Australian Politics Forum - Socialism for the uninformed.

Dsmithy70 Gold Member Offline ire futuis vobismetipsis Posts: 13147 Newy Gender:	Re: Socialism for the uninformed. Reply #105 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:58pm Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:53pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:51pm: That's rather a personal question for a publi forum. Is there a point to it? No it isn't and yes there is. Ok whilst not getting to exact between 2 & 3 million. I'll have your point now.
Back to top	REBELLION is not what most people think it is. REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself. Gavin Nascimento IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36384
Gender: female

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #106 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:59pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

So you propose a rise in the crime rate.

And unemployment benefits are a very long way from attractive.

Why would there be a rise in the crime rate if staples can be bought and the cost is less to taxpayers?

Why would the cost be less to the tax payer if only basics are covered. It would need to be raised for that to happen. I

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39715
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #107 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:01pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:57pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:54pm:

Aussie wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:53pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

That's rather a personal question for a publi forum.
Is there a point to it?

No, there wasn't because no matter what you answered he would have trumped it with the absolute gospel truth.

The peanut gallery has a seat with your name on it waiting for you.

Thanks, I found it.

Good. Now you can shut yer yap while the adults are having a discussion.

Nope. When will you be joining that conversation?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #108 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:02pm

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:56pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:42pm:

Answered in this post.
Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:35pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:08pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:00pm:

Socialists don't want a balance, they want an unfair weighting towards socialism that will fail. Socialists are the epitome of give an inch and they will take a mile. Relentless, never ending destruction of capital that has given them the opportunity to cry and whine about not being given everything paid for by someone else who works harder than they do.

You could replace socialist with capitalist in that & be every bit as correct.

So we've finally got somewhere & worked out you're not against the theory of socialism but you are against those that would take it to extremes.
Do you feel the same way about extreme capitalists?

The pendulum needs to be swung back to the right before you can invoke extreme capitalism. The socialist policies are sending the country broke.

Ummmm OK

What policies are you referring to?

Medicare, education, social security.
All of it.

I had an American friend and a hard core republican move here 3 years back. He was against the same safety nets you are, as well as a gun slinger who was anti Australia's firearms laws

Having lived in America for 52 years of his life, he is now pro safety net and anti guns (largely).

I realise this is anecdotal, but like DSmithy, I am in favour of a capitalist framework with some socialist policies thrown into the mix - particularly Medicare, education and social security.

I'm not anti those policies. I am anti the cost and the waste. Medicare costs $20bn+ but the Medicare levy on takes in ~ $10bn.
Education outcomes have been falling despite year on year growth of funding.
Social security is one of the biggest costs to the budget.

When government gets involved in anything to do with redistribution of funds, costs skyrocket and the taxpayer is ripped off. They need to be wound back or scrapped completely and start again.

Hey Not_IQ,

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I have read sprint write that govt should be run like a business. to an extent, I agree. But running govt like a business is going to see people fall through the cracks.

I suspect, to run agencies such as Medicare, schooling and social security, we have to put up with a bit of fat.

I have worked in private enterprise for the last 22 years. There's nothing like a chairman breathing down your neck re profits or costs in making those profits.

In August, I start working for the public sector. I rather suspect it's going to frustrate the hell out of me.

Cheers,
Nicole

Anything to do with money should be run like a business, because it is and it is the most efficient way of cutting fat.

As an example that I raised previously, for social security have food and utility cards when the govt negotiates with suppliers to get the best value for their spend. They govt could get $30bn of food cards for at least $20-25bn possibly more via direct negotiation with manufacturers.

If you had $30bn a year to spend on anything, would you go and pay retail prices?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #109 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:04pm

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

So you propose a rise in the crime rate.

And unemployment benefits are a very long way from attractive.

Why would there be a rise in the crime rate if staples can be bought and the cost is less to taxpayers?

Why would the cost be less to the cost to the tax payer be less if only basics are covered. It would need to be raised for that to happen.

You don't understand economics, do you.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36384
Gender: female

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #110 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:10pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

So you propose a rise in the crime rate.

And unemployment benefits are a very long way from attractive.

Why would there be a rise in the crime rate if staples can be bought and the cost is less to taxpayers?

Why would the cost be less to the cost to the tax payer be less if only basics are covered. It would need to be raised for that to happen.

