|
NTRabbit posted:Sems like an ideal time to dump the SDA and join RAFFWU a.k.a. any day ending in y.
|
#
¿
Apr 3, 2018 15:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
JBP posted:If this were an honest to god person, I would direct them to the Australian Labor Party, the home of big plays. Big plays. Not "pants-shittingly moronic always worse, always dumber" plays. The Libs have gained literally zero from this and lost a lot. Labor will never give them another pairing in this Parliament, they're far enough out from an election that they haven't done anything that'll change the course of the election, but close enough that they're gonna regret it, and it's a Bill that the public doesn't give a poo poo about. I'm hearing non-political people say "well if you can't trust them to uphold basic Parliament convention, how can you trust them to run Victoria?" Religious people are pretty hosed off too, and that's a not-insignificant demographic for them. I mean if you want a bigger example of how badly they've hosed themselves with this, the media is now talking more about this than Labor rorts rah rah.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 4, 2018 10:07
|
|
|
Wow so that Dutton hey. My bet is that he fails, Turnbull survives by a handful of votes, Abbott loudly sulks.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 07:39
|
|
|
Whitlam posted:Does anyone else get the feeling like the Potato King is trying to set up a leadership challenge? There was the farmers thing and something else within the last couple of days (I'm tired and can't remember but it got him decent media attention), and he's dumb and we're near Newspoll 30... Just gonna quote this from the previous thread.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 07:44
|
|
|
hooman posted:There was a discussion that this wouldn't be accurate because apparently as it's not a sitting week the LNP would be scattered to the 9 winds, and as such would be a bad time to hold a party meeting. I mean see above but technically nothing is stopping them from doing it, so the fact that it isn't a sitting week isn't a deal breaker. I could even see the argument that it was intentionally planned for this timing to try and catch Turnbull off guard and give him less time to court votes, etc.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 07:55
|
|
|
I would blow Dane Cook posted:I've spent the best part of the last fortnight urgently trying to track down a 98-year-old former actor to ask him if he molested Judy Garland. Hey, I totally read that thing! I enjoyed it.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2018 14:47
|
|
|
Konomex posted:Someone explain it to me? How does listening to a didgeridoo in Australia make her feel like a second-class citizen? Or is she just upset that she gets told to shut her idiot face when she says racist things? What others above have said, plus crabs in a bucket mentality is a big part of it, at least where I'm originally from (Perth) - "I didn't get any special treatment, so why should indigenous people/women/whoever get special treatment?" Often heard in relation to boosted ATAR scores, forms that ask if you're ATSI, employment quotas, any kind of "levelling the playing field" measures. Totally lacks self-awareness, but duh. Also misses the distinction between equality and equity.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 6, 2018 22:55
|
|
|
Greens accuse Labor of gerrymander in draft seat redistribution Lol.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 01:46
|
|
|
Dude McAwesome posted:Don’t know how she’s still in the ALP. Attempted union busting with the firefighters union and undermining Andrews at every possible occasion. For a former rising star, she’s well and truly on the shitheap. Yeah I'm not doubting that there are some people trying to parachute her in, but there are a lot of people in Vic Labor who loving hate her and would do anything to prevent her from getting it. It's definitely not Vic Labor as a whole trying to get her in.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 7, 2018 04:14
|
|
|
JBP posted:Literal quote from a Greens councillor to my mate who is an investor relations guy  Also isn't the result of the redistribution that Batman is (very slightly) even more Labor friendly? Honestly if I was Bhathal I'd be pretty tempted to say "gently caress this" and take my ball and go home at this point. I don't see how the in-fighting gets resolved without a new candidate, and while the in-fighting is still a factor, she's never going to win the seat.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 09:31
|
|
|
So who else is ready for all media coverage tomorrow to be about how the Libs are making sik gainz?
