Australia - you're standing in it
blindboy wrote:Unwanted population growth? By you maybe but in a democracy the majority who approve of it are the ones who will be listened to. https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/themes/immigration-and-refugees/ As an immigrant, my default view is to support it but I am also happy to accept changes to the policy if support drops. I think you might want to have a look at your logic there also as your claims on the economic impacts would seem to directly contradict themselves. In terms of the environmental impacts of population growth my view is that the vast majority of our environmental problems have arisen from greed and appalling policies over a long period. Comparisons with other nations with dense populations suggests this.
There’s many polls showing the rejection of the mass immigration Ponzi scheme by Australians. Perhaps the indisputable evidence is that the mortal enemies of the ALP and LNP have a clandestine agreement to never ever take the issue to an election despite knowing that they will be guaranteed Victory. The ALP would literally stay in opposition forever than break this anti-democratic covenant.
As for the rest of your dribble about greed and policy destroying the environment…..save it bloke. The easiest way to dismantle that strawman is to ask what ever happened to your dedication to the precautionary principle.
You’ve said so yourself that you are ideologically opposed to reducing immigration. You are willing to deny the will of the people and scientific evidence in pursuit of what you believe.
And no reference to the absolute truth bomb which my entire previous post was about- the hundreds of billions of dollars subsidy for an outcome the Australian population and our country, not only don’t want or need but which we literally cannot sustain.
It shows exactly how demented you are when you find no problem in the issue of constructing environmentally destructive, inequality entrenching and completely unnecessary synthetic water generation merely so you can indulge your perverted dream of infinite population growth.
You are a sham bloke. You can’t wait to abandon every single bit of commitment to all these issues you bleat about all the time.
Zero integrity.
Blowin wrote:BB specifically mentions the $12B subsidy of a fossil fuel industry, which has generated a large share of our collective wealth , but fails to acknowledge that most crowd mitigation infrastructure projects such as Westconnex,which produce nothing more than accomodate for unnecessary and unwanted population growth, routinely cost more than that on their own and there’s dozens of them. Even worse is that the subsidies are never finished as the cost of infrastructure is then further imposed on Australians in the form of private taxes AKA tolls.
“Budgeted at $16.8 billion by the NSW government, the additional costs suggest the true price of WestConnex would be close to $21 billion.“
The whole fossil fuel subsidy thing is misleading anyway, most of it is Diesel fuel rebates for equipment and trucks not used on public roads its over 30c in every litre that they get back.
blindboy wrote:....but 47% still approve of our immigration policy from the link provided. Contradictions like that usually indicate a poor survey but as I said if the majority want a reduction I have no problem. The immediate issue though is how much is too much? I doubt if there is much support for zero given the labor shortages in various industries.
If you were speaking a scintilla of truth you’d drop the gaslighting. But no….” Labour shortages which require mass immigration “ it is.
The Fake Left fall over themselves to parrot the lies put forwards by corrupt corporations when it suits them.
Zero integrity.
indo-dreaming wrote:Blowin wrote:BB specifically mentions the $12B subsidy of a fossil fuel industry, which has generated a large share of our collective wealth , but fails to acknowledge that most crowd mitigation infrastructure projects such as Westconnex,which produce nothing more than accomodate for unnecessary and unwanted population growth, routinely cost more than that on their own and there’s dozens of them. Even worse is that the subsidies are never finished as the cost of infrastructure is then further imposed on Australians in the form of private taxes AKA tolls.
“Budgeted at $16.8 billion by the NSW government, the additional costs suggest the true price of WestConnex would be close to $21 billion.“
The whole fossil fuel subsidy thing is misleading anyway, most of it is Diesel fuel rebates for equipment and trucks not used on public roads its over 30c in every litre that they get back.
Mate, wait until you’ve driven down hundreds of kilometres of taxpayer funded road constructed purely to service a mine before you start making claims like that.
Not to mention the port at the end of the road which is also partly funded by tax payer money.
Or the geosurveys which were carried out by government departments then handed to private businesses.
Or the endless political suck n swallow to support those businesses.
Etc etc
"The whole fossil fuel subsidy thing is misleading anyway, most of it is Diesel fuel rebates for equipment and trucks not used on public roads its over 30c in every litre that they get back."
