Australian Politics Forum - Three branches of government

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #30 - Mar 5^th, 2014 at 11:30pm

Pantheon wrote on Mar 5^th, 2014 at 8:43am:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 10:08pm:

Pantheon wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 10:06am:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 10:03am:

Pantheon wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 9:31am:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 9:19am:

Pantheon wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 9:12am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 9:06am:

Pantheon wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:59am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:54am:

Pantheon wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:49am:

Wouldn't it be better if we made more State governments, local Councils doesn't have the power, influence and the institutions to govern effectively. Remember by abolishing State government, that responsibility would be handed to the federal government, and the major checks and balances we have to keep our government in line would be abolished along with the state government.

you are talking about changing the system and then use faults with the current system for your arguments ... of course if we abolish states we would have to reorganise and legislate the roles of regional and federal. You can't go in half cocked ... if we change, we have to change it all and start again. Throw out our constitution and re write it to something that would work.

See, i think we do need the three branches of government, as it best provides the system of checks and balances that a strong and healthy democracy needs as well as perverting one branch cannot become too powerful.

Eliminating any of the three branches of government, could result it one branch becoming too powerful.

Nah, we can always put in checks and balances ... we don't need another level of government to do so. Everything all goverments do should be open and tansparent ...

The most open and tansparent forms of government are the Three branches of government system! we have tried in the pass to have one, two branches of governments and they simply haven't been as effective nor democratic as the Three branches of government.

Gee, then I would hate to see a system that REALLY LACKS TRANSPARENCY & IS HIGH ON CORRUPTION!

Please, lets not talk about labor's and unions corruptionness on this topic..

I didn't, YOU DID!

I referred to a system that REALLY LACKS TRANSPARENCY & IS HIGH ON CORRUPTION, which had no reference to Labor or Liberal or other party's, because the problem is endemic to all party's.

Calm down

Australia is in the top ten of lest corrupt nations on earth and is the 14th (before labor we were 9th) most transparent government.

Gee, then the rest of them must be absolutely hopeless, whilst we are just hopeless?

Your ignorance of our political system is the reason for the world problems

Our system gives us an incredible amount of freedoms and our government is remarkably more open than most government expressionlessly the formal governments of socialist states (that may i add ranked in the bottom of the list in political and economical freedoms)

Well, at least we can agree that THERE IS IGNORANCE ABOUT OUR POLITICAL SYSTEM/S and that certainly contributes to part of the world problems!

As for our system, well its' just full of -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes
But, I don't think you recognize that, YET!

Back to top

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88332
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #31 - Mar 5^th, 2014 at 11:39pm

The three branches together create a cat o' nine tails for flogging the public..... that is their entire raison d'etre....

We need to re-organise the lot.... and draw them back from their self-declared war on their own people....

I recall once reading that young police going into the job have high hopes of helping the general public, and realise within twelve months that their job is - instead - to attack that same general public.

That is one reason they have such a high turnover rate and why so many who remain suffer psychological problems...

Same applies to government - politicians often go into the game wanting to do good and end up being the True Enemies Of the People (and often True Enemas of The People as well).

Now at least they approach the whole deal honestly - it is only a guaranteed method of setting oneself up for life.... with little to no real work.... just another business opportunity.

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 88332 Always was always will be HOME Gender:	Re: Three branches of government Reply #32 - Mar 6^th, 2014 at 12:24am "The Three Branches of Government" - by JRR Tolkien - Part IV in The Lord of The Rings series ... (not to be confused with the Gay Mardi Gras )....
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

GA

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1130
Gender: male

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #33 - Mar 6^th, 2014 at 12:20pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:37am:

State government should be abolished, with local governments changed to regional governments. ... the only purpose is of state govt's is to create red tape and give the other forms of government someone to blame. There is nothing state govts. can do that can't be done over by federal and regional govt's, and it can be done much more efficiently

You are not letting on as to why you really want there to be less government. Unless by "efficiently' you mean at less expense to you as a taxpayer, which is of course what you are really saying. And, for one thing, all money spent by these governments is spent internally (there is no net loss to the country). So once again it looks like we are getting back to the 'quick buck' thing. But this time it's saving a quick buck, at the expense of the people that is, who have a right to representation including at the local and state level.

