"Don't believe the experts - believe us" Joe Hockey. LMAO

[Guest]

I can usually tell a user's alter egos by their grammar.

Sorry, you're missing a clause. "tell" what? ..."a users ego"? What does that mean? I'm trying hard to understand what you are saying but everything is so cryptic. Why have you used the plural of ego? Is this an an attempt at irony? Like the 6 sides of a die? Does your avatar name foreground your fondess for random and meaningless assemblage of words?

[Guest]

http://www.smh.com.au/business/westp...715-1hhi3.html

Another nail in the Tony Blabbot scare campaign.

Has anything this clown said about the carbon tax come to fruition?

Chook.

[bigben]

Bob Brown and Julia Gillard’s carbon tax is a monument to the irrationality that so often infects beleaguered governments. Rather than pursue considered policy processes that take into account the full potential impact on the nation, a government under pressure responds to trials with a haphazard approach.

Gillard’s government has already proved itself to be even more incompetent than its predecessor with a spectacular list of policy failures including the East Timor solution, the citizens’ assembly and the cash for clunkers scheme.

six days ago, they released the details of their latest folly – a price on pollution called a carbon tax. Or that’s what they call it.

It is not a price on pollution or a tax on carbon. It is in fact a new tax on carbon dioxide; that colourless and odourless gas that is entirely necessary for life on Earth.

However, while carbon dioxide might be an important plant food, in this instance it has been declared the primary source of sustenance for Gillard’s big government.

To put it bluntly, the Gillard government has run out of your money to spend. They have raised the nation’s debt ceiling twice already and have borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars to pursue their wasteful programs. Even the socialist left faction of the Labor Party (of which Gillard is a member) knows that this cannot be allowed to continue. Left unchecked, national debt can bankrupt a nation or destroy a national currency within a very short time frame.

There are some notable examples of this malaise afflicting western European nations with Greece, Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Italy all unable or unlikely to pay their outstanding accounts.

Australia is a long way from that scenario but then again, so were these other countries when the decline set in.

Our national challenge is how to return the budget to surplus and start repaying Labor’s debt. Where the Coalition favours more prudent expenditure and smaller government, Labor simply wants to tax you more.

Their most recent foray into the world of big tax and neo-socialist wealth redistribution is their so-called carbon tax.

It will ensure that no family escapes the burden imposed by rising electricity, food and transport costs while doing absolutely nothing for the environment.

While the tax may directly apply to only 500 companies, the flow-on effects will impact every small business and every electricity user, while doing absolutely nothing for the environment.

We will see the disappearance of the single competitive advantage that Australia has over virtually every other nation – cheap coal-fired power, while doing absolutely nothing for the environment.

Gillard will in fact be closing down power stations in pursuit of some ridiculous and unviable green dream that we can fuel our industry and lifestyle through wind and sun power alone.

This fanciful ideal has been demonstrated as a green mirage in countries similarly afflicted by governments bound and blindfolded by the radical green agenda.

How can we believe that a brand new tax will leave us miraculously better off? How will exporting jobs and industry overseas make Australia a more prosperous and productive nation? How will exporting emissions save the world from the dreaded carbon dioxide?

The answer to all of this of course is that it won’t. This tax is a grab for your money, plain and simple. Gillard and her brethren in the Greens want to impose a tax that will grow in its rapacious voracity while bribing you to accept it in its early stages.

You can guarantee that in the years ahead, as her tax receipts grow, as industry departs our shores and more families struggle under the Gillard legacy, the one-off sweeteners will be forgotten.

They will be replaced by the bitterness of having been deceived and conned by the most irresponsible and untrustworthy government in Australia’s history.

[Guest]

Our national challenge is how to return the budget to surplus and start repaying Labor’s debt. Where the Coalition favours more prudent expenditure and smaller government, Labor simply wants to tax you more.

.[/QUOTE]

Im sorry but the Howard govt was ( in comparison to Rudd/Gillard ) a greater tax collecter and spent more as a % of GDP. Despite Labor having to battle through the GFC.

Further despite the so called prolifigacy during Whitlam and Keating years the Howard govt is still the highest taxing govt in history.

[Guest]

This fanciful ideal has been demonstrated as a green mirage in countries similarly afflicted by governments bound and blindfolded by the radical green agenda.

.

Sorry, your bogan rant is so ludicrous i'll only pull one point. Can you give one example of a country so afflicted?......just one....?

[Guest]

* Rather than pursue considered policy processes that take into account the full potential impact on the nation, a government under pressure responds to trials with a haphazard approach.
.

What? Like the mad monk?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otsfhMFhi2s&feature=fvst

[Guest]

That ' leftie ' rag The Economist seems to think its a good idea

http://www.economist.com/node/189583...58387&fsrc=rss

But no Ill listen to Joe Hockey

[Guest]

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-electi...715-1hi3l.html


FARMERS say the Coalition is dramatically underestimating the cost of greenhouse reductions from soil carbon, which makes up 60 per cent of its direct action plan to cut emissions.
__________________________________________________ __________________________________________________ ____________

Is there anyone outside Abbott's shadow cabinet who think's the coalition policy is a good...oh wait...not even all of them thinks it's any good.

