It is a foregone conclusion that Abbott will be the next PM.
He has promised to dump both these taxes and I am assuming that, unlike Gillard, he is not a liar.
The problem will be the Senate since even in a landslide it is unlikely that the Lib-Nats will get a majority.
What Abbott has to do imo is immediately announce that if the Senate refuses a bill of repeal there will be a DD as soon as permissible. No stuffing around, no politicking, a DD as soon as possible. Show the people you mean what you say.
I actually can't see the rationale for a mining tax in the first place. Like any other taxpayers, the mining companies should be only subject to the same taxes that apply generally.
As for the carbon tax, that is a matter of principle. The repeal of that is as critical in Abbott's election as it will be in Gillard's unelection (if she is still around, which I doubt).

hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

It is a foregone conclusion that Abbott will be the next PM..

The probability is high, we should be ashamed.


hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

He has promised to dump both these taxes and I am assuming that, unlike Gillard, he is not a liar..

He is a self confessed liar and is caught out about every second time he speaks.


hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

The problem will be the Senate since even in a landslide it is unlikely that the Lib-Nats will get a majority..

Lets pray he doesn't


hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 1:03pm:

What Abbott has to do imo is immediately announce that if the Senate refuses a bill of repeal there will be a DD as soon as permissible..

He already said that - problem is it would be mid 2015 and he may well be on the nose by then and there is an outside chance that Whyalla may still be standing and the carbon price will still be remarkable not noticeable by anyone.

People may actually wake up that the whole campaign against a carbon price has been one huge fraud especially considering that the Liberals policy is to charge us more and to do less.

I can't see mid-2015. A bill should be ready for presenting on the first day. It only takes 2 refusals at 3-monthly intervals from memory.

hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

I can't see mid-2015. A bill should be ready for presenting on the first day. It only takes 2 refusals at 3-monthly intervals from memory.

They typically wait for the new senate to be in operation about 6 months later.

Then there is the time to debate the bills, send it to discussion on to put it on hold for a while.

Even when they get 3 refusals it is not automatically a DD the GG has to agree that the government is unworkable and it is a major bill which impacts the running of the country.

The GG is entitled to just say go away and be serious, while this is not likely it is what probably should happen.

A DD is not just because you spit the dummy it is meant to resolve situations where the government is unworkable.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 1:03pm: It is a foregone conclusion that Abbott will be the next PM.. The probability is high, we should be ashamed. hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 1:03pm: He has promised to dump both these taxes and I am assuming that, unlike Gillard, he is not a liar.. He is a self confessed liar and is caught out about every second time he speaks. hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 1:03pm: The problem will be the Senate since even in a landslide it is unlikely that the Lib-Nats will get a majority.. Lets pray he doesn't hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 1:03pm: What Abbott has to do imo is immediately announce that if the Senate refuses a bill of repeal there will be a DD as soon as permissible.. He already said that - problem is it would be mid 2015 and he may well be on the nose by then and there is an outside chance that Whyalla may still be standing and the carbon price will still be remarkable not noticeable by anyone. People may actually wake up that the whole campaign against a carbon price has been one huge fraud especially considering that the Liberals policy is to charge us more and to do less.

POOR DIDDUMS   ;D ;D ;D

There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!!

8-) 8-) 8-)

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 2:32pm:

hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 2:17pm: I can't see mid-2015. A bill should be ready for presenting on the first day. It only takes 2 refusals at 3-monthly intervals from memory. They typically wait for the new senate to be in operation about 6 months later. Then there is the time to debate the bills, send it to discussion on to put it on hold for a while. Even when they get 3 refusals it is not automatically a DD the GG has to agree that the government is unworkable and it is a major bill which impacts the running of the country. The GG is entitled to just say go away and be serious, while this is not likely it is what probably should happen. A DD is not just because you spit the dummy it is meant to resolve situations where the government is unworkable.

dont be so silly. constitutionally, the GG can call an election at any time or refuse to hold one whhen the PM requests. But the immutable convention is that the GG operates under the PMs advice and ONLY on the PMs advice meaning the PM calls the election. the DD is likewise a constitutional issue that if Abbott decides to call one when the constitutional provisions have been met then we WILL have a DD. dont imagine that the silly labor woman GG is going to save you from the constitution.

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 4:33pm:

There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!! 8-) 8-) 8-)

so it is okay for you that the senate would refuse to repeal the CT despite abbott having a massive mandate for it and the CT being very unpopular as a matter of course?? Id be interested in your understanding of democracy because in most peoples minds it means the parliament passing legislation in line with their wishes.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 4:33pm: There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) so it is okay for you that the senate would refuse to repeal the CT despite abbott having a massive mandate for it and the CT being very unpopular as a matter of course?? Id be interested in your understanding of democracy because in most peoples minds it means the parliament passing legislation in line with their wishes.

yes ... it is the senates job to do what it thinks is best for Australia's future ... Abbott already threw any convention relating to mandates out of the window as soon as he became opposition leader .. if it's good enough for him to run the opposition by opposing everything, it's good enough for everyone else.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 2:32pm: hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 2:17pm: I can't see mid-2015. A bill should be ready for presenting on the first day. It only takes 2 refusals at 3-monthly intervals from memory. They typically wait for the new senate to be in operation about 6 months later. Then there is the time to debate the bills, send it to discussion on to put it on hold for a while. Even when they get 3 refusals it is not automatically a DD the GG has to agree that the government is unworkable and it is a major bill which impacts the running of the country. The GG is entitled to just say go away and be serious, while this is not likely it is what probably should happen. A DD is not just because you spit the dummy it is meant to resolve situations where the government is unworkable. dont be so silly. constitutionally, the GG can call an election at any time or refuse to hold one whhen the PM requests. But the immutable convention is that the GG operates under the PMs advice and ONLY on the PMs advice meaning the PM calls the election. the DD is likewise a constitutional issue that if Abbott decides to call one when the constitutional provisions have been met then we WILL have a DD. dont imagine that the silly labor woman GG is going to save you from the constitution.

As I said I doubt that the GG whoever it is would but there is a requirement for a suitable reason for calling a DD and some rubbish non essential legislation not passing may not constitute a valid reason.


I doubt that Abbott would call one anyway, for him it would be a lose lose situation.

