Just wondering what the economic text books and ken henry would say to the greens policy of shutting down all of the PCI and coking coal mines in QLD and effectively cutting the world's steel production by 50%.

The greens will latch on to anything that sounds good but have zero understanding of what it means, much like their voters.

Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
vegitamite
Ex Member


Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #56 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 2:50pm
 
Firstly Hi cods and bigol

Cods , I dont think Peter Martin is a Greenie...but like you economics is difficult as it 'relies' on so many issues.

Bigol said
"down all of the PCI and coking coal mines"

Talking about that , today on the radio the NSW mining companies are threating to withdraw any interest in NSW due to Ofarrells  new development policy which is causing massive uncertainly . who would have thought ~ O'farrell, the new Greenie.  Kiss
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
cods
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 88048
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #57 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 5:26pm
 
Quote:
Firstly Hi cods and bigol

Cods , I dont think Peter Martin is a Greenie...but like you economics is difficult as it 'relies' on so many issues.

Bigol said
"down all of the PCI and coking coal mines"

Talking about that , today on the radio the NSW mining companies are threating to withdraw any interest in NSW due to Ofarrells  new development policy which is causing massive uncertainly . who would have thought ~ O'farrell, the new Greenie.  Kiss




Hi yourself veg..you would have to explain that to me veg I have only heard him on the road links. to be honest and not living in Sydney they hardly interest me.. as I am sure its the same with most NSW people..

they have made such a mess of Sydney the now have to spend all their time on trying to get it right..hohum.. is anyone surprised..since they built that awful Cahill Expressway. and the monorail they have done so much harm to that city.. it just gets worse..

from what I have read a lot of NSW mines are now in the hands of the Chinese!!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
perceptions_now
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth  WA
Gender: male
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #58 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 5:59pm
 
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 8:53am:
Maqqa wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 7:19am:
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 6th, 2011 at 10:22pm:
Wow, what a fantastic argument.  Here I thought you actually had something to say... oh well.

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

When you can't refute, call it idiotic, ey?  Grin Grin Grin


The argument is that you have no proof to back the points you've raised

Your reference is from the ALP rhetoric

Point 1
You have no proof

Point 2
You have no proof

Point 3
You have no proof

Point 4
You have no proof



Wow, talk about a nut.

OK.

Point 1: If it wasn't the GFC, what was it? You nut.
Point 2: I distinctly recall our fat old friend Joe Hockey admitting that the liberal party was voting against the 2nd stimulus package because of the 20B in handouts; and when they produced their alternative policy it was EXACTLY the same other than 20B in handouts. I know it's hard for you to remember past 2 days, heck it's just hard to use your brain I'm sure, but don't sit there trying to hide from fact.
Point 3: budget.gov.au has the 1983 budget - feel free to have a look.
Point 4: budget.gov.au has the budgets from 1996-2007.  Feel freeto have a look.

Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin Grin

Seriously, I've seen some nutter right wingers on this forum.  But you are definitely the most hilarious! And redundant.


I wouldn't bother about anything that Maqqa (alias slr, alias Mellie) says, as she is just a Liberal mouth piece, who has little to no knowledge of what actually drives Economics, now!

Now that the old system is collapsing!
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Maqqa
Gold Member
*****
Offline


14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000
Re: Greens Party lack economic credibility
Reply #59 - Apr 7th, 2011 at 9:54pm
 
perceptions_now wrote on Apr 7th, 2011 at 5:59pm:
I wouldn't bother about anything that Maqqa (alias slr, alias Mellie) says, as she is just a Liberal mouth piece, who has little to no knowledge of what actually drives Economics, now!

Now that the old system is collapsing!



I love how the old brigade of buzz and perception seems to think that since there's no Yahoo archiving access proving they've been slapped by me many times before so they make wild accusations

c'est la vie
Back to top
 

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 
Send Topic Print