If left to spiteful destructive quick buck merchants (aka Aussies), Australia would have no states whatever, a place where no distinctions would be tolerated (the tall poppy thing). So is it better to have states and shires, than to have money to piss up against a wall?

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 6^th, 2014 at 12:44pm by GA »

IP Logged

mozzaok

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 6741
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #34 - Mar 6^th, 2014 at 12:42pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:46am:

perceptions_now wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:44am:

Abolish Local Councils!

Retain State & Federal, for the moment, IF they stop acting for themselves & start acting in the Best,Long Term interests of the entire OZ Public!

In the interim, VOTE OUT, ALL INCUMBENTS!

given the size of most of the states, you are talking about too wide and varied a range of issues to be dealt with properly on a state level .. thats why I prefer the idea of regional councils to replace local govts, and abolish state govts altogether.

Ditto Smitty.
Gough had floated a plan to abolish State Governments and Councils, replacing them with about 35 Regional bodies that would be small enough to relate to local issues.
Like most of Gough's ideas, it seems pretty good to me. (Making Jim Cairns treasurer would be the exception that proves the rule Wink

)

Back to top

OOPS!!! My Karma, ran over your Dogma!

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88332
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #35 - Mar 7^th, 2014 at 4:55am

GA wrote on Mar 6^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:37am:

State government should be abolished, with local governments changed to regional governments. ... the only purpose is of state govt's is to create red tape and give the other forms of government someone to blame. There is nothing state govts. can do that can't be done over by federal and regional govt's, and it can be done much more efficiently

You are not letting on as to why you really want there to be less government. Unless by "efficiently' you mean at less expense to you as a taxpayer, which is of course what you are really saying. And, for one thing, all money spent by these governments is spent internally (there is no net loss to the country). So once again it looks like we are getting back to the 'quick buck' thing. But this time it's saving a quick buck, at the expense of the people that is, who have a right to representation including at the local and state level.

If left to spiteful destructive quick buck merchants (aka Aussies), Australia would have no states whatever, a place where no distinctions would be tolerated (the tall poppy thing). So is it better to have states and shires, than to have money to piss up against a wall?

(there is no net loss to the country)..

Hear.. hear - there is no net loss to the country from welfare spending...... the net losses to the country are corporate piracy and offshoring of profits including through Dorothy Dixer loans to themselves....

**re-iterates**..

Tax Person 2014:- "Ah, Mr Bloggs - you need to pay tax on your gross income!"

Joe Bloggs:- "Ah, sorry - can't do that! I borrowed money from the wife to pay the mortgage on our headquarters, plus all the working bits, and to capitalise a new car. You'll have to talk to her!"

Tax Person 2014:- "OK then - MRS Jo Bloggs - YOU need to pay us tax on the difference!"

Jo Bloggs:- "Umm - sorry - no can do! I had to borrow that money from my husband, our extended family and also from the banks - you'll have to talk to them all instead! And a lot of it was taken up in travel costs to banks and stuff and on phone calls to relatives, too!"

As before - that would really ring the Tax Person's bells, wouldn't it.. just sign off here and all is well for 2014? Uncle To and Fat Joe would just line up to offer tax havens to Joe and Jo here for their capitalisation of a working HQ and all fittings plus travel to and from meetings to acquire these and plant such as car and mower and so forth... plus a deduction on interest they paid to themselves..... damn - the Guv might have to pay them!

Sure they farken would! Grin

That's more cunning than South Sydney defeating themselves last night! Such reasoning should suit the labrynthine mind of the politician these days!! Cool

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

GA

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1130
Gender: male

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #36 - Mar 7^th, 2014 at 10:59am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 4:55am:

GA wrote on Mar 6^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:37am:

State government should be abolished, with local governments changed to regional governments. ... the only purpose is of state govt's is to create red tape and give the other forms of government someone to blame. There is nothing state govts. can do that can't be done over by federal and regional govt's, and it can be done much more efficiently

You are not letting on as to why you really want there to be less government. Unless by "efficiently' you mean at less expense to you as a taxpayer, which is of course what you are really saying. And, for one thing, all money spent by these governments is spent internally (there is no net loss to the country). So once again it looks like we are getting back to the 'quick buck' thing. But this time it's saving a quick buck, at the expense of the people that is, who have a right to representation including at the local and state level.

