Baloo said:
why did you write this then? Seems pretty vehemently anti Labor. My comment was pretty calm and sober I thought, I'm anti-both parties in this regard.
-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
why did you write this then? Seems pretty vehemently anti Labor. My comment was pretty calm and sober I thought, I'm anti-both parties in this regard.
Baloo said:
you'll be surprised to hear this but i'm not actually 100% against a co payment because it will discourage people seeing the doctor for trivial reasons. But it could also have the opposite affect of sick people not wanting to pay to see a doctor. so your proposal of $10 is too high. should be half that at most (and maybe half that again for pensioners). Abbott proposed $7, but I didn't trust him to keep it at $7. I expect this would have inflated pretty quickly.
MB78 said:
climate change isn't the biggest issue facing the future of humanity. population growth is. but all sides of politics want more and more immigration. religions want us to go forth and multiply, are against contraception and want abortion nabbed. you can say what you want about China's policy, I commend them on at least taking a stance.
Always amuses me that a sovereign state which Victoria is who has its own treasury has to rely on borrowed money to run its budget.tigersnake said:
poppa x said:
It is a misnomer. With the exception of the devastation of war in general population is stagnating. Most of the western world has seen its fertility head towards the cliff of non-replacement. And in the rest of the world as education gets to more people the same happens. Many have the total population levelling off around 2050 and then beggining to decline. Population needs to be a consideration but it is not more important than climate change.
"Africa, where population is projected to quadruple from around 1 billion today to 4 billion by the end of the century. The main reason is that birth rates in sub-Saharan Africa have not been going down as fast as had been expected. There is an 80 percent chance that the population in Africa at the end of the century will be between 3.5 billion and 5.1 billion people.
Other regions of the world are projected to see less change. Asia, now 4.4 billion, is projected to peak at around 5 billion people in 2050 and then begin to decline. Populations in North America, Europe, and Latin America and the Caribbean are projected to stay below 1 billion each."
http://www.washington.edu/news/2014/09/18/world-population-to-keep-growing-this-century-hit-11-billion-by-2100/
KnightersRevenge said:
Good post Knighter. Have been posting similar stuff perennially on PRE, search the archives. It's the classic "overpopulation causes poverty" argument - in fact poverty tends to produce overpopulation. Increased standards of living result in lower birthrates, along with education rates in women in particular.
Meanwhile in the developed nations we have declining birthrates and need to top up with immigration if we want our economies to continue to grow.
I also love that the rampant capitalists among us are the ones decrying population growth and immigration - unless we change the way the economy works fundamentally, we can't do without the demand that immigration to the West brings, unless you want to live in permanent recession.
The real issue for me is the coming crisis (environmental) when you'll still have very large numbers of people in Asia who are beginning to consume as much or more than wealthy people like us in the West. So before overall populations begin to decline we might screw the planet even more than it already is.
antman said:
I suspect we share a cozy echo chamber Ant so at the risk of preaching to the choir, testify brother!
Two of the big things we could be doing are pushing renewables and GMOs. Both have the potential to mitigate the effects of that expansion. Another would be expanding, not contracting, our foreign aid so as to boost education the the regions that need it most. I can anticipate the black-and-white thinkers saying something about our own back yard. As the little girl in the Taco ad says, "why not both"?
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/life/weekend-australian-magazine/no-pain-no-gain/news-story/ee3599b60a167098bd340e5065c348ea#itm=taus%7Cnews%7Caus_authors_index%7C1%7Cauthors_storyBlock_headline%7CLet%E2%80%99s_get_this_party_started%7Cindex%7Cauthor&itmt=1469923655909
You've gotta fight for your right to pay back your own debts
OPINION: BERNARD SALT
i'm disappointed we aren't going to get another election anytime soon because I have a great idea for a new political party. I'd call it the Take Pain Now party. I'd have one bold policy, which I think gives me a distinct advantage over other parties. My single policy is this: we have racked up perhaps $320 billion in debt over the past eight years or so and now it's time to pay it back. I said, now it's time to pay it back. I told you it was bold. No, wait, listen. Hear me out.
This generation of Australians incurred the debt so we at the TPN party think it only fair that this generation repays it. It's not like the debt was racked up because we were at war, which kind of excuses 1940s Aussies from pushing their debt into the 1950s. Our debt was racked up to save us from recession and to save jobs. Well done Australia, we are at our best when it comes to spending money to save us from ruination.
We at TPN believe patriotic Australians will jump on board our program designed to share the load so that our children are not burdened by our largesse. I mean, what if they have to save Australia from a future recession and there's no borrowing capacity left? That wouldn't be fair, would it?
So here's what my new party proposes. First we rein in all government expenditure by 10 per cent so as to bring spending into line with revenue. I know this is a difficult concept so I'll take you through it slowly. At TPN we think that revenue should be roughly equal to spending every year. That way we don't rack up more debt. Clever, huh?
I know what you're thinking. This can't be so simple. Oh yes it can, my friends. I have had whiz-bang economists look at this and they concur that, technically, if spending equals income, debt does not rise. It's not magic; it's called solvency.
Now for the good bit. After we get spending and revenue into balance, we "save" even more so as to "repay" accumulated debt. "Save" is when you don't spend all the money you earn. And to "repay debt" is to pay back money that you have already borrowed.
I didn't want to get too technical on this, but I have to explain the TPN party's policy elegance. The way to save money so as to repay debt involves a two-step process. First, all taxes go up 10 per cent; second, all services are cut by 10 per cent. We do this for five consecutive years and bingo, our debt is all but repaid. I thought five years was a reasonable time to impose pain because that's about the length of a world war. We have done this before; we can do it again.