FRED. wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 1:35pm: hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 1:03pm: It is a foregone conclusion that Abbott will be the next PM.. The probability is high, we should be ashamed. hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 1:03pm: He has promised to dump both these taxes and I am assuming that, unlike Gillard, he is not a liar.. He is a self confessed liar and is caught out about every second time he speaks. hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 1:03pm: The problem will be the Senate since even in a landslide it is unlikely that the Lib-Nats will get a majority.. Lets pray he doesn't hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 1:03pm: What Abbott has to do imo is immediately announce that if the Senate refuses a bill of repeal there will be a DD as soon as permissible.. He already said that - problem is it would be mid 2015 and he may well be on the nose by then and there is an outside chance that Whyalla may still be standing and the carbon price will still be remarkable not noticeable by anyone. People may actually wake up that the whole campaign against a carbon price has been one huge fraud especially considering that the Liberals policy is to charge us more and to do less. POOR DIDDUMS

Your normal standard of content I see.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 4:33pm: There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!! so it is okay for you that the senate would refuse to repeal the CT despite abbott having a massive mandate for it and the CT being very unpopular as a matter of course?? Id be interested in your understanding of democracy because in most peoples minds it means the parliament passing legislation in line with their wishes.

CT being very unpopular as a matter of course

Very unpopular amoung the media and the Liberals, most people havn't noticed any change - even the residents of Whyalla.

Given time for a DD to eventuate and they may work out how badly they were conned, Huge problem for Abbott I would think.

John Smith wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 5:52pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 4:33pm: There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) so it is okay for you that the senate would refuse to repeal the CT despite abbott having a massive mandate for it and the CT being very unpopular as a matter of course?? Id be interested in your understanding of democracy because in most peoples minds it means the parliament passing legislation in line with their wishes. yes ... it is the senates job to do what it thinks is best for Australia's future ... Abbott already threw any convention relating to mandates out of the window as soon as he became opposition leader .. if it's good enough for him to run the opposition by opposing everything, it's good enough for everyone else.

actually, it is no such thing you dimwit. But i guess for someone who thinks that Fraser left a $40B debt, believing that rubbish comes second nature to you.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 6:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 5:49pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 2:32pm: hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 2:17pm: I can't see mid-2015. A bill should be ready for presenting on the first day. It only takes 2 refusals at 3-monthly intervals from memory. They typically wait for the new senate to be in operation about 6 months later. Then there is the time to debate the bills, send it to discussion on to put it on hold for a while. Even when they get 3 refusals it is not automatically a DD the GG has to agree that the government is unworkable and it is a major bill which impacts the running of the country. The GG is entitled to just say go away and be serious, while this is not likely it is what probably should happen. A DD is not just because you spit the dummy it is meant to resolve situations where the government is unworkable. dont be so silly. constitutionally, the GG can call an election at any time or refuse to hold one whhen the PM requests. But the immutable convention is that the GG operates under the PMs advice and ONLY on the PMs advice meaning the PM calls the election. the DD is likewise a constitutional issue that if Abbott decides to call one when the constitutional provisions have been met then we WILL have a DD. dont imagine that the silly labor woman GG is going to save you from the constitution. As I said I doubt that the GG whoever it is would but there is a requirement for a suitable reason for calling a DD and some rubbish non essential legislation not passing may not constitute a valid reason. I doubt that Abbott would call one anyway, for him it would be a lose lose situation.

lose lose?? not likely. given that the CT is very unpopular, the senate refusing to repeal it could backfire on them very badly. voters have a habit of punishing govts that refuse to do as they wish. not only would a DD have the CT repeal passed but it could give abbott more senators.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 6:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 5:52pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 4:33pm: There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!! so it is okay for you that the senate would refuse to repeal the CT despite abbott having a massive mandate for it and the CT being very unpopular as a matter of course?? Id be interested in your understanding of democracy because in most peoples minds it means the parliament passing legislation in line with their wishes. CT being very unpopular as a matter of course Very unpopular amoung the media and the Liberals, most people havn't noticed any change - even the residents of Whyalla. Given time for a DD to eventuate and they may work out how badly they were conned, Huge problem for Abbott I would think.

the last polling on the subject found opposition to the Ct running at 60/40. thats more thane mere liberals.

Abbott will never go to a DD ..... he wants the top job too much and is to scared of losing it.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 2:32pm: hadrian_now wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 2:17pm: I can't see mid-2015. A bill should be ready for presenting on the first day. It only takes 2 refusals at 3-monthly intervals from memory. They typically wait for the new senate to be in operation about 6 months later. Then there is the time to debate the bills, send it to discussion on to put it on hold for a while. Even when they get 3 refusals it is not automatically a DD the GG has to agree that the government is unworkable and it is a major bill which impacts the running of the country. The GG is entitled to just say go away and be serious, while this is not likely it is what probably should happen. A DD is not just because you spit the dummy it is meant to resolve situations where the government is unworkable. dont be so silly. constitutionally, the GG can call an election at any time or refuse to hold one whhen the PM requests. But the immutable convention is that the GG operates under the PMs advice and ONLY on the PMs advice meaning the PM calls the election. the DD is likewise a constitutional issue that if Abbott decides to call one when the constitutional provisions have been met then we WILL have a DD. dont imagine that the silly labor woman GG is going to save you from the constitution.

So why did Kerr take the advice of the Chief Justice of the High Court and not Whitlam advice when he want a half senate election?

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 7:08pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 6:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 5:52pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 4:33pm: There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!! so it is okay for you that the senate would refuse to repeal the CT despite abbott having a massive mandate for it and the CT being very unpopular as a matter of course?? Id be interested in your understanding of democracy because in most peoples minds it means the parliament passing legislation in line with their wishes. CT being very unpopular as a matter of course Very unpopular amoung the media and the Liberals, most people havn't noticed any change - even the residents of Whyalla. Given time for a DD to eventuate and they may work out how badly they were conned, Huge problem for Abbott I would think. the last polling on the subject found opposition to the Ct running at 60/40. thats more thane mere liberals.

Yes Liberals plus 3 years of solid wall to wall media propoganda day after day.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 7:08pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 6:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 5:52pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 4:33pm: There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!! so it is okay for you that the senate would refuse to repeal the CT despite abbott having a massive mandate for it and the CT being very unpopular as a matter of course?? Id be interested in your understanding of democracy because in most peoples minds it means the parliament passing legislation in line with their wishes. CT being very unpopular as a matter of course Very unpopular amoung the media and the Liberals, most people havn't noticed any change - even the residents of Whyalla. Given time for a DD to eventuate and they may work out how badly they were conned, Huge problem for Abbott I would think. the last polling on the subject found opposition to the Ct running at 60/40. thats more thane mere liberals. Yes Liberals plus 3 years of solid wall to wall media propoganda day after day.