Ha ha ha ha ha! Priceless Indo!
BB - You are such a hypocrite . One moment you quote a survey as say listen to democracy and then when a survey is posted that you don't agree with you write this .
"....but 47% still approve of our immigration policy from the link provided. Contradictions like that usually indicate a poor survey " .
Your credibility has gone into the negative today . Well done !
Oh tedium!
What he says I said:
"You’ve said so yourself that you are ideologically opposed to reducing immigration. You are willing to deny the will of the people and scientific evidence in pursuit of what you believe."
What I actually said:
"As an immigrant, my default view is to support it but I am also happy to accept changes to the policy if support drops. "
The one track mind rolls on impervious to evidence and argument.
BB- Not sure about the quotes you mentioned . They had nothing to do with what I said .
As you said -"Oh tedium!"
It is getting very tedious pointing out your incorrect comments and hypocrisy .
One more time .
You quoted a survey and then you said a few minutes later don't believe surveys because ""....but 47% still approve of our immigration policy from the link provided. Contradictions like that usually indicate a poor survey " .
Please do not tell me if you do or don't get it now .
It was Blowin's comment. Yawn
What he said I said:
"then you said a few minutes later don't believe surveys "
What I actually said:
"Contradictions like that usually indicate a poor survey but as I said if the majority want a reduction I have no problem."
Fuck off . The point was you believed in a survey ( without qualifications ) that agreed with you point of view . Then a minute later you doubted a survey due to your qualifications BECAUSE you didn't agree with its outcome .
Your attempts to explain away your obvious mistakes are becoming so tedious they are ridiculous .
Piss off . You are wasting my time !
No, I don't think I will Hutchy, but in the mean time we consider it good manners to keep obscenities off the front page.
blindboy wrote:Oh tedium!
What he says I said:
"You’ve said so yourself that you are ideologically opposed to reducing immigration. You are willing to deny the will of the people and scientific evidence in pursuit of what you believe."
What I actually said:
"As an immigrant, my default view is to support it but I am also happy to accept changes to the policy if support drops. "
The one track mind rolls on impervious to evidence and argument.
You’ve argued against it from every conceivable angle for years. You think one comment mitigates your usual slathered obstinacy?
Not sure if it’s entirely appropriate complaining about someone wasting your time when you are arguing on the Internet.
You are right for a change BB . Apologies for the swearing as it is not something I normally do . That's is how much I am irritated at your slimy , scheming and lack of accountability behaviour .
I will really try and improve but I don't expect you to .
Since I posted on the Fed on this thread I will post this as showing how some on the Fed behave .
I don't care BB if you don't like that I have not said where I copied this from .
Well, it may not be George (yet) but overnight the government ethics office published forms which showed that none other than the (centrist) Fed Vice Chair Richard Clarida may be the next to "retire" (perhaps he too is on a kidney transplant list) following the revelation that he was trading in and out of millions in securities on February 27, 2020 just one day before Fed Chair Powell issued an (extremely bullish) emergency statement hinting at possible policy action as the pandemic worsened.
Just saw your comment Blowin and you are right to . Frustration at people who keep making up excuses which is no excuse .
Hutchy said - “Norway is going well due to one main reason . They are making billions from selling fossil fuels . Way too many people in Oz don't want us to do the same thing”
‘Norway also established the principle that the state was to have a 50 per cent ownership interest in every production licence.
The SDFI system means that the Norwegian state owns holdings in a number of oil and gas fields, pipelines and onshore facilities. The proportion is determined when production licences are awarded, and varies from field to field. As one of several owners, the State covers its share of investments and costs, and receives a corresponding share of the income from production licences.’
https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/framework/norways-petroleum-history/
Australia practically gives away our resources compared to Norway.
If Norway can set up this arrangement why couldn’t Australia? If it was we’d have a sovereign wealth fund rivalling Norways.
It’s not just the fossil fuels that have made Norway a wealthy nation, Australia has resources rivalling Norway. It is the way the Norwegian political class have arranged the affairs of the nation so that an equal portion of the value from resources stays in the country to benefit everyone not just an elite few companies.
blindboy wrote:"The whole fossil fuel subsidy thing is misleading anyway, most of it is Diesel fuel rebates for equipment and trucks not used on public roads its over 30c in every litre that they get back."