Chook.

[Rocky Rhodes]

hahaha so now we have so-called leftist crawing to the economist for their wisdom. These same economist that supported the GST (did leftist support that?), these same economist who couldn't foresee the GFC, these same economist who support globalisation and therefore slavery and slave trading. These same economist who have america in debt of 14 trillion and just about every major nation in major debt.

But let's now worship the economist now because they seem to be following the tree worshippers. Unfortunately the tree worshippers cannot see the forest from the tree they are rooting and cannot see this is nothing to do with helping the environment.

[Rocky Rhodes]

Since environMENTAL worshippers are now rooting economist as well as trees, why not consider this economist..

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3161870.htm

Economist concerned carbon tax won't help the environment

Bronwyn Herbert reported this story on Friday, March 11, 2011 18:21:00

MARK COLVIN: A leading environmental economist says he's seriously concerned about Ross Garnaut's assumption that a carbon tax would help the environment.

Professor Jeff Bennett is from the Crawford School at the Australian National University. That's the same school of economics that Professor Garnaut led for almost a decade.

Jeff Bennett says carbon taxes, or a cap and trade scheme, are unlikely to generate any real benefit to the community.

He told PM's Bronwyn Herbert that we should adapt to a world with more greenhouse gases.

JEFF BENNETT: It may well be that human beings are exacerbating climate change on the planet. My concern is what we should be doing about that. We have evidence that the imposition of a tax, or the construction of a cap and trade permit scheme would impose considerable costs on the Australian community, indeed the world community and what I'm interested in is whether or not the imposition of those taxes would in fact generate any real benefit to the community.

BRONWYN HERBERT: There are currently two options on the table; the Federal Government has flagged its carbon tax, evolving into an emissions trading scheme and the Coalition has proposed a direct action plan.

As an economist which one would you most support?

JEFF BENNETT: My support is with the process of adaptation. We should be waiting to see what, if any, impacts there are from climate change and then putting into place policies that would ensure that we adapt to those changes.

My concern is with the mitigation strategy, which is fundamental to both the Government and the Coalition's policies, is that the benefits that we will see from the mitigation strategy are very, very limited, given the extent of the costs that we have to bear as a society to achieve those benefits.

BRONWYN HERBERT: You say what or if any impacts. Isn't that the point Professor Garnaut is trying to raise is that the actual science is in, that this is real and so waiting until seeing if there is any impact is too late?

JEFF BENNETT: The point here is that we should be very, very aware of conducting an economic analysis that weighs up the costs of proposed actions, against the benefits. Now the benefits of action are not necessarily the avoided costs of global warming.

You see, the policies that we put in place will not avoid global climate change. There may be some impact but my point here is that even the world's best climate scientists will agree that the sort of impact we will make by imposing these taxes or the cap and trades schemes is minimal.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Are you saying there, then, it's almost too late to make a real difference so it's better to look at would to happen in a scenario where the Earth has a lot more greenhouse gases in it?

JEFF BENNETT: Look it seems that way. It seems that the sorts of willingness to pay on the part of a community, to pay for taxes or to pay for greenhouse gas permits, is much, much lower than the sorts of cost impositions we would have to put into the economy if there was to be a really substantial reduction in the emission of greenhouse gases.

BRONWYN HERBERT: Well what has to happen internationally for you to think Australia has a case to step up its reductions of greenhouse gas emissions?

JEFF BENNETT: Well my serious concern is that even if the whole world agreed to conform with the sort of international protocols that are being negotiated at Kyoto, then at Cancun and Copenhagen, all of those levels, even if there was complete consensus across the world would result in very, very little by way of climate change impacts.

MARK COLVIN: Professor Jeff Bennett from the Crawford School at the Australian National University with Bronwyn Herbert.



* ©2010 ABC

[Rocky Rhodes]

One way to fix the environment is to get more cars of the road right? Yet the opposite will happen...

COMMUTERS could be hit with public transport fare increases of up to $150 a year when the carbon tax kicks in, confidential state government figures show.

Fears of fare rises came as retail giant David Jones' boss Paul Zahra yesterday blamed consumer concerns about the carbon tax, the high Australian dollar and the federal government's flood levy for a record 12 per cent sales slump.

The federal government claimed the overall cost-of-living impact on prices from the tax would be only 0.7 per cent of CPI.

However the NSW Treasury estimated that the potential fare rises for all modes of public transport in NSW alone - due to increased electricity costs for trains and fuel costs for buses and ferries - could be expected at an average 3.4 per cent.Some fare increases would be expected to be hit from the date of the carbon tax, July 1, 2012 - while others would start in 2013 and 2014.


