One more time, can the friends of the ALP who drop in to visit here please advise (1) what they think the Party should do address the issues of debt and productivity? And (2) what criteria they think should be applied to determine the cuts in existing programs that will be required to fund the dental scheme, the disability scheme, the school education reforms and the NBN?
I am especially interested to see what hammycar has got to offer in addition to predictions about polling figures, and of course the thoughts of various Steves and others.
Update. Montster has legitimately complained about being left out. I apologize without reservation.
Another update. hammycar called for more debt to fund spending on essential infrastructure. But of course we have already gone into debt (from a very strong position) by spending on pink batts and school halls. We have recently learned that “iconic” structures like halls trumped things that you might have regarded as essentials like repairs to toilet blocks and in some cases classroms that the schools and the local communities wanted. [In some states the locals had more say than in others].
The re-development of the Royal North Shore Hospital is reputed to be a billion over-spent (under the previous ALP administration). That meant that the incoming Coalition cannot honour a promise to spend 250 Mil each on three other hospital upgrades.
Do the ALP supporters acknowledge the extent of waste and mismanagement that has occurred under ALP administration in the states and in the current Federal body?
As a Greens supporter – but an ALP supporter if it comes down to Gillard v Turnbull – I feel I’m somewhat qualified to answer your questions.
To answer your first question:
Issues of debt? Hardly existent, but raise taxes.
Issues of productivity? Non-existent – we’re running at full employment in this country.
With regards to your second question, that is an entirely loaded question. Cuts are not necessary. We’re far too afraid to raise taxes in this country. It’s far too politically unpopular. But economically speaking, if you’re going to run these programs without running into a pit of debt, that’s what is necessary. Marginal tax rate of 50% on income over $1 million will solve most of your problems without any significant loss of productivity (although I know that point is going to be debated to all hell by my libertarian friends).
I hope that helps.
Jon Regan-Beasley
10 Oct 12 at 3:20 pm
Australia has far less debt than most other advanced economies. We should expand our government ratio of debt to build up our neglected infrastructure and to expand our education and health sectors. Such expenditures can be partly financed by additional taxation on business and the rich (those whose family incomes exceed six figures), but we shouldn’t be unduly concerned by increasing debt.
Productivity is an overrated issue. It will be improved by taking unions into a greater partnership. Everyone knows that it’s the workers that determine productivity. Treat them well and generously and productivity will take care of itself.
hammygar
10 Oct 12 at 3:26 pm
ALP people have more pressing things on their minds, like mysogyny (has there ever been a more over used word), misdirected affrontation, preparing the next ‘look over there’ press release and their next earth shattering twitter comment
Oh and I forgot Abbott, Abbott, AbbottAbbottAbbottAbbott
These are the important issues
val majkus
10 Oct 12 at 3:28 pm
d’Hamester ahs spoken.
Employers should buy each wooka a Holden Calais or Ford Fairlane every 3 years for their private use
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 3:32 pm
Please Hammy, I’d love to hear more on your plan for success. Don’t stop.
Token
10 Oct 12 at 3:33 pm
In all seriousness, leave Hammy alone. It is unseemly to mock the mentally afflicted.
Case in point: I do not consider Romney a shoo-in come 6/11, but he’s most certainly a contender who’s currently gaining momentum. Hamster seems to be completely oblivious to this. I fully expect, if Romney takes the WH, to see Hamster vigorously celebrating Obama’s re-election; a state of denial that will persist until he’s forced to leave office due to term limits in 2016.
oh come on
10 Oct 12 at 3:42 pm
Simple: hit the credit card and workers’ control.
The Greeks have been following the same strategy for years.
Lazlo
10 Oct 12 at 3:42 pm
Hammy is a pitch-perfect parody. He doesn’t believe any of this stuff.
Abu Chowdah
10 Oct 12 at 3:49 pm
Don’t follow Hammygar’s advice.
His hero James Scullin in one short stint as PM, appointed a mad Keynesian and crooked Queenslander as treasurer, managed to split the Labor Party and lost an election in a landslide.
manalive
10 Oct 12 at 3:49 pm
Can posters please stay on topic and leave off the abuse. For one, I want to read just how Labor supporters answer the questions. This is not to say that reasoned criticism of Hammygar (and counter response by her/him) is not warranted – might promote a reasoned debate.
rafiki
10 Oct 12 at 4:04 pm
Given I wasn’t mentioned in the OP, I feel I should boycott this thread. Harrumph!
m0nty
10 Oct 12 at 4:04 pm
Reduce government outlays by eliminating middle class welfare (health insurance rebate, family tax benefit etc) and corporate welfare (e.g. car industry handouts)
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 4:05 pm
Thanks for asking by the way
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 4:06 pm
We’ll call you “Steve m0nty” for now, m0nty.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 4:07 pm
Up with that I shall not put!
m0nty
10 Oct 12 at 4:09 pm
Ironically the interest on our debt ($250billion and growing)is about $12billion pa – no wonder we cannot fund the grand schemes. Swan etc know we are running out of money and therefore refuse to say where it is coming from. Mind you they spin to get the kudos knowing funding is one or 2 terms away.
AND this is after running defence spending down (perhaps that is no longer important), screwing the states and not putting the NBN on the books.
I will be pushing up daisies when my grand kids struggle to pay the bill – if it ever gets paid. But at least they can play lightning speed computer games on the NBN – forget that, they will be using more mobile equipment won’t they? OMG!
Allan
10 Oct 12 at 4:10 pm
monty doesn’t have an opinion. QED.
Gab
10 Oct 12 at 4:10 pm
OK, that confirms it for me.
Hammy is parody.
mct
10 Oct 12 at 4:11 pm
Shorter Hammy.
On 1) debt – rack up more; productivity – embrace unions and tax da rich
On 2) Don’t cut anything, just tax da rich.
What a plan from the clam-fisted ham-man…
Skuter
10 Oct 12 at 4:14 pm
Is this:
“Ironically the interest on our debt ($250billion and growing) is about $12billion pa”
a reverse ponzi scheme – the more interest we “pay” *|(in fact, are charged), the more debt we pile up?
JohnA
10 Oct 12 at 4:21 pm
Hey ham-man,
Don’t hurt yourself as you pull your d!ck out the spam can…
Skuter
10 Oct 12 at 4:21 pm
You laugh at the plan MCT, but have a look at what Labor has done since 2007 and tell me where their management of teh economy has deviated from that?
