|
I can't comment about the likelihood of China getting its way because I don't know much about the current version environment, but I think the current strategy of putting up as much resistance as possible both diplomatically and militarily (in the form of free navigation excercises etc) is the best option available. The main objection I raise is that it's not the US trying to tell China what it can't do; it's regional nations telling China they won't stand for its retaliatory nationalism, with the backing of the US. The US is obviously driven by self-interest in this case but so is literally every nation involved, that's not so much a fault as the reality of geopolitics.
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 04:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
quote:India is a good deal more mature as a diplomatic country than Australia because they took the position of independence from all sides from the start of their nationhood, not because they have a bunch of people, oh and started from a much weaker economic base than we did. What does 'diplomatic maturity' mean? Is there a list of countries by diplomatic maturity? This is exactly the kind of platitude I was talking about when I brought this up earlier. These kinds of meaningless statements don't help anyone, and don't do anything for your credibility. open24hours fucked around with this message at 04:33 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 04:30
|
|
|
Anidav posted:You can post that gif all you like. shorten has improved considerably in public speaking since then. 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 04:39
|
|
|
Have I wandered into a loving bond movie
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 04:43
|
|
|
Johnny english, maybe
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 04:50
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:I can't comment about the likelihood of China getting its way because I don't know much about the current version environment, but I think the current strategy of putting up as much resistance as possible both diplomatically and militarily (in the form of free navigation excercises etc) is the best option available. The main objection I raise is that it's not the US trying to tell China what it can't do; it's regional nations telling China they won't stand for its retaliatory nationalism, with the backing of the US. The US is obviously driven by self-interest in this case but so is literally every nation involved, that's not so much a fault as the reality of geopolitics. The US position goes back quite a few years, conservative hawks have been making anti-China noises since the Wall fell. The domino theory was discredited, they keep thinking up new angles. The South China Sea issue is a gift to them, and feeds into US prejudices. The problem with getting a Hilary might be that they go more unilateral instead of backing the locals. But as far as China is concerned with the present situation, it's as good as being told what they can and can't do. So as a strategy it's not much of a goer because it's talking to the proverbial brick wall. I quite see how threatened that makes China's neighbours feel, I just don't see long-term how it changes anything. It's nice to have the US backing, but push has not come to shove yet. open24hours posted:What does 'diplomatic maturity' mean? Is there a list of countries by diplomatic maturity? Open plays with words in a desperate attempt to look like he knows what he's talking about. You still haven't put up any ideas of your own but I can't expect you to, because you don't have any. At least the others have arguments (hell, even Negligent has a cogent argument), and what do you have?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 04:57
|
|
|
...right. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make but I might just let it go.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:03
|
|
|
Essential Research: 52-48 to the ALP
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:29
|
|
|
If Newspoll reports 53 or 54 to the ALP then Turdball is heading into this election as a near underdog.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:31
|
|
|
Anidav posted:If Newspoll reports 53 or 54 to the ALP then Turdball is heading into this election as a near underdog. Not too late for a knifing.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Can't help but like an underdo
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:33
|
|
|
Gonna laugh hard if they don't manage to change those numbers with the budget.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:35
|
|
|
RBA cut to 1.75%
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:39
|
|
|
Jumpingmanjim posted:RBA cut to 1.75% now I get to borrow even stupider amounts of money to negatively gear 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:40
|
|
|
I don't think they've put in any carrot for the many many people earning less than $80,000 a year. RBA, Jesus loving wept.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:42
|
|
|
Is that 80 000 gross or after tax? ...asking for a friend
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:44
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:That's really picking sides, yeah. It's never simply a matter of being a "good citizen" either, there's always self-interest involved.  Correct? It's in the United States, Vietnams, Phillipines, Japanese, Indonesian, etc's self interest that China doesn't claim all the islands and build missile bases ewe2 posted:I quite see how threatened that makes China's neighbours feel, I just don't see long-term how it changes anything. Well long term if you want us to become more integrated in Asia, that would mean supporting in words and deeds our Asian neighbours against China. It makes sense for a middle weight country to support the interests of other middle weight countrys in our own neighbourhood.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
lol Shorten's budget reply speech only has to be about people under 80K and the election is his for the taking.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:45
|
|
|
Literally "Ask yourselves this; Australians under 80k per annum. Are you invisible to Mr Turnbull" And he'll win the public debate.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:46
|
|
|
if people are dumb enough to vote based on "did I personally get an income tax cut or not" Which admittedly they might be
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:Is that 80 000 gross or after tax? taxable income so you can finagle underneath with deductions
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:47
|
|
|
Negligent posted:if people are dumb enough to vote based on "did I personally get something or will I get something for voting for this person" This is exactly what people vote for
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:taxable income so you can finagle underneath with deductions Why would 
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
Which is why people won't vote for shorten, they are terrified of getting hosed in the b by changes to negative gearing
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:50
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:Is that 80 000 gross or after tax?
