|
Amethyst posted:What? I'd hope not! I'm not sure if the LNP is that dumb and they really DO think people can just go get a job, and that the reforms will incentivise anything but youth suicide, OR if they're trying to use this to somehow segue into IR reform so that job creators are free to Hopefully I'm not giving anyone ideas.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Even family first are against the 6 month waiting period for under 30s.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:39
|
|
|
quote:Less than a fortnight after the federal government announced that from 2015, people up to 30 years old will have to wait six months for an unemployment benefit, Mr Andrews showed little patience for Labor's criticism it was the ''single most heartless measure'' in the budget. Pretty sure Labor aren't supporting it guys.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:43
|
|
|
Amethyst posted:Pretty sure Labor aren't supporting it guys. Good. In any case, if I manage to get a job when I graduate next year (end of 2015) I might keep a spot on my couch/emergency food basket for friends who are in dire financial situations because of no newstart.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
Holy gently caress Bernardi.Senator Bernardi posted:She talked about the rights of people. She didn't talk about the dignity of work. I'm not sure he understands the words he's using. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:46
|
|
|
They have said they don't support the 6 month period but they have flagged support for food stamps. I'm pretty sure I remember them supporting the penalties for not making your centerlink appointments or taking the first job you get offered as well. I'm phone posting so I can't really dig up links
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:53
|
|
|
hooman posted:Holy gently caress Bernardi. Reminds me of a joke I saw recently How does Bernardi feel about the dignity of homelessness? The Before Times fucked around with this message at 09:01 on Jul 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 08:55
|
|
|
Mithranderp posted:Reminds me of a joke I saw recently Probably feels it's very dignified. Very noble individual not taking handouts and leaning on others, look at him dead in an alley, if only all such people had his courage to freeze to death rather than be an incomprehensibly small and brief drain on the system while they got back on their feet and then started contributing (through tax) to the safety net that helped them back up.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 09:03
|
|
|
hooman posted:Probably feels it's very dignified. Very noble individual not taking handouts and leaning on others, look at him dead in an alley, if only all such people had his courage to freeze to death rather than be an incomprehensibly small and brief drain on the system while they got back on their feet and then started contributing (through tax) to the safety net that helped them back up. Our new safety net consists of red hot barbed wire to disincentivise falling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
iajanus posted:“The idea there is some sort of entrenched apartheid in the country … just can’t be sustained when 30% of Colombo is Tamil … and [there is] a high level of co-operation between the racial groups,” he said. Is he really arguing there is no 'entrenched apartheid' because Tamils are a large minority? What universe are we living in where apartheid involved a majority white country persecuting the 1% of its population which were black?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 10:36
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:It costs ten times more to throw asylum seekers in offshore detention camps than it does to give them a room at a motel Murodese posted:
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 10:56
|
|
|
Mattjpwns posted:We have become world leaders, champions! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 11:11
|
|
|
Nuclear Spy posted:A $199 room special at Sydney's 5-star Sheraton Hotel compares with the $205 a night which G4S has been charging for a bed on Manus, or $74,792 per detainee for the year. Well you're not adding in the extra's like day spa and minibar or restaurant etc.... It's not all just about the accommodation costs.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 11:13
|
|
|
Hypation posted:extra's
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 11:14
|
|
Hypation posted:Well you're not adding in the extra's like day spa and minibar or restaurant etc.... I'm pretty sure that's not the point here. The very fact that detaining people in horrific conditions is vastly more expensive than detaining them in humane ones shows how utterly wasteful the practice is. The only plausible justification for detaining the asylum seekers in the conditions they are being kept in is blatant xenophobia or outright hatred.
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 11:24
|
|
|
AVeryLargeRadish posted:I'm pretty sure that's not the point here. The very fact that detaining people in horrific conditions is vastly more expensive than detaining them in humane ones shows how utterly wasteful the practice is. The only plausible justification for detaining the asylum seekers in the conditions they are being kept in is blatant xenophobia or outright hatred. Yes and?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 11:59
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:04
|
|
|
Influx?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:05
|
|
|
Bulk and Skull?