I want to hear more from Hammy as I suspect we’re seeing the world from Wayne Swan’s viewpoint.
Token
10 Oct 12 at 4:30 pm
How much will that save Steve?
The biggest saving by far (if realistically still a drop in the ocean) required to cut tghe present ~$400 billion budget government budget outlay
How will you cope with the blowback following the shutting down within a year of all car manufacturing facilities?
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 4:31 pm
Give M0nty his due Rafe so we can hear how he would approach managing the economy and keep people employed.
Token
10 Oct 12 at 4:31 pm
So JamesK are you suggesting subsidising the inefficient local car manufacturing industry is a good idea?
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 4:40 pm
They got nothing….
Mike Kelly on Capital Hill OMG – I’m off to email him & make the statement “..We’re not stupid you know…”
Because it is obvious that that is what they think the man in the street is. There’s no subetly left in this mob!!!
Dianne
10 Oct 12 at 4:41 pm
I know you’re a lefty being cornered but give the strawman a rest and answer the question posed.
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 4:42 pm
Like others, I feel sure that anyone who says ‘productivity is an over-rated issue’ is just having us all on.
Ellen of Tasmania
10 Oct 12 at 4:45 pm
We’ve been working on a coup d’etat for some time but Gillard’s good with knives
ALP EXECUTIVE
10 Oct 12 at 4:54 pm
1- No time to worry about this- there is an election soon.
And Kevin Rudd/Tanner/ McKew are in there stirring things up. This disquiets the members sitting on small margins so the factions are all jockeying for position with regard to the potential of leadership change.
2- In the fullness of time something might be done but the strategy of multiple announcements is played out.Now the constant criticism of Abbott has taken over but will run out of steam soon.
The C tax has been neutered so that won’t be scare card in the campaign.
Keeping a lid on the union corruption scandals will be taking up all the ALP machine’s time and filling the media space , driving the course of events.
Expect more unfunded announcements, more attacks on Abbott and the factions watching carefully.
Any explanations which do try to account for the changes will be for media consumption only.
I think most ALP parliamentarians are expecting to lose office and post lost manoeuvring is under way.
murph the surf
10 Oct 12 at 4:54 pm
hammygar .. Australia has far less debt than most other advanced economies.
We should expand our government ratio of debt … but we shouldn’t be unduly concerned by increasing debt.
Ah and governments of any persuasion know how to manage other people’s money better than we do?
Governments are about do as we say not do as we do.
No financial probity, no financial discipline around reporting the financial facts (any spin will do), an inability to respect that they have NO money they only get to use others money … yours and mine.
As a small business owner I have to adhere to a standard of reporting and accountability far in excess of those bureaucrats and politicians who feather their own nests.
This video says it all
Aussieute
10 Oct 12 at 5:07 pm
I would really like to delete comments that just sledge the usual suspects.
Hammycar, (and whoever suggested it) I can see scope for reducing corporate welfare – who on this site is in favour of tariff protection?
Also scope for reducing middle class welfare. Abbott’s promise on parental leave is a ludicrous example.
I don’t see any role for increased taxes on anyone.
Hammy, have you seriously done the sums on the total sum of promises that the ALP has pledged, and the cost of the NBN?
Poor Old Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 5:20 pm
Poor Old Rafe must be on the sauce.
d’Hamster didn’t suggest reducing corporate welfare.
For a start his beloved unions would have conniptions.
Steve did and on middle class welfare also.
Both of which – most on this blog would agree with but it can’t be done all at once if at all.
and even if it were done at one fell swoop it wouldn’t save much.
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 5:28 pm
We should expand our government ratio of debt … but we shouldn’t be unduly concerned by increasing debt.
Of course not, why worry.
Lets pretend the borrowings aren’t denominated in foreign currency, then like good keynesians we can just drop interest rates to zero, fire up the printing presses and inflate the debt away.
It’s working so well for everyone else.
mdh
10 Oct 12 at 5:28 pm
(1) what they think the Party should do address the issues of debt and productivity?
Tony Abbott is a sexist.
(2) what criteria they think should be applied to determine the cuts in existing programs that will be required to fund the dental scheme, the disability scheme, the school education reforms and the NBN?
Tony Abbott is a misogynist.
Next question, please.
Feral Abacus
10 Oct 12 at 5:32 pm
The Fin Review noted today:
I have no idea what the pros and cons are of fiddling with these tax concessions for super would be, but clearly ones $30 billion a year are worth looking into.
steve from brisbane
10 Oct 12 at 5:35 pm
Sorry Rafe but i don’t accept the premise of Question 1, it falsely assumes that (a) ALP are concerned with debt and (b) their overlords the unions will let them be concerned with productivity.
Question 2 is redundant as it relies on false assumption (a) in question 1.
That’s probably why the ALP cheer squad can’t answer.
jumpnmcar
10 Oct 12 at 5:37 pm
That’s $30 billion dollars of taxpayers and pensioners money you absolute pickled mussel of a man.
Infidel Tiger
10 Oct 12 at 5:39 pm
By the way, for a right wing blog, I would have thought that the bigger issue is getting your own side (the Coalition, even if they aren’t your dream team – but let’s face it, who is?) to work out what exactly they are going to cut in terms of spending, taking into account lost revenue from the taxes they intend to abolish.
Instead, you want to sit back and just be the perpetual critic, without disclosing your own plans for a comparison. Very Romney-esque.
steve from brisbane
10 Oct 12 at 5:45 pm
No “government”of. ANY PARTY should be Allowed To Borrow Money
In the Peoples Name.Article one of the New Constitution?
Borisgodunov
10 Oct 12 at 5:48 pm
So what, IT? You pay tax on “your money” every payday.
Since when is it a defence to the question of tax reform to say “you can’t change that, it’s their money.”
steve from brisbane
10 Oct 12 at 5:51 pm
Why are we giving the site buffoons and trolls their own special thread to espouse their idiocy?
Oh come on
10 Oct 12 at 5:51 pm
But Steve(s) etc, if you put up a good case, we might vote ALP – have you thought of that?
Or at least steal your brilliant ideas .
Helen Armstrong
10 Oct 12 at 5:52 pm
The same could be said by Newman to Plibersek.
But she would only say she’s waiting till closer to the election, which is quite reasonable IMO.
jumpnmcar
10 Oct 12 at 5:54 pm
Seriously, are you expecting to learn something new from them, Rafe? Or something they haven’t trotted out a thousand times on other threads?