Commuters travelling longer distances to the city from places such as Blacktown, Penrith, Campbelltown, Gosford and Heathcote would be worst affected.

The Treasury document assumed that the full cost of the carbon tax would be borne by commuters rather than by taxpayers.

Blog with Tony Abbott - carbon tax will hurt families

It is understood that Mr O'Farrell wrote to Prime Minister Julia Gillard last night, asking for a full briefing on carbon tax impacts on state government services - in particular public transport.

Mr O'Farrell said yesterday it was "crazy" that public transport would be hit by the tax when petrol for cars would be exempt: "This will create more pollution and defeat the whole purpose of a carbon tax.

"The federal government is crazy if it thinks this tax is going to reduce carbon emissions when it will lead to higher public transport fares and create an incentive for people to use their cars."

Public transport fares are set by the Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal.

An inquiry into the carbon tax impacts on fares would need to be held before fare rises could be approved.

Like i said, this is nothing to do with helping the environment.

[Rocky Rhodes]

Thankfully not all people are stupid and see this for the scam that it is:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/ton...-1226094172122

This poll is closed.
Should Australia have a carbon tax?

* Yes 16.73% (13087 votes)
* No 83.27% (65139 votes)

Total votes: 78226

This poll is closed.

Will the carbon tax change your vote at the next election?

* No change 12.01% (8450 votes)
* More likely to vote Labor 7.88% (5545 votes)
* More likely to vote Coalition 73.79% (51931 votes)
* More likely to vote Green 2.94% (2068 votes)
* More likely to vote independent 3.39% (2383 votes)

Total votes: 70377

This poll is closed.

How would you describe the compensation measures?

* Terrific, it won't hurt me at all. 8.74% (5571 votes)
* Fair, but I'm still worried about price rises. 6.74% (4300 votes)
* Inadequate, more needs to be done for families. 3.08% (1965 votes)
* Disgraceful, we shouldn't have this tax at all anyway. 81.44% (51931 votes)

Total votes: 63767

Will the carbon tax change your energy consumption?

* Yes, I’ll make cuts to save money 18.77% (11485 votes)
* Yes, green is the way to go 8.8% (5386 votes)
* No, I’m being compensated – why change? 11.46% (7013 votes)
* No, climate change is a myth 60.97% (37308 votes)

Total votes: 61192

[Guest]

Got anything Rocky from an internationally recognised study or journal ? Maybe a newspaper report that aint owned by Murdoch.

You dont see the consistency in it all ?

I take you back to 2007 when Howard, Abbott the whole lot of them said a carbon tax was the best possible course of action. So tell me whats changed ?

Idealogical crap thats all it is, Abbott sees the opportunity to grab power by installing uninformed fear into the community. Carbon copy of the US .

This fool talks of the consequences of taxing business yet he wants to impose a tax of 1.5% on to business for his maternity leave scheme - thats a' big new tax ' if Ive ever heard one ! give people already on $ 120k full pay for 6 months. Please explain or justify this ?

Even you right wing galoots on this forum cant agree the melons and Kingdillys are saying the bankers ( their mates/family members ) are rubbing their hands together at the prospect of the tax but you Rhodes and Big Ben are saying its a socialism agenda to re distribute income.

At least give a consistent messgae or maybe just wait till Andrew Bolt on Sunday morning tells you what to say

[bigben]

Dear People of Australia ,

Due to the current financial situation caused by the slowdown of the
Economy, your Government has decided to implement a scheme to put
Workers 50 years of age and older on early retirement. This scheme
Will be known as RAPE (Retire Aged People Early).

Persons selected to be RAPED can apply to the government to be eligible
For the SHAFT scheme (Special Help After Forced Termination).

Persons who have been RAPED and SHAFTED will be reviewed under the
SCREW program (Scheme Covering Retired Early Workers). A person may be
RAPED once, SHAFTED twice and SCREWED as many times as the government
Deems appropriate.

Only persons who have been RAPED can get AIDS (Additional Income for
Dependants & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel
Early Severance). Obviously, persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not
Be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by the government..

Persons who are not RAPED and are staying on, will receive as much SHIT
(Special High Intensity Training) as possible. The government
Has always prided itself in the amount of SHIT it gives out. Should
You feel that you do not receive enough SHIT, please bring this to the
Attention of your local MP. They have been trained to give you all the
SHIT you can handle.

Sincerely,

Julia Gillard
Canberra

PS: Have a nice life. . . . .

[Guest]

Only persons who have been RAPED can get AIDS (Additional Income for
Dependants & Spouse) or HERPES (Half Earnings for Retired Personnel
Early Severance). Obviously, persons who have AIDS or HERPES will not
Be SHAFTED or SCREWED any further by the government..

.

I have to repress the little voice that says social conservatives are sub-human. It's just ignorance....just ignorance........