Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Suitman, Dec 5, 2011.
from what I have been reading it's more about trying to get the budget into surplus.
What's inherently wrong with having a budget in debt for a period of time?
Where have you been reading this ? For the first few years it will be almost revenue neutral.
Thanks Gronk, that's if you aren't just being sarcastic, but I don't think that you are.
But the problem I have with Brian Wiltshire, whether he is a racist or not, I am not sure of that. If he really is then obviously, I think I can speak for both Gronk and myself and say we don't support any of those types of views.
But as I was saying the problem with BW is that he too does not completely get it. He still gives gov way to many chances and the benefit of the doubt.
Also he understands the problem that we face with 'Fractional Bank Lending' but he does not know the solution. Or if he does I have never heard him express it correctly.
Also there are so many economists that he can interview on the show that can literally open the eyes of hundreds of thousands of listeners and he never does.
Now I don't know if he has been told not to have experts on that can clearly and simply state the evils of FBL and the debt based system and the liberty and freedom of the wealth creating Credit Based system. You know the one we used to have at the turn of the last century through the power of the Commonwealth Bank till we put it in the hands of the private monopoly run and owned banking system we have today, even before we sold it(1922).
But for whatever reason he is good to a point, but then he drops the ball on others.
I may have told you before I can't remember, but the best site that covers all this and more, is the site of the Australian Sovereignty Party. Their site is of the same name, but with a .org.au at the end and without Australian in the name.
They are a very small and new Australian political party and will unfortunately never win anything cos 1, nobody knows of them and 2, they would be crushed by the powers that be. But if you want to know what Australia and the world could look like if we as a people ever became informed, then this is it.
Their policies are brilliant and spot on. When I stumbled on to this site by accident I could not believe that we here in Australia had the best, in my opinion, political party policies that I have ever seen by any party in the world. And believe me I have been looking, most are garbage and would fix nothing some are half right but missing the complete picture, thus by missing even one or two crucial steps, nothing will change for the better and sometimes make it even worse.
But these guys have covered EVERYTHING and know exactly what's going on and most importantly how to fix it.
So lets go with the year 8 science track shall we.
Yes, Carbon Dioxide is produced by every living thing, it is also produced when we burn things, like wood and coal and oil since all these things come from Carbon based life forms.
Since the dawn of the industrial age, the world has been burning things at a far accelerated rate, this means more carbon dioxide then normal has been going into the air.
One of the things that is being burnt are Trees. Trees are very important when we talk about carbon dioxide as trees breath in CO2 and expel Oxygen. Again this is all year 8 science so we can all agree that what we have so far is pretty basic.
Now when you burn trees, you are releasing all the Carbon they have "breathed" in over their life time, it gets mixed with the Oxygen and becomes more CO2.
As there are less trees, because we burn them or clear them away for usable land and use them to create all manner of things, the amount of CO2 being taken out of the Air is less while the amount of CO2 being put into the air is more, and this has been happening more and more over the last 50 years.
Now we get to the controversial part, Climate change, and I am going to completely side step it. It might be real, it might be a big lie to scare the populace, whatever I don't give a f**k.
What I do care about is my ability to breathe, and that has been affected since I was 4 years old, when I developed Asthma. My Brother, born in the greater west of Sydney developed it in under 4 months. me it took a little longer and is less severe, because for the first 3 years of my life, the developmental years, I lived near the sea and regular sea breezes are cleaner having relatively low levels of CO2 being created over the sea, that is balanced by Sea borne plant life.
The only real reason it is called a Carbon Price (BTW its official name) is because the system is a trading scheme that relates to how much stuff you burn (hence producing non naturally created CO2). You can either burn less stuff or you can by a credit from someone who is burning less stuff. Either way the air gets less CO2, and the current plant life gets a chance to "Breathe" it in and restore a balance.
I would be much happier if the government or someone called it an air pollution trading scheme. It think that less pollution is something a large number of people can get behind, and that a large number of people will agree companies that pollute our environment need to be financially accountable for that.
The end goal for me, is to see a generation that is more healthy, and can live in a sustainable, evolving world. As I believe our development is natural and out built environment is something we can use to co-exist with the planets natural systems to continue to advance our way of life.
Sorry Bro, but I was being sarcastic. Brian Wilshire is a nut job. I don't buy the New World Order rubbish.
MITS, Australia having a carbon price doesn't necessarily mean "less stuff" will be burnt, it could also mean more being burnt.
In Australia we try to have clean coal burning operations and if manufacturing is taken offshore to a country that doesn't have the same regulations we could in fact be getting an end product that has resulted in a dirtier manufacturing process.
We may well be cutting more trees down and increasing the co2 content but nature has a way of combating this to some degree. It has been proven that the growth rate of trees will increase as the level of co2 increases.
Nothing if circumstances require but at some stage you have to pay it back.
That is always a possibility, but it won't be burnt in my country, and it wont be my descendants in this country breathing in the burnt air. BTW clean coal is just a way of delaying the inevitable, it is pumping CO2 underground which means that is will eventually make its way above ground.
Saying trees will grow more if there is more CO2 is all well and good, but it still means there is excess CO2 around to begin with, and it isn't like we can determine that the trees will breath all the excess CO2 and we humans will only breath the regular amount now is it?
I know. I have more than 1 mortgage.
Mits, it must also be taken into account that trees aren't irreplacable. You make it sound as though that once the trees are gone, they'll never return. It's a sustainable industry. In smart countries, anyway.
No doubt about that Suity, but over the last 50 years do you honestly believe the number of trees planted is equal to the number of trees felled?
That is the issue, Balance in all things.
What we should be concentrating on is that there is no imbalance in favour of the negative.
Govt's of all persuasions should be ensuring that the 3rd world countries who are lopping rainforests by the millions of acres are kept in check and ensure that the sustainable regrowth of these forests is ensured. Either that, or assist them in not culling them in the first place, by offering alternatives.
:lol: Like CO2 not being toxic so therefore it isn't a problem. Wake up clown.
Turn Roy Hardley off, he'll rot your brain.
It's revenue neutral
Settle down captain f**ckwit. Were not all scientists like you.
This has become intelligent.
Captain f**kwit? I didn't even realise that Mickdo could sail a yacht.
Great, now we are just waiting to see how long it takes for Godwin's law to be enacted.
Separate names with a comma.