walshd said...

Dumb redhead, talking like she has a disability: "Hellloooooo........its a levy, not a tax!"


Does anyone else think she sounds like Forrest Gump with her slow talking. I wish another pollie would debate her by responding in an even slower worded voice than hers to see her response.

There's an undertone in alot of the Gillard attacks of dislike,distrust,and downright hate , based on the fact of her gender. Can you imagine attacking John Howard as "you dumb baldy man". Some of you mugs need to have a good hard look at yourselves.

log man said...

walshd said...

Dumb redhead, talking like she has a disability: "Hellloooooo........its a levy, not a tax!"


Does anyone else think she sounds like Forrest Gump with her slow talking. I wish another pollie would debate her by responding in an even slower worded voice than hers to see her response.

There's an undertone in alot of the Gillard attacks of dislike,distrust,and downright hate , based on the fact of her gender. Can you imagine attacking John Howard as "you dumb baldy man". Some of you mugs need to have a good hard look at yourselves.

Na mate, no undertone. I just hate that slow minded, monotonous jabber that comes out of her mouth. The rest of the world must be laughing at us.

She is the australian version of Geore Bush Junior IMO.

Log Man,

Mate, you are obviously die hard about your party, and unfortunately it is this you vs me or us vs them that results in blind following of parties from both sides. Blind following in my opinion is completely fool hardy, as you can't see anything objectively.

So my 2 c - and BTW i'm not for a flood levy.

1. funds are for infrastructure - infrastructure that the QLD gov't felt was too expensive to insure, why? Other states have insurance.

2. Levy only applies to non flooded people - again why? my business did not flood but we were directly affected as my staff could not get too work, thus i lost income, yet still paid my staff. I'm a very small business that employs 5 people. I was not flooded, but was affected and have to pay a levy for infrastructure that i paid for through my tax which my state Gov't did not insure - why??????

3. Qld has just sold its rail, coal terminals and port of brisbane, we have lost our triple A credit rating. Our flood mitigation dam - was turned into water storage, because the gov't of the time Labor under Goss ( with Rudd in tow) chose to scrap a dam required to fulfil the water needs of SEQ that was ready for construction by old Joh.

4. we have donated billions to india, indonesia and even the US for their natural disasters. I'm all for this but not at the expense of having to levy the people further to fix our own backyard - i don't care who is in power.

5. How can you ignore the flagrant disrespect for our funds federally - the management or lack thereof of the insulation scheme - great idea that was thought of in what must of been 5 minutes and drawn up on the back of a table napkin. Cost blew out - a blindman could see that would happen. Particularly when you did not have to provide any evidence that the insulation was installed, or that you were licenced to install. This program killed people and burned houses down.

So overall I think it is quite justifiable that people do not trust the current gov't ability to run this well. Lets face it they could not organise a root in a brothel with a fist full of hundreds!!

Oh yeah Qld has been run into the ground by 13 years of labor gov't purely
because of blind followers - that just keep ticking the red box. I'm sure you will read this and have an eloquently worded reply to counter my argument - however, can you see the fire?? or do you think that it's not really smoke??

log man said...

Hi dam71, I can't resist so here goes. I heard Abbott today. Lunchtime on the radio talking about why he opposed the Levy. And I'm interested, really, I love politics, I like to know what the other mob are thinking, so I want to hear what's up. His first statement was about the awful spending record of this government then the stupidity of why some people should pay and others not, "how would the Victorian bushfire victims feel - no levy for them" and then....... it happened...... all I could hear was......... tightarsehairsplittingopportunisticbastardtightarsehairsplittingopportunistbastardtightarsehairsplittingopportunistic........I tried to change the station and then go back but there it was again. I mean I could hear his voice but in the background, there it was. The bloke I was working with at the time snapped me out of my souvlaki enduced psychosis and said "this ****wit needs to shut up". And I thought it was just me but every time I hear him talk about this I just think geez mate this is a wrong thing to do, don't go there, just bite your tongue and support it , then later when the dust settles(oops) and maybe he and his party win power at the next election he can guide the country in his direction. But in the mean time the country does not need this, it poisons the Well and leads the country down the wrong track.

2c: Not liking one person is no reason to like another...