If left to spiteful destructive quick buck merchants (aka Aussies), Australia would have no states whatever, a place where no distinctions would be tolerated (the tall poppy thing). So is it better to have states and shires, than to have money to piss up against a wall?

(there is no net loss to the country)..

Hear.. hear - there is no net loss to the country from welfare spending...... the net losses to the country are corporate piracy and offshoring of profits including through Dorothy Dixer loans to themselves....

**re-iterates**..

Tax Person 2014:- "Ah, Mr Bloggs - you need to pay tax on your gross income!"

Joe Bloggs:- "Ah, sorry - can't do that! I borrowed money from the wife to pay the mortgage on our headquarters, plus all the working bits, and to capitalise a new car. You'll have to talk to her!"

Tax Person 2014:- "OK then - MRS Jo Bloggs - YOU need to pay us tax on the difference!"

Jo Bloggs:- "Umm - sorry - no can do! I had to borrow that money from my husband, our extended family and also from the banks - you'll have to talk to them all instead! And a lot of it was taken up in travel costs to banks and stuff and on phone calls to relatives, too!"

As before - that would really ring the Tax Person's bells, wouldn't it.. just sign off here and all is well for 2014? Uncle To and Fat Joe would just line up to offer tax havens to Joe and Jo here for their capitalisation of a working HQ and all fittings plus travel to and from meetings to acquire these and plant such as car and mower and so forth... plus a deduction on interest they paid to themselves..... damn - the Guv might have to pay them!

Sure they farken would! Grin

That's more cunning than South Sydney defeating themselves last night! Such reasoning should suit the labrynthine mind of the politician these days!! Cool

Even though there is no net loss, there's also not a lot of net gain either. Sure It's money that's being spent out of necessity, but it's not being spent productively. Which to some degree or other might validate that same argument from the private sector. Even though they are just as guilty of failing to produce themselves. For example, most of the money being taken in by landlords due to the current high rental prices, is non-productive. That is it's going into the pockets of these people as income, it's not money reinvested in real-estate developments. These are just 'investors' (I'm being kind) taking advantage of a particular situation. And why it's happening this way is due to our cultural failings, something that our nationalism refuses to let us consider. And which leads us to the conclusion, that if we as a nation aren't to blame, then logically it must be someone else who is responsible for our problems. It must be excessive government, welfare recipients, the wealthy, overpaid CEOs, tax dodgers, asians, blacks, lebos etc.

Our problems really are cultural, consistent with our origins.

Back to top

IP Logged

The_Barnacle

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #37 - Mar 7^th, 2014 at 12:09pm

GA wrote on Mar 6^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:37am:

State government should be abolished, with local governments changed to regional governments. ... the only purpose is of state govt's is to create red tape and give the other forms of government someone to blame. There is nothing state govts. can do that can't be done over by federal and regional govt's, and it can be done much more efficiently

You are not letting on as to why you really want there to be less government. Unless by "efficiently' you mean at less expense to you as a taxpayer, which is of course what you are really saying. And, for one thing, all money spent by these governments is spent internally (there is no net loss to the country). So once again it looks like we are getting back to the 'quick buck' thing. But this time it's saving a quick buck, at the expense of the people that is, who have a right to representation including at the local and state level.

The money saved could be spent on infrastructure or health or education. There are a host of better ways that money could be spent than on bureaucrats.

Ahovking's argument that state governments are required as a "check and balance" also doesn't hold any water as that is what the Senate is designed to do.

Given that the federal government has an upper and lower house and so do many of the states, we are actually represented by a total of 5 different people in the 3 tiers of government. In the 21st Century this is just ridiculous.
In private industry we have been required to increase efficiency, productivity and reduce duplication. Its time that our political system did the same. Get rid of state governments. In the federal government have a minister responsible for each state. And merge local councils into larger regional councils.

Back to top

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.

