Sensational-Adelaide.com

Wayno wrote:

urban wrote:The trickle-down theory has been shown to be bulls%#$ time and again. The majority of extra money in the pockets of the lower paid ends up being spent in the local economy, while extra money in the pockets of the wealthiest is more likely to end up overseas.

urban wrote:GoodSmackUp is right. We need a tax system that lowers taxes across the board and removes loopholes.

Consumption tax, ala GST.

And put lower income earners at a disadvantage?

GoodSmackUp wrote:

Wayno wrote:

urban wrote:The trickle-down theory has been shown to be bulls%#$ time and again. The majority of extra money in the pockets of the lower paid ends up being spent in the local economy, while extra money in the pockets of the wealthiest is more likely to end up overseas.

urban wrote:GoodSmackUp is right. We need a tax system that lowers taxes across the board and removes loopholes.

Consumption tax, ala GST.

And put lower income earners at a disadvantage?

There's various ways to fix that.

"Trickle down economics and why it screws the poor..."
Extensive item in New Matilda looking at the US experience of 'trickle down economics' and relevance to Australian politics with Turnbull/Morrison's adoption of trickle down via huge corporate tax cuts and their "jobs and growth" mantra.

This article covers massive poverty, (nearly half of US children living in or near poverty) and the harm this does. While US billionaires luxuriate ...

"In 2003 US President George W. Bush campaigned on a ‘10-year ‘economic plan’ for ‘jobs and growth’ by cutting taxes…. "
...

Mike Seccombe (Saturday Paper) traces Turnbull and Morrison’s economic plan to Ronald Regan, who introduced the notion of growth through tax cuts to the US.

...“Following a sponsored visit by [former]Reagan adviser Arthur Laffer, Malcolm Turnbull’s budget is based on the fallacy of his trickle-down economics.”

Check out the detailed article here.
New Matilda:
https://newmatilda.com/2016/06/28/elect ... ions-care/

There seems to be a correlation (not necessarily causation) between Reagan's presidency and the 80's stock market crash, and Bush's presidency and the GFC.

I'm surprised neither major party has come forward this election campaign with a promise to fund the John Chalmers Centre for Transforming Healthcare or SAHMRI 2.

There's $160 million remaining to be funded with Flinders University having already committed $60 million and the state government $44 million. Presumably it could get off the ground for less but for the cost and (rightful) ambition of hosting Australia's first proton therapy unit (apparently itself worth $80 million). The biomedical precinct seems to be popular, so there must be some votes in it for them - plus, I really want to see the growth of the precinct pushed forward!

Shorten now wants to spend a billion dollars on manufacturing in Adelaide for some sort of "Asia link" nonsense.

So, after decades of selling out our country with free trade agreements and other world trade and globalization crap, that's been to the detriment of average Australian's, now that they need votes, they are promising to spend a billion dollars to revive manufacturing if we vote for them.

GO AND GET FUCKED!

We are going to lose a federal seat and the Feds have already thrown billions of dollars at us.

I can't see SA being a battle ground at all until we turn things around here.

All but Canavan and Xenophon have got the boot over the citizenship debacle.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-10-27/c ... rs/9050222

It’s a pity the court didn’t decide they’re all a joke and unworthy of representing the people and dismiss the whole stinky corrupt parliament.

rev wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:38 pm

It’s a pity the court didn’t decide they’re all a joke and unworthy of representing the people and dismiss the whole stinky corrupt parliament.

It would be fun to watch Bernardi trying to get back in without the Liberal name attached.

Nort wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:14 am

It would be fun to watch Bernardi trying to get back in without the Liberal name attached.

Don't people vote for the most suitable candidate in their electorate, and not just a party? A right leaning voter is not going to vote for a labour candidate, just because Bernardi doesn't have the "big L" on his poster. In fact, with the performance of the current shambles, perhaps being disconnected to the major parties will lead to more votes. Look at the success of Xenephon.

claybro wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 1:03 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:14 am

It would be fun to watch Bernardi trying to get back in without the Liberal name attached.