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
People earning less than 80k probably aren't making the killing you imagine out of negative gearing. See, you actually need money in the first place in order to buy a supplemental house to negatively gear it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Oh we're going to put in superannuation taxes for people earning 250k out of their superannuation, so people with millions of dollars super balances, wow, really targetting the loop holes buddy good job. edit: Or wait was it taxing their contributions to super? I forget. Either way it's pissing in the wind. edit edit: like it's better than nothing but calling it just and fair in the face of everything being slapped out of the hands of the actual lower class (because the middle class doesn't exist, it's a lie to keep you from eating the rich). G-Spot Run fucked around with this message at 05:55 on May 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:52
|
|
|
Property prices are literally the #1, 2 and 3 subject of conversation in middle Australia. loving with negative gearing fucks with property prices. Shortens policy is like putting out an electrical fire using water. Good luck not getting shocked.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:54
|
|
|
the day the RBA drops rates to lowest ever levels because of deflation is probably not the right day to be worrying about bracket creep
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:55
|
|
|
Huh, I assumed tax brackets were indexed with inflation. Turns out they're not, and bracket creep is real. Why they're only adjusting $80,000 is odd though.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
See poor people can negatively gear! *points to some middle class Sydney assbag who inherited grandfather's house*
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:57
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Property prices are literally the #1, 2 and 3 subject of conversation in middle Australia. loving with negative gearing fucks with property prices. Shortens policy is like putting out an electrical fire using water. Good luck not getting shocked. And part of the reason it's a huge topic is that housing affordability is hosed, and Labor's changes are a small step in the right direction. It's not a massive vote winner (Essential have some polls, but I'm phone posting) but it's not a vote loser either, and it's the kind of thing people expect from Labor.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:58
|
|
|
Birdstrike posted:the day the RBA drops rates to lowest ever levels because of deflation is probably not the right day to be worrying about bracket creep Or wages going up 0.5% a year for that matter.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 05:59
|
|
|
Goffer posted:Huh, I assumed tax brackets were indexed with inflation. Turns out they're not, and bracket creep is real. Why they're only adjusting $80,000 is odd though. It's real. The reason it's not indexed is that politicians prefer to have the option of giving tax cuts every few years or of raising more money without it being obvious. Hockey's original plan for paying off the deficit relied heavily on it.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 06:01
|
|
|
Essential asked "for future purchases investors can only claim tax deductions for investments in newly built homes" 36 approve 38 disapprove. 24 said it would cause prices to fall, 31 to rise at a slower rate, 13 no change. A majority thinking it will negatively affect house prices is not good for BS (he will never be prime minister)
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
Negligent posted:Essential asked "for future purchases investors can only claim tax deductions for investments in newly built homes" You know what is good for him? TPP at 52-48
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 06:10
|
|
|
"Bracket creep should only be addressed when it affects rich people" ~ Sco "The Fixer" Mo.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
TPP is inaccurate when there's a high proportion of non 2P vote, you can read anthony green for yourself. ALP primary is still 38 which is the bare minimum they need to win
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 06:12
|
|
|
I wonder if all those PUP voters will evaporate back to the ALP. PUP vote seems like people hated the ALP due to leadership scandals but hated Abbott too. ALP has fixed itself up and now the Coalition is stuck with Tone Era policy skeletons.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 06:20
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 02:08 |
|
|
Negligent posted:TPP is inaccurate when there's a high proportion of non 2P vote, you can read anthony green for yourself. ALP primary is still 38 which is the bare minimum they need to win I said it was good for Bill Shorten. It is.
|
|
#
?
May 3, 2016 06:20
|
|