 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
| What is [quote]
Sure but there? |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: |
Yeah, all those third world peasants making "a tidy living" off Aboriginal Affairs  Irresponsible, completely detached Internet rubbish. No one except shite-talking Internet big mouths think a bit of a budget trim won't be missed in indigenous affairs. What a disgracefully aloof claim.
More of your famed "caution" when it comes to those with minimal representation. |
All that ad hominem vitriol and venom must be bad for your digestion. Post another dishonest picture showing me humping a barrel of oil. It'll make you feel better.
Meanwhile, back in the real world, just about every organisation carries 5% waste at a minimum. In government, it's probably far more. I was amused this week to read that "Tim Wilson is giving up his $400,000 Human Rights Commission job". If people are prepared to work in the HRC for only $400k, then you're probably right - there are no savings to be made in indigenous affairs.
Yours, the "shite-talking internet big-mouth".
PS David, does that stuff get moderated ?
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^The vitriol was your cowardly attack on the imaginary folk "making a tidy living" off indigenous affairs, and your flippant attitude towards indigenous funding, as if you know the first thing about it.
Of coursr, indigenous folk are only grubby, money-sapping peasants; a bus driver or Sunday School teacher could run the show for a fraction of the cost, surely.
Nope, you weren't making some general claim about institutions, while indigenous affairs could be 42.4% underfunded for all you know. You parochially spat out shock jock rubbish, and as is becoming your wont, now you're backtracking and feigning righteousness.
Mr. Caution and Nuance indeed.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ as usual, you report things that weren't said to bolster your dreary outrage. Your misreportage is, as always well out of bounds.
I said that we could afford to spend 1% on an aboriginal affairs legal aid budget by cutting back elsewhere in the $3.5 billion budget, because every budget of that scale has a lot of waste in it. I said nothing about "grubby money-sapping peasants" - that is a lie, of course.
I was certainly thinking of the four (white) public servants I know who work in Aboriginal affairs in Canberra earning good money, and the fact that the Aboriginal people have so demonstrably little to show for the $5000 per head per annum that is spent on the Aboriginal Affairs budget, year after year, as material outcomes worsen.
I was also thinking of the chap earning $400k per annum in the HRC (admittedly not part of AA, but symptomatic of waste).
As for the "feigning righteousness" bit, no, it was not righteousness ; just a normal objection to the PTID trademark abuse. As the saying goes - some people think your views are wrong ; get over it, or get an anger management class.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive 
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | David wrote: |
As they should, though, when they hear that we can't afford $40 million for an Indigenous legal aid service. |
I think that is a false opposition.
Last time I looked we were spending $3.5B annually on the Dept of Aboriginal Affairs budget. I'd say we can afford to spend ~1% of that on a legal aid service, if we want to, without cutting defence. It might mean that a few of the people who make a tidy living out of aboriginal affairs, without making much (if any) discernable difference over the past 30 years, cease to do so. |
Gee I read this and read this again, and I cannot see any vitriol or attack on peasants, I see a really good point. If nothing noticeably good is coming out of a portfolio, try something different.
One question, isn't everyone able to get legal aide? Does there need to be a seperate one for indigenous people? What's the difference? (Honest question, no hidden agenda!)
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| swoop42 wrote: | To be brutally honest buying some nukes off the yanks over the years that they would have otherwise destroyed anyway due to the agreement with Russia would be a cheaper and more effective military deterrent.
While a world without nukes would be ideal strangely enough they might be the one thing that has stopped and will stop the outbreak of WW3. |
Maybe I've watch too many U.S. Movies, but I totally agree with you!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | [quote="Mugwump"][quote="David"]
As they should, though, when they hear that we can't afford $40 million for an Indigenous legal aid service.[/quote]
I think that is a false opposition.
Last time I looked we were spending $3.5B annually on the Dept of Aboriginal Affairs budget. I'd say we can afford to spend ~1% of that on a legal aid service, if we want to, without cutting defence. It might mean that a few of the people who make a tidy living out of aboriginal affairs, without making much (if any) discernable difference over the past 30 years, cease to do so.[/quote]
Gee I read this and read this again, and I cannot see any vitriol or attack on peasants, I see a really good point. If nothing noticeably good is coming out of a portfolio, try something different.
One question, isn't everyone able to get legal aide? Does there need to be a seperate one for indigenous people? What's the difference? (Honest question, no hidden agenda!) |
Are we still talking about he or she'd say we can afford to spend ~1% of that on a legal aid service if we want to without cutting defence ? Would you like to be able to see it? |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| HAL wrote: | | think positive wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | | David wrote: |
As they should, though, when they hear that we can't afford $40 million for an Indigenous legal aid service. |
I think that is a false opposition.