|
|
#
¿
Apr 8, 2018 13:21
|
|
|
Greg Barber accused of bullying and sexual discrimination and paid $9000 of his own money to avoid having to give an apology, with the Dept of Parliamentary Services paying the other $47,000 in a settlement.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 11, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Snowman_McK posted:And I guess that's where the argument gets interesting. Which version of protestantism? How specific do you get? Hell, even within the same religion. The Lutheran Church of Australia doesn't ordain women, but they do in the US, Europe and Africa.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 12, 2018 04:54
|
|
|
Other posted:Has any one else been getting occasional phone calls the last few months from the CBA asking about what you plan to do with your savings account and if you want to come into your local branch and talk home loans? Today I got another one and they started asking about if I had any interest in investment properties as well, which was new. About a month ago I went to my local CBA venue to deposit some money after a fundraiser. While I was there the teller was telling me how much money I have and was I saving up for anything. I told him that ideally I'd buy a house one day, but this isn't my money, and I'm waiting for a correction or burst. He told me again that I have a lot of money and should stay and talk to one of their lenders and take a loan. I declined.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 02:34
|
|
|
JBP posted:I did it this morning: I got that too and it was so dumb. It asks you how many Australian authors you read and then moves straight on. Spoiler alert Australian authors are crap. Also when it asks how many book reviews you read. Uh, none? I read the book? For actual thread content, the Salvation Army have lost funding with Westcare, their service that provides housing for vulnerable teens, being stripped of its contract on account of those teens who got molested and OD'd and died.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 13, 2018 05:21
|
|
|
Gorilla Salad posted:
This genuinely warms the cockles of my heart.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 17, 2018 06:39
|
|
|
I realise this is probably going to be an unpopular opinion as I'm typing it, but I feel like charging interest on cases like the one used in the example (over $800,000, including claims for children who didn't exist so very hard to argue they were just confused about how it all works) is fair enough. I mean yeah the gutting of Centrelink by the government is evil and hosed up, but that doesn't make welfare fraud okay, and Centrelink is hard enough to get without fuckers deliberately committing fraud and undermining the system. If it was a private individual who'd been scammed out of $800,000 I'd also support them getting money back with interest.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 22:41
|
|
|
Dimebag posted:What about the electorate who got scammed out of those ineligible pollie salaries? Why does that get waived and this is ok? I never said that was okay.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 23:10
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:I am extremely confident in saying that the relatively few cases of massive deliberate fraud have nothing to do with how hard it is to get Centrelink, similar to how the few cases of electoral fraud have nothing to do with some US states voter ID law. Extensive systematic fraud will result in a more stringent system of checks and balances, and it's already a bitch to try and get approved. It also pushes the public narrative of "welfare queens who just don't want to work" which is also bad. Apparently this will affect fewer than 200,000 people, who have a month to contact Centrelink to organise a repayment plan. Assuming this means an individually tailored plan and not, like, "pay us $6000 a month or it's off to debtors prison with you", that's not unreasonable to me. Government bad yes, deliberate welfare fraud also bad. Cases of legitimate accidental overpayments are different, but claiming over $800,000 including imaginary children? I'm going to go out on a limb and say they knew what they were doing, and I'm fine with people in that scenario having to pay it back and then some.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 23:35
|
|
|
bell jar posted:If someone is in a position where they need to resort to welfare fraud (or even if they resort to it mistakenly), and they are discovered and required to pay back the money, how do you think charging them interest on that will discourage them from committing further crimes? Where are they going to get the money from to pay it back and also live in a home not on the street? In an ideal world, the interest collected would be reinvested into the Centrelink system. It's probably fair to assume this won't be happening here, though. As for how will it discourage future crimes, obviously you can't undo what has already been done, but it may deter other people, which I think is an acceptable outcome. As for where they'll get the money, depends. If the repayments are tailored individually, an amount could be worked out on individual incomes. If they're employed, it should be easy enough to figure out an amount, even if it was like $50 a fortnight. Yeah, you'll probably never collect The full amount, but whatever. The same argument could be applied to "but where will they find the money to repay the fines?" I don't think putative measures are necessarily de facto bad - if you kill someone who is objectively a terrible person and stain on humanity, you're still going to jail because we as a society have decided that's not okay. I realise "deterrence" as a punishment philosophy has mixed results, and if we get back data after having tried this that shows it doesn't work, I'll happily concede the point and accept we should try something else.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 19, 2018 23:52
