Australian Politics Forum - Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?

Lobo

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 7407
Sydney
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #195 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:28pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:23pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Laurie Oakes "Treasurer, why have you removed families on over $150,000 from the baby bonus in the budget?"

Wayne Swan "Look Laurie, its about ensuring the Government is responsible and looking at ways to return to surplus in a suitable timeframe.
This Government is not going to be in the business of handing out welfare to millionaires...."

you having trouble reading? and with your advanced edumacation !!!!

Swan said 'This Government is not going to be in the business of handing out welfare to millionaires'... show me where he says someone on $180 000 is a millionaire?

Andrei attended the same school of comprehension as macca....

Wink

Back to top

"What's in store for me in the direction I don't take?"-Jack Kerouac.

IP Logged

buzzanddidj

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 14246
Eganstown, via Daylesford, VIC
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #196 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:33pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Laurie Oakes "Treasurer, why have you removed families on over $150,000 from the baby bonus in the budget?"

Wayne Swan "Look Laurie, its about ensuring the Government is responsible and looking at ways to return to surplus in a suitable timeframe.
This Government is not going to be in the business of handing out welfare to millionaires...."

If Andrei's not a millionaire - with his incomes and inheritances - he's just not good with money

And HE grabbed the baby bonus
( ... paying only a little more than that to the ATO)

Back to top

'I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians.
Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.'

- Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi

IP Logged

Andrei.Hicks

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23818
Carlsbad, CA
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #197 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:33pm

I think you are beginning to show up here why your type of schooling is poorer than mine (despite claiming it is better) -

Oakes asked him why he is taking help off of $150,000 families.

Swan declares that the Government will not be helping out 'millionaires'.

Correlate the two.

Swan is declaring the families on $150k are millionaires.

Hard to work out is it?

Back to top

Anyone who lives within their means suffers from a lack of imagination - Oscar Wilde

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #198 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:35pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 3:33pm:

I think you are beginning to show up here why your type of schooling is poorer than mine (despite claiming it is better) -

Oakes asked him why he is taking help off of $150,000 families.

Swan declares that the Government will not be helping out 'millionaires'.

Correlate the two.

Swan is declaring the families on $150k are millionaires.

Hard to work out is it?

Actually, I think your showing why your father was ripped off when he paid your school fees.

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Mnemonic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1530
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #199 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:09pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

State school wasn't it Buzz? Fees = $0?

You like bragging about your private education don't you? Tell me, which one is better, paying $500 or $100 for the same academic performance? Which one is more cost-effective?

If you can get the same academic performance out of a child with less money, that means the extra money that went into a private education was a rip-off. While there are certainly many students who don't learn or don't perform as well with a cheaper education, there are those who work hard, push themselves to the limits and come out just as good as privately-schooled kids.

You like bragging about your private education, but you're definitely not value-for-money. You were a rip-off to your parents. Your parents paid more than mine to get the same level of academic performance out of you.

A private education is really just a way to give dumb kids knowledge by pushing loads of money into the educational process, so that by "brute force" they become smart. If a person has great potential, however, a public education will achieve the same results. All that extra cash didn't do anything. It's not the money, but the child that matters.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #200 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:32pm

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

State school wasn't it Buzz? Fees = $0?

You like bragging about your private education don't you? Tell me, which one is better, paying $500 or $100 for the same academic performance? Which one is more cost-effective?

If you can get the same academic performance out of a child with less money, that means the extra money that went into a private education was a rip-off. While there are certainly many students who don't learn or don't perform as well with a cheaper education, there are those who work hard, push themselves to the limits and come out just as good as privately-schooled kids.

You like bragging about your private education, but you're definitely not value-for-money. You were a rip-off to your parents. Your parents paid more than mine to get the same level of academic performance out of you.

A private education is really just a way to give dumb kids knowledge by pushing loads of money into the educational process, so that by "brute force" they become smart. If a person has great potential, however, a public education will achieve the same results. All that extra cash didn't do anything. It's not the money, but the child that matters.

he can brag all he likes but check out the top results for the final exams and I'll bet that for every private school on the list there will be 3 or 4 public school ... the last list i looked at was for the NSW HSC a couple of years ago, and I think 8 of the top 10 performing schools were public schools

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #201 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 6:59pm

Luke Fowler wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 7:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 3:32pm:

Luke Fowler wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 12:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:01pm:

Given the now almost certainty that the Coalition will be elected to government in a landslide, the question comes about as to how the soon-to-be opposition ALP and the Greens will treat the undeniable mandate to remove the carbon tax. The Coalition will most likely not gain a majority in the senate and so will be wanting the new senate (or even the current one) to pass the CT repeal.

