|
Right! Stronger meat needed? Bludger finder: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-08/social-security-welfare-payments-by-electorate/5657288 AR Trees, AR Freedom: http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/opinion/native-veg-act-its-time/2707851.aspx http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/general/news/stuck-in-the-native-veg-mire/2707847.aspx If we can't gently caress up the planet NOBODY can! Farmers not about to roll over on Russian sanctions! http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/sheep/general-news/mh17-fallout-may-hurt-australian-lamb/2706882.aspx http://www.theland.com.au/news/agriculture/agribusiness/general-news/russia-bans-aus-produce/2707958.aspx Well when you say massive we just hide behind our political masters and make consoling bleeting noises.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:29 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 15:07 |
|
Fruity Gordo posted:I'm a bourgeoise private health consumer who has gone into debt to keep paying my premiums in case I need to go to hospital for my manic depression because public wards are suicide factories, do go on. Check your credit privilege
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:32 |
I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to spend $38,000 to say it
|
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:32 |
|
Isn't the idea of advertising that you do it in something which has an actual circulation?
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:32 |
|
Les Affaires posted:Dollars transferred to The Australian for this ad: $38,000 The free market works.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:36 |
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Isn't the idea of advertising that you do it in something which has an actual circulation? That would require somebody in the IPA knowing anything about business.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:43 |
It wasn't a serious attempt to sway government policy or embarrass Tony Abbott, it was a 38 thousand dollar advertisement for IPA membership, unwittingly and directly paid for by their current membership of ageing racists.
|
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 03:46 |
|
quote:Daily Telegraph sorry for using Boston bombing image to mock Mike Carlton
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:05 |
|
Bill Shorten is sick to the guts about Russia imposing sanctions but not about stomping on refugees. Noice. Also wasn't the IPA set up by Murdoch or his father? So the IPA funneling $38,000 to the Australian just seems weird.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:31 |
|
The thing that disgusts me about this we hole scandal is if it was a photoshop of a Palestinian dude who had been injured in a blast - most people wouldn't give a poo poo
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:34 |
|
Crikey Editorial. I'm laughing so hard I can't read the rest of the email.quote:Crikey says: and now, a word from our Senate leader
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:35 |
|
Keane and Dyer offer some advice to Joe Hockeyquote:Stop whining and focus on fairness: a letter to Joe Hockey
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:44 |
|
ColtMcAsskick posted:The full page anti Abbott IPA ad was hilarious though.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:45 |
|
Relevant:
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:47 |
|
Les Affaires posted:Relevant: Not sure what happened to change his mind.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:50 |
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Not sure what happened to change his mind. Hint: doing it to Americans and not filthy browns.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:54 |
|
ewe2 posted:Hint: doing it to Americans and not filthy browns. Nah, something changed late 2008 / early 2009.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:57 |
|
I still find it hard to believe people ever thought of Hockey as likable.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:59 |
ewe2 posted:Keane and Dyer offer some advice to Joe Hockey Point 4 claims that the budget is unfair because low-income earners receive the most government assistance, and point 5 correctly says that we spend a catastrophic amount of money on tax welfare for millionaires. How do the authors reconcile these two points? Why is welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people?
|
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 04:59 |
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Nah, something changed late 2008 / early 2009. Could it be... his mind?
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:00 |
|
Haters Objector posted:Point 4 claims that the budget is unfair because low-income earners receive the most government assistance, and point 5 correctly says that we spend a catastrophic amount of money on tax welfare for millionaires. How do the authors reconcile these two points? Why is welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people? Because welfare for the rich is there more to placate them into supporting good policy than it is to meet some economic or market imbalance. Providing monetary benefit to those who can quite comfortably cover the cost themselves provides less economic benefit when compared to using those same dollars elsewhere.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:02 |
|
Haters Objector posted:Point 4 claims that the budget is unfair because low-income earners receive the most government assistance, and point 5 correctly says that we spend a catastrophic amount of money on tax welfare for millionaires. How do the authors reconcile these two points? Why is welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people? The policies that benefit the rich tend to be ones that allow tax reduction / minimisation, while the ones that benefit the poor tend to be cash or transfers-in-kind. One is forgone revenue, one is expenditure.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:02 |
Doctor Spaceman posted:The policies that benefit the rich tend to be ones that allow tax reduction / minimisation, while the ones that benefit the poor tend to be cash or transfers-in-kind. One is forgone revenue, one is expenditure. Which is effectively the same thing from the perspective of balancing a budget?