Or what labrats and labor just dont get. Payback is a biatch in Australia and no toll poppy is going to blatantly lie to me to gain power. Now F off biatch.

I love Australians. Keeps the powerful in check from time to time. Not like the easy beats in the US.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:12pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 10:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 7:08pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 6:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 5:52pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 4:33pm: There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!! so it is okay for you that the senate would refuse to repeal the CT despite abbott having a massive mandate for it and the CT being very unpopular as a matter of course?? Id be interested in your understanding of democracy because in most peoples minds it means the parliament passing legislation in line with their wishes. CT being very unpopular as a matter of course Very unpopular amoung the media and the Liberals, most people havn't noticed any change - even the residents of Whyalla. Given time for a DD to eventuate and they may work out how badly they were conned, Huge problem for Abbott I would think. the last polling on the subject found opposition to the Ct running at 60/40. thats more thane mere liberals. Yes Liberals plus 3 years of solid wall to wall media propoganda day after day. Or what labrats and labor just dont get. Payback is a biatch in Australia and no toll poppy is going to blatantly lie to me to gain power. Now F off biatch. I love Australians. Keeps the powerful in check from time to time. Not like the easy beats in the US.

Many seemed happy enough for Howard to do it to them time after time.

He was only ever elected in the first place with a commitment to never ever introduce a GST, He went to his second election with lies about the waterfront dispute and his broken GST promise, then we had his third campaign based on children being thrown overboard except that it was a lie and then we had interest rates will always be lower in 2004 another blatant pork pie.

John Howard took a divisive policy and a blatent Lie to every election campaign he stood and you guys loved every one of them.

Now you pretend to care about honesty to support a confessed liar. The most honest option is never the conservatives.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 10:12pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 10:09pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 7:08pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 6:49pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 5:52pm: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 4:33pm: There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!! so it is okay for you that the senate would refuse to repeal the CT despite abbott having a massive mandate for it and the CT being very unpopular as a matter of course?? Id be interested in your understanding of democracy because in most peoples minds it means the parliament passing legislation in line with their wishes. CT being very unpopular as a matter of course Very unpopular amoung the media and the Liberals, most people havn't noticed any change - even the residents of Whyalla. Given time for a DD to eventuate and they may work out how badly they were conned, Huge problem for Abbott I would think. the last polling on the subject found opposition to the Ct running at 60/40. thats more thane mere liberals. Yes Liberals plus 3 years of solid wall to wall media propoganda day after day. Or what labrats and labor just dont get. Payback is a biatch in Australia and no toll poppy is going to blatantly lie to me to gain power. Now F off biatch. I love Australians. Keeps the powerful in check from time to time. Not like the easy beats in the US. Many seemed happy enough for Howard to do it to them time after time. He was only ever elected in the first place with a commitment to never ever introduce a GST, He went to his second election with lies about the waterfront dispute and his broken GST promise, then we had his third campaign based on children being thrown overboard except that it was a lie and then we had interest rates will always be lower in 2004 another blatant pork pie. John Howard took a divisive policy and a blatent Lie to every election campaign he stood and you guys loved every one of them. Now you pretend to care about honesty to support a confessed liar. The most honest option is never the conservatives.

Again, what labrats and labor just dont get. If you are going to change your mind, atleast give us aussies a chance to agree or disagree. Dont just sell us out for power at any cost or ill kick your Azz.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 10:46pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 10:19pm: Many seemed happy enough for Howard to do it to them time after time. He was only ever elected in the first place with a commitment to never ever introduce a GST, He went to his second election with lies about the waterfront dispute and his broken GST promise, then we had his third campaign based on children being thrown overboard except that it was a lie and then we had interest rates will always be lower in 2004 another blatant pork pie. John Howard took a divisive policy and a blatent Lie to every election campaign he stood and you guys loved every one of them. Now you pretend to care about honesty to support a confessed liar. The most honest option is never the conservatives. Again, what labrats and labor just dont get. If you are going to change your mind, atleast give us aussies a chance to agree or disagree. Dont just sell us out for power at any cost or ill kick your Azz.

That is just an excuse for supporting the Howard lie.

What Gillard said did not help her to get elected - it probably hurt her chances, Howards commitment was key to him being made PM ever. Howard was miserably unpopular languishing at 17% and not wanted by the Liberals most of all, he was the leader they didn't want.

If you are going to change your mind

So now its about changing your mind and not about lies? Overall for every Lie Gillard may have told Howard would have produced a truck full and Abbott is no better.

The Liberals supporters’ feigned rage over 1 supposed lie is contemptible.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:01pm:

What Gillard said did not help her to get elected - it probably hurt her chances, Howards commitment was key to him being made PM ever. Howard was miserably unpopular languishing at 17% and not wanted by the Liberals most of all, he was the leader they didn't want.

Languishing at 17% you say

That would be Keating

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:01pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 10:46pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 10:19pm: Many seemed happy enough for Howard to do it to them time after time. He was only ever elected in the first place with a commitment to never ever introduce a GST, He went to his second election with lies about the waterfront dispute and his broken GST promise, then we had his third campaign based on children being thrown overboard except that it was a lie and then we had interest rates will always be lower in 2004 another blatant pork pie. John Howard took a divisive policy and a blatent Lie to every election campaign he stood and you guys loved every one of them. Now you pretend to care about honesty to support a confessed liar. The most honest option is never the conservatives. Again, what labrats and labor just dont get. If you are going to change your mind, atleast give us aussies a chance to agree or disagree. Dont just sell us out for power at any cost or ill kick your Azz. That is just an excuse for supporting the Howard lie. What Gillard said did not help her to get elected - it probably hurt her chances, Howards commitment was key to him being made PM ever. Howard was miserably unpopular languishing at 17% and not wanted by the Liberals most of all, he was the leader they didn't want. If you are going to change your mind So now its about changing your mind and not about lies? Overall for every Lie Gillard may have told Howard would have produced a truck full and Abbott is no better. The Liberals supporters’ feigned rage over 1 supposed lie is contemptible.

Hey, thats your problem. You can have the parties who tell you something at election time, only to do the opposite while in that term. I will have the parties who can change their minds if needed and allow me to vote on that change.

Your loss, not mine, labor are dead meat, my party of allowing me to vote on changed minds is going great guns.

John Smith wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 9:08pm:

Abbott will never go to a DD ..... he wants the top job too much and is to scared of losing it.

Lets see you use polls to explain this view

Maqqa wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:06pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 11:01pm: What Gillard said did not help her to get elected - it probably hurt her chances, Howards commitment was key to him being made PM ever. Howard was miserably unpopular languishing at 18% and not wanted by the Liberals most of all, he was the leader they didn't want. Languishing at 17% you say That would be Keating

Yes Howards rating was a huge 18% - sorry about the error.

