thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
Until everyone can support themselves - like you and me, who have been employed for most of our working lives.
Even those that don't want to work? And don't tell us no-one is like that.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
Free for the recipients of the rescue package, but not for the government; how many times do I have to tell you the rescue package should also have been free for the currency-issuing government, at a time when the economy was restricted to delivery of the essentials to locked-down 'non-essential' workers who could no longer earn an income due to the lockdowns.
And because you don't need taxpayers it is free for them as well.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
eg, Burnham is being forced to face up to the real issue: where is the money coming from?"
And that doesn't even go close to answering the question. But that doesn't agree with your mantra.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
Which will require increasing government spending; he has 2 options: increase taxes or authorize the treasury to fund the above programs.
Nothing to do with a fair wage or sit down money.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
Houses are already unaffordable and builders are going broke - unnecessarily when government could employ tradesmen for free, or tax the public to pay for the tradesmen and materials.... your choice (see the Burnham comment above).
Employ tradesmen for free? That is so stupid, even from you. If the tradesmen are free, how do they live, they have expenses. Or tax the public more?
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
1. Taxation which enables wealthy people to escape paying taxes is regressive...
Nope. AI: "Examples include sales taxes, excise taxes on items like tobacco or alcohol, and user fees such as tolls or parking charges." and fuel taxes of course.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
Those who are not driven by their (unconscious) reptilians brains (like you), and who recognize Oz could eliminate poverty in a decade ie house clothe feed and employ everyone, because the necessary resources are avaiialble.
So you say. But you admit you don't have the figures. And there you go with the epithets again, another losing argument for you.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
Your error: you still conflate money with resources.
Resources do have a monetary value, if they didn't the government couldn't issue money.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
So, Snowy 2 will take longer to build than originally planned?
Doesn't matter, the green transition will take time, the essentials are the resources needed to complete the project.
Re calculating the 'cost' of, say, a million public housing units:
So how many houses would 12 billion build?
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
So... c. $200k worth of materials, times a million: c. $200 billiion, to be spent over - say - 10 years.
So you are not going to pay the builders, tradesmen etc. well done you.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
That means Oz has c. double the resources needed to build a million public housing units in a decade.
Trades people are a resource.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
We are now drilling down into the real issues (ie, money versus resources), but your unconscious reptiiian brain continues to insist on seeing scarcity when and where there is none.
Back to the epithets again. Money is a resource.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
Whereas Musk recently mused (re the coming AI revolution): "work will be optional and money irrelevant...."; contrasting your unconscious (instinct-driven) reptilian brain with his visionary, conscious cortex brain.
Ah so no-one wil have to work, we will just have sit down money, sit in a circle and chant "kumbayah".

And Musk knows what about AI? Or does he employ people who know about AI, which while it may be artificial is far from intelligent.
thegreatdivide wrote on Jul 3
rd, 2026 at 5:53pm:
Not side-stepping the question: she's seeking the votes of the battlers who have been abandoned by mainstream politicians. She knows she's in with a chance, given widespread disatisfaction with mainstream politicians.
And still sidestepping the question. Where did she say the majorty of voters were battlers?