Australian
Welcome to Live View – Take the tour to learn more
Start Tour
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
Joke. I rise from another night of drunken stupor and find im on the front page of the liberal light again. And... completely disgraced by some junior drivel writers. Can't they investigate the bludgers of victoria better than this ??? What about my record.... more than thirty years on the scrounge and NOT EVEN MENTIONED except to be lumped in with a couple of bludgers sitting on twenty years. Where was my phone call to find out the truth for the rednecks breakfast... don't they want to know the secrets to ripping off govts. for life ???? Appalling journalism, i'm off to the network to chew the fat with my friends and discuss how to get some recognition. idiots.
Show More
The Today/Tonight of newspapers ...
scandalous inciting sh!t they write ...
you ignore them VLTU ... you're among friends here ...
scandalous inciting sh!t they write ...
you ignore them VLTU ... you're among friends here ...
I reckon I know a half dozen race course heads that haven't worked in 40
will all be on the rock and roll
will all be on the rock and roll
cg, thank you for your comforting words in a time of great distress. I;ve decided, along with my hundred friends, to remain a bit low key and just forgive the young libs.. sorry, reporters, and hope they see a bit more of life ... you know live and learn in the near future... and then perhaps convince their editors to perhaps print something honest and more in the national interest in future.
ps Barney the slayer.... yep, just as many sipping latte's and lunching at nobus in the vegas room alone.
ps Barney the slayer.... yep, just as many sipping latte's and lunching at nobus in the vegas room alone.
Typical of the Liberals and Abbott to attack the poor, and marginalized. Let's forget about how the Miners bragged about how little Tax they pay, and let's forget about the real people that rip the Taxpayer off, being the rich, who use any means available to pay F/All TAX.
Then they give tax breaks to the rich Miners, and the rich anyone's.
Create the whinging 'what about me' mentality of the well off, so they can pretend to be poor .
The Liberal Party over-fund the Private Schools and under-fund the Public Schools. Further stretching the gap between the real poor and the rest.
Abbott says today that the injustice is that Private schools get less than Public.
Then they attack Labor for trying to address the real imbalance, and say that the Gonski is not affordable. LOLLOL......
Abbott is only saying it is not affordable, because it is his Budget that has the #billions black hole and he can't afford it, unless they get the same 'Catering company' to do their books, that they used to supply the quote for Nauru, or the Dodgy Bro's(LIBERAL MATES) Accountancy firm they used to do their costings prior to the last election, who were later found to have acted dishonestly.
Then they give tax breaks to the rich Miners, and the rich anyone's.
Create the whinging 'what about me' mentality of the well off, so they can pretend to be poor .
The Liberal Party over-fund the Private Schools and under-fund the Public Schools. Further stretching the gap between the real poor and the rest.
Abbott says today that the injustice is that Private schools get less than Public.
Then they attack Labor for trying to address the real imbalance, and say that the Gonski is not affordable. LOLLOL......
Abbott is only saying it is not affordable, because it is his Budget that has the #billions black hole and he can't afford it, unless they get the same 'Catering company' to do their books, that they used to supply the quote for Nauru, or the Dodgy Bro's(LIBERAL MATES) Accountancy firm they used to do their costings prior to the last election, who were later found to have acted dishonestly.
Suppose that every day, ten men go out for beer and the bill for all
ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would
pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth
would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest)
would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank
in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement,
until one day, the owner threw them a curve."
Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20. "Drinks for the ten now cost just
$80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four,
now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3
(33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The
eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid
$14 i nstead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of
$59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the
first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their
savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right,"
exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that
he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh
man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get
all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.
"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The
nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/economics/480835-taxes-explained-eample-drink...
ten comes to $100. If they paid their bill the way we pay our taxes,
it would go something like this:
The first four men (the poorest) would pay nothing. The fifth would
pay $1. The sixth would pay $3. The seventh would pay $7. The eighth
would pay $12. The ninth would pay $18. The tenth man (the richest)
would pay $59. So, that's what they decided to do. The ten men drank
in the bar every day and seemed quite happy with the arrangement,
until one day, the owner threw them a curve."