Keatings 17% was not about ratings and it was a one off where Howard was called Mr 18% for a considerable time.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:35pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 11:06pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 11:01pm: What Gillard said did not help her to get elected - it probably hurt her chances, Howards commitment was key to him being made PM ever. Howard was miserably unpopular languishing at 18% and not wanted by the Liberals most of all, he was the leader they didn't want. Languishing at 17% you say That would be Keating Yes Howards rating was a huge 18% - sorry about the error. Keatings 17% was not about ratings and it was a one off where Howard was called Mr 18% for a considerable time.

18% did you say

You sure it's not 18% interest rate under Keating?!!

And this 18% - was it during 1996-2007?

Show us your reference

Maqqa wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:28pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 9:08pm: Abbott will never go to a DD ..... he wants the top job too much and is to scared of losing it. Lets see you use polls to explain this view

He shouldn't but with Abbott you never know he has always been a bit of a cowboy.

By the time he is in the position it most likely will be obvious that he can only lose out of the choice.

If he wins a large majority a DD would be a situation where he can only lose seats and bring the demise of his government closer.


i.e. a real stupid move

Maqqa wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:38pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 11:35pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 11:06pm: Dnarever wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 11:01pm: What Gillard said did not help her to get elected - it probably hurt her chances, Howards commitment was key to him being made PM ever. Howard was miserably unpopular languishing at 18% and not wanted by the Liberals most of all, he was the leader they didn't want. Languishing at 17% you say That would be Keating Yes Howards rating was a huge 18% - sorry about the error. Keatings 17% was not about ratings and it was a one off where Howard was called Mr 18% for a considerable time. 18% did you say You sure it's not 18% interest rate under Keating?!! And this 18% - was it during 1996-2007? Show us your reference

Quote:

Once upon a time, Howard suffered a similar fate. On December 20, 1988, The Bulletin ran its famous (or infamous) cover story: "Mr 18 per cent. Why on earth does this man bother?" Inside the magazine, a Morgan Gallup poll revealed that Howard had an approval rating of 30 per cent. However, he was at 18 per cent - compared with Bob Hawke's 69 per cent - in the "better prime minister" poll. Hence the put-down on The Bulletin's cover. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/28/1035683357296.html

In 1995 when he was made Leader of the Liberals he was being called Mr 18% and had been for years.

was it during 1996-2007?

How could it be in that range when it was refering to when he was made leader in 1995.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

Quote: Once upon a time, Howard suffered a similar fate. On December 20, 1988, The Bulletin ran its famous (or infamous) cover story: "Mr 18 per cent. Why on earth does this man bother?" Inside the magazine, a Morgan Gallup poll revealed that Howard had an approval rating of 30 per cent. However, he was at 18 per cent - compared with Bob Hawke's 69 per cent - in the "better prime minister" poll. Hence the put-down on The Bulletin's cover. http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/10/28/1035683357296.html In 1995 when he was made Leader of the Liberals he was being called Mr 18% and had been for years. was it during 1996-2007? How could it be in that range when it was refering to when he was made leader in 1995.

So now we want to dig up his figures when he was not PM to compare it to Gillard?

How about comparing PM with PM

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 10^th, 2013 at 5:52pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 10th, 2013 at 4:33pm: There is every possibility leading into 2014 that Europe could melt down altogether with America not far behind.....If upcoming elections follow the trend of electing Governments who promise not to accept the European Union solution then Europe could see several economies crash causing a domino affect.....The mining tax and carbon tax might be needed by Abbott to balance the budget in the short to medium term allowing the ALP and Greens to stall the repeal of these taxes for a time might work in Abbott's favor!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) so it is okay for you that the senate would refuse to repeal the CT despite abbott having a massive mandate for it and the CT being very unpopular as a matter of course?? Id be interested in your understanding of democracy because in most peoples minds it means the parliament passing legislation in line with their wishes.

Check out some examples of Longy's stunning hypocrisy on the concept of mandates:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1365047005

Prior to jumping on the carbon tax mandate bandwagon, Longy was arguing against the concept of majority rule in democracy, insisting that in order to be fair to political parties we must grant them full power without requiring majority support. He has also argued that political parties should impose unpopular changes on the voting public against the wishes of the majority.

You morons on the left loves to bring out the phrase "but Abbott says the carbon tax is the best way"

But no one on the left has enough courage to post the exact comments and discuss it. The same way with the Whyalla issue.

This is why LIB supporters are a better bred of people than Leftards

I have no issue in posting threads like this examining the leader of the Opposition.

When was the last time anyone on the left did this?

That said - here are sippets from what he said and the context to which he said it.

He was putting out the idea and promoting his book and the same Turnbull was leader.

If you want to assume that to be Party Policy then FU.

He did this interview on 15 July 2009 and took over the leadership Dec 2009

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5QXblcJAr4&feature=youtu.be


Happy to discuss any point without abuse

Read my signature. ;D ;D ;D

Abbott is right of course. A carbon tax is the best way. Shame his politics cannot reflect his principles.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html

My bet is still that the coalition will win the next election and keep the carbon tax.

skippy. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:17pm:

Read my signature. ;D ;D ;D

Yes but I have the courage to post the whole interview - you don't

The missing part is


Quote:

"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden."

I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: Read my signature. ;D ;D ;D Yes but I have the courage to post the whole interview - you don't The missing part is Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation

Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more?

Is he dissapointed that most were compensated? Hasn't he been going off about this very point he obviously supported?

Why not ask motorists to pay more?

Yep looks like a real tax to me - definatly not like the fixed price where nobody pays any tax?

What a hypocrit this guy is.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:34pm:

Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? Is he dissapointed that most were compensated? Hasn't he been going off about this very point he obviously supported? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Yep looks like a real tax to me - definatly not like the fixed price where nobody pays any tax? What a hypocrit this guy is.

Quote:

If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax.

IF YOU WANT

IF YOU WANT

He didn't say "I WANT TO PRICE CARBON"

He said "IF YOU WANT to price carbon....."

skippy. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:17pm:

Read my signature. ;D ;D ;D

If that is what you what you want to do, ETS or carbon tax.

