• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Australian Federal Election 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.
You are preaching to the choir mate; I am not in favour of poker machines and see more damage caused by them in my work than you could ever imagine.

Club presidents will naturally defend their turf; their campaign will be just as dishonest as any of hers - she has set the bar time and again already.

But you are missing the point completely (deliberately?); this could take Gillard down. This would not even be on the table if it weren't for one solitary independant MP. She made a stupid deal with Wilkie, one she probably cannot meet. In the process she has further alienated her heartland as well as her fellow Labor MPs.

Her judgement is once again called in to question, not to mention her integrity and honesty.

Worst PM ever!
 
Every bit of good policy could bring a government down. It's a shame, I know. Yet bad policy can get you praise and votes by the bucket load. I know of a young man who had a job installing insulation during the GFC, he would have otherwise been jobless, and then voted for Abbot, purely because of the 'boats' issue.
 
That is quite possible the most ridiculous thing I have seen posted here. It makes no sense, nor does it seem to have an actual point.

That aside, how's his job now that the insulation industry has been completely stuffed?
 
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...will-hit-incomes/story-fn59niix-1226148084933

AUSTRALIA's peak union body says Julia Gillard's carbon tax will drag down national and personal income levels, but the financial pain will be offset by long-term environmental benefits.

The ACTU told an inquiry into Labor's clean energy bills today that the carbon tax would reduce GDP, while per-capita income would also take a hit.

Under questioning from Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, Mr Fetter said on his reading of Treasury modelling, income levels were expected to trend downward until 2050.

Hmmmm.

Opposition climate spokesman Greg Hunt said he was "appalled'' at Mr Fetter's comments.

"The ACTU has confirmed what we have been saying all along - Australian workers will be worse off under this tax,'' Mr Hunt said.

I always thought that unions were there to get the best deal for workers.
 
I think they are verballing him. The income levels won't be going down, there will just be less growth than we would otherwise have had till 2050. They also don't say that the drop won't be all that big either, and that we continually make judgement calls on what we will do to achieve economic growth, such as the use of child labor, or guest workers. As usual, it's the old 'shock horror' alarmism.
 
Yes, the alarmism coming from someone advocating the carbon dioxide tax. He is the one ridiculously introducing child labour as a meaningful comparison. It is disgusting.

He is actually saying that wages will go down over the next 40 years, your estimation here means absolutely zero. Check his words, check the reports. The unions are abandoning their members.

This confirms some of the valid fears that have been raised since day #1: That the tax does economic harm to Australia, will hurt people, hurt jobs and undermine our financial stability. On top of that it will do nothing to mitigate climate change.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.
 
Last edited:
We don't know if he said that wages will go down, they didn't actually quote him saying that. They provided plenty of other quotes from him, but that one critical point they give their own opinion of what he said. Given their track record on reporting climate change and anything to do with climate change, I don't believe them. A carbon tax will not stop economic growth, and associated increases in wealth. As it is, the current workers have never had it so good in terms of wealth, despite all Abbott's stunts to claim otherwise.
 
Here's what was said, feel free to prove otherwise.
btw... The quotation marks are a giveaway.

"The whole point of the scheme is to reduce our emissions, thereby reducing the GDP and the incomes to all the factors of production that would otherwise have taken place,'' Mr Fetter told the committee.

"But we will also have very high emissions (under a do nothing scenario) and so at some point in time the planet will catch up with us and then you'll see what happens to GDP.''

Under questioning from Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, Mr Fetter said on his reading of Treasury modelling, income levels were expected to trend downward until 2050.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Here's what was said, feel free to prove otherwise.
btw... The quotation marks are a giveaway.

"The whole point of the scheme is to reduce our emissions, thereby reducing the GDP and the incomes to all the factors of production that would otherwise have taken place,'' Mr Fetter told the committee.

"But we will also have very high emissions (under a do nothing scenario) and so at some point in time the planet will catch up with us and then you'll see what happens to GDP.''

Under questioning from Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, Mr Fetter said on his reading of Treasury modelling, income levels were expected to trend downward until 2050.
Click to expand...

You will notice the quotation marks aren't there in the last sentence, as I already pointed out.
 
Do you think a reduction in GDP will somehow increase wages then?

Here's another source. Read it carefully,,, ;)

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2011/09/27/the-truth-will-out/comment-page-1/

The Parliamentary Committee on Australia’s Clean Energy Future came to Melbourne – where this extraordinary exchange took place.


Senator BIRMINGHAM: Mr Fetter, do you accept, then, that the Treasury modelling is accurate when it predicts that national income, real income, per person will be below that expected without carbon pricing?Mr FETTER: Yes, the whole point of the scheme is to reduce our emissions, thereby reducing the GDP and the incomes to all the factors of production that would otherwise have taken place.