Since you are all such good customers," he said, "I'm going to reduce
the cost of your daily beer by $20. "Drinks for the ten now cost just
$80.
The group still wanted to pay their bill the way we pay our taxes so
the first four men were unaffected. They would still drink for free.
But what about the other six men - the paying customers? How could
they divide the $20 windfall so that everyone would get his 'fair
share?' They realized that $20 divided by six is $3.33. But if they
subtracted that from everybody's share, then the fifth man and the
sixth man would each end up being paid to drink his beer.
So, the bar owner suggested that it would be fair to reduce each man's
bill by roughly the same amount, and he proceeded to work out the
amounts each should pay. And so: The fifth man, like the first four,
now paid nothing (100% savings). The sixth now paid $2 instead of $3
(33%savings). The seventh now pay $5 instead of $7 (28%savings). The
eighth now paid $9 instead of $12 (25% savings). The ninth now paid
$14 i nstead of $18 (22% savings). The tenth now paid $49 instead of
$59 (16% savings). Each of the six was better off than before. And the
first four continued to drink for free.
But once outside the restaurant, the men began to compare their
savings. "I only got a dollar out of the $20,"declared the sixth man.
He pointed to the tenth man," but he got $10!" "Yeah, that's right,"
exclaimed the fifth man. "I only saved a dollar, too. It's unfair that
he got ten times more than I!" "That's true!!" shouted the seventh
man. "Why should he get $10 back when I got only two? The wealthy get
all the breaks!" "Wait a minute," yelled the first four men in unison.
"We didn't get anything at all. The system exploits the poor!" The
nine men surrounded the tenth and beat him up.
The next night the tenth man didn't show up for drinks, so the nine
sat down and had beers without him. But when it came time to pay the
bill, they discovered something important. They didn't have enough
money between all of them for even half of the bill!
And that, boys and girls, journalists and college professors, is how
our tax system works. The people who pay the highest taxes get the
most benefit from a tax reduction. Tax them too much, attack them for
being wealthy, and they just may not show up anymore. In fact, they
might start drinking overseas where the atmosphere is somewhat
friendlier.
Read more: http://www.city-data.com/forum/economics/480835-taxes-explained-eample-drink...
a classic barney 
and it's made me thirsty as well
... anyway julia will stick by her promise won't she ... julia will explain where the extra money will come from soon won't she
and julia wouldn't deceive schools & kids ... or backflip on them ... nope
she might try and "buy their vote" as an act of pure desperate political expedience ... but she wouldn't dud em
ah julia .. what an historical story it will all be ... once you are gone
and it's made me thirsty as well
... anyway julia will stick by her promise won't she ... julia will explain where the extra money will come from soon won't she
and julia wouldn't deceive schools & kids ... or backflip on them ... nope
she might try and "buy their vote" as an act of pure desperate political expedience ... but she wouldn't dud em
ah julia .. what an historical story it will all be ... once you are gone
School Halls should sink here at the next election, BUT WE HAVE FOGGOTEN IT
Insulwool should sink her at the next election BUT WE HAVE FOGGOTEN IT
Asylum seekers should----------------- BUT WE HAVE FOGGOTEN IT
Her cheating and stelling while a lawyer should, BUT WE HAVE FOGGOTEN IT
something else happened BUT I HAVE FOGGOTEN IT
and then there was err humm i forgot that also
what will sink her, what ever happens the week b4 the election.
the disasters are so thick and so fast they are hard to keep up with
the greens will win mpore seats at the next election than the Labour party, take it to thge bank!!
JULIA is the most incompeteant , morally bankrupt, UGLY (including mcmahon Gordon, Keating etc) disgusting piece of garbagge to ever hold office.