He doesnt want to do either

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:42pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:34pm: Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? Is he dissapointed that most were compensated? Hasn't he been going off about this very point he obviously supported? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Yep looks like a real tax to me - definatly not like the fixed price where nobody pays any tax? What a hypocrit this guy is. Quote: If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. IF YOU WANT IF YOU WANT He didn't say "I WANT TO PRICE CARBON" He said "IF YOU WANT to price carbon....."

doesn't explain why is he going with direct action though does it Gumpy ..... watch how great that will turn out

John Smith wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 4:41pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:42pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:34pm: Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? Is he dissapointed that most were compensated? Hasn't he been going off about this very point he obviously supported? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Yep looks like a real tax to me - definatly not like the fixed price where nobody pays any tax? What a hypocrit this guy is. Quote: If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. IF YOU WANT IF YOU WANT He didn't say "I WANT TO PRICE CARBON" He said "IF YOU WANT to price carbon....." doesn't explain why is he going with direct action though does it Gumpy ..... watch how great that will turn out

Because planting trees is the right thing for the environment. Environment, not some co2 boogy man that doesnt exist.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 4:42pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 4:41pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:42pm: Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:34pm: Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? Is he dissapointed that most were compensated? Hasn't he been going off about this very point he obviously supported? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Yep looks like a real tax to me - definatly not like the fixed price where nobody pays any tax? What a hypocrit this guy is. Quote: If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. IF YOU WANT IF YOU WANT He didn't say "I WANT TO PRICE CARBON" He said "IF YOU WANT to price carbon....." doesn't explain why is he going with direct action though does it Gumpy ..... watch how great that will turn out Because planting trees is the right thing for the environment. Environment, not some co2 boogy man that doesnt exist.

really? it's not to combat global warming? Well thats not what he says .... the man denies the science of global warming but has a policy to combat it ... what a moron, liar or liar .. which is it?

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: Read my signature. ;D ;D ;D Yes but I have the courage to post the whole interview - you don't The missing part is Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation

Liar, I quoted phony tony exact words.

Quote:

Liar, I quoted phony tony exact words.

Skippy....why do you do this?  Why play his absurd game.  Ignore the idiot.  Have you not noticed that there is not one person yet registered on my (relevant) Thread in 'Relationships?

;)

Tony has often said that he is a bare faced liar unless he is reading from a script so we must ask ourselves was he lying about wanting a carbon tax or later on slamming the tax when Labor pinched his brilliant idea.
I simply cannot believe that someone as monumentally handsome, learned, witty and chiseled as Tony Abbott would ever lie to us.

skippy. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: Read my signature. ;D ;D ;D Yes but I have the courage to post the whole interview - you don't The missing part is Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation Liar, I quoted phony tony exact words.

Im dumbfounded that anyone actually reads other peoples signatures  :D..Crikey I dont even read my own  :D

R
Aussie wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:32pm:

Quote: Liar, I quoted phony tony exact words. Skippy....why do you do this?  Why play his absurd game.  Ignore the idiot.  Have you not noticed that there is not one person yet registered on my (relevant) Thread in 'Relationships? ;)

Lol, I don't even read the relationships forum, Aussie. Ill have a look. Great way to drum up  business. ;D

skippy. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 5:01pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: Read my signature. ;D ;D ;D Yes but I have the courage to post the whole interview - you don't The missing part is Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation Liar, I quoted phony tony exact words.

You keep convincing yourself of that skip

His exact words are:


Quote:

"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax"

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 6:57pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:01pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: Read my signature. ;D ;D ;D Yes but I have the courage to post the whole interview - you don't The missing part is Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation Liar, I quoted phony tony exact words. You keep convincing yourself of that skip His exact words are: [quote]"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax"

[/quote]


And yet he somehow wasn't recomending a cabon tax as the best option.

The main difference between his tax and the fixed price is that his option is definatly a genuine tax which we would have all paid.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 6:57pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 5:01pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: Read my signature. ;D ;D ;D Yes but I have the courage to post the whole interview - you don't The missing part is Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation Liar, I quoted phony tony exact words. You keep convincing yourself of that skip His exact words are: [quote]"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax"

And yet he somehow wasn't recomending a cabon tax as the best option.

The main difference between his tax and the fixed price is that his option is definatly a genuine tax which we would have all paid.[/quote]
And somehow sucking in a hopless incompetent, copier of others policies labor government.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:16pm:

And yet he somehow wasn't recomending a cabon tax as the best option. The main difference between his tax and the fixed price is that his option is definatly a genuine tax which we would have all paid.

This was an interview in July 2009

They were asking him to comment about the structure of the tax that Rudd is looking at present

And he gave a comment that he didn't like it - but if you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:33pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 7:16pm: And yet he somehow wasn't recomending a cabon tax as the best option. The main difference between his tax and the fixed price is that his option is definatly a genuine tax which we would have all paid. This was an interview in July 2009 They were asking him to comment about the structure of the tax that Rudd is looking at present And he gave a comment that he didn't like it - but if you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax

It is very telling when howard wanted an ETS apparently, but Abbott was saying an ETS was stupid. So the ETS was all howard.

Quote:

Abbott : "A tax on carbon is the simplest, fairest and cheapest way of combating carbon pollution and the coalition would give it some serious thought if we win the next election"

Quote:

Abbott: If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax"

see video in opening post

skippy. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:37pm:

Quote: Abbott : "A tax on carbon is the simplest, fairest and cheapest way of combating carbon pollution and the coalition would give it some serious thought if we win the next election"

If you want to put on a tax. If you are that way inclined, as labor are, to put on a tax. If you are that dumb and disrespect the people that much

As for Abbott, he just wants to take it from the already paying tax base, but thanks for coming debt and taxes labor, because you dont care for the people of Australia or the environment.

skippy. wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 7:37pm:

Quote: Abbott : "A tax on carbon is the simplest, fairest and cheapest way of combating carbon pollution and the coalition would give it some serious thought if we win the next election"

Bump ;D

AN ABBOTT QUOTE
WORD FOR WORD
;D ;D :D ;D ;D

At 7.04 - he was asked about the ETS

His answers are as follows:

(1) The government is set on this.
(2) You can't save the country from the consequences of its vote
(3) You can't protect the country from the consequences of the government they elected
(4) 7.32 - If we were in government we would not be doing what the Rudd government is doing
(5) If you think you have this mandate then go ahead and do it.
(6) We don't like it. We don't think it's economically helpful for the country


Why did the lefties choose to ignore all of this context and focus on isolating 1 sentence - which they didn't even get right

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 8:01pm:

At 7.04 - he was asked about the ETS His answers are as follows: (1) The government is set on this. (2) You can't save the country from the consequences of its vote (3) You can't protect the country from the consequences of the government they elected (4) 7.32 - If we were in government we would not be doing what the Rudd government is doing (5) If you think you have this mandate then go ahead and do it. (6) We don't like it. We don't think it's economically helpful for the country Why did the lefties choose to ignore all of this context and focus on isolating 1 sentence - which they didn't even get right

(4) 7.32 - If we were in government we would not be doing what the Rudd government is doing

If they were in power it would mean that John Howard had won the 2007 election and he went into that election with a policy to do almost exactly the same thing.