Ha ha ha ha ha! Priceless Indo!
Here you go your beloved Guardian 7.8 Billion a year claimed by the fossil fuel industry in Diesel rebates
Off course the Guardian suggest they wind them back.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/09/taxpayers-could-s...
Obviously the reality is they bring in much much much much more to the economy, and pay huge amounts in royalties and tax.
A subsidy is a subsidy. If they genuinely believed in free markets, as they claim to do, it would be user pays all the way. Then there is the advantage it gives to fossil fuels over other possible energy sources. This is clearly not wise as new potentially cheaper and more environmentally friendly energy sources come on line. It's a backward looking policy from a backward looking government.
It's not a really a subsidy anyway, it's more a tax on diesel for road users, but if you use diesel for use that's not on public roads you dont pay the tax so you get it back as a rebate as obviously you cant purchase the fuel without the added road tax.
Yeah sure there might be an argument now that it's time to do away with the rebate but as the article mentions it could also have a negative effect on remote communities and also farmers.
So probably not the best time with Covid and some uncertainty to remove it now, better to remove during better times and then you would need to compensate farmers as you dont want to disadvantage them. (maybe even compensate mining for minerals for renewables who also benefit etc)
Anyway it dates back to 2000 so not a recent thing.
I lived on Fraser Island for a few years locals there have a similar thing with car rego, they pay virtually nothing if they dont take their car off the island as there is no made roads, my car was not diesel but i expect if they aren't going off the island they can claim the rebate too, or diesel generators etc
Fliplid-"Norway also established the principle that the state was to have a 50 per cent ownership interest in every production licence."
Great to see that you are in the sensible camp that realise that producing and selling fossil fuels is a good policy .
The question is how we fund them and how we tax them . Australia does it like most of the rest of the world . Norway does it like most of the Middle East .
Australia has resources that far outstrip Norway . Think Iron Ore , coal , agriculture etc . When we started ( think before 1900 ) we didn't have the money to fund 50% of these huge projects and needed overseas money . Norway's system came in much later .
We get royalties , company taxes , and huge employment from our wonderful companies . They more than pay their way in the long term . You are very wrong if you think we are giving it away .
Thanks to Howard we have a sovereign wealth fund . I don't know how they compare but I know ours is growing very well .
Hutchy, do you remember Brendan Grylls, former leader of the Nationals in WA suggesting we re negotiate royalties with BHP and RIo Tinto to bring them in line with the other iron ore producers. Do you remember the scare campaign put forward by the Minerals council of Australia.
We didn’t get the royalties and we lost a great politician who was doing great things for WA.
You have a very rose coloured view of the mining industry, something myself and my wife have years of experience in, that lacks a little reality.
Yeah Hutchy no problems with fossil fuels or mining, we'd be a different country without them. Not saying it isn't time for an adjustment though.
Regarding the financing question you raised, by what I understand, Norway also needed foreign investment to start up the industry but they decided to do it in partnership with foreign capital rather than give it all away and so kept a large portion of ownership. Australia had a similar idea in the 70's but there was so much opposition to it from vested interests it never happened.
The same arguments made by those vested interests in Australia were made in Norway but the Norwegian government basically said, fine if you don't want a partnership with us we'll give the licenses to someone who does. The rest as they say, is history.
Like I said before it is 2 different ideas, Norway, also Middle East and Brunei said lets make sure our people get a larger and fairer portion of what is legally owned by us so more benefits go to the nation.
The Australian government, and others around the world, gave in to the arguments and took a smaller portion. Sort of why have the cake when you can take the crumbs.
It is similar to the colonial attitude of giving away land and resources to a select few to the exclusion of the many.
It's been shown also that here are plenty of ways to game the system and pay less than they should. Like who is actually counting what goes on the ships or through the pipeline? Not too mention the various offshoring of payments and taxes
As for Australias sovereign wealth fund compared to Norways, think of a flea on an elephant
Selling fossil fuels may not be the best policy for Australia going forward if new trade agreements have Emissions targets and fossil fuel production tied to tariffs on imports and exports.
Something that’s currently being discussed globally.