So do you think Labor senators will vote for the repeal? do you think they should vote for the repeal? PLease give justification for your replies.

Note that I do not mention the Greens in this. The greens do not honour mandates or frankly. anyone else's opinions or even rights. They will do what they always do and vote how THEY think it should go.

So... thoughts?

and please this is not a climate change debate. leave that out. restrict it to 'repeal or not' not a value assessment on the CT itself.

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking and your chutzpah for coming out and making these demands is just astounding.

Kevin Rudd went to the 2007 election with a CPRS. He announced it, he spruiked it, he claimed it as a step towards addressing "the greatest moral challenge of our time". There was no doubt that he was behind it, the coalition had its own version of it and the public was widely supportive of it.

Labor won the election comfortably and went about trying to introduce it.

The Liberals under Turnbull had some qualms with the policy but were ready to pass it through the Senate after some changes had been thrashed out.

Your messiah Tony, with the will of the voting public firmly in mind, decided that he would challenge for the leadership and then take away support for the CPRS in the Senate.

... and here you are saying that Labor should agree to scrapping the Carbon Tax because the Liberals will most probably win the next election.

Agreeing or disagreeing with certain policies is par for the course and should be encouraged.

Cracking a dummy spit and demanding that everybody does what Tony says because he won the election is petulant and childish.

For the record, I think that the Greens should have supported the CPRS, and, even though I am generally supportive of them, I was disappointed in them for this as I was disappointed in Rudd for not pushing for a DD when he had the trigger.

Further, as much as I disagree with and dislike Tony Abbott (which is a considerable amount, don't get me wrong on that), I would never accuse him of "ignoring democracy" just because he voted against something that was a clear election promise from Rudd.

By the way, if, as polls continually show, the majority of Australians support marriage equality, should Tony back this wholeheartedly?

so in summary, your position is one of a dummy spit rather than a principled position? Something doesnt become right or wrong on the basis of what someone else did. it becomes right or wrong on principle. And as usual, the concept of principle eludes almost everyone except perhaps dsmithy.

If you were a man of principle, you would realise that Abbott voted against the CPRS after Rudd took it to the people and the Labor party won comfortably in 2007.

If you were a man of principle, you would agree that either Tony Abbott was wrong not to back the CPRS or that Labor, Greens or Independents are perfectly within their rights not to vote to repeal even if Abbott wins the election in a landslide.

As I noted, my principle states that a member of The HOR or the Senate is entitled to vote how they see fit, regardless of polls. I did not waver from this when Abbott sunk the CPRS, even though I disagreed with him and do not like him.

You, on the other hand, seem happy to change your so-called principles to suit now that Abbott looks like a sure thing.

I know you aren't stupid and that you understood my argument the first time but I will spell it out again to avoid another childish and flippant response from you.

You either believe that Tony Abbott was wrong to ask his party vote against the CPRS because he was going against the will of the majority (for the reasons outlined above) or you believe that MPs and Senators are free to vote against policies they don't agree with. You can't change when it suits you.

your argument would have more power if you gave democracy and principle a second thought. History is not what we are discussing and the argument about the CPRS is one for another day. Because men of principle abide by principles regardless if they get screwed by others or not. Would you position be any different if an incoming govt was repealing a mandatory bible study and prayer in schools bill? would you be happy to grant the right to vote as their parties want regardless of popular opinion or would you want the public's opinion upheld? this remains the question and if you want actual democracy and actual government BY the people then you would be expecting parliament to abide by that and you would do so regardless of what others do.

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #202 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:04pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 10:27pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 3^rd, 2013 at 4:47pm:

I think you are complicating it too much by trying to put 'quality' onto the size of a majority instead of 'quantity'.

Yes, heaven forbid we introduced "Quality" into the mix.

I thought my position was pretty clear but maybe not.

On the question of mandate in general -

the level I have set is difficult to achieve, as it should be.
If you get the 75% HOR then the issue you focused your campaign on is given, any future major reforms require weight of argument(Indies/Greens) backed by public opinion(within reason, sort term pain is not popular Wink

)

You win both houses you do what you want for 3 years and are judged.

On your premise that Labor will owe Abbott anything let alone some sort of MORAL question -

If he gives a full and frank policy Re:DA, with complete details from studies already conducted(proof) that it actually works, how its paid for, how much land is set aside, and how many people appear on the public purse or more than likely how many private government contracts and how muchthey drain consolidated revenue, for at least 6 to 8 weeks whatever the official campaign is and he gets the 75% then fine.
He gets both houses then see above.