(2) You can't save the country from the consequences of its vote

Probably never more true than in 2013 and the danger of a Liberal return to power.

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 9:33pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 8:01pm: At 7.04 - he was asked about the ETS His answers are as follows: (1) The government is set on this. (2) You can't save the country from the consequences of its vote (3) You can't protect the country from the consequences of the government they elected (4) 7.32 - If we were in government we would not be doing what the Rudd government is doing (5) If you think you have this mandate then go ahead and do it. (6) We don't like it. We don't think it's economically helpful for the country Why did the lefties choose to ignore all of this context and focus on isolating 1 sentence - which they didn't even get right (4) 7.32 - If we were in government we would not be doing what the Rudd government is doing If they were in power it would mean that John Howard had won the 2007 election and he went into that election with a policy to do almost exactly the same thing. (2) You can't save the country from the consequences of its vote Probably never more true than in 2013 and the danger of a Liberal return to power.

Show us the exact details of the policy you are referring to DNA

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: Read my signature. ;D ;D ;D Yes but I have the courage to post the whole interview - you don't The missing part is Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation

Wow, that is actually really stupid. Thanks for pointing this out Macca. You charge tax, then give it all back at the end of the year. Are you sure Abbott actually said that? Maybe he wants to be more like George Bush junior.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: [quote]"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden."

It looks like Maqqa was right after all. Abbott really did make that idiotic claim. Thanks Maqqa for pointing this out to everyone.

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: [quote]"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." It looks like Maqqa was right after all. Abbott really did make that idiotic claim. Thanks Maqqa for pointing this out to everyone.

what are you talking about dive

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:42pm:

Dnarever wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:34pm: Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? Is he dissapointed that most were compensated? Hasn't he been going off about this very point he obviously supported? Why not ask motorists to pay more? Yep looks like a real tax to me - definatly not like the fixed price where nobody pays any tax? What a hypocrit this guy is. Quote: If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. IF YOU WANT IF YOU WANT He didn't say "I WANT TO PRICE CARBON" He said "IF YOU WANT to price carbon....."

Most of the Time through that Period Tony wanted to price carbon and clearly supported policy to do so.

Now of course he doesn’t want to price carbon he just wants to ineffectively mitigate it using our money.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 6:41pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: [quote]"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." It looks like Maqqa was right after all. Abbott really did make that idiotic claim. Thanks Maqqa for pointing this out to everyone. what are you talking about dive

Did you read what he said? Would you ever advise people that the best way to put a price on something is to refund the cost to people? You don't need to have studied economics to see that Abbott is tying himself in knots with his own spin. Perhaps this was his first attempt at his current approach of pretending to do something in order to please both crowds, and wasting our time and money in the process.

When Abbott wins the next election he'll disappear for a week while he goes over the books.

He'll then tell us that:


Quote:

he was misinformed about the true position of the fiscal situation & he'll say: I will have to forgo many election promises because the government is broke & needs all the revenue it can raise. He will have to keep the carbon tax & the mining tax.

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 7:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26th, 2013 at 6:41pm: freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2013 at 6:39pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: [quote]"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." It looks like Maqqa was right after all. Abbott really did make that idiotic claim. Thanks Maqqa for pointing this out to everyone. what are you talking about dive Did you read what he said? Would you ever advise people that the best way to put a price on something is to refund the cost to people? You don't need to have studied economics to see that Abbott is tying himself in knots with his own spin. Perhaps this was his first attempt at his current approach of pretending to do something in order to please both crowds, and wasting our time and money in the process.

I provided you with the interview

If you don't understand - just ask and I will teach you

Fair enough. Please explain why the statement is not as stupid as it appears.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5F-r-KtKDcU

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 7:49pm:

Fair enough. Please explain why the statement is not as stupid as it appears.

This interview was done July 2009
(1) He was promoting his book
(2) This is before he took over the leadership from Turnbull
(3) This is before he rolled Turnbull on the ETS


At 7.04 - he was asked about the ETS

His answers are as follows:

(1) The Rudd government is set on this.
(2) You can't save the country from the consequences of its vote
(3) Rudd claims he has a mandate for an ETS when it won the election - because he has the numbers
(4) If Rudd think he has this mandate then go ahead and do it.
(5) But IF he was going to do it.....
(6) 7.32 - If we were in government we would not be doing what the Rudd government is doing
(7) We don't like it. We don't think it's economically helpful for the country


If you want to omit the above context - up to you.

In layman's term
(i) LIBs didn't like it
(ii) LIBs won't support it
(iii) LIBs can't stop you because you have the numbers
(iv) If Labor was going to do it - here's some friendly advice - make the tax simple.

Abbott was going on about it again today.

As soon as I hear either Abbott or Gillard's voice, I immediately have to turn off the radio or change the channel.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:31pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2013 at 7:49pm: Fair enough. Please explain why the statement is not as stupid as it appears. This interview was done July 2009 (1) He was promoting his book (2) This is before he took over the leadership from Turnbull (3) This is before he rolled Turnbull on the ETS At 7.04 - he was asked about the ETS His answers are as follows: (1) The Rudd government is set on this. (2) You can't save the country from the consequences of its vote (3) Rudd claims he has a mandate for an ETS when it won the election - because he has the numbers (4) If Rudd think he has this mandate then go ahead and do it. (5) But IF he was going to do it..... (6) 7.32 - If we were in government we would not be doing what the Rudd government is doing (7) We don't like it. We don't think it's economically helpful for the country If you want to omit the above context - up to you. In layman's term (i) LIBs didn't like it (ii) LIBs won't support it (iii) LIBs can't stop you because you have the numbers (iv) If Labor was going to do it - here's some friendly advice - make the tax simple.

Maqqa none of that makes this statement any more sensible. You seem incapable of getting past the first four words - "if you want to". We all realise those words are there. It is the bit that follows that is stupid, and it is still stupid when you preface them with "if you want to".



Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

skippy. wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:17pm: [quote]"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden."

freediver wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 10:05pm:

Maqqa none of that makes this statement any more sensible. You seem incapable of getting past the first four words - "if you want to". We all realise those words are there. It is the bit that follows that is stupid, and it is still stupid when you preface them with "if you want to".