Oh come on
10 Oct 12 at 5:54 pm
liar-steve™ – apart from being a lying fuckwit scummy pervert and leftist misogynist – also misrepresents.
The PHI rebate for example is a huge problem to ‘correct’.
There is no true private health insurance as 60-70% of the total hotel and medical costs of a stay in a private hospital are paid for by Medicare.
With the rebate removed that will see an ongoing evolving decrease in the percentage of the population moving back to Medicare only.
Our public hospitals already cannot cope and the states can no longer pay for the increasing costs of public hospitals as a percentage of the states’ income.
This will only worsen as a result of the lank haired horrors Roxoff and Pliberjerk.
If we are going to truly remove middle class PHI rebate then the total costs of PHI should be payed by the private system and not mostly Medicare.
If that happens then the private health system is dead unless the middle class are appropriately charged for the public system as which point the universality of Medicare dies.
And die it must.
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 6:03 pm
JamesK,
checking the 2012-13 budget statement 6, (billions)
Familly Tax benefit : 19.9
Fuel Tax credits: 5.7
Parents Income Support: 5.8
Private Health Rebate: 5.3
Child Care Fee Assist: 4.1
That doc only lists the top 20 programs.
The above 5 programs are 40 billion.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 6:05 pm
As if – you are already claiming the MRRT and carbon tax are going to economically kill the place. The majority of economists say “no.”
The Coalition will kill Labor’s additional revenue measures, making the job of budget cuts harder than they should be.
It is like Romney – who will deal with budget problems worse than ours by increasing defence spending substantially just at the time common sense would suggest withdrawal from overseas adventures mean you can decrease spending.
steve from brisbane
10 Oct 12 at 6:08 pm
Industry assistance adds up to 2 billion, but there’s no breakdown in that budget paper
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 6:09 pm
Good SteveC.
Give is the link and tell us what you want to cut and by how much.
Most of us here are with you B)
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 6:12 pm
An excellent idea.
So how would the labor party achieve that without performing ritual suicide?
lotocoti
10 Oct 12 at 6:13 pm
LOL
Fucktard liar-steve™ thinks the US debt will be less in 4 years under a President Romney than a President Obama.
Fuck liar but you are a disgusting moron.
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 6:15 pm
more not ‘less’
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 6:16 pm
For dot’s interest, I did notice in the budget papers the general administration cost of the Education function is 300 million (out of a total budget of 30 billion)
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 6:17 pm
Are you seriously daring me or say dot to come up with ideas on how to cut the spending. You have to be kidding Stepford. We would have the spending down to 10% of GDP before you can say deficit.
Entire departments would be closed down.
1. Department of communications and broadband. OUT
2 Department of glimate change. OUT Maximum prejudice.
3. Department of Education, Employment and Workplace Relations OUT
4. Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs. OUT
5. Department of Finance and Deregulation OUT
6. Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade IN Just foreign affairs. No other shit, so you cut it bigtime.
7. Department of Health and Ageing OUT
8. Department of Human Services. OUT
(This is fun)
9. Department of Immigration and Citizenship OUT
10. Department of Industry, Innovation, Science, Research and Tertiary Education OUT
11. Department of Infrastructure and Transport OUT
12. Department of Regional Australia, Local Government, Arts and Sport Fucking really OUT
13 Department of Resources, Energy and Tourism Fuck off
14 Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities OUT
15. Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet IN
16 Department of Veterans’ Affairs OUT
17 Parliament of Australia IN but smaller
18 The Federal Judicature IN
19 The Treasury IN
20 Attorney-General’s Department IN
21 Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry OUT
I’d cut 16 of the 21 departments and most people wouldn’t notice a thing.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 6:25 pm
Once again Shitfer is discussing economics.
Tomorrow we will invite llama to talk on sheet metal fabrication.
Infidel Tiger
10 Oct 12 at 6:25 pm
The budget paper 6 is http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst6-02.htm
It breaks it down by program, which is actually quite useful. But of course all the myriad small programs don’t show up. I’m sure the detail exists but it would take a long time to find it all.
I agree cutting stuff like tarriffs and industry assistance (e.g car industry) will be difficult for a labor government, as it affects jobs. But equally difficult for conservative govt as it affects business.
I’m going on memory here, so I may be corrected, but didn’t Keating do a lot of the previous tarriff cutting?
The other major booster of productivity in the 80′s was the ACTU wages accord. Which was a labor govt, but this labor govt is not Hawke/Keating.
With a minority government reliant on a disparate collection of independents it’s hard to see any major reforms being made. Abbott in a minority government would have the same problem.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 6:25 pm
Means testing of the PHI rebate supposedly “saves” the federal government $800 million Steve.
Well plenty of lefty morons think that.
Shouldn’t the PHI rebate in its $4.5 billion entirety be removed?
Why not save many billions more by not subsiding 60-70% of the costs of the total hotel and medical costs of a private hospital stay?
That will increase PHI fivefold at least I should think
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 6:26 pm
So by that Steve, do you mean you are against increasing total tax by having more taxpayers, but instead want to tax taxpayers more?
Helen Armstrong
10 Oct 12 at 6:26 pm
SteveC
These are not ” middle class ” benefits.
jumpnmcar
10 Oct 12 at 6:27 pm
Rafe, I don’t mean to be rude, but have you been awake smoking crystal meth for the last few days? The resident ALP supporters on this blog won’t acknowledge waste and mismanagement in their beloved fiscal stimulus programs. They’re too busy celebrating the year of the mollusc and won’t even acknowledge that the PM has been at best severely negligent in her previous employment by completely ignoring the interests of her employer and their client. Apparently, even if she was negligent it means nothing in relation to her current position.
I’ve tried engaging with SfB, hammy, numbers, etc. They never concede anything even when they are given clear evidence of their flawed logic.
Forgive me if I abuse them, but I’ve given up on them. They are on the side of economic luminaries like Doug Cameron whose answer to our debt and productivity issues are: tax da miners and da banksters and abolish the evil neoliberal Productivity Commission. Quit while you’re only this far behind Rafe…
Skuter
10 Oct 12 at 6:28 pm
He wants a long term spend of around 4% of GDP.
That’s doable, you eggnog, provided they’re able to get the other stuff through such as deep cuts to PBS etc.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 6:29 pm
The problem is no government has the cojones to take this on seriously until like the US the debt is over 100% of GDP.
Medicare as it is presently understood as a universal ‘free’ provider is the root of our woes.
Nothing is more expensive than free healthcare.
Be serious people.
