Superthread LXVI: Honouring Whinging Dragons Fans

[Bazal]

Bazal when did Australia buy an Aircraft Carrier let alone Carriers? Last one we had was HMAS Melbourne and tha was sold back in the 1980's

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Canberra_(LHD_02)

The Canberra class are large LHDs, equipped for both helicopter landing operations and short distance or vertical landing jet fighters. Much like the F35 Joint Strike Fighters we've just purchased. We probably won't see the F35s on board until several years at least after the ships are launched on active service because of the training aspect of it. But you can't put an F-18 on the deck of one of these, its that simple.

 

[BunniesMan]

I find it ridiculous when people get so ridiculous over the term 'soccer' when it's just an abbreviation of the sport's proper name.

 

[Drew-Sta]

These people are called 'counselors'. To me, 'Chaplain' has a very specific meaning, that being a religious minister. The government has no business paying for them.

There's a mixed view on this. I won't entertain it as it will only lead to a 'agree to disagree' scenario.

And the stooges believe it. He's so blatantly manipulative it beggars belief anyone would credit his claims.

Totally agree.

Government debt is a burden on future tax payers. Government debt is financed largely by the sale of Treasury bonds. Those bonds need to be repaid at a set date in the future with interest. How are they repaid? Either by the sale of more bonds (kicking the can down the road, something all governments love to do), or out of government revenue, i.e. out of taxpayers' pockets. So either spending is reduced in future every time we go into debt, or taxes are increased. The only alternative is the sale of assets.

More importantly, government spending does not stimulate the economy. If the spending is from tax revenue, then the economy has already been reduced by at least the amount of the spending. All that is achieved under the best case scenario is a shuffling of deck chairs. In reality, the economy actually shrinks due to government spending, since money is siphoned away from the more productive sectors of the economy and redistributed to the less productive. This is even assuming 100% throughput and no waste, which is a hopelessly unrealistic assumption.

If the government spending is deficit spending (debt), then the economy in the future is being reduced by the amount borrowed + interest, for the best case scenario of increasing the economy now by the amount borrowed. Of course the spending is still subject to the same factors of being redirected to less productive sectors of the economy and churn (waste).

Governments (and people who support them) like to talk about creating jobs and stimulating growth, but what they never, ever mention (because it's easy and convenient to ignore and impossible to measure) is the number of jobs either directly destroyed by their intervention or that would have been created had they not intervened, and likewise the economic activity that was directly destroyed by their intervention or would have occurred had they not intervened. These things cannot be measured, as we can't take a trip into an alternative reality to observe them, but they are very real. This is known as Opportunity Cost, and is one the foundational concepts of economics. Any economic analysis that leaves opportunity cost out is at best completely wrong, at worst deliberately deceptive. And most of what passes for economic analysis in a political context does leave it out. Including pretty much all of the whinging about the budget I've observed thus far.

You lost me at government spending stalls the economy. You realise the government spending money on something like building an airport stimulates the economy by providing job, encouraging businesses to apply for tender, the infrastructure rendering revenue etc etc. People with jobs then funnel money back into the economy by spending the money they earned, right? Like on food and such?

If everyone had no jobs, and the government spent money building a bridge and gave people jobs, that's stimulation of the economy. You get that, right?

Seriously, your libertarian economics is so flawed I don't know where to begin. You need to go back to basic economics class, Maher.

OK, then he is a devout f**kwit

100% agree.

anyone else feel like you've got your left foot in arizona, your right foot in new mexico, your left hand in utah and your right hand in colorado?

Kinda.

Bazal when did Australia buy an Aircraft Carrier let alone Carriers? Last one we had was HMAS Melbourne and tha was sold back in the 1980's

He might mean the Collins subs we bought?

 

[muzby]

Facebook is trending 'Australian National Association Football Team'.

I can just see all the fanatics die a little inside.

they can just rename themselves the "Australian National United Supporters" then...

 

[Apey]

I don't see why it's a big deal. As far as I know no doctor in Canberra has bulk billed for years. Even at the ACT govt clinic you pay a "co-payment" of $40!!! Personally I pay $80 to see my GP. No one has marched against ACT Labor over it and it certainly doesn't stop the clinics being packed to the gills.

Everywhere else is at least $40-$45, which is the standardised GP rate for a short visit in the ACT minus the Medicare rebate.

Yeah, I have to pay $35 ($70 all up, get half back) every time I go.

I live under a rock so I was surprised at everyone talking about GP visits costing $7 now. :lol:

 

[Drew-Sta]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAS_Canberra_(LHD_02)

The Canberra class are large LHDs, equipped for both helicopter landing operations and short distance or vertical landing jet fighters. Much like the F35 Joint Strike Fighters we've just purchased. We probably won't see the F35s on board until several years at least after the ships are launched on active service because of the training aspect of it. But you can't put an F-18 on the deck of one of these, its that simple.

Ahhh. Makes sense. Had no idea we bought those.

 

[Bazal]

Bulk billing is when you pay nothing to see a GP. Those links I sent you advertise bulk billing. Bulk billing is not getting less than half your cost rebated. There are multiple places in Canberra where you can see a GP without cost.