IP Logged

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 88332
Always was always will be HOME
Gender: male

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #38 - Mar 7^th, 2014 at 12:29pm

GA wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 10:59am:

Even though there is no net loss, there's also not a lot of net gain either. Sure It's money that's being spent out of necessity, but it's not being spent productively. Which to some degree or other might validate that same argument from the private sector. Even though they are just as guilty of failing to produce themselves. For example, most of the money being taken in by landlords due to the current high rental prices, is non-productive. That is it's going into the pockets of these people as income, it's not money reinvested in real-estate developments. These are just 'investors' (I'm being kind) taking advantage of a particular situation. And why it's happening this way is due to our cultural failings, something that our nationalism refuses to let us consider. And which leads us to the conclusion, that if we as a nation aren't to blame, then logically it must be someone else who is responsible for our problems. It must be excessive government, welfare recipients, the wealthy, overpaid CEOs, tax dodgers, asians, blacks, lebos etc.

Our problems really are cultural, consistent with our origins.

Of course you are correct - I simply like to harp on the issue that there is no net loss from welfare - however - as you rightly say, the rise and rise of welfare as a substitute for work is one component of a non-producing society - a virtual zero GNP society - which in any economic sense is doomed.

Simply treading water by transferring money (moving water around the holds) around internally, even with 'ponzi' schemes like property investment (a disaster waiting to happen in many ways), will not save the ship full of leaks.

We require genuine drastic action - starting with the removal of our current style of 'politician' and their replacement with people who really want Australia to get on for everyone.

Not suggesting armed revolt here - unwinnable for many reasons - but even those fools are feeling the wrath of the people deprived.. or should be, though I seriously wonder about the thick skins of the likes of Abbott, Hockey, Gillard and so forth.. and whether any reality ever gets through to them in their mad chase for personal riches from the public purse.

You ever see one of these clowns turn around and say :- "Oh - I'm retired now - I don't need the free office and secretary for life etc and I've got a good car of my own - take it back into the till!"

Not on your life!

Back to top

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams

IP Logged

GA

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1130
Gender: male

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #39 - Mar 7^th, 2014 at 3:32pm

The_Barnacle wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 12:09pm:

GA wrote on Mar 6^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:37am:

State government should be abolished, with local governments changed to regional governments. ... the only purpose is of state govt's is to create red tape and give the other forms of government someone to blame. There is nothing state govts. can do that can't be done over by federal and regional govt's, and it can be done much more efficiently

You are not letting on as to why you really want there to be less government. Unless by "efficiently' you mean at less expense to you as a taxpayer, which is of course what you are really saying. And, for one thing, all money spent by these governments is spent internally (there is no net loss to the country). So once again it looks like we are getting back to the 'quick buck' thing. But this time it's saving a quick buck, at the expense of the people that is, who have a right to representation including at the local and state level.

The money saved could be spent on infrastructure or health or education. There are a host of better ways that money could be spent than on bureaucrats.

Yes it could. But even if we were to cut back on all excessive expenses, tax the rich, cut the overpayment of CEOs, kick everybody off the dole etc., the effect this would have would be effectively nothing, Why? Because the way money is being distributed is not the real cause of the problems that we are facing.

Grappler's got it right:

"Simply treading water by transferring money (moving water around the holds) around internally, even with 'ponzi' schemes like property investment (a disaster waiting to happen in many ways), will not save the ship full of leaks."

And those that are calling for cuts to the income of the rich ( or the poor) are only doing it because it in someway satisfies them. Logic is not being used, instead it's manifestations of what really are 'primal effects' that are dictating policy. For example, our greed (primal) is manifested as capitalism. The capitalist look and see bureaucrats spending money (that they themselves could be investing to make themselves even more money) and get upset. The concern isn't for those communities who would lose representation by having less government.

And then what does the evidence suggest. Are other similar 3 tier systems responsible for a poor economy? No. The US has a similar system there, and it's the same one that we've used here. And they are the most successful nation on earth.

We look around for something to blame, when really it is culture that decides failure (or success).

Quote:

Ahovking's argument that state governments are required as a "check and balance" also doesn't hold any water as that is what the Senate is designed to do.