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:15
|
|
|
I like to think the guy on the left is named Knuckles. "Rough him up Knuckles." "Right boss."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:21
|
|
|
An excerpt of the content from the first slide of his presentation:
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:22
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:37
|
|
|
For those of you interested in my work woes where my male colleague was getting paid more than me for the same job... Today, I quit. While I would very much like to drag them through the whole process of the equal opportunity tribunal and claw back some backpay and super, it would take weeks and may jeopardise my relationship with my new employer if I have to take time off for it. Sorry guys, I kinda need to look after myself first.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:43
|
|
|
They now have to hire and train someone else who is likely not as good at their job as you, so they lost badly in the end.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:52
|
|
|
Murodese posted:They now have to hire and train someone else who is likely not as good at their job as you, so they lost badly in the end. And if the person is male, they'll pay him more, so they lose twice as hard.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
Yeah, I didn't need to see that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:54
|
|
|
Tones gets a hard on for rubber?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:55
|
|
|
froglet posted:For those of you interested in my work woes where my male colleague was getting paid more than me for the same job... Today, I quit. While I would very much like to drag them through the whole process of the equal opportunity tribunal and claw back some backpay and super, it would take weeks and may jeopardise my relationship with my new employer if I have to take time off for it. Sorry guys, I kinda need to look after myself first. Hope you're not getting underpaid at your new place.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 12:58
|
|
|
My Prime Minister and my Member of Parliament. Kill me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 13:20
|
|
|
no one wants to hear about it now tamil boats wish real hard it goes away somehow
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 13:42
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:WHITEY WENT WACKO This will be my next username.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 13:48
|
|
|
You win
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 13:49
|
|
|
Shadeoses posted:This will be my next username. loving queue jumper Haters Objector posted:This is going on my potential namechange list
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 13:52
|
|
|
To be fair, there is no way to apply for a namechange whilst still having your original name, and unfortunately j.gill removed the name changing script from the namechange zone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:loving queue jumper Whichever one of them flips out and kills the other can be the whitey that went wacko.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 14:17
|
|
|
Bifauxnen posted:Whichever one of them flips out and kills the other can be the whitey that went wacko. Gough Suppressant posted:loving queue jumper
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 14:33
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:Awesome post, thanks for this. "Mad Katter posted:I knew it seemed like a load of poo poo. Thanks so much for an awesome and informative post. I learnt a lot from this, and it confirmed many of my suspicions. You're welcome. The most frustrating thing is that every statement he made is technically true, but there's so much misdirection and omission that the story that is painted is a complete fabrication. Politics in a nutshell, I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 14:38
|
|
|
A topic that may get the thread actually debating among ourselves. Tonight at our Green's meeting we discussed whether or not the Greens should allow the increase in the fuel excise. I suggested that the Greens should pass it with an amendment that at least half the money raised would go to public transport, with the remainder going to roads. However, we also needed a decision whether it should be passed without amendment. I argued that while it was a regressive tax, we had both economic and environmental reasons to pass it. In the end I was able to sway the group to support the rise in fuel excise. It wasn't an easy choice, like the idea of the Greens suggesting amendments to the policy (re: public transport). It is a regressive tax, because people who live in the outer suburbs and in rural/regional areas do need to drive as there are few, if any, public transport options. People who live near decent public transport are often more affluent. Also for people to be able to afford to buy a new fuel efficient car they need to be relatively wealthy. However, indexing the excise means that the proportion of excise raised will hopefully stay in line with fuel price increases. At the moment the proportion of what we pay for fuel that is the excise has nearly halved since Howard froze it as petrol prices have increased so much. We currently have a structural deficit since taxes have been cut so much. Revenue raised from these increases means there is less chance that some services won't be cut (that sounds naive now that I typed that) The other issue is to me the most important one. By placing more tax on petrol it sends a price signal to the consumer that we shouldn't be using so much petrol. It will encourage people to drive less, look for public transport options or buy more fuel efficient cars. As Greens, increasing the cost of pollution should be one of our main policies. So simplistically, I see the policy as having two points for and one against. What do other people think? Did I make the right call?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 15:00
|
|
|
Freudian Slip posted:The other issue is to me the most important one. By placing more tax on petrol it sends a price signal to the consumer that we shouldn't be using so much petrol. It will encourage people to drive less, look for public transport options or buy more fuel efficient cars. As Greens, increasing the cost of pollution should be one of our main policies. I agree with most of what you wrote but not this. Driving a car is expensive and people already look for alternative routes. Unfortunately a lot of our suburbs are designed in such a way that good public transport is just about impossible to implement at a reasonable price.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 15:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 09:34 |
|
|
Freudian Slip posted:A topic that may get the thread actually debating among ourselves. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2014 15:19
|
|