MysticalMachineGun posted:

Why is it only this morning that I learned that Savva was a former adviser to Howard and Costello. No wonder she's gotten a NewsCorp job and probably hates Abbott with a passion. As much as Abbott is a turd clinging on to the toilet of political relevance a lot of this seems like a beat up.

Milky Moor posted:

So, what can I do? I could go on Newstart, sure. However, that is basically Government-sanctioned degradation and my initial stint on that around six years ago was enough for me to resolve to never go on it again - particularly with how much worse it is now. I could accept one of those really basic jobs, if they were to ever contact me back, and brace myself for my home life becoming a stressful morass because my partner likes going on weekend trips and things like that. Or, I can stay unemployed and deal with the stress of not contributing to anything and the shame of having people think you're a lazy piece of poo poo and the mind-numbing ennui of being at home, doing housework for every single day.

Urcher posted:

Alternately start making stuff. Painting, writing, programming, music. The details don't matter. Making stuff is cool and the more you do it the better you'll get.

Doctor Spaceman posted:

https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/706644986977062912

Savva gets a lot of inside info and gossip because of her background, but you're right that anything she says should be taken with a huge grain of salt.

Urcher posted:

Alternately start making stuff. Painting, writing, programming, music. The details don't matter. Making stuff is cool and the more you do it the better you'll get.

Milky Moor posted:

I used to do a whole ton of writing.

I should get back into it.

Amoeba102 posted:

Amoeba102 posted:

Big Daddy Keynes posted:

ok fuckface,
first: how is it that buying 200million dollar planes to drop hundreds of 80k bombs halfway across the world never questioned but feeding the poor in our nation is seen as an unforgivable sin

Amoeba102 posted:

AFR posted:

If not for Bill Clinton we could have taxed the internet, says Peter Costello

by Dominic White

Governments around the world missed a golden opportunity to raise "unbelievable amounts of money" by putting a tax on access to the internet when it was in its infancy, according to former Treasurer Peter Costello.

Speaking to Fairfax Media in his new role as chairman of free-to-air broadcaster Nine Entertainment Co, Mr Costello recalled sitting in his Parliamentary office in the 1990s in the early days of the web, and pondering the vast future revenue such a levy could generate.

"I was Treasurer at the time. It would have been the easiest thing in the world, by the way, for governments around the world to have put a charge on the internet. It wouldn't have had to be very big but it would have raised a motza," said Mr Costello.

"Governments would all have to agree together to do it, and the OECD was looking it at the time. It would have been hard to police but once (former US President) BIll Clinton came out and said the internet would be free that was it. Once the Americans said the internet was going to be free, the rest of the world was going to follow suit."

Mr Costello, Australia's longest-serving treasurer, who went on to introduce the goods and services tax with then-prime minister John Howard, said an internet access tax "could have been a fraction of a cent a year and it would have raised government's unbelievable amounts of money".

The free-to-air industry has lobbied the Turnbull government hard to scrap its $153 million-a-year licence fees that it argues are outdated, especially as they give an an unfair advantage to larger overseas rivals such as Google and Facebook, which invest far less in Australian content.

"The biggest corporations in the world have access to a medium - the internet - where they are completely untaxed," said Mr Costello. "Nobody is running outside saying its unfair that Mr Google and Mr Apple and Mr iTunes are all delivering product through an untaxed medium and yet what they to tax the medium through which free-to-air television is delivered."

"When there was limited spectrum and media had to be delivered by spectrum I think there was a case for licensing that media but now you can deliver product online and it is free I can't see why you would charge fees for the spectrum for one part of media which competes against other areas where you don't charge."

Free-to-air networks such as Nine point out to advertisers and investors that their biggest shows and sporting events are still the best places reach mass audiences at one time.

But Mr Costello questioned whether TV gets bigger mass audiences than Google and Facebook in one day. "The NRL final (one Channel Nine) would but on a day-to-day basis am I looking at (the TV) all the time? I tell you what, I am looking at Google all day, and I know my kids are looking at Facebook all day."

As revealed by Fairfax Media Communications Minister Mitch Fifield received advice from government officials in January recommending that the free-to-air TV industry be given relief from its annual licence fees.

The news boosted the networks hopes of an election year dividend although the Minister, who has made clear he is sympathetic to the networks on the issue, has yet to make a submission to the May budget and will need approval from the current Treasurer Scott Morrison.

Read more: http://www.afr.com/business/media-a...0#ixzz42BmjCHrX

Lid posted:

and progress was made on "budget repair", he added.


4. What?

Mr Chips posted:

Add this to Costello-was-a-bad-economic-manager.txt

The man's an imbecile. We already 'tax the internet' with the GST when customers pay for connections, and also via company profits on ISPs and content companies. Allowing big tech companies to exploit transfer pricing to avoid local taxes is the problem here, not a failure to 'tax the internet'. The comparison to RF spectrum licensing fees is also specious, as Facebook etc most definitely do pay for the fibre out of their datacentres to IXes.

open24hours posted:

No doubt he has to keep telling himself that to hold back the suicidal urges. Being unquestionably the worst Prime Minister in living memory and perhaps the worst ever can't be easy.

quote:

Abbott rejects wrecker claim BUSINESS SPECTATOR MARCH 5, 2016 3:38PM Paul Kelly Editor-At-Large

Abbott rejects wrecker claim

Amid mounting alarm in the Liberal Party about Tony Abbott’s aggressiv­e defence of his legacy, the former prime minister has sent a message of assurance to Liberal MPs and supporters worried that the government’s election campaign will be derailed by disunity. His message came before a warning yesterday by Malcolm Turnbull that he would “set the record­ straight” when he believed Mr Abbott had misconstrued the facts — a clear sign that the Prime Minister is prepared to contest the Abbott legacy campaign.