Given that the federal government has an upper and lower house and so do many of the states, we are actually represented by a total of 5 different people in the 3 tiers of government. In the 21st Century this is just ridiculous.
In private industry we have been required to increase efficiency, productivity and reduce duplication. Its time that our political system did the same. Get rid of state governments. In the federal government have a minister responsible for each state. And merge local councils into larger regional councils.

Present day companies are nearly all capitalistic, their concern is for profit, to hell with people, or for that matter to hell with the country itself.

Our problem is insufficient wealth, which is something that is not caused by too much government. But is because we have a basket case economy due to our failure as a nation, and is not due to any particular (or combination of) expenses.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Mar 7^th, 2014 at 3:41pm by GA »

IP Logged

The_Barnacle

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 6205
Melbourne
Gender: male

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #40 - Mar 8^th, 2014 at 9:55am

GA wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

Our problem is insufficient wealth, which is something that is not caused by too much government. But is because we have a basket case economy due to our failure as a nation, and is not due to any particular (or combination of) expenses.

You are too harsh on our economy which is one of the best in the developed world. It rode the GFC far better than Europe and the USA. And unlike the USA we don't rely on a vast underclass of the working poor to prop up the rich (although it is heading that way).

How we spend [our] taxes is VERY important. If we spend it on infrastructure or education then the benefits return that money many times over. If we waste it on bureaucrats in a multilayered government who spend all their time blaming each other then we are not going to progress.

Back to top

The Right Wing only believe in free speech when they agree with what is being said.

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #41 - Mar 8^th, 2014 at 10:00am

GA wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 10:59am:

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 4:55am:

GA wrote on Mar 6^th, 2014 at 12:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:37am:

State government should be abolished, with local governments changed to regional governments. ... the only purpose is of state govt's is to create red tape and give the other forms of government someone to blame. There is nothing state govts. can do that can't be done over by federal and regional govt's, and it can be done much more efficiently

You are not letting on as to why you really want there to be less government. Unless by "efficiently' you mean at less expense to you as a taxpayer, which is of course what you are really saying. And, for one thing, all money spent by these governments is spent internally (there is no net loss to the country). So once again it looks like we are getting back to the 'quick buck' thing. But this time it's saving a quick buck, at the expense of the people that is, who have a right to representation including at the local and state level.

If left to spiteful destructive quick buck merchants (aka Aussies), Australia would have no states whatever, a place where no distinctions would be tolerated (the tall poppy thing). So is it better to have states and shires, than to have money to piss up against a wall?

(there is no net loss to the country)..

Hear.. hear - there is no net loss to the country from welfare spending...... the net losses to the country are corporate piracy and offshoring of profits including through Dorothy Dixer loans to themselves....

**re-iterates**..

Tax Person 2014:- "Ah, Mr Bloggs - you need to pay tax on your gross income!"

Joe Bloggs:- "Ah, sorry - can't do that! I borrowed money from the wife to pay the mortgage on our headquarters, plus all the working bits, and to capitalise a new car. You'll have to talk to her!"

Tax Person 2014:- "OK then - MRS Jo Bloggs - YOU need to pay us tax on the difference!"

Jo Bloggs:- "Umm - sorry - no can do! I had to borrow that money from my husband, our extended family and also from the banks - you'll have to talk to them all instead! And a lot of it was taken up in travel costs to banks and stuff and on phone calls to relatives, too!"

As before - that would really ring the Tax Person's bells, wouldn't it.. just sign off here and all is well for 2014? Uncle To and Fat Joe would just line up to offer tax havens to Joe and Jo here for their capitalisation of a working HQ and all fittings plus travel to and from meetings to acquire these and plant such as car and mower and so forth... plus a deduction on interest they paid to themselves..... damn - the Guv might have to pay them!