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 6:29 pm
he wants long term expenditure of around 20% of GDP, JC.
It’s 25% under Obumma
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 6:31 pm
Department of Human Services: what on earth do they do??
As for the Department of Finance and Deregulation – that’s a fucking Orwellian name considering the mob responsible for it.
Oh come on
10 Oct 12 at 6:31 pm
Of course it is. However the vast majority of the electorate think that a sovietized model is the best. This is because they’ve been brain washed into thinking this shit.
Soviet models without a price signal don’t work. Period! Anyone who suggests otherwise is a fucking moron.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 6:33 pm
At least hammy had an attempt to answer, you’ve got to give him that. None of the others even tried. Monty, as usual, just made it all about his ego.
Funny, innit? When they get asked, they don’t have any answers at all. No original thoughts. Pity, we could have all learned something.
No, they don’t. Not stevec, not SFB, not monty….we really ought to get a better class of leftwingers here.
Gab
10 Oct 12 at 6:36 pm
I know James. The problem with Romney is that he’s too fucking timid. That beast needs to be starved down to 12% max.
There’s very little the US government needs to do other than defense, Federal law and run a couple of important embassies (The rest can be skyped and skyping is fucking free.
Other than say border control, there’s really not much else.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 6:36 pm
Privatise ALL schools and government pays %10 above ” Private school rate per student ”
That saves about $6000 per student.
jumpnmcar
10 Oct 12 at 6:39 pm
The Sixteenth Amendment is a lasting festering wound on the American Revolutionary ideal JC
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 6:41 pm
You don’t need to ask these dufus trolls. They only run out the standard fare of the Fauxfacts/ABC/Green/Union/Rights Industry anyway.
blogstrop
10 Oct 12 at 6:42 pm
JC, you need to look at the programs rather than the departments.
For example if you eliminate the departments you mentioned we would have
no vet affairs pensions or medical
no medicare or PBS
No university or funding for non-government schools
no aged pension or disability pension
no federal road funding
Good luck getting anyone to vote for that
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 6:42 pm
Just ban leftism and everything else will fall into place.
Infidel Tiger
10 Oct 12 at 6:43 pm
People who have given up on the resident ALP supporters do not need to read this thread.
I am prepared to be critical of the Coalition but this thread is an opportunity for our colleagues to demonstrate what they have got to offer apart from abusing Abbott.
If they are prepared to be serious I am prepared to take them seriously.
Like JC I see no role for Federal departments to shadow the State resposibilities in Health and Education and most other areas of service delivery. Give us our share of tax revenue and piss off. It is tragic that the states did not take up the offer of levying income tax that was offered maybe after WW2, that way states could compete to offer value for tax money.
Poor Old Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 6:45 pm
DoFaD are the outfit responsible for the Financial Management & Accountability Act (FMA Act). Especially for writing all those regulations. Any time I look at it and the hoops that need to be jumped through to Assure compliance, I can never get over the irony of the name.
Tim
10 Oct 12 at 6:46 pm
Get rid of Medicare, cut taxes massively and give a voucher to all who can’t afford PHI and sell all public hospitals except for the genuine very few university teaching hospitals (3 each in Melb/Syd, 1 in Brisb/Adel/Perth) and the occasionally non-viable remote regional but necessary hospitals
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 6:47 pm
No SteveC. Eliminating departments demonstrates 100% resolve that we’re making a clean break with the past and ensuring that any of that shit does not come creeping back.
It’s a cheque printing operation. Farm it out to the a payroll firm through treasury. Engage an audit form to see the payments are legit.
vouchers through the ATO
Yep, that’s right. Let the states decide what they want to do.
See above… payroll firm. In any event the pension will be phased out.
Yep. Let the states work it out.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 6:48 pm
Even if there was waste in these programmes (which I don’t acknowledge), it doesn’t matter. What matters is that the stimulus was spent quickly to benefit the economy and create employment. That’s what mattered.
hammygar
10 Oct 12 at 6:51 pm
Medicare was just a socialist fantasy. It was based on the idea that people who did not have insurance or could not afford private care were left out in the cold. The doctors had a tradition of free service for needy people but our ALP colleages hate private charity so that had to go.
As people became better off they could have taken up insurance or paid their own way, if the incentive for personal responsibility was not trashed by “free” provisions. And so here we are. Thanks Gough.
And thanks for your grandchildren, the third generation unemployed as well.
Poor Old Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 6:53 pm
Hammy’s last comment was so stupid I am itching to delete it. Please no sledging. Let it go through to the ‘keeper:)
Poor Old Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 6:55 pm
Kero:
You can achieve the stimulus through monetary policy. I presume you’re slightly rational. Your concern (if you’re in fact legit) is to prevent a sudden drop in aggregate income. You can achieve this with monetary policy. It’s far more efficient and doesn’t cause the shit fest you end up with through fiscal stimulus. Fiscal stimulus is a waste of money and scarce resources.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 6:56 pm
I doubt that is correct.
According to the budget papers the govt spends 60 billion on health, which is about half the total spend.
According to this table Australia spends 8% of GDP on health. The USA, with no universal healthcare (“free” health) spends 16% of GDP.
So it would appear the one thing more expensive than “free” healthcare, is “not-free” health care
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 6:58 pm
Kero
I think you’re trying to sound smart and shit like that, so Rafe may have been a little to harsh on you with the threat of deleting that crap you wrote.
It’s pure drivel by the way.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 6:59 pm
You have obviously never dealt with vet affairs
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:01 pm
ALP has two choices 1, Sack idiots such as Wayne Swan & 2, Target all watermelons for weekend sport!
We again this week see Greeks rioting & blaming the Germans for having the hide to expect loan repayments! Yes – that’s just one of the nations our brain dead treasurer looks up to!
maurie
10 Oct 12 at 7:02 pm
SteveC it is helpful to realise just how much public money goes into the US health sytem even without whatever it is that you want to call universal healthcare (check out the waiting lists at public hospitals some time).
The weird thing, as I understand it, is that ObamaCare has to be funded out of current public programs.
They could do better with less public input and a whole lot less regulation. They are getting the worst of both worlds – masive public spending and dysfunctional state intervention by regulation.
Poor Old Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 7:02 pm
Has anyone got the ” total amount in $AU ” of the stimulus, to date anyway?
Around about would do.
jumpnmcar
10 Oct 12 at 7:03 pm
Oh fuck, not US healthcare again.
Look you moron the US system is not a private one. It’s basically a fascist model, differing from ours which is a soviet one.