Point 1
so in your humble opinion - you are only everything should be taken out of context and only focus on that part of a sentence within a 10 minutes interview that fits your political ideology

Is this the way way you prefer people to look at your posts? Just take any four words?


Point 2
It's actually not the first 4 words within the interview. It's half way through the interview


Point 3
It is you who can't get over the four words and look at the whole interview

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:21pm:

Abbott is right of course. A carbon tax is the best way. Shame his politics cannot reflect his principles. http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shift/green-tax-shift.html My bet is still that the coalition will win the next election and keep the carbon tax.

Yeah but he is saying he will get rid of it so will the "righties" get angry when he breaks his promise?

SOB

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 11:57pm:

you are only everything should be taken out of context and only focus on that part of a sentence within a 10 minutes interview that fits your political ideologyIs this the way way you prefer people to look at your posts? Just take any four words?

hillarious hypocrisy coming from the shmuck who has deliberately misquoted 'there will be no carbon tax' only about a million times in the last few years .....

John Smith wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 8:09am:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26th, 2013 at 11:57pm: you are only everything should be taken out of context and only focus on that part of a sentence within a 10 minutes interview that fits your political ideologyIs this the way way you prefer people to look at your posts? Just take any four words? hillarious hypocrisy coming from the shmuck who has deliberately misquoted 'there will be no carbon tax' only about a million times in the last few years .....

Yet you have no courage to post the exact interview and point out the lies you believe to be perpetrated by the right

Bobby. wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 7:22pm:

When Abbott wins the next election he'll disappear for a week while he goes over the books. He'll then tell us that: Quote: he was misinformed about the true position of the fiscal situation & he'll say: I will have to forgo many election promises because the government is broke & needs all the revenue it can raise. He will have to keep the carbon tax & the mining tax.

Didn't anyone read my Nostradamus prediction?

Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:12pm:

You morons on the left loves to bring out the phrase "but Abbott says the carbon tax is the best way" But no one on the left has enough courage to post the exact comments and discuss it. The same way with the Whyalla issue. This is why LIB supporters are a better bred of people than Leftards I have no issue in posting threads like this examining the leader of the Opposition. When was the last time anyone on the left did this? That said - here are sippets from what he said and the context to which he said it. He was putting out the idea and promoting his book and the same Turnbull was leader. If you want to assume that to be Party Policy then FU. He did this interview on 15 July 2009 and took over the leadership Dec 2009 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i5QXblcJAr4&feature=youtu.be Happy to discuss any point without abuse

To late.....you have already cast the first stone and shown you cannot uphold the very standards you request of others.....Very poor form indeed!!!

>:( >:( >:(

The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982), The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:31pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2013 at 7:49pm: Fair enough. Please explain why the statement is not as stupid as it appears. This interview was done July 2009 (1) He was promoting his book (2) This is before he took over the leadership from Turnbull (3) This is before he rolled Turnbull on the ETS At 7.04 - he was asked about the ETS His answers are as follows: (1) The Rudd government is set on this. (2) You can't save the country from the consequences of its vote (3) Rudd claims he has a mandate for an ETS when it won the election - because he has the numbers (4) If Rudd think he has this mandate then go ahead and do it. (5) But IF he was going to do it..... (6) 7.32 - If we were in government we would not be doing what the Rudd government is doing (7) We don't like it. We don't think it's economically helpful for the country If you want to omit the above context - up to you. In layman's term (i) LIBs didn't like it (ii) LIBs won't support it (iii) LIBs can't stop you because you have the numbers (iv) If Labor was going to do it - here's some friendly advice - make the tax simple.

(iv) If Labor was going to do it - here's some friendly advice - make the tax simple.

That is not what he said or any reasonable interpretation of it.

He said that if you want to put a price on carbon then why not a tax. What he clearly meant was that if you are going to do it then the best method is with a tax.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 26^th, 2013 at 9:31pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 26th, 2013 at 7:49pm: Fair enough. Please explain why the statement is not as stupid as it appears. This interview was done July 2009 (1) He was promoting his book Big deal (2) This is before he took over the leadership from Turnbull ???? who cares ???? (3) This is before he rolled Turnbull on the ETS At 7.04 - he was asked about the ETS His answers are as follows: (1) The Rudd government is set on this. So was the Howard Government who took the same virtual policy to the 2007 election and so was the Turnbull led opposition, it was the same policy that Tony Himself supported in the previous election campaign. (2) You can't save the country from the consequences of its vote Especially when a Liberal vote at the same election was going to result in virtually the same policy. (3) Rudd claims he has a mandate for an ETS when it won the election - because he has the numbers He was right, so would have Howard. (4) If Rudd think he has this mandate then go ahead and do it. He tried (5) But IF he was going to do it..... (6) 7.32 - If we were in government we would not be doing what the Rudd government is doing If they were in power Howard was the Leader and he was going to do it if re elected. (7) We don't like it. We don't think it's economically helpful for the country It is the same as the policy in the same term that they took to the electorate in 2007? If you want to omit the above context - up to you. .

Retrospective recontext you mean.

When Abbott said why not a carbon tax he was in a frenzy to oppose an ETS, his endorsement for a tax was only a political move opposing the ETS, nothing more - probably a throw away line.

Quote:

so in your humble opinion - you are only everything should be taken out of context and only focus on that part of a sentence within a 10 minutes interview that fits your political ideology

It looks like about 5 sentences to me Maqqa. They are stupid out of context. They are stupid in context. The context cannot rescue them from Abbott's stupidity. It is you who is focussing on half the first sentence.


Quote:

It is you who can't get over the four words and look at the whole interview

WTF? I am not sure how much clearer I can make this Maqqa. He is saying the sensible thing to do is to tax people then refund the tax at the end of the year. In what context is that not stupid? You seem afraid to comment on the elephant in the room, instead offering the same old empty headed criticisms you started with. You are barely even in the conversation you are so afraid of it.

Here it is again for you, seeing as you apparently haven't read your own quote:


Quote:

"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden."

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Quote: so in your humble opinion - you are only everything should be taken out of context and only focus on that part of a sentence within a 10 minutes interview that fits your political ideology It looks like about 5 sentences to me Maqqa. They are stupid out of context. They are stupid in context. The context cannot rescue them from Abbott's stupidity. It is you who is focussing on half the first sentence.

FFS freedive

5 sentence?