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:Why is it already a bitch to try and get approved? Do you honestly believe it is because the cases of deliberate fraud not being punished enough? In some cases, yes. I know people who've committed Centrelink fraud and none of them have ever been caught or fined. That's not to say it never happens, but I can say for a fact that it's not like every case ever is immediately identified. I don't resent people qualifying for and receiving Centrelink, despite never having been eligible for it myself and thinking the amount received should be raised, but I do resent people knowingly committing fraud. bell jar posted:This is, has been, and always will be, dogwhistling. People shouldn't have to work to live (a lot of people can't) and if the system is badly made and can be defrauded by accident, these people should be lauded for exposing holes in the system which can be patched up. Actual fraudulent behaviour can and should be punished as normal, you don't need to set an example for people. Regarding people having to work to live, that's a philosophical perspective, but I do accept that some people can't, for a number of reasons. Slightly off topic but personally I'm not sold on the concept of UBI, but that's a different matter. Here, I'm not talking about accidental fraud, I'm specifically talking about deliberate. bell jar posted:This is already happening, no? Why extend this to people who are overpaid accidentally? bell jar posted:Attaching interest to welfare makes it a loan, not assistance. This is what bell jar posted:How's mandatory minimum sentences and the death penalty working out for drug dealers and the like? Driving down crime? no, because penalties as deterrents don't loving work Likening repayment with interest for deliberate fraud isn't the same as mandatory minimum for sentencing is disingenuous, and the statement "penalties as deterrents don't work" is just stupid. It's literally part of the reason jail exists, and an important facet of judisprudence. If we legalised assault, there would be a lot more people getting punched. Deterrence is not and shouldn't be the only philosophy when it comes to determining sanctions for actions, but it is one, and it can have an effect. The key is that the deterrent must actually have an effect, and in my experience, people who are committing Centrelink fraud are doing so because they often don't get caught, and if they do, they know they can frustrate the process to the point where nothing happens. Yeah, maybe those people would still knowingly commit fraud anyway, but maybe some people who don't see it as a big deal will reconsider. edit: formatting
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 01:48
|
|
taxes
|
bell jar posted:ok we get it, poor people are an abstraction for you, people breaking the rules makes you resent them, you've never lived hand to mouth or off welfare, thanks for your contribution to this discussion, please stop breathing Hm good point, opposing welfare fraud is bad and wrong, and the point where I said Centrelink amounts should be raised was clearly a ruse.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 02:23
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:I am completely against welfare fraud and I am completely against this shithead government chasing people they shouldn't. Ceci n'est pas une empty quote.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 03:28
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:Even in Whitlams own, made up example the reasons his imaginary friends defraud the system is because they think they won't be caught, or if they are, they can ignore the fine and somehow not get sent to prison. Her, and I'm willing to accept it may be a generational/situational thing but the perspective and mentality is that it's no big deal, the system is broken so why shouldn't I get as much as I can, all my friends are doing it and they've never been caught so why shouldn't I? I mean sure they're not fraudulently claiming hundreds of thousands a year so they're probably not high on the priority list and won't be caught unless they're randomly audited, but if your argument is the system is perfect and nobody ever commits Centrelink fraud then just lol.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 04:22
|
|
|