The US system is a complex maze of mandates and government edicts. It also has a tiny co-paymment compared to ours. Lastly the incentives area ll fucked up.
You can’t separate the public cost from the private here in an attempt to come to a comparison, you dickweed. The public system hangs over the entire thing like an octopus.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 7:05 pm
Gab at 6.36, please look at my post at 6.05 and tell me which of those programs you want to keep.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:05 pm
So you’re saying the vets are not looking for money. LOl The department of defense would do it.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 7:06 pm
Balancing the federal budget would require some quite deep government spending cuts. This would go much further than what extra spending the Rudd-Gillard and Howard governments have introduced over the past decade. Since extending or raising the rate of the GST would only give more money to the states and not help to balance the federal government’s own books.
Among the measures which would needed to be implemented would including following;
Substantial Cuts to Pensions and other social security benefits.
Even more stringent means testing of Centrelink benefits.
Means testing medicare.
Scrapping the private health insurance rebate.
Elimination of industry subsides.
The elimination of tens of thousands of public servants, along with whole government departments.
Overall Australia is facing the challenge trying to fund for a European (although heavily means tested) welfare system on a tax base similar to that of the USA. Either taxes would need to go up substantially or spending to be reduced substantially.
justtristo
10 Oct 12 at 7:08 pm
Possibly none.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 7:08 pm
JC, you missed the critical part of my 6.42 post:
Good luck getting anyone to vote for that
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:09 pm
Of course they’re middle class benefits jump. If you are earning over 100K why on earth are you on welfare?
What is the point of taking income tax in one hand and giving it back (based on complicated criteria) with the other?
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:11 pm
I didn’t miss any part, Wolfgang.
Look, dickweed, this is a libertarian blog for the most part. It’s where we discuss libertarian free market ideas. It’s a not place where we discuss what we sell to the moochers. Don’t like it, then fuck off.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 7:13 pm
I agree JC, (7.08), Gab seemems to think I made no contribution. I suggested we axe all those programs. (40 billion dollars worth). I want to know which ones Gab would keep. Better still I would like to know which ones Abbott would cut.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:13 pm
It’s called churning, Wolfgang. This is what Romney is attempting to reduce, which moochers like you are against.
We’ve discussed churning here hundreds of times.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 7:14 pm
We are talking about what needs to be done. Of course we have to explain stuff to people
But what is the point of only suggesting things that
peoplemoochers like if we are on the road to Greece?Poor Old Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 7:16 pm
No you don’t really agree because you think we should cut some middle class give backs and keep the marginal tax rates alone. That’s not what any of here support.
That was keating’s modis. Cut the tax relief and pocket the money to spend elsewhere while calling it middle class welfare.
That’s basically stealing.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 7:18 pm
Usually true JC, but in this specific case Rafe asked “And (2) what criteria they think should be applied to determine the cuts in existing programs “, so I offered an answer. I assumed he was looking for an answer that might work in the real world rather than an imaginary world that will never exist (at least in this country and in our lifetime)
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:19 pm
They don’t believe we could be on the road to Greece with this government. They’ll throw up a couple of metrics and then say “so there, we’re not so bad”, and that’s the end of it.
Gab
10 Oct 12 at 7:19 pm
Rafe I agree we have heaps of government duplication and eliminating one tier of government would be a good idea. We had this discussion before. I would prefer to eliminate 7 state governments rather than one federal, more bang for the buck that way. But then I’m veering towards a similar fantasy land to JC.
JC, you said earlier – let the states work it out. Why would state governments be any more efficient than federal?
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:23 pm
Well, Rafe, you gave them a purpose-built platform to air such dross. What were you expecting? Them to deliver you an epiphanous moment?
This thread is a stain on Catallaxy. At best a waste of time.
Oh come on
10 Oct 12 at 7:24 pm
Gab would you be happy to axe the programs I listed at 6.05?
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:24 pm
privatise the ABC!
val majkus
10 Oct 12 at 7:27 pm
Rafe, maybe the problem is the “ALP” in the title. No one really wants to own up to being one of them these days. Perhaps the “ALP” could be altered to, for example, leftwingers or anti-Liberals?
Gab
10 Oct 12 at 7:27 pm
I notice pulled a trick so he did not have to actually put forward anything.
Pity I thought with his experience at the Cat and other blogs he’d have some really interesting input.
___________________
Bravo SteveC for putting forward suggestions and allowing them to be tested.
Token
10 Oct 12 at 7:28 pm
JC @ 1825,
Add the ABC @ $1B.
Mike
Mike of Marion
10 Oct 12 at 7:28 pm
The health insurance rebate is middle class welfare????!
Mate, Medicare is middle class welfare.
if you want to reduce middle class welfare, here are the big five:
1. free schools. (should “rich” or even “middle class” people get this costly thing for free, when they can pay for it themselves?)
2. medicare. (totally welfare)
3. subsidized university education (even for the “rich”)
4. the ABC
5. light rail, wherever it is found.
dd
10 Oct 12 at 7:29 pm
Taking up SteveC’s point about what is politically feasible, that is the worst thing about our economically illiterate and left/Labor biased mainstream media stenographers. It is not just their bias against Coalition politicians and their overt support for the ALP at times of need, like elections. It is the way that they cannot sustain a public debate about policy options, like this thread.
The people are entitled to be given information and arguments about all sides of policy issues, so when there is not a fullon election campaign they can contemplate the options in a relaxed manner with a chance of forming a half decent opinion. That would mean having forums with equal numbers of rival parties not just one or two conservatives versus a team of lefties plus the convenor.
It would mean the Monthly running debates with exchanges of views between equally qualified people over several months.
It would mean the Age and SMH having a balance of columists and op eds, with a special effort to get exchanges over a period of time so each party gets to spell out the pros and cons properly, not just one-off hit and run exchanges.
It would mean providing stats to back up each side, with explanations of shortcomings and bias in the data, for example when the tresury is politicized. Etc.
Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 7:32 pm
Steve, state governments are closer to the people but far enough away so it does not have to be totally parochial like the local government level.
The cancer of over-Government applies at all three levels, the answer is to deregulate (sensibly) at all three levels.
Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 7:36 pm
SteveC, in answer to your question, would I be happy to axe those programs, the answer is a qualified ‘yes,’ to all except the health rebate and child care assist. they were:
comment:
rather than scarpping the health rebate- which would simply put more wealthy people on medicare – medicare itself should be phased out for wealthier people.
child care assistance is techinically middle class welfare, but government regulations have caused child care fees to skyrocket, and have also reduced market diversity. So it’s a patchwork correction for government over-reach.
dd
10 Oct 12 at 7:36 pm
What dd said. Cutting the ABC does more than save a Bil a year, it eliminates one of the major channels of disinformation (at least to the 3%).
Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 7:38 pm
I found this interesting article on Australias government debt while looking for some figures.
A Short History of Government Debt in Australia
and another table listing the historical payments as percentage of GDP. Hasn’t really changed much from 25% since 1975, regardless of the falvour of government.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:40 pm
Rafe, state government is really only closer if you live in the capital city! I grew up in WA where anything east of the border was “the eastern states”. But if you lived in the country, people didn’t have much time for people from Perth either!
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:43 pm
I don’t think anyone on this site is thrilled by the performance of the old anti-communist socialist-conservative Fraser or the centralism and drunken sailor spending of Howard and Costello, plus the “deregulation” of IR with an 800 page Act and 1600 pages of regulations.
Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 7:44 pm
dd – I’ve been saying that about Medicare and the ABC for ages.
Quentin George
10 Oct 12 at 7:45 pm
yeah, they love to seek out “middle class welfare”. They wander back and forth looking for it, around the elephant’s feet. “Where can it be,” they ask. “Where is this animal we seek?”
Look up, guys.
dd
10 Oct 12 at 7:48 pm
“No “government”of. ANY PARTY should be Allowed To Borrow Money In the Peoples Name.Article one of the New Constitution?”
Check out Bruno Frey’s FOCJ. In that system, the competing political parties/focuses own their debts. If a particular community votes an indebted party/focus out, their debt goes with them, becoming a burden only on those communities which decide to keep them.
2dogs
10 Oct 12 at 7:50 pm
Having said that, I applaud SteveC for debating in good faith, and for putting up clear ideas to talk about.
dd
10 Oct 12 at 7:51 pm
According to this table we do pretty well comparitively on health expenditure. So I’m not at all convinced that medcare is such the baddie it is made out to be.
The problem with adjusting medicare to be not universal is the addded bureaucracy required to manage a patchwork system.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 7:57 pm
You are quite wrong SteveC
I don’t accept your figures but let’s not quibble.
The US PHI system is the antithesis of freemarket and user pays.
Most PHI is paid by the employer so efficiency is irrelevant to the consumer.
And US law make that much worse with the employer having to pay for things the employee does not even need or want for example free condoms for 32v yo university sluts who will earn $200k first year out.
For 65 yo and above (where the overwhelming majority of healthcare costs are expended) the US Fed gov pays the tab ie universal healthcare for >64yos.
The reason that ‘free’ healthcare is more expensive in central command and control systems is the same as for PHI in the US – the user has no investment in concern for their charges
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 7:57 pm
as for comment number one, right up at the beginning of the thread:
There are problems with marginal tax rate of 50 percent on the very wealthy.
1. Many of them – not all, but a number – will just leave.
2. this reduces the tax base a bit, but the bigger problem is that these people are often (not all, but in a lot of cases), either highly skilled people such as CEOs and entrepreneurs, or control lots of assets. Or both. so you strip the economy of a slice of its movers and shakers.
3. in any case, the moral argument for high tax rates on the rich is based on the fallacy of the fixed pie. Mostly, rich people didn’t get rich by taking money from poor people, they got it other ways.
dd
10 Oct 12 at 7:58 pm
Means-testing Medicare is a bad idea: the government would wind up spending the same amount of money on it, but it would be spread over fewer people – the people who are low-income enough to qualify for it.
This would increase progressivity of health expenditure without actually cutting expenditure – the worst of both worlds.
benson
10 Oct 12 at 7:59 pm
In short, the Green definition of “middle-class welfare” is actually “welfare benefits Greens voters don’t get”. That’s why progressive income transfers like the FTBs are “middle-class welfare”, but strangely enough, actual middle-class welfare like the ABC and subsidised university education don’t qualify.
benson
10 Oct 12 at 8:01 pm
So Benson, you’re saying that SteveC is right about medicare! D’oh!
dd
10 Oct 12 at 8:02 pm
Do you really think the government would say “hmm, we’re saving billions by means-testing Medicare, we can now give high-income earners tax cuts”?
Of course not. They’d spend it on more welfare (health or otherwise).
benson
10 Oct 12 at 8:05 pm
I don’t know what ALP supporters might think, But Wayne Swan has decided the answer to the rural debt problem lies in consulting with Bob Katter and his fellow travellers. They are co hosting a rural debt summit next week in Brisbane, with Joe Ludwig along to carry the bags.
Should be a hoot. The list of speakers would make old Black Jack McEwan look like Milton Friedman.
entropy
10 Oct 12 at 8:06 pm
Incidentally dd, I suspect this is why Howard refused to consider means-testing Medicare: because he knew that it would, sooner or later, just increase the progressivity of government spending.
The Medicare levy surcharge strikes me as a good way of nagging high-income earners into paying for their own insurance. It’s essentially a higher Medicare insurance premium, if you think about it.
benson
10 Oct 12 at 8:09 pm
Regarding free schools, i don’t agree with user pays childhood education. You can argue that adults can get a job and be responsible for their own life. But you can’t argue that for children. A child of a poor family that can’t afford to go to a decent school is unfairly disadvantaged through no fault of their own. A low quality education is a great way to entrench a poverty cycle.
If you split the system into paid schools and “welfare” schools only for the poor, you will inevitably end up with an inequitable system. Norway (or Finland, can’t remember which) has an interesting system where ALL schools private and public are totally government subsidised and no school can charge fees.
We already have a fairly good system of user contribution to university fees through HECS. I would not like to see a situation where university education is only avaulable to the rich, or children of rich parents.
One of the drivers of productivity growth is good education and training, so policies that detract from that will not save money in the long run.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 8:13 pm
Anyway I’m off to watch the Chaser on the ABC while it’s still free!
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 8:14 pm
Rafe, do you realize that this thread will be illegal under the Fisk Doctrine Act (2013) which is all written up and ready to go as soon as Romney and Abbott assume their duties?
Fisky
10 Oct 12 at 8:16 pm
Hammycar’s answer up top I assume to be either more trolling or the work of a bog-peasant brought up in the gutter but just in sight of the Rich House. Poor Hammy.
Did this little chappy write it all by himself as he listened to, “These are my Favourite Things”?
