| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
It's quicker to get drugs in Melbourne than an Ambulance.  |
|
|
|
 |
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | meanwhile, Labour run their own ad's trying to smear people for having thei own business,
|
stui, as usual you are deflecting. What has Labour spending It's own money, got to do with Howard spending taxpayers money on advertising? |
|
|
|
|
sherrife 
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| member34258 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | meanwhile, Labour run their own ad's trying to smear people for having thei own business,
|
stui, as usual you are deflecting. What has Labour spending It's own money, got to do with Howard spending taxpayers money on advertising? |
Mate, (as usual?... your postings are becoming awfully partisan given you're a self-professed ex-revolutionary) that retort only works because Labor isn't in power.
Wait till next year, then see where the funding for their inevitable advertising will be coming from.
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| member34258 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | meanwhile, Labour run their own ad's trying to smear people for having thei own business,
|
stui, as usual you are deflecting. What has Labour spending It's own money, got to do with Howard spending taxpayers money on advertising? |
Whoever is in government spends (taxpayers) money to further their point of view.
An interest group (in this case the union movement) runs a media campaign against government legislation, the government runs a media campaign giving their version of the facts.
I put that bit in about the Rudd media campaign going wrong rather than start a new thread.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| sherrife wrote: | | member34258 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | meanwhile, Labour run their own ad's trying to smear people for having thei own business,
|
stui, as usual you are deflecting. What has Labour spending It's own money, got to do with Howard spending taxpayers money on advertising? |
Mate, (as usual?... your postings are becoming awfully partisan given you're a self-professed ex-revolutionary) that retort only works because Labor isn't in power.
Wait till next year, then see where the funding for their inevitable advertising will be coming from. |
Awfully partisan? I'm glad you see my bias, but I doubt it was ever buried.
My point is that the $2B could have been better spent on Hospitals, or even schools. All I ask is an answer, yes or no. Do you believe $2B could be better spent than hitting us with partisan advertising?
If Rudd wins and he does the same thing then by all means feel free to publish a thread and criticize. But at the moment to say that he will is only conjecture. Informed conjecture maybe, but conjecture all the same. |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | | member34258 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | meanwhile, Labour run their own ad's trying to smear people for having thei own business,
|
stui, as usual you are deflecting. What has Labour spending It's own money, got to do with Howard spending taxpayers money on advertising? |
Whoever is in government spends (taxpayers) money to further their point of view.
An interest group (in this case the union movement) runs a media campaign against government legislation, the government runs a media campaign giving their version of the facts.
I put that bit in about the Rudd media campaign going wrong rather than start a new thread. |
So you support spending $2B on advertising, not hospitals?
Yes or No? |
|
|
|
|
sherrife
Victorian Socialists - people before profit
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Dude, it's not informed conjecture... It's the way the system works.
Why am I starting to think you're an employee of the ALP in some way?
_________________
I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks... - Eugene Debs |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Lol!
I wish.
I don't think I've ever hidden my bias.
BTW, any chance you can get off the fence and answer yes/no? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| member34258 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | | member34258 wrote: | | stui magpie wrote: | meanwhile, Labour run their own ad's trying to smear people for having thei own business,
|
stui, as usual you are deflecting. What has Labour spending It's own money, got to do with Howard spending taxpayers money on advertising? |
Whoever is in government spends (taxpayers) money to further their point of view.
An interest group (in this case the union movement) runs a media campaign against government legislation, the government runs a media campaign giving their version of the facts.
I put that bit in about the Rudd media campaign going wrong rather than start a new thread. |
So you support spending $2B on advertising, not hospitals?
Yes or No? |
Twisted choice. If you said to me, "here is $2 billion. Should we spend it on hospitals or advertising" I'd say Hospitals.
What your question doesn't take into account is how much money has the government already allocated to the hospital system?
So it's not a direct choice between one or the other. I'm sure if I wanted to go thru any governments budget expenditure I could find examples of where I would want more money allocated to one thing in preferece to where it was actually spent.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: |
What your question doesn't take into account is how much money has the government already allocated to the hospital system?
|
Does not matter how much is already allocated. Can you really tell me that the hospital system can not do with an extra 2 billion? If you can then you obviously don't know anyone on a waiting list.
At this time the Feds are rolling in money, such is the huge take of the GST.
So it is not a question of how much is spent, it's how it is spent. And telling us all about changes to laws that have already been changed is a total waste of money.
Unless you are an advertising executive! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Yeah, the hospitals could use more mney, so could education etc.
By the way, who's rolling in funds from the GST? Doesn't most of the GST money go directly to the state governments which run the hospital system?
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Yeah, the hospitals could use more mney, so could education etc.
By the way, who's rolling in funds from the GST? Doesn't most of the GST money go directly to the state governments which run the hospital system? |
Nope.
The distribution to the states was based on the original estimation of GST revenue. The first full year was actually double the prediction. |
|
|
|
|
London Dave 
Ješte jedna pivo prosím
Joined: 16 Dec 1998
Location: Iceland on Thames
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Here's a beauty...from the SMH letters page.. $7,000,000,000 pork
| Quote: | Spanish destroyers project a good way to destroy $7,000,000,000
September 5, 2007
Few would contest that the Collins Class submarine was probably the worst conceived and managed defence project of the latter half of the last century. But, not to be outdone by its predecessors, the present Federal Government has now decided on a defence project of gargantuan nonsense, undertaking a project to build three Spanish designed destroyers for the Australian Navy at a cost of something around $7,000,000,000.
The ships will be built in Adelaide, where there are no people with any background experience in the weapons and support systems to be fitted in these ships. There is negligible industrial backing with experience in supporting such ships and their systems in Adelaide and probably not much elsewhere in Australia.
The program will cost at least twice as much as three equivalent or more capable ships built in the United States.
These will be war ships. Their cost can only be justified if it is envisaged that they are being procured for the defence of Australia against a significant threat to our national security. It is almost inconceivable that they will operate other than in close co-operation if not integration with the US Navy. The case for having them as far as possible logistically as well as operationally common with their US allies is unarguable. The proposed ships instead will be orphan ships with a logistic and design chain connected to a European power with little likelihood of any strategic confluence of interests with Australia.
It is argued this project will "create" 3000 jobs. In other words, it will take 3000 people out of our productive work force and put them into a taxpayer-funded iron lung largely in a government-owned factory.
Paroxysms of political anguish seem to grip the Australian psyche over which government will spend a handful of dollars on a Tasmanian hospital, while there has not to my knowledge been a murmur over a program to spend thousands of millions of dollars more than necessary on an ill-conceived defence project.
Where are the defence journalists, the economics analysts, the industry sages who will at least force the Government to set out its logic in defence of this extremely high risk and exceptionally expensive project which will destroy a significant quantum of Australia's prosperity.
Rear Admiral Ian H. Richards (Rtd) Waverton
|
|
|
|
|
|
member34258
Joined: 05 Nov 2006
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Rudd reads Nicks!!!!
http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Labor-leaders-tour-to-promote-health/2007/10/01/1191090995443.html
| Quote: | Mr Rudd attacked Prime Minister John Howard over his election advertising budget, saying the $1 million in taxpayer funds spent daily was an "obscenity".
"It could have funded 1,000 hospital bed nights, it could have funded 12 senior nurses for a year, it could have funded four emergency department doctors for a year, it could have funded 78 hip replacements for a year," Mr Rudd said.
|
Beautiful. |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
That's good Kev.
I will be watching with interest in three years time to see exactly how much Labor spends on advertising their re-election campaign...
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