I am not actually that fussed about the levy I think it works out at about 750 bucks for my wife and I ( based on ABC levy calculator ) and won't have to pay until 2012 so hey.

What I won't be doing is donating to a flood appeal which hands out cash to anyone with water over the floor boards..... Take a look at the satellite images around Brisbane .... Alll the houses have swimming pools and are feckin water front mansions. Those poor feckers!!! they might have to send their kids to state school for a term.

Pugwash said...

log man said...

Hi dam71, I can't resist so here goes. I heard Abbott today. Lunchtime on the radio talking about why he opposed the Levy. And I'm interested, really, I love politics, I like to know what the other mob are thinking, so I want to hear what's up. His first statement was about the awful spending record of this government then the stupidity of why some people should pay and others not, "how would the Victorian bushfire victims feel - no levy for them" and then....... it happened...... all I could hear was......... tightarsehairsplittingopportunisticbastardtightarsehairsplittingopportunistbastardtightarsehairsplittingopportunistic........I tried to change the station and then go back but there it was again. I mean I could hear his voice but in the background, there it was. The bloke I was working with at the time snapped me out of my souvlaki enduced psychosis and said "this ****wit needs to shut up". And I thought it was just me but every time I hear him talk about this I just think geez mate this is a wrong thing to do, don't go there, just bite your tongue and support it , then later when the dust settles(oops) and maybe he and his party win power at the next election he can guide the country in his direction. But in the mean time the country does not need this, it poisons the Well and leads the country down the wrong track.

2c: Not liking one person is no reason to like another...

Sorry mate, I don't understand

logman, dam71, Mark_A,

You guys are a great example of the problem - bugger what's best for the nation as long as your side wins. That's the cancer that's really eating our political parties and the reason it happens is precisely because people like you are out there picking apart every move they make with a microscope.

You ARE the problem.

Levy, infrastructure fund, tax, manna from heaven - doesn't matter what you call it or how it happens, government money has to come from us, the people one way or the other. If Queensland (or Victoria!) needs fixing then we - all of us - need to do it.

log man said...

Hi dam71, I can't resist so here goes. I heard Abbott today. Lunchtime on the radio talking about why he opposed the Levy. And I'm interested, really, I love politics, I like to know what the other mob are thinking, so I want to hear what's up. His first statement was about the awful spending record of this government then the stupidity of why some people should pay and others not, "how would the Victorian bushfire victims feel - no levy for them" and then....... it happened...... all I could hear was......... tightarsehairsplittingopportunisticbastardtightarsehairsplittingopportunistbastardtightarsehairsplittingopportunistic........I tried to change the station and then go back but there it was again. I mean I could hear his voice but in the background, there it was. The bloke I was working with at the time snapped me out of my souvlaki enduced psychosis and said "this ****wit needs to shut up". And I thought it was just me but every time I hear him talk about this I just think geez mate this is a wrong thing to do, don't go there, just bite your tongue and support it , then later when the dust settles(oops) and maybe he and his party win power at the next election he can guide the country in his direction. But in the mean time the country does not need this, it poisons the Well and leads the country down the wrong track.

They wouldnt be called 'the opposition' if they agreed with everything the govt came up with, would they? It's their job to oppose, to offer different views, and keep the govt accountable. It's not perfect, but it is politics after all.

fatwa said...

log man said...

Hi dam71, I can't resist so here goes. I heard Abbott today. Lunchtime on the radio talking about why he opposed the Levy. And I'm interested, really, I love politics, I like to know what the other mob are thinking, so I want to hear what's up. His first statement was about the awful spending record of this government then the stupidity of why some people should pay and others not, "how would the Victorian bushfire victims feel - no levy for them" and then....... it happened...... all I could hear was......... tightarsehairsplittingopportunisticbastardtightarsehairsplittingopportunistbastardtightarsehairsplittingopportunistic........I tried to change the station and then go back but there it was again. I mean I could hear his voice but in the background, there it was. The bloke I was working with at the time snapped me out of my souvlaki enduced psychosis and said "this ****wit needs to shut up". And I thought it was just me but every time I hear him talk about this I just think geez mate this is a wrong thing to do, don't go there, just bite your tongue and support it , then later when the dust settles(oops) and maybe he and his party win power at the next election he can guide the country in his direction. But in the mean time the country does not need this, it poisons the Well and leads the country down the wrong track.