Last time I looked we were spending $3.5B annually on the Dept of Aboriginal Affairs budget. I'd say we can afford to spend ~1% of that on a legal aid service, if we want to, without cutting defence. It might mean that a few of the people who make a tidy living out of aboriginal affairs, without making much (if any) discernable difference over the past 30 years, cease to do so. |
Gee I read this and read this again, and I cannot see any vitriol or attack on peasants, I see a really good point. If nothing noticeably good is coming out of a portfolio, try something different.
One question, isn't everyone able to get legal aide? Does there need to be a seperate one for indigenous people? What's the difference? (Honest question, no hidden agenda!) |
Are we still talking about he or she'd say we can afford to spend ~1% of that on a legal aid service if we want to without cutting defence ? Would you like to be able to see it? |
The legal aide or the defence?
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | ^ as usual, you report things that weren't said to bolster your dreary outrage. Your misreportage is, as always well out of bounds.
I said that we could afford to spend 1% on an aboriginal affairs legal aid budget by cutting back elsewhere in the $3.5 billion budget, because every budget of that scale has a lot of waste in it. I said nothing about "grubby money-sapping peasants" - that is a lie, of course.
I was certainly thinking of the four (white) public servants I know who work in Aboriginal affairs in Canberra earning good money, and the fact that the Aboriginal people have so demonstrably little to show for the $5000 per head per annum that is spent on the Aboriginal Affairs budget, year after year, as material outcomes worsen.
I was also thinking of the chap earning $400k per annum in the HRC (admittedly not part of AA, but symptomatic of waste).
As for the "feigning righteousness" bit, no, it was not righteousness ; just a normal objection to the PTID trademark abuse. As the saying goes - some people think your views are wrong ; get over it, or get an anger management class. |
Perhaps you could take courage development classes.
Let's face it, for you "every budget of scale" is miraculously always a budget concerning refugees, or indigenous folks, or the mentally ill, or the unemployed, or some powerless sod of one or another type.
And if it's not a dig at <name some poor old bastard who can't fight back>, it's arm waving over one or another remote evil caricature. We never see you offer the same throwaway insults or energetic analysis of those delivering your favourite subsidies, or offering handouts to those in your sphere of influence, or propping up your imperial identity.
Oh, and we wouldn't want you to use banks, or mining and arms companies, or corrupt real estate developers, or such, in your throwaway lines; they might bite you back. It's always the powerless or those in charge of assisting them who reflexively get your stick.
I do look forward to the day you have the knackers to malign someone who has the power to hit you in the hip pocket in your sphere of influence. Perhaps it's beyond you intrinsically, in which case I am definitely barking up the wrong tree expecting more.
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| pietillidie wrote: | | Mugwump wrote: | ^ as usual, you report things that weren't said to bolster your dreary outrage. Your misreportage is, as always well out of bounds.
I said that we could afford to spend 1% on an aboriginal affairs legal aid budget by cutting back elsewhere in the $3.5 billion budget, because every budget of that scale has a lot of waste in it. I said nothing about "grubby money-sapping peasants" - that is a lie, of course.
I was certainly thinking of the four (white) public servants I know who work in Aboriginal affairs in Canberra earning good money, and the fact that the Aboriginal people have so demonstrably little to show for the $5000 per head per annum that is spent on the Aboriginal Affairs budget, year after year, as material outcomes worsen.
I was also thinking of the chap earning $400k per annum in the HRC (admittedly not part of AA, but symptomatic of waste).
As for the "feigning righteousness" bit, no, it was not righteousness ; just a normal objection to the PTID trademark abuse. As the saying goes - some people think your views are wrong ; get over it, or get an anger management class. |
Perhaps you could take courage development classes.
Let's face it, for you "every budget of scale" is miraculously always a budget concerning refugees, or indigenous folks, or the mentally ill, or the unemployed, or some powerless sod of one or another type.
And if it's not a dig at <name some poor old bastard who can't fight back>, it's arm waving over one or another remote evil caricature. We never see you offer the same throwaway insults or energetic analysis of those delivering your favourite subsidies, or offering handouts to those in your sphere of influence, or propping up your imperial identity.
Oh, and we wouldn't want you to use banks, or mining and arms companies, or corrupt real estate developers, or such, in your throwaway lines; they might bite you back. It's always the powerless or those in charge of assisting them who reflexively get your stick.
I do look forward to the day you have the knackers to malign someone who has the power to hit you in the hip pocket in your sphere of influence. Perhaps it's beyond you intrinsically, in which case I am definitely barking up the wrong tree expecting more. |
and you wonder why sometimes it seems like people gang up on you!
mind boggling.