The Abbott message is as follows: “I intend to defend the legacy­ of the Abbott government and, as a former prime minister, I will speak out in defending that legacy. “I will speak in the partyroom on issues where members have a right to put their views. However, plainly, I believe that there is a vital obligation upon us as Liberals to win the coming election campaign. Whatever might be my concerns about the Turnbull government, they pale in comparison with the prospect of a Shorten Labor government.”

The meaning is obvious. Mr Abbott will be disciplined during the campaign. He will not sabo­tage the Turnbull government campaign. It is a critical assurance. It comes at the end of a week when Coalition MPs have become alarmed that policy issues are ­dividing along Turnbull-Abbott lines. Several Liberals privatel­y say the party must avoid any repeat of Labor’s 2010 election campaign, when open tension between Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd was a key factor in Labor losing­ majority government. Concern within the Coalition followed Mr Abbott’s 4000-word defence of his economic record, his partyroom intervention calling for more spending restraint and leaving negative gearing alone, and his frontal attack on the Turnbull government’s defence white paper on the grounds that it was delaying the start date for the ­introduction of new submarines from Mr Abbott’s preference as prime minister. Mr Turnbull said yesterday that the high-profile backbencher was entitled to “speak his mind” but he needed to exercise “his own judgment about his comments. He made some remarks during the week about submarines which were commented on, and in fact contradicted, by the Chief of the Defence Force and the secretary of the Defence Department,” Mr Turnbull said on the NSW central coast. “The simple reality is this: the expert advice to the Australian government on the submarine program and as to its timing has been consistent since 2013 — you take the word of Dennis Richardson, the secretary of the Defence Department, you take the word of the Chief of the Defence Force — so that is a fact. “I respect Tony’s right to speak his mind and he should continue to do so, but it’s very important that, as Prime Minister, I set the record straight.”

Mr Abbott’s sister Christine Forster on Sky News last night dismissed the possibility of a second Abbott prime ministership.

“He doesn’t think there’s any chance, surely, that the party will go back to him,’’ she said. “Why would he? You know, he’s a very intelligent man ... I don’t think we’d be stupid enough to make the mistake that they (Labor) did when they reinstated Rudd, to go back to the future.’’ Finance Minister Mathias Cormann earlier insisted that Mr ­Abbott’s destabilisation of Mr Turnbull’s leadership had not reached Kevin Rudd-style propor­tions “at this stage”, although­ “some issues” remain unresolved following last year’s Liberal leadership crisis Mr Abbott told The Australian this week he was “flabbergasted” by an apparent decision by the new Liberal leadership to delay the operation of the next-­generation submarine fleet, ­angering Liberals. Some MPs ­accused Mr Abbott of a “full-frontal’’ assault on the Prime Minister.

Mr Turnbull told parliament the Australian Federal Police were investigating the leaking of documents from the Abbott-era draft white paper to The ­Australian.

Senator Cormann, the deputy leader of the government in the Senate, said he accepted Mr ­Abbott’s word that he was not responsibl­e for an “incredibly reckless” and “absolutely deplorable” leak of sensitive national ­security information. “I would have preferred if Tony had chosen not to comment publicly, but he has,” Senator Cormann told Sky. “We are where we are; we move on. Tony Abbott is no Kevin Rudd, so you don’t see the same (destabilisation) at this stage. I don’t expect that we would ever be like the Labor Party; we are a very united team. Yes, I mean, obviously there are some issues that are still being worked through in the wake of the leadership transition … but to compare it with the battles between­ Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd would not be right.”

Bill Shorten seized on “division and dysfunction’’ in a government that was “at war with itself’’.

“We see leaks from the highest security cabinet committee of the government; we see Liberals calling the police in to investigate Liberals,” the Opposition Leader said. “We see great division and ­dysfunction at the heart of the government.”

Frontbencher Christopher Pyne said only a “handful of people­” had access to the draft defenc­e white paper, but he “would not immediately assume” that Mr ­Abbott was the leaker.

Higsian posted:

I wonder if anyone has told Mr Abbott that campaigning to defend your own legacy means you have a poo poo legacy.

SynthOrange posted:

Asked "How do you know a guy likes you?," a Year 8 replied: "He still wants to talk to you after you suck him off."



http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/03/07/4420147.htm

SynthOrange posted:

Asked "How do you know a guy likes you?," a Year 8 replied: "He still wants to talk to you after you suck him off."



http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/03/07/4420147.htm

Cartoon posted:

Blaming pornography for the sexualisation of children is to ignore almost the entirety of the main stream media and advertisers since the fifties. The online component of images via phones is certainly a new pressure point but boys have been bullying girls into sex acts since forever.

http://www.womensforumaustralia.com/significant-issues/premature-sexualisation-of-children

Would have been nice if the article actually touched on any of the above.

SynthOrange posted:

Asked "How do you know a guy likes you?," a Year 8 replied: "He still wants to talk to you after you suck him off."



http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/03/07/4420147.htm

Cartoon posted:

Blaming pornography for the sexualisation of children is to ignore almost the entirety of the main stream media and advertisers since the fifties. The online component of images via phones is certainly a new pressure point but boys have been bullying girls into sex acts since forever.

http://www.womensforumaustralia.com/significant-issues/premature-sexualisation-of-children

Would have been nice if the article actually touched on any of the above.

SynthOrange posted:

Asked "How do you know a guy likes you?," a Year 8 replied: "He still wants to talk to you after you suck him off."



http://www.abc.net.au/religion/articles/2016/03/07/4420147.htm

Lid posted:

Melinda Tankard-Reist is an infamous antisex prolife second wave feminist who also happens to be an evangelical Christian and been rejected by every feminist group in Australia essentially.

Make of it what you will.