Senator BIRMINGHAM: The whole point of the scheme is to reduce the national GDP?
Mr FETTER: Well, we’re clearly going to have to use more expensive sources of energy to achieve the same production, so… but the modelling is…

Senator BIRMINGHAM: And so the union movement is comfortable with lower income per person in future?Mr FETTER: We will clearly have lower income than the income we could generate if we continued to burn dirty coal and we continued with business as usual but we will also have very high emissions and so at some point in time the planet will catch up with us and then you’ll see what happens to GDP…

my bolds
The Australian claims confirmed.

Hands up everone who wants lower wages? Boy! I can't wait to get into that union. :boggled:
 
I was right, the Australian distorted what he said to mean something comletely different. They made it sound as if wages would trend down due to the carbon tax, that is, that from the start of the carbon tax, people would be getting paid less, till 2050. That is not what he said at all.

You highlited quite selectively to do exactly the same thing. Put the whole quote in. After the judgement against Bolt today, it's time News Limited lifted their standards, if they don't want more complaints and legal action taken against them.

Mr FETTER: We will clearly have lower income than the income we could generate if we continued to burn dirty coal
Click to expand...

It will be slightly lower, but we have never been wealthier, it's a small price to pay.
 
Wrong. Moreover, you have no evidence it will be slightly lower.

But once again you miss the point - unions used to do things to improve the lot of their members, not any more.

It's a huge price to pay for zero result. Remember, this pain will actually do nothing to mitigate climate change.

Having a good reason, is not a good reason for doing something stupid.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Wrong. Moreover, you have no evidence it will be slightly lower.

But once again you miss the point - unions used to do things to improve the lot of their members, not any more.

It's a huge price to pay for zero result. Remember, this pain will actually do nothing to mitigate climate change.

Having a good reason, is not a good reason for doing something stupid.
Click to expand...
I have evidence that News Ltd journalists have lied again. I hope the court case today will make them think twice. It was a stupid trick, provide a quote, make a statement that misrepresents what he said, put another quote. Just as I suspected. The issue was not what you think, or me, it's what he said and what they misrepresented him as saying.
 
Now who is making things up?

Perhaps you could explain what he was saying if not that wages and GDP would deteriorate with the introduction of a carbon dioxide tax. Perhaps yopu could explain what he means when he says

Mr FETTER: "Yes, the whole point of the scheme is to reduce our emissions, thereby reducing the GDP and the incomes to all the factors of production that would otherwise have taken place."
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
Now who is making things up?

Perhaps you could explain what he was saying if not that wages and GDP would deteriorate with the introduction of a carbon dioxide tax. Perhaps yopu could explain what he means when he says

Mr FETTER: "Yes, the whole point of the scheme is to reduce our emissions, thereby reducing the GDP and the incomes to all the factors of production that would otherwise have taken place."
Click to expand...

Because he didn't say this

Under questioning from Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, Mr Fetter said on his reading of Treasury modelling, income levels were expected to trend downward until 2050.
Click to expand...
Many Labor party policies are claimed to reduce income levels, and be detrimental to the economy, but we have one of the worlds best performing economies, with the highest standards of living, and the lowest levels of debt. The Australian twisted what he said around. Andrew Bolt was just successfully sued for doing the same thing. And the coward refused to answer questions on the judgement, because he knows he can't answer the specific findings of it. He abused the standard of journalism, he was wrong on his facts, he set out to defame people. And Tony Abbot says this.

Mr Abbott, visiting towns on the NSW mid north coast, said he could not comment on the specifics of the case.
"But I just want to make this point," he told reporters.
"We should never do anything in this country which restricts the sacred principle of free speech.
"Free speech means the right of people to say what you don't like, not just the right of people to say what you do like."
Click to expand...


I don't recall anything being 'sacred' about free speech. It is something that we humans invented, and the Labor party tried to set up a legal charter of rights, but the Liberals opposed it. Perhaps if they had passed the human rights bill, they would have some legal legs to stand on. The simple fact of the matter is, Bolt set out to defame these people, and the judge agreed. His research was nothing more than shallow, much of it using Google, and he never contacted those he was defaming to get their side of the story.
 
Last edited:
Not what the Australian paraphrased him as saying, which implied there would be a decline in wages, with no increase, due to the carbon tax. All he meant was that it wouldn't be as high. When Australians have never been wealthier, with one of the healthiest economies in the world, we can afford a slight reduction in the standard of living to achieve a greater goal.
 
What greater goal? The carbon tax will not mitigate climate change at all.
Ergo, lower standards of living, lower wages, economy undermined for no "greater goal", etc.

Stupid, stupid, stupid.
 
Last edited:
Wayne Swan says the government is "determined" to deliver a budget surplus next financial year despite taking a $130 billion hit from the global financial crisis.

Final budget outcome figures from last financial year released today show tax receipts came in $1.7 billion below the prediction of this year's budget which will make the forecast surplus hard to achieve.

In May, the government forecast a budget surplus of $3.5 billion for 2012/13 after four consecutive deficits.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-09-30/swan-unveils-deficit/3193352
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom