aquascoot wrote on Nov 26^th, 2018 at 11:05am:


Socialism by definition can never last, let alone prosper. You can’t expect people to work hard and just give it to those who don’t contribute a thing.

In terms of Jim Molan, my hope is that a truckload of people give him first preference below the line to back in. It worked with Lisa Singh with Labor in Tasmania. Even last election, despite being seventh on the ticket, he had over 10,000 first preferences. I always vote below the line. I will put him first, and then everyone else, then the Coalition and Labor second last, and the Greens dead last.

Its time wrote on Nov 26^th, 2018 at 10:39pm:


I said the Greens, not Liberals.

aquascoot wrote on Nov 26^th, 2018 at 9:05am:


Where your argument falls down is where you say the govt (any of them) are vibing with the voters. Nope they do what benefits themselves. Voters are an inconvenience. The only time they seemingly vibe with the voters is election time but they just lie and dont do anything.

Spot

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 27^th, 2018 at 5:18am:



both of you have the problem identified but are not coming up with a solution.

yes, if we are to look after the frail and sick elderly, then we will need a lot more spending on things like hospitals and services for the elderly.

thats fine.

but thats as expensive as hell.

i think a knee replacement costs about 30 k .

and that money doesnt come out of thin air.

that comes out of government revenue.

now, spot says "greedy politicians" but the truth is that the politicians are just selling the farms, selling the real estate , selling the ports , selling the shopping centres and mines to overseas interests, this isnt because they are greedy. they just are desperate for cash to pay for the services that the voters now demand.

is this a game that can be played forever.

absolutely not.

eventually, the foreign debt and the sale of our income producing assets will lead to an inevitable drop in available cash and all government spending will be reduced.
this is what happened in greece.
no cash for cancer drugs, no cash for public housing, increased costs on fuel and electricity.
this is what is happening with the riots in paris because the government raised the fuel tax.

it is the consequence of people just wanting to take and people being reluctant to contribute.

functional societies dont think that way.
they are proud to give and limit taking.

when the financial crisis hit korea and hyundai and samsung looked vulnerable, people worked extra hours for free, people gave up their wedding rings to be melted down for gold to keep their companies afloat.

we could have done that with our car industry.
and that would have created an upward spiral of contribution, wealth, legacy, pride and patriotism.

but instead we just put the workers on welfare and told them to become takers.
is that good for them...absolutley not
is it good for the economy...absolutely not.
is it the fault of greedy politicians ... absolutley not.

it is the consequence of people thinking that you move up by grabbing, grasping and taking and not understanding that all success requires sacrifice and giving before you recieve.

I reckon Molan was "a bit of a dill" ... but I do see how frustrated he would be ...

matty wrote on Nov 26^th, 2018 at 10:09pm:

A ridiculous argument. Basically, we shouldn't do our share of lifting because we only do a small amount of lifting.

Someone surviving on the Newstart payment requires about 0.00001% of the Federal Budget. Using the exact same argument, we should abolish all obligations for the unemployed. The obligations cost $10 billion a year to administer so why keep them?

One vehicle is only about 0.00001% of all vehicles on Australian roads. Speed limits on roads are costly to administer, and what difference does it make if a particular driver keeps under 60 or drives at 65?

Or does everyone do their bit because it's the right thing to do?