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^There's no wondering about it; it's obvious why: I'm actually here with a voice, while there are no knowledgeable employees from indigenous affairs, hard-working suburban Muslims, refugees from Cologne, or folks whose land was seized through corrupt oil mining contracts on Nick's. Social boundaries are about interest boundaries 
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Culprit 
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Let's get back to defence spending. The biggest issue regarding costs is the Governments in their wisdom decide to cut defence spending by cutting staff. Defence salaries are pretty low compared to those in the private sector. They just had 15% super and more holidays. Now the people they cut with many years experience went into other industries. That has meant the pool with appropriate levels of experience in the private sector is smaller. The work I do in defence is not trained in schools or universities which means the age group of workers is an average of 50. Now The Government is outsourcing many of the jobs the DMO did itself. Now outsourcing means in many cases means costs of employing the people is higher and a lot higher. What Joe Soldier did for $50000, Joe Citizen is doing for $100000. What has happened all the projects in planning got delayed. Now they need them started and completed. The Private sector many of whom are overseas companies are making a killing due to the incompetence of our Politicians and the Bureaucrats that serve us. All I can say is thank you.  |
|
|
|
|
ronrat
Joined: 22 May 2006
Location: Thailand
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Culprit wrote: | | Let's get back to defence spending. The biggest issue regarding costs is the Governments in their wisdom decide to cut defence spending by cutting staff. Defence salaries are pretty low compared to those in the private sector. They just had 15% super and more holidays. Now the people they cut with many years experience went into other industries. That has meant the pool with appropriate levels of experience in the private sector is smaller. The work I do in defence is not trained in schools or universities which means the age group of workers is an average of 50. Now The Government is outsourcing many of the jobs the DMO did itself. Now outsourcing means in many cases means costs of employing the people is higher and a lot higher. What Joe Soldier did for $50000, Joe Citizen is doing for $100000. What has happened all the projects in planning got delayed. Now they need them started and completed. The Private sector many of whom are overseas companies are making a killing due to the incompetence of our Politicians and the Bureaucrats that serve us. All I can say is thank you. |
Hey I was given a golden hand shake after 34 years in Defence Procurement and took early retirement. Given I don't have PTID deep and involved understanding how Defence procurement works but who can? Ok I am not rich but I wake up in Thailand every day with a woman 20 years younger than me, a poodle who adores me and a 2 minute walk to cheap food and beer.
_________________
Annoying opposition supporters since 1967. |
|
|
|
|
pietillidie
Joined: 07 Jan 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| ronrat wrote: | | Culprit wrote: | | Let's get back to defence spending. The biggest issue regarding costs is the Governments in their wisdom decide to cut defence spending by cutting staff. Defence salaries are pretty low compared to those in the private sector. They just had 15% super and more holidays. Now the people they cut with many years experience went into other industries. That has meant the pool with appropriate levels of experience in the private sector is smaller. The work I do in defence is not trained in schools or universities which means the age group of workers is an average of 50. Now The Government is outsourcing many of the jobs the DMO did itself. Now outsourcing means in many cases means costs of employing the people is higher and a lot higher. What Joe Soldier did for $50000, Joe Citizen is doing for $100000. What has happened all the projects in planning got delayed. Now they need them started and completed. The Private sector many of whom are overseas companies are making a killing due to the incompetence of our Politicians and the Bureaucrats that serve us. All I can say is thank you. |
Hey I was given a golden hand shake after 34 years in Defence Procurement and took early retirement. Given I don't have PTID deep and involved understanding how Defence procurement works but who can? Ok I am not rich but I wake up in Thailand every day with a woman 20 years younger than me, a poodle who adores me and a 2 minute walk to cheap food and beer. |
Oi, I said nothing about the defence procurement process, and only asked you to explain defence strategy generally rather than make me read the freaking thing out of context with no expertise myself. That's the complete opposite of your imputation!
In contrast, Culprit's post is very helpful because he gave an arse and offered some detail. And guess what? His post pretty much confirms what certain among us have been saying about BS, nonsense privatisation in other domains. (That problem in the military received heavy exposure in the fallout from Iraq, of course).
Anyhow, one thing I can say is I'm glad you are happy with life! (Wanting you to offer up information and analysis in your field of expertise should not be seen as anything but a reasonable request).
_________________
In the end the rain comes down, washes clean the streets of a blue sky town.
Help Nick's: http://www.magpies.net/nick/bb/fundraising.htm |
|
|
|
|
Culprit
Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| The media leaks today about defend spending to increase had us all laughing today. 11 new subs sounds great but we have no crews and no one wanting wishing to join the RAN as part of any sub crew. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