I think your concerned Tony has painted himself into a corner with the statements about going to a DD as soon as possible,
Of course he cannot go back now, he'd be the same as Gillard, wouldn't he?
So your fishing this line of obligation Wink

so with a 75% landslide win you will want not just policies but fully research, costed, proven and imutable policies without risk or adversity. you dont ask much, do you? But applied to everyone all that happens is that there is no such thing as a mandate both for or against a policy

so when a future govt institutes mandatory prayer and bible study and claims there is no mandated opposition to it you will agree

the problem with your scenario is that it is beyond unworkable and undefindable. AS a result there is no mandate for or against anything thus allowing govts to what they want, when they want with no reference to what people actually want. what a victory!

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #203 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:07pm

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:01pm:

Given the now almost certainty that the Coalition will be elected to government in a landslide, the question comes about as to how the soon-to-be opposition ALP and the Greens will treat the undeniable mandate to remove the carbon tax.

Fixed priced carbon emission permits
( ... or a "carbon tax" - as commonly, but incorrectly known) are used as an introduction to ANY

Emissions Trading Scheme

They were a part of Kevin Rudd's ETS
They were a part of John Howard's ETS

Mechanisms to cut greenhouse emissions cannot be put on a stop-start cycle in the manner that mechanisms to cut wages are

The need for an ON-GOING emissions strategy is too urgent

As each and every month goes by it becomes more and more obvious that carbon permit pricing had an even LESSER effect on the overall cost of living to the consumer than Treasury estimates - and MORE than covered by compensation packages in the form of pension increases and income-tax cuts

To - on one hand - promise to RETAIN these packages and abolish carbon pricing ( ... which PAYS for them) on the other - is the height of hypocracy and economic irresponsability

Should Tony Abbott be elected PM ( ... which seems the most likely scenario) he will breathe a quiet sigh of relief when his policy pledge to ditch climate change action are sunk in the Senate

so no reference to the wishes of the voting public??? and you want to complain about parliament vetoing gay marriage???

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

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #204 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:15pm

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

State school wasn't it Buzz? Fees = $0?

You like bragging about your private education don't you? Tell me, which one is better, paying $500 or $100 for the same academic performance? Which one is more cost-effective?

If you can get the same academic performance out of a child with less money, that means the extra money that went into a private education was a rip-off. While there are certainly many students who don't learn or don't perform as well with a cheaper education, there are those who work hard, push themselves to the limits and come out just as good as privately-schooled kids.

You like bragging about your private education, but you're definitely not value-for-money. You were a rip-off to your parents. Your parents paid more than mine to get the same level of academic performance out of you.

A private education is really just a way to give dumb kids knowledge by pushing loads of money into the educational process, so that by "brute force" they become smart. If a person has great potential, however, a public education will achieve the same results. All that extra cash didn't do anything. It's not the money, but the child that matters.

nice rant but unfortunately not even close to true. the educational outcomes of private school students is significantly higher than public students and the same is true of life outcomes.

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

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 51828
At my desk.

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #205 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:17pm

Check out some examples of Longy's stunning hypocrisy on the concept of mandates:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365047005

Prior to jumping on the carbon tax mandate bandwagon, Longy was arguing against the concept of majority rule in democracy, insisting that in order to be fair to political parties we must grant them full power without requiring majority support. He has also argued that political parties should impose unpopular changes on the voting public against the wishes of the majority.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #206 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:17pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

State school wasn't it Buzz? Fees = $0?

You like bragging about your private education don't you? Tell me, which one is better, paying $500 or $100 for the same academic performance? Which one is more cost-effective?

If you can get the same academic performance out of a child with less money, that means the extra money that went into a private education was a rip-off. While there are certainly many students who don't learn or don't perform as well with a cheaper education, there are those who work hard, push themselves to the limits and come out just as good as privately-schooled kids.

You like bragging about your private education, but you're definitely not value-for-money. You were a rip-off to your parents. Your parents paid more than mine to get the same level of academic performance out of you.

A private education is really just a way to give dumb kids knowledge by pushing loads of money into the educational process, so that by "brute force" they become smart. If a person has great potential, however, a public education will achieve the same results. All that extra cash didn't do anything. It's not the money, but the child that matters.

he can brag all he likes but check out the top results for the final exams and I'll bet that for every private school on the list there will be 3 or 4 public school ... the last list i looked at was for the NSW HSC a couple of years ago, and I think 8 of the top 10 performing schools were public schools

maintain the denial. despite having twice as many students public schools typically get 1/3 of the top 10. in fact it is only noteworthy when it ISNT true and they manage 1/2

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

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 78311
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #207 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:21pm

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:09pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

State school wasn't it Buzz? Fees = $0?