Insulwool should sink her at the next election BUT WE HAVE FOGGOTEN IT
Asylum seekers should----------------- BUT WE HAVE FOGGOTEN IT
Her cheating and stelling while a lawyer should, BUT WE HAVE FOGGOTEN IT
something else happened BUT I HAVE FOGGOTEN IT
and then there was err humm i forgot that also
what will sink her, what ever happens the week b4 the election.
the disasters are so thick and so fast they are hard to keep up with
the greens will win mpore seats at the next election than the Labour party, take it to thge bank!!
JULIA is the most incompeteant , morally bankrupt, UGLY (including mcmahon Gordon, Keating etc) disgusting piece of garbagge to ever hold office.
Well the rich bloke can fcuk off, I'll have a drink with my mates, and shout in turn, regardless of how much we earn. That's how the poor treat their friends.
The BER outcome: Time to correct the record
by Bernard Keane
crikey.com.au
Here, in a nutshell, is the result of months of expensive work by the Orgill review team examining the government’s Building the Education Revolution component of its stimulus packages:
* It will support, all up, about 120,000 jobs directly and indirectly, “filling a gap left in demand from the private sector and playing an important role in supporting apprentices and skill retention in the building and construction industry”.
* The program’s impact was “most pronounced” in its first year, when it was needed most.
* The new infrastructure is, in the review team’s opinion, “sorely needed, particularly in government schools”.
* The review received complaints from 294 schools across the entire program — 3% of the 10,000-odd school projects.
* The review team closely examined 57 projects, nearly all of which were drawn from “the most egregious complaints received by the Taskforce or were selected from our reading of media reports”. Seventeen of those 57 projects were found to fail the value-for-money criteria established by the review team.
* Extrapolating that 17/57 figure across all complaints (even though the selected projects were “the most egregious”) suggests the rate of valid complaints about value for money is 0.9% of all projects.
* The review has lowered its estimate of how much more the NSW government paid in order to deliver its projects quickly, from 5-6% to “at the bottom of that range, around 5 per cent”.
* The total complaint rate even for NSW government school projects, which attracted more than half of all complaints, was 7%.
In short, the report is a comprehensive demolition of the campaign that has been run against the program by the opposition — which having missed out with two independent reports now wants a third — and The Australian. That campaign has consisted of claims that the BER was providing poor value for money, that it was useless because it wouldn’t provide any stimulus until after the economy recovered, that the infrastructure was entirely unnecessary, that it was all a “debacle”.
In fact, the BER has been a gold standard stimulus program, delivering tens of thousands of jobs, when they were needed, building needed infrastructure, across a vast number of locations, with an almost derisory complaint rate even in NSW, where the government rushed the program as quickly as possible.
And what of The Australian and journalists like Matthew Franklin, who has sat in the press gallery bureau and waged a campaign against the program? Or the ABC journalists happy to follow the News Limited line and parrot that the program was a “debacle” on par with the insulation program?
Perhaps those journalists should ask the tens of thousands of men and women in the construction industry who still have jobs despite the collapse in private construction since the GFC, who are still in work despite the commercial construction sector grinding to a halt, despite new housing construction going into a precipitate decline this year. Ask the apprentices still learning on the job.
Ask their families, their partners and kids. Ask the retailers where they shop. Ask their banks. Check with them if they think it was a “debacle”.
That’s not likely to happen either. The media doesn’t like the construction industry, despite it being one of our biggest employers. Maybe it’s journalistic snobbery about manual labour. Or maybe it’s because the only yarn from the construction industry that the media is interested in is about union thuggery. Particularly at The Australian, which led the charge in favour of the Howard government’s assault on the CFMEU — an assault that led to a systematic abrogation of basic civil rights, in the form of the ABCC, and a big rise in workplace deaths.
Is it any wonder the Coalition and the media despise a program that has been critical in keeping the industry going since the GFC?
