Turnbull rolls over "again" to the ultra right

Grocer is right re. the photo of McCain. Shows how simple it is to provide distraction. Although some of the fighters in the photo may have subsequently shifted allegiance. Importantly that is not Al-Baghdadi.

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/12/world/middleeast/try-as-he-may-john-mc...

I am yet to see a reasoned argument to not be involved at the level we are. Granted, Iraq V1 and especially V2 have created much of this mess. Short story - Sunni minority ruled Iraq (Saddam), US gets rid of Saddam, Dissolves predominantly Sunni army, and bureaucracy. Majority Shia take over. Sunni's pissed off - easy recruitment for Sunni ISIS. But does that mean we don't do anything now? We had a big hand in causing it.

On balance I am happy with the current involvement. Looking like another couple of hundred thousand refugees into Turkey in the next few weeks. As a rich, democratic country, I dont see the problem in sending food, weapons and air support to try to slow/stop these nutters.

grocer wrote:

If no policy action was taken to repair the budget position the Government inherited, gross debt would have spiralled to $667 billion over the medium term and continued to grow. It is the equivalent of $25,000 for every Australian. This is Labor’s legacy of debt for all Australians.

I know if said it here before , but keep in mind this was during the biggest mining boom and revenue windfall the country has ever seen.

So what about minining tax 1.0. Oh that right the Libs sided with Gina on that one....there's a legacy of negligence for you.

McCain...mining tax didn't work. Even labor agreed to that. There are already state royalties and note that WA gets less from the GST it collects. Gins gives my mates a good job and time to surf in Bali.

F...stay focused. We were talking about Aus budget. Yes your right Labor stuffed up. So let's get budget back with less deficit. Stop the rorts. Remember not all proposed budget items are passed so let's wait and see.
Glad to see an economist - so simple even Swanny could it.

In Question Time this week Joe Hockey referred to a “contract for the East West Link” and was asked for the document to be tabled – the only problem? No contract exists and the Government has handed over $1.5 billion with no cost-benefit analysis. Stop the rorts?

Floyd,
Costello left a surplus of 20billion this was after all the tax cuts.
Howard cut taxes because the government could afford to. What better way to help families and business then to cut taxes, more money for you.. Why the hell would you want higher taxes?
The Labor party had more revenue than John Howard ever had.In fact the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government was governing in the biggest boom time in our history.Cutting taxes had nothing to do with current or future deficits.

Governments achieve surplus budgets through cutting spending and reducing taxes. This stimulates the private sector creating prosperity and more revenue through a strong robust economy..
Your Kenesian economics don't work.

Time to go surfing fellas.

I just did blowin! Surfed a 4 to 6ft righthand reef/point break with 5 guys out this arvo;) How's your round Australia surf trip going? Been scoring??

Surf has been pumping Yorkes, there is actually a shot of me on the "Behind the shot by Kristian something something " section on the home page of Swellnet. It's onshore and I'm quite pissed / stoned in the pic but it's indicative of the average swell size the past few weeks.
Sounds like your living the dream yourself Yorkes. Sounds like there is plenty to go around in a lot of places around this beautiful blue ball we call home at the moment. Wouldn't be dead for dollars.

5 guys out in 2014..... Too good mate. We're so lucky.

.

Sweet blowin I will checkout the 'Behind the Shot' section! Yeah life's good, spring is a great time of year for Southern/Western Ausralia! Lap it up;-)

Sorry Floyd , back to your self induced heart attack. Enjoy.

hahaha, nice one Sam.

F…absolutely good to have an opinion - most important. in Aus we have been fortunate with two 'viable' political parties - at times !
But some times truth and fact must prevail and if thats against your belief or your desired party politics then its up to you but make up your own view.
Today … little swell and onshore but still in the water.

Grocer.......you ignoramus. Biggest global recession since the Great Depression happened in 2008.

You might have heard of it? Global Financial Crisis.

Massive unemployment and loss of wealth in all advanced western democracies except Australia due to Swan/Rudd's Ballsout stimulus package.
Praised as correct action by any economist worldwide with a clue.

Go visit the States or UK or Europe and see what ten percent unemployment looks like.