They wouldnt be called 'the opposition' if they agreed with everything the govt came up with, would they? It's their job to oppose, to offer different views, and keep the govt accountable. It's not perfect, but it is politics after all.

Hi Fatwa, Oppose no probs with that at all, but think about the long term damage that can be done to the fabric of the society when you seek to persue a point that can only divide. Remember when the Gun Buy Back operation was on? it would have been a great time to have twisted the screws on John Howard but the Labor party stayed out of it , it could have been a real nasty **** fight. And likewise when Labor were in power and took over the running of the Iraq and Afgan wars, a total no win situation for any government, the Coalition, to their credit chose to stay out of the limelight for the good of the country. Likewise the response from the Victorian Liberal /National parties after the bush fires was totally spot on. Until the Royal Commission and then it was an opposition as it should be. My point is there is a time and a place and Abbott should stay out of it until the Royal commission, then come out swinging.

DAM71 said...

<snip>

I agree the infrastructure needs rebuilding. So alter the budget and rebuild it. Don't ask me for more money, especially when you have such a bad habit of wasting it.

What people are disgruntled about is that poor management of taxpayers funds.

Poor management? Take a few moments to see if you can find what the rest of the world thinks of the current government's spending during the GFC and what it did. Do a google search and see if you can find something about 'our' (Australia's) performance recently.

I am stoked that it seems the economy is on track. So good in fact that most people don't realise anything happened. I was sweating there for a while when I found myself between jobs at the wrong time.

I think a lot of people miss the point that a large amount of money had to be spent quickly, and in a way that generated turnover in the economy and made people 'think' that things were good. You don't get that keeping the money in the bank.

I don't expect a government to regulate a previously unregulated industry and take ownership of its faults, just because it decided to spend money in that sector. Why would insulation be any different?

Log man, Abbott is one of the few pollies left that calls it like it is. yes i agree sometimes he puts his foot in it, but he is stating a fact that there is no need to levy the people when they can alter the budget, and return to surplus later. If at the next election, the levy gets put it, we are still in the red Gillard is dead in the water. If there is no levy, we are still in the red, Abbott can't attack her because she only has to say we had to rebuild infrastructure - and who would blame her? Not me.

If that were to happen, there would be at least one guy crowing about it. Fair or not.

The Levy is expected to account for $1.8B, and the other measures are $3.8B. Would you agree that if the 2012 budget is in Surplus of at least $1.8B, that this would be the same as if there was no levy and the government had succeeded in good economic management?

Lately the Gov't has this this is what I'm doing and F*ck you all. And they make their decision in the space of 24 hours - how the hell can anyone make a serious decision about something so serious without proper consultation.

Lately it seems
Under a liberal gov't - we save, have a surplus then tax cuts
Under a labor gov't we spend, have a deficit and increased taxes

I think that this might have a bit to do with the fact that the current government was in power during a global recession (was it enough to be called a recession?).

If we had had a government at the time that decided it wanted to remain in surplus, I would have really enjoyed talking to you about this in depth while lining up for my dole cheque.

Gillard vs Abbott

What a sorry state of affairs. For all it's worth between the two I'd say Gillard was the better choice, but I can't understand how Labor has power.

Anyone else think that if the oppostion had put any other chimp in a suit up for election that they'd have won easily?

Levy/ no levy - can't see it making any difference, it's all taxpayer money one way or the other, it's not as if they're not going to fix the infrastructure. They shafted you this year, last year and they'll do it again next year. Why is everyone outraged this time?

knigit said...

Gillard vs Abbott

What a sorry state of affairs. For all it's worth between the two I'd say Gillard was the better choice, but I can't understand how Labor has power.

Anyone else think that if the oppostion had put any other chimp in a suit up for election that they'd have won easily?

Levy/ no levy - can't see it making any difference, it's all taxpayer money one way or the other, it's not as if they're not going to fix the infrastructure. They shafted you this year, last year and they'll do it again next year. Why is everyone outraged this time?

mate, it's not a contest between one person or another . It's the battle of ideologies. it's a battle of political philosophies represented by two leaders. And, yes I couldn't believe it when they dumped Turnbull for Abbott. But you've got to hand it to him, he nearly grabbed the election.