And why “unions” in greater partnership? Not individuals, you’ll note. Hammy gives his game away.
But then again, he’s not very bright.
James of the Glens
10 Oct 12 at 8:30 pm
A marginal tax rate of 50% (up from 46.5%) on income over $1,000,000 is not much of an increase in overall revenue terms. I don’t see how that is really going to solve any problems with the budget.
2dogs
10 Oct 12 at 8:38 pm
Go Rafe….
You have ‘them’ frothing at the mouth.
But then again I suppose it was Tony Abbott that made you say it…..
NoFixedAddress
10 Oct 12 at 8:42 pm
Fuck off SteveC, go talk to kimberly, your sex doll.
They would be closer to the voter and able to allow for regional differentiation. It would also allow for competition between the states. Seriously, look at that Greenslime basket case which is Tasmania. How has Federal support made them see sense. There would be no one left there without Federal transfers, or theyt state would have mended its way ages ago.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 8:53 pm
This is often said by people that think university graduates are more productive in society than year 12 graduates.
I’m yet to see conclusive evidence of that.
jumpnmcar
10 Oct 12 at 8:58 pm
That’s a fucking shock. Not!
Which therefore makes me financially responsible for someone else’s kids. Why?
How do you actually define a bad school. We can’t easily sack teachers. Lastly, did you see that 4 Corners program about that Sydney burb? We’ve thrown billions at the area and it’s all gone down the gurgler. There’s no amount of money you can spend when the culture is like that. None.
Well they aren’t private then, you idiot. If a school cannot charge fees it’s basically run by the government.
It never was and wouldn;t be. It should only be available for smarter kids.
And why assume a good ed can only come from a government run university art department? Germany is well served through its advanced apprenticeship type of system.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 9:00 pm
Of course it was NFA but just keep in between you and me:)
Thanks to Steve for joining the discussion in the right spirit.
How far can a government get ahead of public opinion? In NZ Roger Douglas only had to get things through one house – no upper house and no states. And for some strange reason the socialist PM Lange apparentlty let him go ahead on his own.
Keating drove the deregulation agenda in Australia with Hawke and some other competent supporters. That cabinet room had more talent than we are likely to see again in our lifetime. BUT he was only doing what economic rationalists in CIS and the IPA and the Backbench Dries in the Liberal Party urged for years. Besides, he only got serious after my paper on the Austrian case for reform was published the Age in 1985. The Age was a class act in those days, apparently. But do you think Keating ever acknowledged the Austrians. Probably didn’t even know how to spell Mises or Hayek. Or Rothbard. But that is another story.
Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 9:01 pm
One great driver of productivity is to have incentives for workers to be more productive. So you get paid in proportion to your output or the output of your team. See how that would turn the country around if it got a run. The individuail agreements moved in that direction, how come they got thrown out without serious protest? What happened to the right of people to make their own decisions? Where were all the labor civil liberties lawyers?
Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 9:07 pm
I didnt think my question 6.26 was that hard, Steve, or maybe you just missed it?
bed now – buggered.
Helen Armstrong
10 Oct 12 at 9:07 pm
WHAT LEFTIES THINK.
Tomorrow in our ongoing series we ask gibbons what is their favourite single malt Scotch.
Infidel Tiger
10 Oct 12 at 9:09 pm
Enjoy these kinds of thread while they last fellas. We are discussing Leftist ideas and from next year, as soon as Abbott and Romney have working majorities in both chambers, this sort of discussion will be totally banned until 2023.
Fisky
10 Oct 12 at 9:11 pm
Universities have ruined the western world. They used to be reserved for the best and brightest. Now they are storage units for adolescent dropkicks who can’t face the real world. Maybe 2% of the population actually need university education.
I would defund the bejesus out of them.
Infidel Tiger
10 Oct 12 at 9:13 pm
Woman on US shopping channel passes out. The dude just keeps on selling.
Death of a salesman takes new meaning.
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2012/10/09/video-qvc-host-collapses-on-air/
JC
10 Oct 12 at 9:16 pm
100% correct.
The destroy open-mindedness, resourcefulness and intelligence.
JamesK
10 Oct 12 at 9:17 pm
oops wrong fred.
JC
10 Oct 12 at 9:18 pm
Some of the money could be reallocated to constructing a colosseum in every capital city where crowds will get to enjoy pitched battles between retrenched college professors and unemployed arts graduates.
Fisky
10 Oct 12 at 9:26 pm
Rafe, do you realize that this thread will be illegal under the Fisk Doctrine Act (2013) which is all written up and ready to go as soon as Romney and Abbott assume their duties?
If the Act is more than a page in length you will hang, Fisky.
dover_beach
10 Oct 12 at 9:29 pm
Hey lefty trolls! How are the lies going?
Wong on 7.30 this evening twice asserted ‘that Abbott has said that women are not fit for high office’.
This is a blatent lie. He has never said anything like this.
Would you care to produce evidence that Abbott has said this? If you don’t then you are concuring that Labor Lies.
Lazlo
10 Oct 12 at 9:33 pm
The sound of the ALP’s clawing, spitting desperation would be sweet were it not so unseemly.
wreckage
10 Oct 12 at 9:41 pm
I don’t think it’s possible to have this sort of discussion when the definition of terms in the argument are so completely dissimilar. My 35 year journey from Socialist to Libertarian started from the first day of work after leaving the education system and not watching the ABC. Socialists have no concept of what we know to be the unassailable truth.
To them ‘Transference by consent’ is impossible. The rich control everything and steal the lions share of labour added value, and hence don’t actually pay for anything. Virtually all SBS/BBC/ABC historic drama and documentaries explore this theme. The concept of mutually beneficial trade is completely alien to them.
So ‘debt’ is not the excess of spending over earnings, it is a ‘tax’ foisted upon the worker by the rich.
‘Productivity’ is a further tax on workers because the greed of the rich is always increasing. That entrepreneurs continually strive to better satisfy the wants of a consumer is just as alien a concept.
Government ‘tax’ is the worker rebalancing this power struggle to scrape back just a little of what the rich have stolen from them. It is impossible that any of that capital could be invested in something more productive, making everyone richer.
They are truly on a totally different planet.
The only thing we can be almost certain of is that Tony Abbott will not take the first step to killing this lunacy by immediately defunding the ABC/SBS and abolishing the education department and assisting the states to abolish theirs.
Forester
10 Oct 12 at 9:47 pm
Kudos to this bloke for actually answering the question but less skewer the poor bastard nonetheless.