From the AUSTRALIAN
But by September last year, when it was apparent Australia would avoid recession, the government should have recalibrated the BER, the largest component of its $42bn stimulus. By then, Julia Gillard, as education minister, should have ensured that the spending added greater educational value beyond canteens and halls. Her failure to do so suggests the government was motivated, at least in part, by political considerations.
Notice how this fishwrap with ink on it neglects to mention the Libraries and Science and Language Centres through fear of them being associated with educational value. I think the kids of today will get far more Educational Value from the following facilities than giving them copies of 'Lazarus Rising' as a true reflection of history. The following Data is from NSW ….let alone the other states.
Primary Schools for the 21st Century (P21)
Primary Schools for the 21st Century is a $2.98 billion investment to build or upgrade large-scale infrastructure such as libraries, halls and classrooms and other buildings in every public primary school in NSW.
All eligible schools, including special schools and K-12 schools, will receive a funding boost of between $250,000 and $3 million, depending on the number of students enrolled.
The program will deliver long-term infrastructure solutions so that students, teachers and the wider community have access to high quality resources to support learning and improve the quality and diversity of learning environments.
Number of projects:
2,363
Construction started:
2,355
Construction finished:
1,802
Projects Completed:76%
Science & Language Centres (SLC)
Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools (SLC) will deliver newly constructed and refurbished science learning centres and language learning centres to eligible secondary schools across NSW.
On June 30 2009, the Australian Government announced $810 million of funding for the SLC program, including $151 million of funding for 118 NSW public schools.
The SLC program complements the NSW Government’s Building Better Schools program, a $145 million program to upgrade 800 science laboratories by 2011.
Number of projects:
118
Construction started:
118
Construction finished:
118
Projects Completed:100%
National School Pride (NSP)
National School Pride will provide funding of up to $200,000 for every eligible primary, secondary and central school in NSW to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and undertake minor building works.
More than $287 million will be invested in 2,179 public schools across NSW.
The very tight timeframes for National School Pride, as set out in the Australian Government’s Building the Education Revolution Guidelines, are designed to deliver immediate support for local employment.
Number of projects:
2,179
Projects started:
2,179
Projects completed:
2,179
Projects Completed:
100%
(Updated 10 December, 2010)
by Bernard Keane
crikey.com.au
Here, in a nutshell, is the result of months of expensive work by the Orgill review team examining the government’s Building the Education Revolution component of its stimulus packages:
* It will support, all up, about 120,000 jobs directly and indirectly, “filling a gap left in demand from the private sector and playing an important role in supporting apprentices and skill retention in the building and construction industry”.
* The program’s impact was “most pronounced” in its first year, when it was needed most.
* The new infrastructure is, in the review team’s opinion, “sorely needed, particularly in government schools”.
* The review received complaints from 294 schools across the entire program — 3% of the 10,000-odd school projects.
* The review team closely examined 57 projects, nearly all of which were drawn from “the most egregious complaints received by the Taskforce or were selected from our reading of media reports”. Seventeen of those 57 projects were found to fail the value-for-money criteria established by the review team.
* Extrapolating that 17/57 figure across all complaints (even though the selected projects were “the most egregious”) suggests the rate of valid complaints about value for money is 0.9% of all projects.
* The review has lowered its estimate of how much more the NSW government paid in order to deliver its projects quickly, from 5-6% to “at the bottom of that range, around 5 per cent”.
* The total complaint rate even for NSW government school projects, which attracted more than half of all complaints, was 7%.
In short, the report is a comprehensive demolition of the campaign that has been run against the program by the opposition — which having missed out with two independent reports now wants a third — and The Australian. That campaign has consisted of claims that the BER was providing poor value for money, that it was useless because it wouldn’t provide any stimulus until after the economy recovered, that the infrastructure was entirely unnecessary, that it was all a “debacle”.