You like bragging about your private education don't you? Tell me, which one is better, paying $500 or $100 for the same academic performance? Which one is more cost-effective?

If you can get the same academic performance out of a child with less money, that means the extra money that went into a private education was a rip-off. While there are certainly many students who don't learn or don't perform as well with a cheaper education, there are those who work hard, push themselves to the limits and come out just as good as privately-schooled kids.

You like bragging about your private education, but you're definitely not value-for-money. You were a rip-off to your parents. Your parents paid more than mine to get the same level of academic performance out of you.

A private education is really just a way to give dumb kids knowledge by pushing loads of money into the educational process, so that by "brute force" they become smart. If a person has great potential, however, a public education will achieve the same results. All that extra cash didn't do anything. It's not the money, but the child that matters.

he can brag all he likes but check out the top results for the final exams and I'll bet that for every private school on the list there will be 3 or 4 public school ... the last list i looked at was for the NSW HSC a couple of years ago, and I think 8 of the top 10 performing schools were public schools

maintain the denial. despite having twice as many students public schools typically get 1/3 of the top 10. in fact it is only noteworthy when it ISNT true and they manage 1/2

of course they do !!!!

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Mnemonic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1530
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #208 - Apr 4^th, 2013 at 10:06pm

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

he can brag all he likes but check out the top results for the final exams and I'll bet that for every private school on the list there will be 3 or 4 public school ... the last list i looked at was for the NSW HSC a couple of years ago, and I think 8 of the top 10 performing schools were public schools

I looked at the results of private schools and public schools. A higher number of private schools have a higher percentage of students achieving scores above 40 out of 50. That's not the point. The point is if a public school student can achieve the same academic performance for less money, that shows that people are wasting money in a private school education. It's the child, not the system that matters. Some people need a private education more than others for success. Kids with great potential don't need a private education.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:15pm:

nice rant but unfortunately not even close to true. the educational outcomes of private school students is significantly higher than public students and the same is true of life outcomes.

You obviously can't tell the difference between what I was talking about and how private schools perform statistically. No, you seriously don't know what you're talking about here. I never said anything about private and public school statistics in that post. What do you think you're reading? Where are your comprehension skills? Again, let me repeat: if a public school student can achieve the same academic performance for less money, that shows that some people are wasting money in a private school education.

Let me state this another way: if Andrei Hicks is really as intelligent as he says he is, he never needed a private education at all. This leads to my next conclusion: his parents wasted their money, and all his talk about how great he is because of a private education would actually be an embarrassment. Andrei Hicks would be "greater" if he didn't need a private education. A private education diminishes the greatness of Andrei Hicks.

Back to top

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Labor to repeal the Carbon Tax?
Reply #209 - Apr 5^th, 2013 at 8:28am

Mnemonic wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 10:06pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 5:32pm:

he can brag all he likes but check out the top results for the final exams and I'll bet that for every private school on the list there will be 3 or 4 public school ... the last list i looked at was for the NSW HSC a couple of years ago, and I think 8 of the top 10 performing schools were public schools

I looked at the results of private schools and public schools. A higher number of private schools have a higher percentage of students achieving scores above 40 out of 50. That's not the point. The point is if a public school student can achieve the same academic performance for less money, that shows that people are wasting money in a private school education. It's the child, not the system that matters. Some people need a private education more than others for success. Kids with great potential don't need a private education.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 4^th, 2013 at 7:15pm:

nice rant but unfortunately not even close to true. the educational outcomes of private school students is significantly higher than public students and the same is true of life outcomes.

You obviously can't tell the difference between what I was talking about and how private schools perform statistically. No, you seriously don't know what you're talking about here. I never said anything about private and public school statistics in that post. What do you think you're reading? Where are your comprehension skills? Again, let me repeat: if a public school student can achieve the same academic performance for less money, that shows that some people are wasting money in a private school education.

Let me state this another way: if Andrei Hicks is really as intelligent as he says he is, he never needed a private education at all. This leads to my next conclusion: his parents wasted their money, and all his talk about how great he is because of a private education would actually be an embarrassment. Andrei Hicks would be "greater" if he didn't need a private education. A private education diminishes the greatness of Andrei Hicks.

your argument is beyond ludicrous. it essentially states that the quality of education has no effect on the outcome. Well that is silly and obviously so. And if it were so then there wouldn't be the current situation where the significant majority of university entrants are privately educated. Nor would there be better life outcomes for privately educated people.

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