So you’ll vote for Abbot?
Debt is of course large. Add up Government debt Federal, State, Local and Intergovernmental until you get the total.
It is much more of a problem than the ALP, who were in power in QLD & NSW until recently and of course Federally, refuse to acknowledge.
If we’re at full employment, then by definition, labour productivity will be low – and more so growth. Labour productivity growth is the issue. Adding on more taxes to labour costs will see Australia have even more uncompetitive unit labour costs. Australian manufacturing will go offshore because it will have little choice.
Labour productivity growth has been slow since around the end of 2007. Do I blame the end of a lower spending regime with a friendlier international investment environment and more flexible labour practices? In part, of course you have to. Here’s the rub: the participation rate has fallen and the unemployment rate has risen. Under Howard, who I believe is far from a stellar performer, we had lower inflation than the last two years to now, high real wages growth, respectable labour productivity growth, excellent participation rates and unemployment rates under 4% for the first time in a long time.
We are not at full employment now, nor do we have good productivity growth. Last year it went BACKWARDS for the 1st time in about 20 years. This should be a massive black mark against Gillard and Swan.
I could argue that your answer was “loaded” too.
Of course we need spending cuts. The private sector is much more efficient than the private sector. Please see the opinion article in the AFR by Gary Sturgess on the 15th of June this year for more.
Of course it will, because the wealthy invest. They invest in capital. The capital to labour ratio determines overall output, labour productivity and wage rates. If you have a higher K/L ratio you have a larger tax base. You don’t think the wealthy have their assets as internationally diversifiable capital?
You can’t hope an economy towards prosperity. You have to let people work and invest.
.
10 Oct 12 at 9:50 pm
Lazlo at 9.33 – I expected to see a “oops wromg thread” after your post.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 10:07 pm
Vet affairs: why???? they barely pay more than Medicare would. Just combine it. What a waste of space.
Medicare: voucher for the poor, tax rebate for the wealthier.
funding for non-gov schools…again, why??? and my kids attend one
aged pension: that requires a govt dept and thousands of staff? you don’t even need to buy a server these days, let google web apps run the whole thing
Federal road funding..WTF???
And re hammygar who says: “Even if there was waste in these programmes (which I don’t acknowledge)”…
Look my whole family vote ALP (thankfully I experienced a gene mutation myself) and even ALP people don’t talk like this. Hammygar is fake, face it. It’s not amusing or interesting either.
rob
10 Oct 12 at 10:10 pm
rob, vet affairs pay heaps more than medicare (like everything for a gold card holder). plus vets pensions and determining qualification for both. If you look at the budget paper you will see the actual amount paid out is massive.
the govt tried to defund catholic schools back in the 50′s or thereabouts. All the catholics turned up at the local public school. Funding catholic schools in particular actually saves the govt money.
I’d be surprised if the aged pension part of the bureaucracy is 1000′s of staff. aged pension is part of human services, which covers a lot of agencies.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 10:33 pm
Thanks dot, I missed the first comment, being so impatient to read hammy’s contribution.
They appear to be twins.
Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 10:44 pm
BTW Rafe,
I’m not sure what your intention with this thread was, but I appreciated the opportunity to discuss something of substance. And for some strange reason, the usual suspects acceded to your request to avoid mindless sledging.
SteveC
10 Oct 12 at 10:53 pm
Why? Wong was expressing the totality of contemporary ALP philosophy.
Lazlo
10 Oct 12 at 11:23 pm
My intention was to talk about policies as a distraction from all the crap. If we can’t lift our game across the board in this respect we are stuffed.
As for the sledgers, I merely exerted my moral authority as the grand old man of the blogosphere:)
Poor Old Rafe
10 Oct 12 at 11:39 pm
Lazlo, and others, if you watch shows like the 7.30 Retort you will be regularly pwonged in some way.
As for SteveC, after all the nice things said about him, off he went to improve his worldview by watching The Chaser.
Blogstrop
11 Oct 12 at 5:28 am
Malcolm Turnbull resigns from the Liberal Party and starts his own party. The ALP wither away. Former ALP voters move to Turnbull’s party. Liberal supports breathe a sigh of relief and hope the new party can represent the left side of politics without totally buggering things up every time they are in office.
Steve D
11 Oct 12 at 8:43 am
I see Kennett is calling for a federal election. If only news like this could be published as often as someone calls for Turnbull to re-assume the Liberal leadership?
Steve D
11 Oct 12 at 8:46 am
Right on!
The ALP would become the Trade Union Party, pure and simple. Interesting to see how many votes they would get!
Rafe
11 Oct 12 at 8:47 am
I tried Rafe, I tried. No one appreciates it.
Now I know how it feels to be a Parramatta grand final player.
I think if the social democrats who vote ALP because they are social democrats who don’t hate productivity would flock to an Austrlaian copy of the Democratic Party.
The unions would be marginalised in a way they are in America.
.
11 Oct 12 at 11:42 am
the govt tried to defund catholic schools back in the 50′s or thereabouts. All the catholics turned up at the local public school. Funding catholic schools in particular actually saves the govt money.
So let the states raise money to cope. Even better, close the public schools and give vouchers to (only) the poor. The idea that public and private schools need $20,000 per student or whatever (thats what i pay) is absurd. You could literally hire your own personal teacher for two children at those rates. Look at how cut-price private providers in Scandinavia provide a perfectly adequate education in rented offices with rented-by-the-hour music/sports facilities.
Rob
11 Oct 12 at 1:30 pm
Sorry 1st para above was a quote..
Rob
11 Oct 12 at 1:31 pm
Catholic schools are more efficient.
(I think) You are talking about the 1963 election and the Goulburn School Strike.
That actually started over the NSW Government trying to force the Catholic school to undertake onerous and unnecessary capital improvements.
My understanding is the funding was minimal of the catholic system until then.
Menzies was a cynical old bastard and made it an election issue and funded the private schools, he should have funded the students.
If anyone whinges about private school funding, point out a) they are more efficient and b) it wouldn’t be that way if central planners were not so bossy.
.
11 Oct 12 at 1:43 pm
I can’t logically argue with someone that asserts that the government must fund universal education, but mustn’t do it at half price (ie., via private schools).
How do you argue with someone who thinks that way? How?
PS: IDIOTS! “UNIVERSAL” MEANS THEY FUND THE RICH KIDS AT FULL RATE! I AM TYPING SLOW TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU!
wreckage
11 Oct 12 at 9:13 pm