Australian
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 1671 comments are related to the topic:
Labour= tax tax tax......and tax again
Labour= tax tax tax......and tax again
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 1,671
|
By:
I have often wondered the percentage of the aussie population who believe it makes no difference to their lives whether it is liberal or labor in government. Can I start the count, 1
|
|
By:
 I love the Liberals, Joel. I don't hide that, but I'm willing to be fair. Don't think either side of politics can take claim for being responsible for natural disasters. But can I say on the count of objectivity. Steve Whan, Labor member for Monaro has been a fantastic pillor of strength for the community of Queanbeyan over the past few days as the floods have struck. He is a genuine, nice, and hard working bloke - with a real passion for Queanbeyan. A really solid local member. He is likely to be wiped out in the March 2010 election when it is likely the Liberals will take power - but it goes to show, in every electoral landslide or significant movement, there are always good people wasted. |
|
By:
I think thats nonsense Hal.
No offence. |
|
By:
No offence taken Jez, but remove compulsory voting and I think my argument would have more weight.
 |
|
By:
Yeah, its an interesting one compulsory voting.
Why you against it? |
|
By:
My view is that both parties are aiming for the centre and the differences in idealogies are now quite sublte and the electoate is left to vote on personality issues rather than idealogies. Sorry I am a cynic on politics.
|
|
By:
diff is one party spends like no tomorrow the other cleans up the mess for the other to spend all over again,
then we have the watermelon party that want to put everyone around the campfire (well maybe not) but zero use of power for all incl companies hell we can even live in the dark ages all ok but at the same time spend billions on uncosted promises all whilst taxing everything and everyone including the dead |
|
By:
Personally I'd rather a government that is willing to spend dollars on badly needed infrastructure rather than running scared of a little debt. How much did Howard spend on middle class welfare and tax cuts for the rich??? Billions of extra revenue and nothing to show for it
|
|
By:
i think balance is the word you are looking for......and no word on the loonies policy of keeping us in the dark?
|
|
By:
there are plenty of alternatives to dirty coal secong, the sooner we get the carbon tax, the sooner the money will be spent on developing them
balance is important - don't forget the GFC though, where would we be today if Labor didn't spend the money they did when it had to be spent??? add to that the massive hole it left in tax revenues |
|
By:
Just FYI there are now 6000 "asylum seekers" in australia.The govt has just signed an agreement with Afganistan to send a couple of hundred BACK!
Joolia can go down in history of being a govt with just 2 policies.One is to raise taxes, the other is to have no policy on anything. |
|
By:
gees hey, 6000 people - wow, they would never fit in Australia - we have no room [smiley:crazy]
boat people are, or at least should be, the biggest non-issue going!!! We are wasting millions on a problem that wouldn't be a problem at all if people had an open mind |
|
By:
sure yeah just let them all in...NOT fk em i say
anyways i got a great new idea its a new cola drink thats better than coke, first of all i'm gunna charge and extra 10% on coca cola to build new factories and then produce it and sell it back to you all and make huge profits , then at the end of the day sell the whole company that you made in the first place and retire like all fat cats do risk free |
|
By:
and should re an
|
|
By:
Frequently Quoted Inaccuracy Australia is being swamped by ‘boat people’
If I could just say a few words on border protection. The Rudd Government has completely lost control of our borders. We’ve had more than 100 boats, we’ve had over four thousand unauthorised arrivals. Before Mr Rudd changed the Government’s policy, there were three boats a year. Now we are getting three boats a week. — Keeping people in detention, turning around boats, holding people overseas and denying refugees permanent residency are hardly high-minded polices but they might be necessary to prevent a form of peaceful invasion. Tony Abbott, Leader of the Opposition Reality: The fear of a “peaceful invasion” by ‘boat people’ is unsupported. In 2008-09, there were 13,507 visas granted under Australia’s refugee and humanitarian program. According to the DIAC, “The vast majority of these people came to Australia on