Labor's Ruddy Quandary

And who did that hurt? Did it hurt pensioners? Did it hurt the middle class? Who did it hurt? Not to get into the actual forms of Welfare and their goals this is not the welfare that is would need to cut is it?

Just on a side note. Do you consider private health rebate cut was a good thing? After all more people moved to public health system placing further strain on an already overburdened system costing the economy more.

Yes that is right, but you miss the point, they reduce the number of permits the government have to sell so they are actually income negative.

No, I alluded to it when Gillard announced the scheme and I posted several speeches Gillard gave to these nations that did not make the media in Australia. It is all about abatement of the ETS Gillard introduced and the 50% local content of abatement. Look into the policy further and you will see.

LOL... You already are... LOL the Howard government introduced it during his term in office and reached those levels. But again, you do not seem to believe, and again I could not be bothered chasing it again. So take it or leave it, I care little.

 

Point is, they've cut welfare, and they've put off increasing tax cuts, so more cuts aren't out of the question. I don't know if it was good or bad, and I don't suppose you have evidence to prove that it was bad?

Yes they're a "cost", but they're not a fixed cost, they can just choose not to issue as many free permits, which they will do if the price is low.

What is the policy actually called?

Why isn't the coalition policy "no cost" then?

 

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...rt/story-fneuz9ev-1226481443042#ixzz2XsIMAG34

Just to ease your confusion.

Yes they have cut welfare, in fact what welfare did they cut? The baby bonus. Cutting the rebate is not cutting welfare but moving from one form to another. This gives you an impression that a cut has occurred but the fact of the matter is only increases the welfare strain.

Yes they can, as long as they change the policy through parliament as it is imbedded in the policy so as to stop anybody from cutting it. This is one of the reasons that cutting the tax without stopping the funding of the commitments. You cannot have it both ways.

You know I do not actually recall. That is why I could not be bothered to chase it, But it is part of transport regulations which include manufacture and sale of motor vehicles.

Why isn't it? What are you talking about? Do you mean the current policy or the future policy?

The current policy is no cost because it was simply regulation, that transitioned over time frame. At present I have not heard the cuts on emissions since Rudd, but I would expect that is designed rather than forgotten. However, before the last election 7% real reduction was reached.

Future policy cannot be costed, because there is absolutely no detail, So how do you claim it will cost huge amount?

 

You could well be right. Interesting times?

 

The current policy is no cost because it was simply regulation, that transitioned over time frame. At present I have not heard the cuts on emissions since Rudd, but I would expect that is designed rather than forgotten. However, before the last election 7% real reduction was reached.

Gazza, this is your quote above: Why did Howard push so hard for an ETS if this was the case? Why did Abbott then propose another reduction scheme(direct action, which was given the thumbs down by every economist on the "planet" by the way, due to costs actually being the equivalent of $160 a tonne to reach the 5% reduction by 2020). Why aren't they spruiking off about this "No Cost" scheme?

 

First of all he did not push hard for an ETS, he introduced election promises to create one if he was elected. He was not... Second of all, ETS has nothing to do with this policy, so why do you think it has some bearing on refuting my quote?

LOL... So what was the policy? How about you enlighten us ALL? Maybe you could also enlighted Abbott on the pricing of his policy? How about you just tell us what Abbott's policy intailed? NO... Maybe a hint? NO... Maybe you could tell us the fabricated figure of $160 per ton came from? NO...

So now tell me, how does this in any way refute my comment? No... Maybe you could throw some more insults about to let us think you actually know something? Yes that will be the order of the day won't it?

 

Tantrum coming up Gary.

 

I so hate you Garry!!!!

 

Howard committed his government to an ETS in 2007! It was a strong commitment....okay, he firmly supported an ETS....LMAO!

Garry I'm starting to suspect you have no idea about this issue at all....seriously! Your grasping at straws aren't you?

Garry, it doesn't matter what anyone says, you'd defend your beloved coalition blindly! It's a bit hard conversing with you when you've got no idea about the whole issue surrounding abbotts proposal!! When you can contribute to facts let me know! I'll converse with you once you do a bit of investigation and are able to speak to the issue!