Howard/Costello pissed the mining boom mk1 up the wall giving massive middle class welfare so Mcmansions could get plasma TV's in every room while our infrastructure/education Health was underfunded. Dumb cnuts. And we will pay for that long into the future.

grocer "...The Labor party had more revenue than John Howard ever had.In fact the Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government was governing in the biggest boom time in our history"

that's incorrect grocer....see below

http://www.budget.gov.au/2013-14/content/myefo/html/16_appendix_d.htm

howards revenue stream grew by 217% between the period 1996-2006 - and that WITH CUTTING TAXES TOO. during the same period Howards revenue was consistently above 25% of GDP. during the period 2006 to 2013, labors revenue only grew by 130% and hovering around 22/23% of GDP. infact since the GFC in 2008 revenue dropped in 2010 to 21.5% of GDP, the lowest since 1973! and the predictions through to 2016 (i.e. same 10 year period as howards era) predict a revenue growth of only 160%.

agree that labor has spent more money (only marginally though!), but to say that it governed during a revenue boom is wrong. howard had the boom.

for me, one of the more interesting takeaways from looking at the Data is how little it takes to generate the surplus/deficits we have. a two percent swing down in revenue and a two percent swing up in expenditure (referenced to GDP) will create a 4% deficit on GDP which is about 60 odd billion dollars. in labors last year of government they racked up about 50 billion in trade deficit. what im saying is that it only takes something like the GFC to impact revenues by a tad and governments quickly end up in the red (most of the OECD). to be honest the whole liberal argument about labor being bad economic managers is crap that is fed to the masses on tv and in the paper, mindless spin that people lap up...in fact both parties manage the economy quite reasonably.

Well if you talking about previous governments and their deficits / surplus then how far back do we go. Good ol Gough was a beauty if want a bit of a rort with the Arab loan affair. Why do you reckon the Gov General sacked him !
Let's stick to current politics and agree we have a deficit and not a good one.

im a bit on the fence with this one TB. the only bad deficit is one racked up through poor decision making and mindless spending with no plan for the future.

noting that its 2 year old data and hopefully accurate (wiki?) , then take a look at the following for a glimpse of which countries have debt...(all of them).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

click on the column marked "Gross government debt as % of GDP (IMF)" to sort them in descending order. Out of 187 countries, Australia ranks number 137. im not worried (yet).

Happyas....note Wiki stated figures may not be 'objective and true'.
True we need (whole world really) to fix the tax rorts. Apparently G20 will discuss this one. This is impacting all countries.

Australia’s debt to GDP ratio is a mere 12.8% — even with the recent Hockey blow-out. Even if that were doubled Australia’s debt would still be less than Switzerland’s. If tripled it would be less than Canada’s. It could be multiplied by six and remain lower than Germany’s and the UK’s.

All these countries have a triple A credit rating and hence no discernible debt problem. And, of course, neither does Australia.
We just need to adjust our spending to match how much income we are receiving.

Who does the heavy lifting is what really needs debating?

The government wants pensioners, the young, the poor, and the sick to take the pain. Others including the Labor opposition, The Greens and many of the cross benchers want the spending cuts to be spread more evenly across the spectrum.
Seeing as how the government doesn't have the numbers in the senate to push through their agenda it looks like sanity will prevail, fingers crossed!

York....yes I reckon we all know and Hockey knows that he has stuffed up the budget - too hard on too many. Libs know that and will pull back. They have to. Notice Hockey has been quiet - he has had brain snap and told 'go to your room and be quiet'.
Let's see in six months.

tonybarber wrote:

York....yes I reckon we all know and Hockey knows that he has stuffed up the budget - too hard on too many. Libs know that and will pull back. They have to. Notice Hockey has been quiet - he has had brain snap and told 'go to your room and be quiet'.
Let's see in six months.

Of course he fkn knows, oldest negotiation trick in the book, deliver an unreasonable, unrealistic budget first and get the expected reaction from the opposition & stakeholders, then make concessions back to where you realistically want it set, so it is seen as being reasonable and accommodating.

But in the end their revised budget is still going to be conservative and most likely will benefit business and compromise the disadvantaged.

Tony Barber are you concerned about the separation between the rich and poor? Do you think it is a problem that needs to be resolved?

Y... We need jobs. This is what Libs have failed to do at this stage.
Rich / poor - well that depends on your measure. I'm rich - have a few boards and surf when I can.
I see young traders working hard, doing well - very well.
But jobs is really what we need. We don't want welfare - that kills the spirit.

tonybarber wrote:

Y... We need jobs. This is what Libs have failed to do at this stage.
Rich / poor - well that depends on your measure. I'm rich - have a few boards and surf when I can.
I see young traders working hard, doing well - very well.
But jobs is really what we need. We don't want welfare - that kills the spirit.