|
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:05 |
|
Haters Objector posted:Point 4 claims that the budget is unfair because low-income earners receive the most government assistance, and point 5 correctly says that we spend a catastrophic amount of money on tax welfare for millionaires. How do the authors reconcile these two points? Why is welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people? You know, now that I look at it, it looks like an awful typo. It doesn't make sense. I have tweeted @BernardKeane for clarification.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:07 |
|
#4 is suggesting an argument for Hockey, not advocating that position.Haters Objector posted:Which is effectively the same thing from the perspective of balancing a budget? You asked why "welfare for rich people considered a different class of expenditure than welfare for poor people?". The answer is that welfare for the rich frequently isn't expenditure.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:12 |
|
http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4062660.htmquote:Minister floats science funding based on patents not papers This government is intellectually bankrupt.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:14 |
Doctor Spaceman posted:#4 is suggesting an argument for Hockey, not advocating that position. According to the treasury, tax concessions are still expenditure http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook44p/TaxExpenditures
|
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:16 |
|
Haters Objector posted:According to the treasury, tax concessions are still expenditure quote:Tax expenditures are reported in an annual statement by Treasury. In 2012–13, there were 363 tax expenditures provided under the Australian tax system, the total value of which was estimated at approximately $115 billion, or 7.5% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP). For comparison, total government direct spending in 2012–13 was about 23.5% of GDP.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:23 |
|
Amethyst posted:http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4062660.htm As we know, CSIRO explicitly set out to produce wi-fi. These fuckheads don't know poo poo.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:26 |
|
The Minister for Science was unavailable for comment. It's a spectacularly stupid thought-bubble, but I really can't see it going beyond that stage thankfully.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:27 |
|
Is anyone in the Liberal party even from a scientific background and simultaneously haven't entirely missed the point of the method.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:28 |
|
Captain Pissweak posted:Is anyone in the Liberal party even from a scientific background and simultaneously haven't entirely missed the point of the method. Dennis Jensen is the only one with a scientific background, and he's a climate change denier
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:29 |
Doctor Spaceman posted:Yeah, tax concessions are counted as tax expenditure, not government expenditure. I know that. I think we are arguing past each other here, the point I was making was that Keane seemed to be suggesting that the only way to improve the budget bottom-line is through a reduction in direct transfers, which would obviously disproportionately effect the poor. Specifically, he said: quote:yes, the budget is unfair, but it's because low- and middle-income earners receive far more from the government than high-income earners and companies and cuts to government outlays are inevitably going to hurt the former more than the latter. Which is at best disingenuous, because it ignores the existence of tax expenditures, which disproportionately benefit the wealthy, and could be reduced to improve the budget bottom line without effecting those on low incomes.
|
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:32 |
|
The piece is meant as advice for how Hockey could make a case for his policies, not as a defence of those policies.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:37 |
|
Cartoon posted:Telstra has now started advertising about the amazing NBN deals they can provide. That's got to be transgressing fair advertising guidelines. Which loving National Broadband Network is Telstra going to connect you to? The ads being pushed here in Kempsey makes it 100% Telstra's copper supports DSL 2+, which is both national and broadband (by the classic definition of the term). I don't see any issues with advertising it as a National Broadband Network; it is merely a statement of fact.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:45 |
|
Captain Pissweak posted:These fuckheads don't know poo poo. If there's anything that this last year has taught me, it's how fundamentally flawed the concept of meritocracy is... Just how many of these uber wealthy captains of industry are actually dumb as poo poo. Like - we all suspected it, but we seem to be reminded of it on a daily basis.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:46 |
|
sidviscous posted:If there's anything that this last year has taught me, it's how fundamentally flawed the concept of meritocracy is... Just how many of these uber wealthy captains of industry are actually dumb as poo poo. Remember the three generation rule: it takes one generation to make a business, another generation to build a business, and a third generation to ruin it. Thinking specifically of the Murdochs, the Packers, the Hancock/Rineharts etc...
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:52 |
|
Amethyst posted:http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4062660.htm lol, I'm the $0 that goes towards mathematics/stats and most of physics and IT research which is not allowed to be patented. The government must think that all scientists only make weird new devices, like their idea of a scientist is derived from Back to the Future.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:53 |
|
Amethyst posted:http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2014/s4062660.htm BRB, off to the patent office with this formula describing the relationship between energy and mass.
|
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:54 |
|
|
# ? May 25, 2024 15:07 |
|
sidviscous posted:If there's anything that this last year has taught me, it's how fundamentally flawed the concept of meritocracy is... Just how many of these uber wealthy captains of industry are actually dumb as poo poo. Noted captain of industry, Eric Abetz: “Media reports that I have drawn or believe there is a link between abortion and breast cancer are incorrect” “Dr Angela Lanfranchi’s views on this topic were not the accepted medical view” “Dr Lanfranchi is a breast cancer surgeon and a clinical assistant professor of surgery. She is the surgical co-director of the Sanofi-Aventis Breast Care Centre and the Steeplechase Cancer Centre in New Jersey. She has spoken at hospitals and universities around the world and she has the right to free speech in Australia.” “I accept the AMA has a right to disagree with Dr Lanfranchi’s views.” e. Dr. Angela Lanfranchi is a breast surgeon and clinical assistant professor of surgery at Robert Wood Johnson Medical School. Dr Lanfranchi heads up the Breast Cancer Prevention Institute. She gives a riveting presentation of the scientific proof that the pill kills women and babies, and how it does so. CATTASTIC fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Aug 8, 2014 |
# ? Aug 8, 2014 05:55 |