An oil spill off the California coast destroyed a wildlife habitat and caused dead birds and fish to wash up on Huntington Beach, officials say
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/03/us/california-oil-spill/index.html
Thanks for the great responses to my thoughts. I read every one of them and will address some of the points made when I get a chance. Beautiful weekend on the Sunshine Coast and been some nice waves about.
Fliplid - As I said the funding and taxation system Australia used and uses was started close to a hundred years before Norway chose theirs . It was the same model used around the world .
The middle east were getting ripped off so it was easy for them to change when they had their own money .
I can't remember any major push to reform in the 70's . It definitely wasn't Australia's peoples idea . Also very hard to change a legacy system . Maybe that's when royalties were substantially increased .
We started our sovereign wealth fund after the Norwegians . Their fund is the largest in the world .
Ours is about 15% of theirs ( a fucken big flea ) . I think we fight above our weight division on this as we usually do .
Hutch I'd guess there's been plenty of changes made to the tax system so personally I think that it was a result of giving into vested interests that prevented the changes not any inability to do it. Obviously you think otherwise.
At least you can be assured that the system will never change. At the end of the day though Norway will have gained so many (many many many) more benefits from their resources compared to Australia. I'm glad you are happy with that arrangement and all the consequences that entails
"Ours is about 15% of theirs ( a fucken big flea )" Yeah, I'm prone to exaggeration and hyperbole. Still, it's a pretty big fucken elephant
Flipid - your presumptions are rude . I don't agree to give in to vested interests or am happy with shit arrangements and their consequences .
A flea that is 15% the size of an elephant would mean the elephant is TINY .
Your continued exaggerations and outrageous presumptions are disappointing !
Pandora's Box is about to be opened. Nervous times for the bigendians.
https://www.smh.com.au/business/banking-and-finance/secrets-of-the-rich-...
NSW Premier in waiting Dom Perrottet filmed doing speech on supporting the churches right to protect paedophiles who confess their sins
Referring to Victoria's law requiring priests to breach confessional seal and report cases of abuse, next potential NSW Premier @Dom_Perrottet says catholic confessional seal is sacrosanct "no matter who and no matter what sins are confessed." #nswpol #Gladys #GladysBerejiklian pic.twitter.com/wgYF8mIwMg
— Lyndon Hall (@L_Hall91) October 2, 2021
Those cheering Glad's downfall might come to regret her departure. Perrotet is a mini-Abbot.
Didn't mean any offence Hutchy.
From what you have written before you seem to shrug off any suggestions that anything should be done to get a fairer slice of the pie.
In future I will tone down the exaggerations and modify my presumptions ;)
Thanks Fiplid !
"From what you have written before you seem to shrug off any suggestions that anything should be done to get a fairer slice of the pie."
I must not have expressed myself well . Always want Australia and Australians to get their fair share . I expect other countries to do the same .
blindboy wrote:Those cheering Glad's downfall might come to regret her departure. Perrotet is a mini-Abbot.
You're joking right? Miss Pork barrel should be jailed. Just because the next turd smells more than the last turd, a turd is still a turd.
Sheepdog - I hope you agree that the avoidable deaths of 800 people in Vic due to Andrews stinks more !
As someone said on Sunday, "don't forget to put your clocks forward by an hour for daylight savings. And those in NSW, also rememember to put your calenders back to 1950"
https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/politics/labor-to-target-domini...
Hutchy 19 wrote:Sheepdog - I hope you agree that the avoidable deaths of 800 people in Vic due to Andrews stinks more !
There was no vaccine then. And most deaths were due to Federal running of aged care, allowing cleaners to work at 3 different nursing homes in one day. So yes the deaths were avoidable. Shame the feds did nothing huh?
And now the poor viccos, Canberrans etc are suffering thanks to Gladys not locking down on June 21, like S.A, W.A, and Qld all have done when delta appears. She infected NZ too.
Sheepdog . You have no idea ! I have had this discussion with some other uninformed person .
This what they called in inquiry -COVID-19 Hotel Quarantine Inquiry .
Shame on you for not knowing and letting Dan off scot free .
Terrible you turn a blind eye on a tragedy just because your side caused it .
I can’t believe there’s an honest to goodness right winger on the forums.
At least he’s honest about his beliefs. It’s refreshing.
Blowin - very happy to agree with you and fight with you on issues we believe in . I do have a different view , I think , to you on immigration .
I will do a quick outline of my views on the home prices thread if you are interested .
He’ll be banned/silenced/cancelled/
censored soon. The bullying aint working dammit!
Michael Adam wrote:He’ll be banned/silenced/cancelled/
censored soon. The bullying aint working dammit!
Michael,
Who will be banned? and Why? Please explain...
Oh my freaking god.
Just when you are starting to think that this outrageous totalitarian / corporatistic political system can’t get any more bizarre….
Now the government refuses to let their coolie labour leave Australia. Imagine if all the highly skilled food service delivery technicians left and Australian businesses had to start paying living wages! Or if all the extremely valuable unskilled dependent partners of those highly skilled food service delivery technicians wanted to return to India and the savvy property investors who rely on them to pay rent on their sky kennel apartment investments, suddenly found that their petrol-derivative clad investments were now financially underwater and there was a knock on effect through the completely stable and fundamentally secure real estate market!
Better to just shut the borders and refuse the coolie labour the opportunity to leave our land of the free! How did the coolies even get out of house arrest anyway!?!?
Lock. Them.Up!!!!!!!
https://www.sbs.com.au/news/the-feed/devastated-temporary-visa-holders-e...
you really are a very ugly very insecure person and a coward to boot.
wallpaper wrote:you really are a very ugly very insecure person and a coward to boot.
Good point.
Scomo should tear up the passports of the temporary visa holders who want to return to their home nations. Thank you for your voice of reason in showing me to be the bad guy in this situation. Every owner of an Australian business who’d rather the government hold foreign nationals hostage so they don’t abandon their exploitive work places thanks you from the bottom of their hearts.
Quick question: On exactly what basis do you think the government is preventing foreign nationals on temporary visas from leaving the country after the borders are opened for Australian citizens?
There was never a scientific or medical justification for preventing Australians from leaving the country. What about preventing foreign nationals from leaving? It shows the times we are living in and how far the insidious creep of governmental authoritarianism has progressed that every person in the world isn’t utterly gobsmacked at what’s occurring.
BTW….isn’t it funny about wallpaper? About 40 years ago people realised that it was a bit pointless and didn’t really add anything positive. Since then it’s basically been ignored…..with good reason.
Pretty shitty comment TBH. I know a few people now caught up and they don't fit your profile in the least.
stunet wrote:Pretty shitty comment TBH. I know a few people now caught up and they don't fit your profile in the least.
It’s a bit disingenuous to suggest that my comment doesn’t reflect the nature of the government’s completely arbitrary, inhumane and unscientific ruling.
Just because you know a nice foreign National inadvertently caught up in the heinous rule doesn’t undermine the truth in what I say.
Perhaps you could explain the good faith and necessity behind the ruling? Once you’ve explained it to me you can go and tell your foreign national temporary visa holder friends that, whilst you are allowed to fly to Bali on your way to XXXX, they really don’t qualify to leave Australia because…..?
Blowin instead of wearing horses blinkers try getting your information from the horses mouth.
image uploader
Seems to me like those food service delivery technicians are allowed to leave but not allowed to come back. But then again we all know, as Stunet said, the profile of most people caught up in this are not food service delivery technicians is it. Come on tell us you agree!!!
Come on….let’s not beat around the bush here.
Why do you think the government is doing this? As soon as Australians are permitted to leave will let any foreigner from anywhere come here as a tourist or to buy real estate as long as they are jabbed, but temporary visa holders aren’t allowed to re-enter? The international students are coming in.
It’s government coercion.
They are bluffing the exploited workers with the call that “ Sure you can leave but you can’t come back” in order to prevent the likely loss of exploitable labour.
@Blowin,
Then unload on the govt and not accuse all temp visa holders of being coolie labour. FFS we live in an international world, there are as many temporary visa holders here as there are Australians who've benefited from holding a temp visa while living OS.
I didn’t accuse all temporary visa holders of being coolie labour but it’s ridiculous to try and portray someone you know as representative of temporary visa holders, after the routine establishment that exploitation of temporary visa workers as an option to employing or training Australians isn’t an entrenched nation wide culture.
https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2019/03/migrant-workers-taskforce-finds...
The "I can't believe it's not politics" thread.