 

So the fact is, your comment was wrong... LOL Another lie...

Yes, to pull down that strawman you are creating. Fact is you have no idea about the coalition plan so you fabricate anything you can in an attempt to dispute anything against you.

So in other words, you cannot tell us anything about any policy you are refuting, but because you have been called on your claims of fact (again nothing but your opinion) and are unable to refute.

"So now tell me, how does this in any way refute my comment? No... Maybe you could throw some more insults about to let us think you actually know something? Yes that will be the order of the day won't it?"

So Yes you throw more insults to make everybody think you know what you’re talking about.

 

Direct action plan??????

 

POLICY??? Two can play that game... LOL

 

Have you heard of it?

 

Yes... Have you??? LOL

Maybe you could tell everybody what it is??? LOL

 

Do you agree that this was phony's alternative to an ETS?

 

Wow! You altered "Tony", to "Phony"! Now THAT`s deep & meaningful!

 

Well he learnt it from you guys changing Julia to Juliar, don'tyou like it when it comes back at you

 

Let me put it this way. It dosen`t keep me awake at night. Additionally, I don`t envisage Tony Abbott breaking down in a prolonged, heart rending, misandry tantrum over it either. Tony`s got more balls than that. The dreaded budgie smugglers made THAT painfully obvious.

 

I agree he proposed a direct action plan as an alternative to an ETS... Now you think you have got what you want, make your point.

 

So phony is going to introduce this scheme that will cost tax payers billions, but you were suggesting under Howard there was a scheme that "at no cost" reduced emissions by 7%! Why would abbott introduce a scheme that will costs us tens of billions, when there is this supposed scheme "at no cost" is somewhere in the wind! Why would Howard want to "strongly" committ to an ETS if this "at no cost" scheme was all that was needed???? Are we leading down the path of conspiracy theories here??

 

I again ask you for evidence of this claim... As you do not know what the policy actually is, how do supposed to support this claim? Remember, this according to you is the crux of your entire point to refute my comment. As the policies I have asked you to provide evidence exists, to a point where it can be costed, you have provided none and assume your opinion of such is fact. Again prove your claim.

I am not SUGGESTING such. I am saying such. I am also not running around looking for it. If you want collaboration ask Slippery, (and maybe cat??? )We discussed this very policy on this forum. If they choose they can lead you by the hand to where it is, I could not be bothered.

Oh and get it right REAL EMISSIONS

Again, evidence of costs?.. LOL

None of your points have any relevance to refute my quote.

Howard proposed an ETS if elected (and he was not) as he stated it appeared to be what the people wanted. Howard was very successful at pandering to the minority in this manner.

Nowhere is it stated that this "Direct action policy" is all that is needed. That is your lie. However, my point is that the fabrication of cost being higher than the ETS is simply that, FABRICATION. As the policy was not released or even examined, how did costs become attributed to the policy? Nobody had any idea what was going to be in policy.

If you consider that fabricating negatives to a policy that is not in existence is a conspiracy, then yes I must be leading that way. But as I am simply saying that nobody has a clue what the policy actually was and could not cost such a policy, then attempt to use Abbotts policy to refute my point is a lie.

So your point is full of fabrications... Oh that is right, you don't like big words, so in other words ‘your point is a lie’... LOL

 

I will agree that Abbott has balls, but how do we get him to think with them, they must be larger than his brain

- - - Updated - - -

I will agree that Abbott has balls, but how do we get him to think with them, they must be larger than his brain

 

Admittedly, he dosen`t need to do much to look good in comparison to the present shower.

 

I tell you what, some of the ladies in the labor camp are smokin: plibersek, Ellis, bird, parke, Rishworth . There are a few others who most likely tickle the fancy of the fellas, but they're my top pick!

In the liberal camp there arent many to choose from for "various" reasons but look you've got Bronwyn and Julie bishop upholding the looks department? They are absolutely smokin hot these 2 individuals and they've got great personalities to boot!!!!

 

To be fair, Bronwyn and Julie may have been good sorts back in the day! They probably had nice personalities then too!

To be frankly honest they both look like they could cast a spell or two each these days!