In fact, the BER has been a gold standard stimulus program, delivering tens of thousands of jobs, when they were needed, building needed infrastructure, across a vast number of locations, with an almost derisory complaint rate even in NSW, where the government rushed the program as quickly as possible.
And what of The Australian and journalists like Matthew Franklin, who has sat in the press gallery bureau and waged a campaign against the program? Or the ABC journalists happy to follow the News Limited line and parrot that the program was a “debacle” on par with the insulation program?
Perhaps those journalists should ask the tens of thousands of men and women in the construction industry who still have jobs despite the collapse in private construction since the GFC, who are still in work despite the commercial construction sector grinding to a halt, despite new housing construction going into a precipitate decline this year. Ask the apprentices still learning on the job.
Ask their families, their partners and kids. Ask the retailers where they shop. Ask their banks. Check with them if they think it was a “debacle”.
That’s not likely to happen either. The media doesn’t like the construction industry, despite it being one of our biggest employers. Maybe it’s journalistic snobbery about manual labour. Or maybe it’s because the only yarn from the construction industry that the media is interested in is about union thuggery. Particularly at The Australian, which led the charge in favour of the Howard government’s assault on the CFMEU — an assault that led to a systematic abrogation of basic civil rights, in the form of the ABCC, and a big rise in workplace deaths.
Is it any wonder the Coalition and the media despise a program that has been critical in keeping the industry going since the GFC?
From the AUSTRALIAN
But by September last year, when it was apparent Australia would avoid recession, the government should have recalibrated the BER, the largest component of its $42bn stimulus. By then, Julia Gillard, as education minister, should have ensured that the spending added greater educational value beyond canteens and halls. Her failure to do so suggests the government was motivated, at least in part, by political considerations.
Notice how this fishwrap with ink on it neglects to mention the Libraries and Science and Language Centres through fear of them being associated with educational value. I think the kids of today will get far more Educational Value from the following facilities than giving them copies of 'Lazarus Rising' as a true reflection of history. The following Data is from NSW ….let alone the other states.
Primary Schools for the 21st Century (P21)
Primary Schools for the 21st Century is a $2.98 billion investment to build or upgrade large-scale infrastructure such as libraries, halls and classrooms and other buildings in every public primary school in NSW.
All eligible schools, including special schools and K-12 schools, will receive a funding boost of between $250,000 and $3 million, depending on the number of students enrolled.
The program will deliver long-term infrastructure solutions so that students, teachers and the wider community have access to high quality resources to support learning and improve the quality and diversity of learning environments.
Number of projects:
2,363
Construction started:
2,355
Construction finished:
1,802
Projects Completed:76%
Science & Language Centres (SLC)
Science and Language Centres for 21st Century Secondary Schools (SLC) will deliver newly constructed and refurbished science learning centres and language learning centres to eligible secondary schools across NSW.
On June 30 2009, the Australian Government announced $810 million of funding for the SLC program, including $151 million of funding for 118 NSW public schools.
The SLC program complements the NSW Government’s Building Better Schools program, a $145 million program to upgrade 800 science laboratories by 2011.
Number of projects:
118
Construction started:
118
Construction finished:
118
Projects Completed:100%
National School Pride (NSP)
National School Pride will provide funding of up to $200,000 for every eligible primary, secondary and central school in NSW to refurbish and renew existing infrastructure and undertake minor building works.
More than $287 million will be invested in 2,179 public schools across NSW.
The very tight timeframes for National School Pride, as set out in the Australian Government’s Building the Education Revolution Guidelines, are designed to deliver immediate support for local employment.
Number of projects:
2,179
Projects started:
2,179
Projects completed:
2,179
Projects Completed:
100%
(Updated 10 December, 2010)
Hey ... fk this sh!t off outa this thread please ...
Sorry ... I thought I was still on my Greens thread ... 
Carry on ... lol
Carry on ... lol
Post Your Reply
Please login to post a reply.
Wonder
Instance ID: 13539