You don't understand economics, do you.

Tell me ... where is the saving to the tax payer if basic needs are met?

You're not proposing a decrease in benefits are you?

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Mistress Nicole

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1278
Gender: female

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #111 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:11pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:02pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:56pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:42pm:

Answered in this post.
Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:35pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:08pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:00pm:

Socialists don't want a balance, they want an unfair weighting towards socialism that will fail. Socialists are the epitome of give an inch and they will take a mile. Relentless, never ending destruction of capital that has given them the opportunity to cry and whine about not being given everything paid for by someone else who works harder than they do.

You could replace socialist with capitalist in that & be every bit as correct.

So we've finally got somewhere & worked out you're not against the theory of socialism but you are against those that would take it to extremes.
Do you feel the same way about extreme capitalists?

The pendulum needs to be swung back to the right before you can invoke extreme capitalism. The socialist policies are sending the country broke.

Ummmm OK

What policies are you referring to?

Medicare, education, social security.
All of it.

I had an American friend and a hard core republican move here 3 years back. He was against the same safety nets you are, as well as a gun slinger who was anti Australia's firearms laws

Having lived in America for 52 years of his life, he is now pro safety net and anti guns (largely).

I realise this is anecdotal, but like DSmithy, I am in favour of a capitalist framework with some socialist policies thrown into the mix - particularly Medicare, education and social security.

I'm not anti those policies. I am anti the cost and the waste. Medicare costs $20bn+ but the Medicare levy on takes in ~ $10bn.
Education outcomes have been falling despite year on year growth of funding.
Social security is one of the biggest costs to the budget.

When government gets involved in anything to do with redistribution of funds, costs skyrocket and the taxpayer is ripped off. They need to be wound back or scrapped completely and start again.

Hey Not_IQ,

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I have read sprint write that govt should be run like a business. to an extent, I agree. But running govt like a business is going to see people fall through the cracks.

I suspect, to run agencies such as Medicare, schooling and social security, we have to put up with a bit of fat.

I have worked in private enterprise for the last 22 years. There's nothing like a chairman breathing down your neck re profits or costs in making those profits.

In August, I start working for the public sector. I rather suspect it's going to frustrate the hell out of me.

Cheers,
Nicole

Anything to do with money should be run like a business, because it is and it is the most efficient way of cutting fat.

As an example that I raised previously, for social security have food and utility cards when the govt negotiates with suppliers to get the best value for their spend. They govt could get $30bn of food cards for at least $20-25bn possibly more via direct negotiation with manufacturers.

If you had $30bn a year to spend on anything, would you go and pay retail prices?

In answer to the second part of your post, I agree with you wholeheartedly. A very good point, and I have argued in favour of vouchers for food etc on other boards.

But I don't think you can run stuff like Medicare and cut fat. How does that work? Do we have bulk billing doctors reporting on patients who are merely hyper chondriacts so they get no further treatment or sessions?

How about child protection? How do we make that pay for itself?

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36384
Gender: female

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #112 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:14pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:02pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:56pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:42pm:

Answered in this post.
Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:35pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:08pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:00pm:

Socialists don't want a balance, they want an unfair weighting towards socialism that will fail. Socialists are the epitome of give an inch and they will take a mile. Relentless, never ending destruction of capital that has given them the opportunity to cry and whine about not being given everything paid for by someone else who works harder than they do.

You could replace socialist with capitalist in that & be every bit as correct.

So we've finally got somewhere & worked out you're not against the theory of socialism but you are against those that would take it to extremes.
Do you feel the same way about extreme capitalists?

The pendulum needs to be swung back to the right before you can invoke extreme capitalism. The socialist policies are sending the country broke.

Ummmm OK

What policies are you referring to?

Medicare, education, social security.
All of it.

I had an American friend and a hard core republican move here 3 years back. He was against the same safety nets you are, as well as a gun slinger who was anti Australia's firearms laws

Having lived in America for 52 years of his life, he is now pro safety net and anti guns (largely).

I realise this is anecdotal, but like DSmithy, I am in favour of a capitalist framework with some socialist policies thrown into the mix - particularly Medicare, education and social security.