Is it welfare that you don't want to see, or dole bludging? Nobody wants to prop up others for no good reason. Jobs are great, and it would be great to see everyone employed and working towards the greater good.
But what about the gap itself. do you see a problem where the majority of wealth is possessed by the top few percent of the population, regardless of whether they earnt it or not, do you see a problem with millions of people having next to nothing?

bear in mind i'm talking on a global perspective. Australia is different because we have a minimum wage and a welfare system that reduces the gap (which is clearly demonstrated across the globe).

WE need food, we need water. We have a heap of land, we have a heap of sunlight, wind, coal. We have a heap of people who would benefit from wage/work. Cities are not working, rural places dying.
What we do.
We build huge pipelines from northern australia every wet season that delivers water to southern regions that can be used/turned into for food/fruit, production or grazing. This can be supported by solar with train system enabling new regional centres to be joined plus transport exports for economic benefit.. These types of ideas fulfill our current needs- to be fed- to have employment/ money, have water, and builds/ strengthens smaller hubs/tighter knit communities that do not put the same social and economic stresses that big and growing cities do. Any traffic jams today chopper charlie!!!!

trippergreenfeet wrote:

... Think about it. Turkey -- a nation adjacent to ISIS controlled regions -- sees no major threat from ISIS and will not participate in supporting US and Gulf States actions against it. Australia -- on the far side of the world and suffering no appreciable threat from ISIS -- sends 600 of our military forces to attack them.

Yeah? Nah.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-30/islamic-state-turkey-positions-arm...

I was about to say ..... Even that episode of Top Gear showed that Turkey was already having issues with its Southern Borders . ( Everyones fighting each other , and occasionally siding with differnet parties ) .
Basicly there has been a ongoing gorilla war in southern Turkey for close to two decades . Think back to the two or three Tourist buses that have been hijacked in that southern Turkey region in the last 10-15 years .

YLocal...solving problems of the world is a bit out my scope.
But sticking to Aus, we know a bit more.
Yep there is too much welfare or rather rorts. We see it first hand. This Is not a left / right issue.

I disagree Tony, you must have an opinion because it ties in quite well to the current political climate in Australia and the proposed changes to welfare in the budget.

Especially bearing in mind that I didn't ask you to solve the problems of the world... I wanted to see where you stand with the divide between the rich and poor and whether you see this as a problem, because you are very concerned about provision of welfare in Australia, and the provision welfare (or lack thereof) is very closely linked to the concern of an increasing gap between the rich and poor.

Ylocal.. You referenced the problem as being global (??). Can't help there. 'Welfare' in Aus takes many forms. Sure we need welfare but all as is now ? Are you saying there are no rorts ? "Let's make sure the needy get help and not the rorters.
Hence let's get a budget where we can create jobs, confidence and it follows , better welfare for the needy.

Tony, it was the coalition that popularised middle class welfare, and at the same time demonised those who truly need it.
There was never a need for baby bonuses, or home owner grants..... But there will always be a need for disabled pensions, unemployment benefit, and aged pension.....

Those countries with a decent welfare system were the ones that weathered the gfc the best.... A decent welfare system actually protects business.. It doesn't hinder it.... Many business's stayed afloat thanks to pensioners still having money in their pocket..... A decent welfare system is the most transparent form of stimulus you can have... Ask anyone in Detroit, or Sudan, or South Africa... Then ask folk in Australia, or Germany, of England, or Denmark.....

I believe n climate change..I don't believe the science. Science s basically having or making up a theory and then going about proving or disproving it.Take the old 'sunscreen gives you cancer'..or the new sitting down is killing us science. For every 'the earth is warming' theory another one pops up and says its cooling. Unfortunately alarmists have taken over both sides and the debate is a farce. For all the climate 'science' it will only take 1 volcanic eruption or nuclear bomb to fuck it all up....oh hang on Floyd wrong forum topic doh!!

Sheepdog ...yep welfare is needed for the needy. The baby bonus is means tested and home buyers is only once off. But grant is not really much value. If you want to know how and why Germany handled the GFC then find out what Chancellor Shroder did for Germany. The Germans made many sacrifices and were prepared. Not sure about UK handling GFC that well. We had a bucket of money. But I won't mention the pink bats, free plasma tvs and some of the other freebies.