And here is bulk billing in Canberra spelt out for you:



http://citynews.com.au/2013/bulk-bill-clinic-opens-in-tuggeranong/

That company alone has 6 clinics. Face it, you're wrong. Bulk billing exists in Canberra. Less than the rest of the country but it exists.

Ok, so one small clinic in Chisholm, a suburb of maybe 5,000 people. Name the rest of the free clinics? Why do you think Jerrabomberra clinic is so popular with people from the ACT????

That company operates MY CLINIC you idiot. It was their first clinic! Face it, you're getting hyped up over a non issue.

 

[afinalsin666]

Soccer basically is football, motherf**kers need to stop whinging. You wear socks on your foots don't you? Case closed.

 

[Bazal]

Ahhh. Makes sense. Had no idea we bought those.

Because Labor did it. And there wasn't an irrational hatred of the Labor govt

 

[afinalsin666]

Yeah, I have to pay $35 ($70 all up, get half back) every time I go.

I live under a rock so I was surprised at everyone talking about GP visits costing $7 now. :lol:

Doctor George on king st bulk bills. I've never paid for doctors in my life. I was shocked when i first heard it cost money.

 

[Apey]

Oh and the Chaplain stuff is absolute rubbish. What a waste of money.

I hate people.

 

[Apey]

Doctor George on king st bulk bills. I've never paid for doctors in my life. I was shocked when i first heard it cost money.

I think the 'no appointments' part is why my family has never really switched over. That doesn't bother me too much though, and I think I'd take it over paying $35 each time.

 

[muzby]

Why do you think Jerrabomberra clinic is so popular with people from the ACT????

because of where they put the thermometer..

 

[BunniesMan]

I've never paid for a doctor in my life as well. No regular gp is worth the cost if there is a bulk billing one around. And every town and city has enough choices so nobody is forced to pay.

The gptax doesn't affect me. I haven't been to a doctor since I was in primary school. I don't care if I have to pay $7. I will if I have to. But I genuinely fear for our poorest and our sickest. Unlike some I know that $7 is a lot to some people. Our poorest and our sickest live paycheck to paycheck. They don't have enough money to have savings. Hitting them for 7 bucks every time they need a doctor is enough to make them go to a doctor less often which will only lead to the taxpayer paying more down the line. Terrible policy.

 

[afinalsin666]

Ya'll need to play a bit of Democracy 3. Fun game, if a bit obtuse. There are *cough* ways, to get it. Should add into the budget that game for schools, shows how complex every f**king thing is.

 

[Drew-Sta]

Because Labor did it. And there wasn't an irrational hatred of the Labor govt

Please. That's as false a statement as could be made. The savages were out for Labor as if Gillard / Rudd were the anti-Christ themselves.

 

[Red Bear]

Treating institutions like healthcare and education like any other market seems like madness to me. Charging at emergency wards? Seems to go against alot of our longterm, healthcare culture.

I like the balls on Hockey to discuss how the co-payment will go towards medical research "Because Australians are good at research and we can find answers to these issues," in the same budget where he has slashed funding to the CSIRO, a body that has not only discovered a range of important advances including Wifi but makes money. A budget that slashes innovation in other areas (clean energy, renewables etc etc). A budget that slashes public education funding (but it's all good, we've got school chaplains).

The vast majority of people on the dole, particularly under 30, use it because they are searching for work, they need some support whilst unemployed and also paying rent, eating, etc etc. Not being eligible for 6 months is madness, particularly in a time of high youth unemployment.

But it's ok because high income earners are chipping in as well. That extra 7 bucks they pay a week means everyones pitching in.

$250 million for school chaplains more than makes up all the money being slashed from indigenous programs, education, youth unemployment support etc.





Re the dislike of Abbott, he campaigned aggressively over the Carbon Tax, how the government lied to voters for three years and in doing so generally behaved like a merkin, then came in and broke a bunch of election promises. Not surprising, but certainly disgraceful.

 

[sensesmaybenumbed]

There's a mixed view on this. I won't entertain it as it will only lead to a 'agree to disagree' scenario.

I can agree to this. I'm just vehemently secular.

 

[Bazal]

Please. That's as false a statement as could be made. The savages were out for Labor as if Gillard / Rudd were the anti-Christ themselves.

Is it? You only have to look at the source...where was the March in March for Rudd or Gillard? Where were the Facebook groups likening them to Hitler and calling for violent revolution? It's hardly the same

 

[Jason Maher]

Please Drew, read the bit I wrote about opportunity cost. Then go and read up on the concept. It is something which is completely non-controversial between all the schools of economic thought I'm familiar with.

To address your specific example: the government has no funds of its own to build an airport. The government can only build said airport by confiscating the funds from the private sector (either in the form of tax or debt, or both). This siphoning of funds shrinks the economy, by definition. It slows growth, it costs jobs, it shrinks the overall wealth of the people. Now the government funds the airport, and the money flows back into the economy. The question is, what is the net overall benefit or cost of this transaction? Does it really stimulate more economic activity than it destroyed to obtain the funding?

Look at it this way: every dollar the government takes, no matter where it is redirected, would have been used for some activity or other in private hands (either now or in the future). The question is, who are the more productive, efficient directors of economic activity: private citizens, or bureaucrats? Who are better at investing wealth in ways that generate more wealth: the people or the government?