Don't people vote for the most suitable candidate in their electorate, and not just a party? A right leaning voter is not going to vote for a labour candidate, just because Bernardi doesn't have the "big L" on his poster. In fact, with the performance of the current shambles, perhaps being disconnected to the major parties will lead to more votes. Look at the success of Xenephon.

Bernardi is a senator, not a house rep. Given the decent vote Family First previously got in SA it would be silly to say to disregard his chances, but he will certainly find it harder next time around.

Nort wrote: ↑

Mon Oct 30, 2017 11:14 am

rev wrote: ↑

Fri Oct 27, 2017 3:38 pm

It’s a pity the court didn’t decide they’re all a joke and unworthy of representing the people and dismiss the whole stinky corrupt parliament.

It would be fun to watch Bernardi trying to get back in without the Liberal name attached.

Costello warned his party not to make Turnbull leader. Warning he would destroy the party. Why do you think so many lib voters are disenfranchised?
Turnbull isn’t a conservative.
Bernardi is.
slowly but surely conservative Australians who traditionally vote Liberal are realising that.

Bernadis chances have nothing to do with his former affiliation with the Liberal party. He has many supporters and many members already for his new party. No I’m not one of them.

A bigger factor will be the pathetic left wing media.

The Liberal Party traditionally hasn't been a conservative party though. Yes, it is more conservative than the Labor Party but that doesn't make it conservative. That is like saying that Labor are conservative as they are more right wing than the Greens.

Arguably, the Liberal Party today is further to the right on the political spectrum than it has ever been. To quote Malcolm Fraser around the time Abbott replaced Turnbull as Liberal leader

It was an extraordinary occurrence and I believe that rather than being on the emissions trading scheme, it was because Malcolm was showing some significant signs of being a liberal and they didn’t want a liberal in charge of the Liberal party, they wanted a conservative in charge of the Liberal party.

https://theconversation.com/malcolm-fra ... r-way-3734

Since Turnbull has been PM, what has he done to make the party less conservative?

He has openly said that he backs Same-Sex marriage, yet he still advocated for the vote. If he was truly a leftie as you say, why didn't he instigate a vote in parliament?

I would argue that the party hasn't changed since Turnbull become PM. To me, the right-wing of the party are still very much in charge, with Turnbull being nothing more than a figurehead for the party.

In regard to the Liddell Coal-Fired Power Station in NSW, several 'conservative' MPs (Abbott and Turnbull amongst others) have advocated for government intervention to ensure that the station remains open.

Mr Turnbull is pushing for AGL to keep ageing coal-fired Liddell Power Station open at enormous cost.

http://www.news.com.au/finance/business ... 701b06fbe7

Isn't a Conservative government meant to promote the free market? To quote former Liberal leader John Hewson

It is worth pointing out that a true “conservative” response would be a purely market-based emissions trading scheme, using a market-determined carbon price to ensure the most cost-effective transition.

The suggestion that we may now need a new, supercritical, coal-fired power plant to fill a capacity gap left by the closure of Liddell is, quite frankly, farcical. When the private sector says they will not build or finance it, it is simply just a sop to the National party to even raise it as a possibility. But then, of course, in our “new conservatism” we don’t respect what markets are telling us, do we?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... -stand-for

Maybe the reason that the Liberal party is bleeding votes is that they are just following the orders of their donors? How much money does the party receive from Coal miners? How much influence does this have on party policy? Advocating for government intervention is the last thing that a 'conservative' government should do. The free-market should rule according to their ideology.

rev wrote: ↑

Tue Oct 31, 2017 3:28 pm

A bigger factor will be the pathetic left wing media.

How is the media left wing?

Look at the front pages of the Sydney/Melbourne News Ltd. papers during the Rudd/Abbott election.

https://images.theconversation.com/file ... 0&fit=clip

https://c479107.ssl.cf2.rackcdn.com/fil ... 626282.jpg

These are from one of the most read papers in the country. How can you say that the media is left wing when they're producing front pages such as these?

there's some more