valid visas as part of our dedicated offshore refugee resettlement program or were proposed as special humanitarian program entrants – largely, they were not asylum seekers onshore in Australia or irregular maritime arrivals.” The rate of arrival of ‘boat people’ is a mere trickle compared to the “tsunami” forecast by some. AT THE CURRENT RATE OF ARRIVAL, IT WOULD TAKE 30 YEARS TO FILL THE MELBOURNE CRICKET GROUND WITH ASYLUM SEEKERS WHO ARRIVE BY BOAT. Furthermore, the Australian government strictly controls the number of refugees it accepts from UNHCR for resettlement. THE OVERWHELMING MAJORITY OF PEOPLE WHO ARRIVE IN AUSTRALIA BY BOAT ARE ASSESSED AS LEGITIMATE REFUGEES AND ARE THEREFORE INCORPORATED INTO AUSTRALIA’S ANNUAL REFUGEE QUOTA THE NUMBER OF ASYLUM APPLICATIONS LODGED IN AUSTRALIA REMAINS INCREDIBLY SMALL IN COMPARISON TO OTHER INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES. OF THE 377 160 ASYLUM APPLICATIONS RECEIVED IN 2009 ACROSS 44 INDUSTRIALISED COUNTRIES ANALYSED BY THE UNHCR,AUSTRALIA RECEIVED 6 170 APPLICATIONS (1.6 PER CENT). THIS NUMBER IS SMALL IN COMPARISON TO THE USA (49 000), FRANCE (42 000) AND CANADA (33 300). OF THE COUNTRIES IN THE STUDY, “AUSTRALIA WAS RANKED 16TH OVERALL AND WAS 21ST ON A PER CAPITA BASIS.” THE LARGEST NUMBER OF NEW ASYLUM SEEKERS BETWEEN 2005 AND 2009 WERE RECEIVED BY THE USA, FRANCE, THE UK CANADA AND SWEDEN. The first three of these countries received one-third of all asylum requests. By region, Europe has consistently received the largest number of asylum claims (286 700 in 2009) followed by the USA and Canada (82 300 in 2009). Australia and New Zealand received only 6 500 claims combined in 2009. THESE FIGURES INDICATE THAT DUE TO THE GEOGRAPHICAL POSITION OF THE REGION THE NUMBER OF ASYLUM SEEKERS ARRIVING IN AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND WILL ALWAYS BE SMALL COMPARED WITH REFUGEE MIGRATION IN OTHER PARTS OF THE WORLD. |
|
By:
Someone try and tell me that ABBOTT and the Libs are not using the POLITICS OF FEAR and using the plight of these poor people for POLITICAL GAIN.
|
|
By:
And furthermore....how many of the people so eager to deny these people their legal right to settlement in this country....put their hand up and refuse a lifesaving organ donation from a boat person .....based on their method of entry into this country?
|
|
By:
Stop the boats AFL stop the boats!!!!
|
|
By:
Yes, why don't they come by plane, like civilised people.
 |
|
By:
wombleoz and AFL.
Grow up, honestly. ffs. And, whilst I'm all for cutting and pasting, ease up on the propaganda AFL, we all know facts on this issue. And by the fkn by, Labor plays politics on issues as well - yes thats right, shock fkn horror - its the nature of the business - fair dinkum. If you want to march around claiming the Liberals are the only ones taking political high ground on moral issues - you need to get the dummys out of your mouth boys and seriously wake up to yourselves. Now, little boys, AFL and wombleoz......in this country. We have LAWS, PROCESSES, ORDER and POLICIES for a reason. Lets not go forgetting that. Australia does NOT, I repeat, DOES NOT have the infrastructure or services to support a free for all influx of asylum seekers - that you insinuate by way of dismissing this matter. You can RABBIT on as much as you like about it being a non-issue and about the alleged politics and the "they're just desperate people" - but the bottom line is, we need to have LAWS, PROCESSES, ORDER and POLICIES - if we go soft, as you both quack on about.... Do you, or do you not, in all honesty - think that people smuggling would NOT pipe up if we let this issue go? ffs..........WAKKKEEE UUUUPPPP Naitivity of the highest order. Listen to wombleoz and the "its about an open mind". You suggest we build boats for them and bring them in? You suggesting we drop border security all together? Call me going over the top, as you will, but I'm struggling to understand what exactly your getting at wombleoz. Do you believe in laws or ......I mean, seriously. Do we just welcome EVERYBODY and just due course and process? I despise people smuggling ( not sure about you two) and I feel deep sympathy for those who DO THE RIGHT THING in refugee camps and are left behind due to these "desperate people" who somehow find thousands of dollar and are encouraged by softened laws, to risk their lives and feed the scum of the earth people smugglers. |
|
By:
fire up Jez [;)]
simple question for you - what would you do if you were in their shoes??? |
|
By:
Sorry for the spelling and missing of words in the above post - but I'm pretty concerned by what I read from wombleoz and AFL.