Interesting to hear the "gun buy back" raise its head. I could sure discuss that snow job by both parties, that avoided a full Royal Commission, ova few beers... But this thread isn't it...

"it's not a contest between one person or another . It's the battle of ideologies. it's a battle of political philosophies represented by two leaders" - ahhh the old days when that was how it really was... ;) Gillard Vs Abbott was so similar to Obama Vs McCain. It was a battle between 2 people and more than just their personalities. A battle between 2 people who brought something new to their campaigns - both were firsts in their nations history of electing a leader - One a woman, the other an African American... And so many, many people on both continents voted to make history. Each to their own, tho I found that concept of choosing a leader kinda scary!

"n the case of the the deposing of Rudd, my reading of the situation was Gillard was asked if she supported the leader and she said she did, then the factions came to her and told her Rudd was gone. My reading was she was an unwilling starter in the leadership vote but was persuaded by factional leaders that Rudd was gone and she better get up and stand. . So Whoopdy doo, what's the big deal. So Rudd got it in the neck, fancy that a political leader being stabbed in the back, I've never heard of that !!" - Have a chat with the senior shop stewards and secretaries at the AWU and the CMFEU about the 24 hours prior to Rudd being deposed? You may change your mind... I never heard the term unwilling starter or persuaded to stand and they had a big say in what happened... I wasn't a voter of Rudds, tho he seems a decent bloke. He didn't get it in the neck - he was shafted!

Politics - its an interesting world ;)

Saffer said...

log man said...

Saffer said...

I look at Gillard from the simple perspective that if anyone in a company messed up her school spending package like she did, they would have been fired, but in government they get a promotion. Got nothing to do with people female, she's just terrible at her job. Anna Bligh has done a terrible job, but she handled the floods and cyclone 10x better than Gillard did so its a pretty sad reflection of Gillard when I say I'd take Bligh as my PM over Gillard any day. The only reason Labour won was because Abbott is such a poor opposition candidate. There were so many better people than him and its a mystery to me as to why he got the top job. I've never seen an election where I'd rather vote for two candidates less.

Government needs to run like a company with the taxpayers as the shareholders, but I get the impression Gillard thinks they're the workers.

Any reason why ex-politicians need domestic flights for life? I can't think of any.

Hi Saffer, mate this whole "school halls" thing has got completely out of control. It seems to me that a lot of people believe this whole "debacle" thing like its gospel. The BER was a response to the GFC and the success of it is obvious. The BER was more of a construction industry stimulus than a school program and it worked. But don't take my word for it look at the Orgill report, look at the findings then change your mind. Here's a good little summary

www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/16/the-ber-outcome-time-to-correct-the-record/

It also filled the coffers of a lot of people who charged more than double what they should have. Thats my big issue. I don't want to pay flood tax for someone to charge the government twice or three times as much as they should. As I said, if that happened in the private sector, people would have been fired.

Saffer, did you read the article?

log man said...

Saffer said...

log man said...

Hi Saffer, mate this whole "school halls" thing has got completely out of control. It seems to me that a lot of people believe this whole "debacle" thing like its gospel. The BER was a response to the GFC and the success of it is obvious. The BER was more of a construction industry stimulus than a school program and it worked. But don't take my word for it look at the Orgill report, look at the findings then change your mind. Here's a good little summary

www.crikey.com.au/2010/12/16/the-ber-outcome-time-to-correct-the-record/

It also filled the coffers of a lot of people who charged more than double what they should have. Thats my big issue. I don't want to pay flood tax for someone to charge the government twice or three times as much as they should. As I said, if that happened in the private sector, people would have been fired.

Saffer, did you read the article?

No, of course not. If he did he would have realised that it wasn't true...

Charging 'double' becomes 'two or three times as much', which will probably become 'quadrupled the cost', which is almost as much as five times the cost, which is close enough to ten times the cost of what it should have been!

I fail to see how your pointer to an article examining the actual costs of these projects versus any complaints received and extrapolating the expected extra charges paid to arrive at a factual answer is going to influence my calculations... TEN times the cost!! Only 5% extra you say? Bah humbug!

Where is the number for 2UE? Anyone got it handy?