@Floyd no point arguing this....of course 97% believe that, that's their job. Did you know the hole in the ozone layer is healing itself up? You have your theory, I have mine. Me personally I believe in the 'cycles' theory. hell maybe that's a conspiracy right there!!
No offence to you personally but I find it rude that people put links up expecting me to waste my time reading/watching them when they-themselves are to lazy to type or explain their points they are trying to make.

barley, the ozone layer is healing because CFC's have been banned in all developed countries for nearly 20 years, not because of 'cycles'. CFC use started phasing out much earlier than that and no countries use it now. that was discovered by a bunch of useless scientists. I wonder where were we be now if back in 1980'ish the scientists just said 'why bother...a volcano is just gonna fuck it all up anyhow'...my guess is that we'd all be basking in extra strength U.V rays and enjoying our melanoma's. wouldn't make much for the future of surfing.

a scientists job is not to believe in man made climate change...they are COMPELLED TO BELIEVE IT through all rational thought and objective reasoning about current understanding of how things work and what the evidence is pointing too. much the same way as you are compelled to brush your teeth at night because people that know shit (i.e. your dentist) told you to do so. this global warming stuff is not new, they've known about it for decades.

I personally like links...gives me an opportunity to consider whether the person actually did any research or just spouted their mouth off.

The link you posted Floyd makes an important point that is lost in the GW debate, the statistic that often gets thrown around of 97% of scientists supporting AWG theory is not correct. As mentioned in the video 97% of papers surveyed for this study were found to support AGW, let's not confuse that with 97% of scientists supporting that view...

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-to-determine-the-scientifi...

happyasS wrote:

a scientists job is not to believe in man made climate change...they are COMPELLED TO BELIEVE IT through all rational thought and objective reasoning about current understanding of how things work and what the evidence is pointing too. much the same way as you are compelled to brush your teeth at night because people that know shit (i.e. your dentist) told you to do so. this global warming stuff is not new, they've known about it for decades.

Let's take this concept a step further so the dingbats out there can understand what science is grounded on:

Science is based on fact, and the search for fact is based on an hypothesis (a theory). Scientists conduct tests with known factual parameters and controls to see if they can confirm or disprove an hypothesis.

Scientists don't try to invent a truth, in fact they do the opposite, they challenge theories and conduct tests to increase the facts known about a phenomena which is occurring, then more often than not, generate further hypothesis from the factual conclusions that they draw from their tests. Furthermore, many scientists challenge other scientists tests and create a set of results from different perspectives that further denies or confirms the conclusions drawn on a study, so with every test carried out, probability becomes increasingly more sound. This is called empirical study. it is called this because it is based on solid foundations and grows from there, further increasing the strength of the foundations of fact.

Now lets consider the 97% statistic. 97% of papers are coming back with factual information supporting the connection between human impact and global warming from a massive, massive 30-40 years of empirical study of so many elements that contribute to global warming.The statistic also shows that only 3% of papers have credible challenges to the data requiring further research to prove for or against.

We are very close to confirming once and for all that global warming at this rapid rate is directly caused by human impact from global warming since the industrial revolution. 15 years ago it may have been a hunch, in the last 10 years our ability to measure and understand the world is vastly superior, and instead of making the facts more hazy, each study (or 97% of studies) stacks up toward human impact.

The entire world is coming together to agree to reduce emissions based on the empirical foundation of known fact around global warming. World leaders are convinced that the facts are undoubtedly stacking up, and are realising that based on the likelihood and the timing, they need to start making calls for change now.

I don't understand why when a minority of scientists release challenging studies toward human impacted climate change, some people so eagerly adopt a completely adverse position to the enitre empirical foundation built over 30-40 years. It's good to question, but not to lose sight of the bigger picture which captures 97% of our field of view

Now I want to be clear that these challenges should definitely be considered as credible papers, and as such, should undergo the same wide range of further research to further confirm or disprove the challenging data.

If I was an investor, where the marketplace odds were 97% stacked, I may not be 100% convinced but I would much rather play a safe bet if I was compelled to invest now, much akin to the world leaders choices to act.

I don't think Abbott has a long term investment plan in mind. Instead Australia is selling itself short of a future boom market in renewable resources.