Lets drop the mantra of "we've being swamped by boat people" or "we don't have the space" - thats not the issue to me - I don't think I've ever said anything of the sort. Make it emotive as you will - I'm not playing that game. Lets get serious. What you suggest, it seems, is a free-for-all. Let everybody come, relax border security and not listen to the general public - who are not stupid - you, AFL and wombleoz really don't give the Aussie public much credit do you? I'm seriously concerned about anyone who harbours the view of an open and free border for all - a few quick health checks and away you go, be free - house, welfare, food....and every other goodie on the taxpayer's credit card. I mean, honestly? I'd just love to hear some propaganda free justification and reasoning behind this thinking - whereby we by way of dropping our strong stance against on asylum seekers - we in fact, inadvertently encourage people smuggling. I mean to suggest we drop laws, process, order and policies is just fanciful - and then, what about the roaring and boosted people smuggling trade ---come on people, get into the real world. I understand the want for being humanitariun, but we need to be logical, realistic and genuine on the discussion of the matter. |
|
By:
Well you naturally fire people up on this issue wombleoz.
Be genuine. As again, you and AFL are very thoughtful on the humanitarian front - but lets get into reality and think carefully about what you both suggest.........? |
|
By:
What would you do if you were in a refugee camp waiting, and waiting, and waiting....and waiting?
|
|
By:
Jez, would you refuse a heart transplant from a boat-person?
|
|
By:
I asked you first Jez, what would you do if your life - or that of your family - was in danger???
Personally, i'd like to see us give them basic health and background checks before letting them into the community on a parole type basis, i.e. report in X times per week - anyone found not to be genuine is sent home anyone that is can stay. Take the same number of people from the camps that we do now so they aren't disadvantaged |
|
By:
I have to say AFL......what does that have to do with anything?
I'm not about retrospectively kicking out asylum seekers - I work with asylum seekers on a regular basis and I have a mate who is an asylum seeker (you'd be surprised to hear his views). Again, we're discussing, for once, and in depth, you and wombleoz's point of view? I know you want to put in your head in the sand - but what about the people smuggling trade? Do you support it? Sure sounds like it. Please tell me you views, enlighten us all. I'm still waiting for some reasoning behind your logic - you both seem to suggest a free and open border without law/order or process? |
|
By:
Asked me first?
I asked you a series of questions in my first post wombleoz. Come on. I know all about your health checks and community-probabtion, wombleoz - tell me about your border policy and stance of people smuggling.......... Or is me mentioning that just fear-mongering. FFS........ |
|
By:
Are you suggesting a free and open border?
|
|
By:
I'd do what MILLIONS apon MILLIONS of people do - and get to a refugee camp - you know there are desperate people in refugee camps who can't cough up people smuggling money don't you wombleoz?
Or they're not desperate enough? |
|
By:
people smugglers are the scum of the earth and should have the book thrown at them - asylum seekers are desperate people that do desperate things
i'd do whatever it took Jez, whatever it took - be that a boat or a camp |
|
By:
Your suggestion gives a BIG boost to people smuggler.
Oh and by the by. Answer the question: are you for a free and open border? What are you policy/law & order thoughts on border security? |
|
By:
*smuggling
|
|
By:
There are desperate people out there everywhere wombleoz.
Of all persuasions of varying circumstances. You miss the point completely. |
|
By:
One mans people-smuggler is another mans liberator. Their cargo travel at their own free will.
|
|
By:
no, Jez - i'm not for open borders but i'm not for wasting hundreds of millions protecting them either
|
|
By:
Good debate ...see some views on both sides...balance is key on this....in ideal world obviously come through camps /lists etc..."fleeing with regards to fear for one's life" will cause mass desperation by any means
But Jez's point is relevant, if your seen as a soft touch or 'lamb" will get lent on everyday of week and twice on Sunday's. Four Corners show from a few months ago interviewed a people smuggler...it is a full on competitive buisness and Aust was called a soft target...which we are |
|
By:
So less border security and wave the asylum seeker boats thru?
|
|
By:
Yes.
|
|
By:
reduce the push factors as much as possible is the other key, do what you can to make it safer to stay where they are - within reason
|