Sure they farken would! Grin

That's more cunning than South Sydney defeating themselves last night! Such reasoning should suit the labrynthine mind of the politician these days!! Cool

Even though there is no net loss, there's also not a lot of net gain either. Sure It's money that's being spent out of necessity, but it's not being spent productively. Which to some degree or other might validate that same argument from the private sector. Even though they are just as guilty of failing to produce themselves. For example, most of the money being taken in by landlords due to the current high rental prices, is non-productive. That is it's going into the pockets of these people as income, it's not money reinvested in real-estate developments. These are just 'investors' (I'm being kind) taking advantage of a particular situation. And why it's happening this way is due to our cultural failings, something that our nationalism refuses to let us consider. And which leads us to the conclusion, that if we as a nation aren't to blame, then logically it must be someone else who is responsible for our problems. It must be excessive government, welfare recipients, the wealthy, overpaid CEOs, tax dodgers, asians, blacks, lebos etc.

Our problems really are cultural, consistent with our origins.

You're saying culture can't change and we should just accept the status quo and go back to sleep like good sheeples!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #42 - Mar 8^th, 2014 at 10:20am

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 12:29pm:

GA wrote on Mar 7^th, 2014 at 10:59am:

Even though there is no net loss, there's also not a lot of net gain either. Sure It's money that's being spent out of necessity, but it's not being spent productively. Which to some degree or other might validate that same argument from the private sector. Even though they are just as guilty of failing to produce themselves. For example, most of the money being taken in by landlords due to the current high rental prices, is non-productive. That is it's going into the pockets of these people as income, it's not money reinvested in real-estate developments. These are just 'investors' (I'm being kind) taking advantage of a particular situation. And why it's happening this way is due to our cultural failings, something that our nationalism refuses to let us consider. And which leads us to the conclusion, that if we as a nation aren't to blame, then logically it must be someone else who is responsible for our problems. It must be excessive government, welfare recipients, the wealthy, overpaid CEOs, tax dodgers, asians, blacks, lebos etc.

Our problems really are cultural, consistent with our origins.

Of course you are correct - I simply like to harp on the issue that there is no net loss from welfare - however - as you rightly say, the rise and rise of welfare as a substitute for work is one component of a non-producing society - a virtual zero GNP society - which in any economic sense is doomed.

Simply treading water by transferring money (moving water around the holds) around internally, even with 'ponzi' schemes like property investment (a disaster waiting to happen in many ways), will not save the ship full of leaks.

We require genuine drastic action - starting with the removal of our current style of 'politician' and their replacement with people who really want Australia to get on for everyone.

Not suggesting armed revolt here - unwinnable for many reasons - but even those fools are feeling the wrath of the people deprived.. or should be, though I seriously wonder about the thick skins of the likes of Abbott, Hockey, Gillard and so forth.. and whether any reality ever gets through to them in their mad chase for personal riches from the public purse.

You ever see one of these clowns turn around and say :- "Oh - I'm retired now - I don't need the free office and secretary for life etc and I've got a good car of my own - take it back into the till!"

Not on your life!

When you talk about removing our current style of politician: THAT'S US!

We,.. this country, have no style! We are automatons who seriously entertain metrosexuality as just as harmless as the last brainwashed nervous system jerk!!

How much redwine does this boring country drink?

9-11 happened. We are a ship of fools who came to the city and forgot about struggle! We are all responsible, as a village as it were, for the continuing story: all systems are subject to the arrow of time and only life can put them back together!

LIFE, not automatons thinking they're actually brad pitt.

We are sleepwalking and shite happens, seriously!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Three branches of government Reply #43 - Mar 8^th, 2014 at 10:25am FOR INSTANCE, What is productivity in a world that makes itself inefficient due to environmental subsidy?
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded

Gold Member

Offline

MediocrityNET: because
people died for this!

Posts: 26966

Re: Three branches of government
Reply #44 - Mar 8^th, 2014 at 10:43am

Pantheon wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 5:55pm:

crocodile wrote on Mar 4^th, 2014 at 11:46am:

The federal government needs to be dramatically downsized and the burden taken up by the states. Competition is what drives innovation and productivity. Competitive federalism has more to offer than a bloated statist system.

This!!

The problem with 'This!!' is,

Government is not about innovation!

Back to top

*Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) *

IP Logged

Poll
Question: We should keep the three branches of government.
Agreed 7 (36.8%) Disagree 12 (63.2%) Other 0 (0.0%) Total votes: 19 « Created by: Pantheon on: Mar 4^th, 2014 at 8:34am »