What do you think? I am excited. I expect that millions of Australians will say, "Count me in, Bernard" as I am swept to victory. Do I really have to wait another three years to test my idea?
Since unveiling my new party I have been inundated with people offering me all sorts of deals. Many have said they love the idea but that their particular skillset is better utilised in "raising awareness" rather than actually "taking pain". There is no shortage of people quite skilled at pointing out the capacity of others to pay more.
So the bottom line is that the TPN party remains resolute. Everyone takes pain now, the rich and the poor, the employed and the unemployed, the old and the young - indeed, everyone who benefited from Australia being saved from the ravages of the GFC is expected to take some pain for several years so as to deliver budget fairness to future generations.
I have my victory speech all worked out. I'd be humble but honoured. Vote 1 the Take Pain Now party and save Australia from the horrors of intergenerational budget unfairness.
Vote 1 Bernard Salt for me.
You've gotta fight for your right to pay back your own debts
OPINION: BERNARD SALT
i'm disappointed we aren't going to get another election anytime soon because I have a great idea for a new political party. I'd call it the Take Pain Now party. I'd have one bold policy, which I think gives me a distinct advantage over other parties. My single policy is this: we have racked up perhaps $320 billion in debt over the past eight years or so and now it's time to pay it back. I said, now it's time to pay it back. I told you it was bold. No, wait, listen. Hear me out.
This generation of Australians incurred the debt so we at the TPN party think it only fair that this generation repays it. It's not like the debt was racked up because we were at war, which kind of excuses 1940s Aussies from pushing their debt into the 1950s. Our debt was racked up to save us from recession and to save jobs. Well done Australia, we are at our best when it comes to spending money to save us from ruination.
We at TPN believe patriotic Australians will jump on board our program designed to share the load so that our children are not burdened by our largesse. I mean, what if they have to save Australia from a future recession and there's no borrowing capacity left? That wouldn't be fair, would it?
So here's what my new party proposes. First we rein in all government expenditure by 10 per cent so as to bring spending into line with revenue. I know this is a difficult concept so I'll take you through it slowly. At TPN we think that revenue should be roughly equal to spending every year. That way we don't rack up more debt. Clever, huh?
I know what you're thinking. This can't be so simple. Oh yes it can, my friends. I have had whiz-bang economists look at this and they concur that, technically, if spending equals income, debt does not rise. It's not magic; it's called solvency.
Now for the good bit. After we get spending and revenue into balance, we "save" even more so as to "repay" accumulated debt. "Save" is when you don't spend all the money you earn. And to "repay debt" is to pay back money that you have already borrowed.
I didn't want to get too technical on this, but I have to explain the TPN party's policy elegance. The way to save money so as to repay debt involves a two-step process. First, all taxes go up 10 per cent; second, all services are cut by 10 per cent. We do this for five consecutive years and bingo, our debt is all but repaid. I thought five years was a reasonable time to impose pain because that's about the length of a world war. We have done this before; we can do it again.
What do you think? I am excited. I expect that millions of Australians will say, "Count me in, Bernard" as I am swept to victory. Do I really have to wait another three years to test my idea?
Since unveiling my new party I have been inundated with people offering me all sorts of deals. Many have said they love the idea but that their particular skillset is better utilised in "raising awareness" rather than actually "taking pain". There is no shortage of people quite skilled at pointing out the capacity of others to pay more.
So the bottom line is that the TPN party remains resolute. Everyone takes pain now, the rich and the poor, the employed and the unemployed, the old and the young - indeed, everyone who benefited from Australia being saved from the ravages of the GFC is expected to take some pain for several years so as to deliver budget fairness to future generations.
I have my victory speech all worked out. I'd be humble but honoured. Vote 1 the Take Pain Now party and save Australia from the horrors of intergenerational budget unfairness.
Vote 1 Bernard Salt for me.
KnightersRevenge said:
This is true, but Poppa's point is still valid. Human population is huge now, has grown extremely rapidly to get where it is. It might level out relatively soon, but from a huge base.
KnightersRevenge said:
Sorry for editing out most of your post but I really don't understand your position here. Human population growth is the major cause behind climate change. You cannot separate the two issues because they're intertwined. Cull 99% of the human population and climate change may resolve itself if we haven't stuffed it up completely already.
The only reason for population growth is the keep the ponzi scheme generally known as the 'economy' ticking over. The only people who benefit are those at the top of the pecking order. As the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, more population means more poor scrambling over the scraps. Population growth driven by economics is generally a very bad thing for everything non-human on this planet and the vast majority of the human population.
1eyedtiger said:
good post, and hard to argue with one-eyed. One minor (major?) point though, I'd go further and say human population growth is not just the major cause, its the cause.
On another note, see Eddie Obeid and his sons are sueing NSW ICAC for the stress they have caused him by finding him to be corrupt. Isn't that the point of law enforcement? To stress criminals? They have hired a Filippino PI (um, gangster?) to find out who blew the whistle on them. You can't make this *smile* up
No backing for Rudd as UN UberLord. Partisan politics ? A good thing for the World ? Or just basing the decision on what Rudd's own pary said about him during the spills and white anting ?
I think it's a bit of 1,2 & 3. While it would have been good to back our own candidate, I'm not sure the world is ready for the possibility of Boris, Trump and Rudd
I think it's a bit of 1,2 & 3. While it would have been good to back our own candidate, I'm not sure the world is ready for the possibility of Boris, Trump and Rudd