I'm not anti those policies. I am anti the cost and the waste. Medicare costs $20bn+ but the Medicare levy on takes in ~ $10bn.
Education outcomes have been falling despite year on year growth of funding.
Social security is one of the biggest costs to the budget.

When government gets involved in anything to do with redistribution of funds, costs skyrocket and the taxpayer is ripped off. They need to be wound back or scrapped completely and start again.

Hey Not_IQ,

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I have read sprint write that govt should be run like a business. to an extent, I agree. But running govt like a business is going to see people fall through the cracks.

I suspect, to run agencies such as Medicare, schooling and social security, we have to put up with a bit of fat.

I have worked in private enterprise for the last 22 years. There's nothing like a chairman breathing down your neck re profits or costs in making those profits.

In August, I start working for the public sector. I rather suspect it's going to frustrate the hell out of me.

Cheers,
Nicole

Anything to do with money should be run like a business, because it is and it is the most efficient way of cutting fat.

As an example that I raised previously, for social security have food and utility cards when the govt negotiates with suppliers to get the best value for their spend. They govt could get $30bn of food cards for at least $20-25bn possibly more via direct negotiation with manufacturers.

If you had $30bn a year to spend on anything, would you go and pay retail prices?

People need cash. People should be free to pick their own food.

What you propose is draconian.

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #113 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:17pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:58pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:53pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:51pm:

That's rather a personal question for a publi forum.
Is there a point to it?

No it isn't and yes there is.

Ok whilst not getting to exact between 2 & 3 million.
I'll have your point now.

You employ 67 people on a turnover of 2-3 million?

Back to top

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #114 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:18pm

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:02pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:56pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:42pm:

Answered in this post.
Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:35pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:08pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:00pm:

Socialists don't want a balance, they want an unfair weighting towards socialism that will fail. Socialists are the epitome of give an inch and they will take a mile. Relentless, never ending destruction of capital that has given them the opportunity to cry and whine about not being given everything paid for by someone else who works harder than they do.

You could replace socialist with capitalist in that & be every bit as correct.

So we've finally got somewhere & worked out you're not against the theory of socialism but you are against those that would take it to extremes.
Do you feel the same way about extreme capitalists?

The pendulum needs to be swung back to the right before you can invoke extreme capitalism. The socialist policies are sending the country broke.

Ummmm OK

What policies are you referring to?

Medicare, education, social security.
All of it.

I had an American friend and a hard core republican move here 3 years back. He was against the same safety nets you are, as well as a gun slinger who was anti Australia's firearms laws

Having lived in America for 52 years of his life, he is now pro safety net and anti guns (largely).

I realise this is anecdotal, but like DSmithy, I am in favour of a capitalist framework with some socialist policies thrown into the mix - particularly Medicare, education and social security.

I'm not anti those policies. I am anti the cost and the waste. Medicare costs $20bn+ but the Medicare levy on takes in ~ $10bn.
Education outcomes have been falling despite year on year growth of funding.
Social security is one of the biggest costs to the budget.

When government gets involved in anything to do with redistribution of funds, costs skyrocket and the taxpayer is ripped off. They need to be wound back or scrapped completely and start again.

Hey Not_IQ,

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I have read sprint write that govt should be run like a business. to an extent, I agree. But running govt like a business is going to see people fall through the cracks.

I suspect, to run agencies such as Medicare, schooling and social security, we have to put up with a bit of fat.

I have worked in private enterprise for the last 22 years. There's nothing like a chairman breathing down your neck re profits or costs in making those profits.

In August, I start working for the public sector. I rather suspect it's going to frustrate the hell out of me.

Cheers,
Nicole

Anything to do with money should be run like a business, because it is and it is the most efficient way of cutting fat.

As an example that I raised previously, for social security have food and utility cards when the govt negotiates with suppliers to get the best value for their spend. They govt could get $30bn of food cards for at least $20-25bn possibly more via direct negotiation with manufacturers.

If you had $30bn a year to spend on anything, would you go and pay retail prices?

People need cash. People should be free to pick their own food.

What proper is draconian.

People don't need cash, they want cash. Cash is a luxury that shouldn't be a right to anyone who wants other taxpayer to pay for that luxury.
They can have it when they have a job and don't rely on taxpayer handouts.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:26pm by Aussie, »

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #115 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:22pm

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:10pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

So you propose a rise in the crime rate.

And unemployment benefits are a very long way from attractive.

Why would there be a rise in the crime rate if staples can be bought and the cost is less to taxpayers?

Why would the cost be less to the cost to the tax payer be less if only basics are covered. It would need to be raised for that to happen.

You don't understand economics, do you.

Tell me ... where is the saving to the tax payer if basic needs are met?

You're not proposing a decrease in benefits are you?

I'm proposing the govt uses its purchasing power to reduce costs the the taxpayer. If it results in some inconvenience to benefit recipients, too bad.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36384
Gender: female

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #116 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:24pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:18pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:02pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:56pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:42pm:

Answered in this post.
Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:35pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:08pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:00pm:

Socialists don't want a balance, they want an unfair weighting towards socialism that will fail. Socialists are the epitome of give an inch and they will take a mile. Relentless, never ending destruction of capital that has given them the opportunity to cry and whine about not being given everything paid for by someone else who works harder than they do.

You could replace socialist with capitalist in that & be every bit as correct.

So we've finally got somewhere & worked out you're not against the theory of socialism but you are against those that would take it to extremes.
Do you feel the same way about extreme capitalists?

The pendulum needs to be swung back to the right before you can invoke extreme capitalism. The socialist policies are sending the country broke.

Ummmm OK

What policies are you referring to?

Medicare, education, social security.
All of it.

I had an American friend and a hard core republican move here 3 years back. He was against the same safety nets you are, as well as a gun slinger who was anti Australia's firearms laws

Having lived in America for 52 years of his life, he is now pro safety net and anti guns (largely).

I realise this is anecdotal, but like DSmithy, I am in favour of a capitalist framework with some socialist policies thrown into the mix - particularly Medicare, education and social security.

I'm not anti those policies. I am anti the cost and the waste. Medicare costs $20bn+ but the Medicare levy on takes in ~ $10bn.
Education outcomes have been falling despite year on year growth of funding.
Social security is one of the biggest costs to the budget.

When government gets involved in anything to do with redistribution of funds, costs skyrocket and the taxpayer is ripped off. They need to be wound back or scrapped completely and start again.

Hey Not_IQ,

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I have read sprint write that govt should be run like a business. to an extent, I agree. But running govt like a business is going to see people fall through the cracks.

I suspect, to run agencies such as Medicare, schooling and social security, we have to put up with a bit of fat.

I have worked in private enterprise for the last 22 years. There's nothing like a chairman breathing down your neck re profits or costs in making those profits.

In August, I start working for the public sector. I rather suspect it's going to frustrate the hell out of me.

Cheers,
Nicole

Anything to do with money should be run like a business, because it is and it is the most efficient way of cutting fat.

As an example that I raised previously, for social security have food and utility cards when the govt negotiates with suppliers to get the best value for their spend. They govt could get $30bn of food cards for at least $20-25bn possibly more via direct negotiation with manufacturers.

If you had $30bn a year to spend on anything, would you go and pay retail prices?

People need cash. People should be free to pick their own food.

What proper is draconian.

They can when they have a job and don't rely on taxpayer handouts.

Sorry, so it's not about as it's to the tax payer at all then?

It's about dehumanising and disempowerng recipients and further entrenching the gap between classes.

Tell me, how do pay for your kids excursion without cash? Their raffle tickets? Clothes at the local op shop?

Farmers markets?

Roadside vendors?

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 39715
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #117 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:28pm

Quote:

It's about dehumanising and disemboweling recipients and further entrenching the gap between classes.

Tell me, how do pay for your kids excursion without cash? Their raffle tickets? Clothes at the local op shop?

Farmers markets?

Roadside vendors?

And there is the point and the list is endless...take the grandkids to the movies, the amusement park etc etc etc etc etc.

Back to top

IP Logged

mothra

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 36384
Gender: female

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #118 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:31pm

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:22pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:10pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:04pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:59pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:55pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:52pm:

So you propose a rise in the crime rate.

And unemployment benefits are a very long way from attractive.

Why would there be a rise in the crime rate if staples can be bought and the cost is less to taxpayers?

Why would the cost be less to the cost to the tax payer be less if only basics are covered. It would need to be raised for that to happen.

You don't understand economics, do you.

Tell me ... where is the saving to the tax payer if basic needs are met?

You're not proposing a decrease in benefits are you?

I'm proposing the govt uses its purchasing power to reduce costs the the taxpayer. If it results in some inconvenience to benefit recipients, too bad.

So ... government t run super markets then? Or do expect the government to do rock solid deals with no room for price gouging with already existing vendors?

For no less money to the tax payer?

Back to top

If you can't be a good example, you have to be a horrible warning.

IP Logged

Aussie,

Senior Member

Offline

Folks are dumb where I
come from.

Posts: 296
Gender: male

Re: Socialism for the uninformed.
Reply #119 - Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:34pm

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:24pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:18pm:

mothra wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:14pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 6:02pm:

Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 5:56pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:42pm:

Answered in this post.
Mistress Nicole wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:35pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:17pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:16pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:14pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:08pm:

Aussie, wrote on Jun 6^th, 2016 at 4:00pm:

Socialists don't want a balance, they want an unfair weighting towards socialism that will fail. Socialists are the epitome of give an inch and they will take a mile. Relentless, never ending destruction of capital that has given them the opportunity to cry and whine about not being given everything paid for by someone else who works harder than they do.

You could replace socialist with capitalist in that & be every bit as correct.

So we've finally got somewhere & worked out you're not against the theory of socialism but you are against those that would take it to extremes.
Do you feel the same way about extreme capitalists?

The pendulum needs to be swung back to the right before you can invoke extreme capitalism. The socialist policies are sending the country broke.

Ummmm OK

What policies are you referring to?

Medicare, education, social security.
All of it.

I had an American friend and a hard core republican move here 3 years back. He was against the same safety nets you are, as well as a gun slinger who was anti Australia's firearms laws

Having lived in America for 52 years of his life, he is now pro safety net and anti guns (largely).

I realise this is anecdotal, but like DSmithy, I am in favour of a capitalist framework with some socialist policies thrown into the mix - particularly Medicare, education and social security.

I'm not anti those policies. I am anti the cost and the waste. Medicare costs $20bn+ but the Medicare levy on takes in ~ $10bn.
Education outcomes have been falling despite year on year growth of funding.
Social security is one of the biggest costs to the budget.

When government gets involved in anything to do with redistribution of funds, costs skyrocket and the taxpayer is ripped off. They need to be wound back or scrapped completely and start again.

Hey Not_IQ,

I don't disagree with anything you have written. I have read sprint write that govt should be run like a business. to an extent, I agree. But running govt like a business is going to see people fall through the cracks.

I suspect, to run agencies such as Medicare, schooling and social security, we have to put up with a bit of fat.

I have worked in private enterprise for the last 22 years. There's nothing like a chairman breathing down your neck re profits or costs in making those profits.

In August, I start working for the public sector. I rather suspect it's going to frustrate the hell out of me.

Cheers,
Nicole

Anything to do with money should be run like a business, because it is and it is the most efficient way of cutting fat.

As an example that I raised previously, for social security have food and utility cards when the govt negotiates with suppliers to get the best value for their spend. They govt could get $30bn of food cards for at least $20-25bn possibly more via direct negotiation with manufacturers.

If you had $30bn a year to spend on anything, would you go and pay retail prices?

People need cash. People should be free to pick their own food.

What proper is draconian.

They can when they have a job and don't rely on taxpayer handouts.

Sorry, so it's not about as it's to the tax payer at all then?

It's about dehumanising and disempowerng recipients and further entrenching the gap between classes.

Tell me, how do pay for your kids excursion without cash? Their raffle tickets? Clothes at the local op shop?

Farmers markets?

Roadside vendors?

You're projecting. It's not about 'dehumanising', it's about making it more attractive to be employed than unemployed.

Raffle tickets...seriously? Roll Eyes

Of course there will be a need for some cash, but it should be a very minimal amount as most items can be negotiated with suppliers. Bus tickets on public transport can be given in cards, food cards, petrol cards, chemist cards, all negotiated at below retail costs that people are currently spending their cash payments on- so the benefits recipient still receives the retail dollar value but the government has already paid the retailer/supplier less 10-30%.

Governments have a hell of a lot of spending power but they have no one in charge or of ability to leverage that spending power to save money.

Back to top

IP Logged