bell jar posted:Fixed your post. Almost everyone that I know is on Centrelink, and I can assume that I know a lot more people that are actually on it than you based on your projections of welfare fraud. None of them have this attitude. None of them believe that the system is broken in a way for them to exploit. None of them have friends that are exploiting Centrelink. You're taking your lived experiences and projecting them onto a whole class of people you don't know and will never meet. I've tried to be civil and respond to your points, but you can't do the same because you're behaving like you're actually rabid. Do not lecture me on what it's like to be disadvantaged when you don't know anything about me or my situation. I literally work with the homeless as part of my job, getting people into housing. Most of my friends are at university and rely on Newstart and Youth Allowance. Since you apparently need it spelled out for you, here it goes: the overwhelming majority of people who receive Centrelink are doing the right thing. Most are receiving it due to a confluence of factors outside their control. A small minority of people, however, are knowingly committing welfare fraud. These people deserve to be punished. If that is in any way a controversial statement to you, you need to readjust your priorities.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 04:47
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:My argument was that the idea that this would act as a deterrent doesn't make sense given even your examples of why people do defraud Centrelink, and our understanding of how possible punishment works in the decisions to commit non violent crimes. My understanding of why intentional fraud is committed in the specific first-hand experiences I've dealt with and know of personally is that it comes from some combination (usually) of: 1. It isn't a big deal. 2. I know many people doing it. 3. These people do not get caught. Therefore, I will not be caught. 4. The system is broken and out to gently caress me, therefore it is morally correct for me to try and gently caress the system. Regarding 1., I do believe that increased penalties will help counter this attitude. 2. is a self-justification, and 3. is a logical fallacy. 4. is also a philosophical ethical position, which I'm not even going to touch, but would be easier to counter by unfucking the system (through measures which would include, but not be limited to, hiring more staff, increasing transparency about processes and waiting times, and generally allocating more resources and funding). I recognise that the only one of those reasons that would be addressed by increased penalties for intentional fraud (which is specifically what I'm talking about) is 1., and that's fine. I'm not claiming it's a whole solution, or the only thing we need and everything will be perfect if we do it. I support greater allocation of resources to Centrelink and the social support system as a whole. I also am not in any way advocating that "if Centrelink says you're committing intentional fraud, that's it, you have to pay it back at 9% no takesies backsies". Administrative review is a crucial part of the judicial process, and oversight is important. I just can't get morally outraged at the idea of increased penalties for people who are knowingly and intentionally committing fraud.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 05:32
|
|
|
bell jar posted:conveniently, i ignore the increased penalty that will also apply to people who are not knowingly and intentionally committing fraud, http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-20/centrelink-cracking-down-on-$900m-worth-of-welfare-debts/9677886 posted:Those in the government's sights are no longer claiming welfare benefits, but racked up debts from former false claims.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 05:53
|
|
|
Gentleman Baller posted:A fair and good post These are good points, and I'll take them on board. I still think that increased penalties for deliberate fraud, especially after payments have finished, isn't a bad thing, but I definitely don't think it should ruin someone's life forever. That's where I think it's important to be flexible about the payment amount and interest rate - if someone is determined not to pay and doesn't have the means, it doesn't make a difference whether the interest rate is 9% or 99%. If someone does have the means (i.e. they're gainfully employed and earning above the minimum wage) and is just refusing to pay, that's when I think greater punative measures (e.g. "we'll increase your interest rate and refer you to the police") can be of use.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 20, 2018 06:49
|
|
|
Barnaby Joyce posted:"I can't help myself," he said. bandaid.friend posted:Other pollies manage to avoid cheating on their spouses, Barnaby
|
|
#
¿
Apr 22, 2018 22:45
|
|
|
Swear to God I read this as "Australian War criminal Brendan Nelson". That's some strong Pavlovian association right there. Afaik he wasn't even in the army.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 25, 2018 11:29
|
|
|
Majestic posted:Aaaaaand it's gone: Huh? That article is from 2016.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 29, 2018 22:59
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 15:45 |
|
|
Don Dongington posted:I made $20 off star citizen. Ftfy
|
|
#
¿
Apr 30, 2018 05:18
|
|