Tells me you haven't even watch the reference

Why do you guys ask for a reference when you don't bother to see/view it

If you are not going to watch the whole thing - then don't comment

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 8:02pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 7:14pm: Quote: so in your humble opinion - you are only everything should be taken out of context and only focus on that part of a sentence within a 10 minutes interview that fits your political ideology It looks like about 5 sentences to me Maqqa. They are stupid out of context. They are stupid in context. The context cannot rescue them from Abbott's stupidity. It is you who is focussing on half the first sentence. FFS freedive 5 sentence? Tells me you haven't even watch the reference Why do you guys ask for a reference when you don't bother to see/view it If you are not going to watch the whole thing - then don't comment

Are you really trying to say that Abbott did not recomend that if you are going to put a price on carbon then a tax is the best option?

He clearly did?

So he said it isn't what he would do - have a look at his plan - its very expensive rubbish and we all get to pay for it. I would still go for the fixed price as the best option - Abbott was right.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 8:02pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 7:14pm: Quote: so in your humble opinion - you are only everything should be taken out of context and only focus on that part of a sentence within a 10 minutes interview that fits your political ideology It looks like about 5 sentences to me Maqqa. They are stupid out of context. They are stupid in context. The context cannot rescue them from Abbott's stupidity. It is you who is focussing on half the first sentence. FFS freedive 5 sentence? Tells me you haven't even watch the reference Why do you guys ask for a reference when you don't bother to see/view it If you are not going to watch the whole thing - then don't comment

Still Maqqa keeps replying, but without any indication he has even read what I posted. Just trying to dance around the elephant in the room perhaps.

Here it is again for you Maqqa - pretty stupid of Abbott to say this don't you think? And thanks again for highlighting Abbott's stupidity for us.


Quote:

"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden."

Or perhaps Maqqa actually agrees with Abbott that it would be sensible for the government to charge a tax and then refund it all at the end of the year. Maybe he is a tax accountant....

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 9:56pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 8:02pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 7:14pm: Quote: so in your humble opinion - you are only everything should be taken out of context and only focus on that part of a sentence within a 10 minutes interview that fits your political ideology It looks like about 5 sentences to me Maqqa. They are stupid out of context. They are stupid in context. The context cannot rescue them from Abbott's stupidity. It is you who is focussing on half the first sentence. FFS freedive 5 sentence? Tells me you haven't even watch the reference Why do you guys ask for a reference when you don't bother to see/view it If you are not going to watch the whole thing - then don't comment Still Maqqa keeps replying, but without any indication he has even read what I posted. Just trying to dance around the elephant in the room perhaps. Here it is again for you Maqqa - pretty stupid of Abbott to say this don't you think? And thanks again for highlighting Abbott's stupidity for us. [quote]"If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden."

Or perhaps Maqqa actually agrees with Abbott that it would be sensible for the government to charge a tax and then refund it all at the end of the year. Maybe he is a tax accountant....[/quote]

Abbott has painted himself into a corner.....How the hell will Abbott ever find the revenue to fund anything now that he has promised no new taxes and to abolish revenue raising policies.....Abbott has not thought past the next election date!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:13pm:

Abbott has painted himself into a corner.....How the hell will Abbott ever find the revenue to fund anything now that he has promised no new taxes and to abolish revenue raising policies.....Abbott has not thought past the next election date!!! ::) ::) ::)

So you agree it's not about the environment phil?

Here's a thought Maqqa - maybe the carbon tax is about both carbon and tax....

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:21pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:13pm: Abbott has painted himself into a corner.....How the hell will Abbott ever find the revenue to fund anything now that he has promised no new taxes and to abolish revenue raising policies.....Abbott has not thought past the next election date!!! ::) ::) ::) So you agree it's not about the environment phil?

The ETS will raise revenue and fund the ALP clean energy policy Macca.....The mining tax will also raise revenue now that commodity prices have recovered from the lows of last year.....So it is not only about the environment it is also about funding very expensive policies to reduce carbon emissions.....The money must come from somewhere???

The Coalitions Direct Action policy is funded from consolidated revenue that is already stretched and the policy simply will not work!!!

There is no choice between the two policies when it comes to achieving our emissions targets!!!

8-) 8-) 8-)

freediver wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:49pm:

Here's a thought Maqqa - maybe the carbon tax is about both carbon and tax....

Geez

I've only been saying this since 2007

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:51pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:49pm: Here's a thought Maqqa - maybe the carbon tax is about both carbon and tax.... Geez I've only been saying this since 2007

no you haven't ... you've been claiming it's about the tax ......

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:50pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:21pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:13pm: Abbott has painted himself into a corner.....How the hell will Abbott ever find the revenue to fund anything now that he has promised no new taxes and to abolish revenue raising policies.....Abbott has not thought past the next election date!!! ::) ::) ::) So you agree it's not about the environment phil? The ETS will raise revenue and fund the ALP clean energy policy Macca.....The mining tax will also raise revenue now that commodity prices have recovered from the lows of last year.....So it is not only about the environment it is also about funding very expensive policies to reduce carbon emissions.....The money must come from somewhere??? The Coalitions Direct Action policy is funded from consolidated revenue that is already stretched and the policy simply will not work!!! There is no choice between the two policies when it comes to achieving our emissions targets!!! 8-) 8-) 8-)

and what observable changes will it make in the environment if China and India is dumping more into the environment that we are cutting?

the carbon we hope to cut by 2020 is what China dumps into the atmosphere every 12 days

John Smith wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:53pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:51pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:49pm: Here's a thought Maqqa - maybe the carbon tax is about both carbon and tax.... Geez I've only been saying this since 2007 no you haven't ... you've been claiming it's about the tax ......

hush little one....the adults are talking

we are having a tax on carbon or direct action plan is because your moronic Rudd decided to ratify Kyoto

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:50pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:21pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:13pm: Abbott has painted himself into a corner.....How the hell will Abbott ever find the revenue to fund anything now that he has promised no new taxes and to abolish revenue raising policies.....Abbott has not thought past the next election date!!! ::) ::) ::) So you agree it's not about the environment phil? The ETS will raise revenue and fund the ALP clean energy policy Macca.....The mining tax will also raise revenue now that commodity prices have recovered from the lows of last year.....So it is not only about the environment it is also about funding very expensive policies to reduce carbon emissions.....The money must come from somewhere??? The Coalitions Direct Action policy is funded from consolidated revenue that is already stretched and the policy simply will not work!!! There is no choice between the two policies when it comes to achieving our emissions targets!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) and what observable changes will it make in the environment if China and India is dumping more into the environment that we are cutting? the carbon we hope to cut by 2020 is what China dumps into the atmosphere every 12 days

so why waste taxpayer dollars on tree planting and other ponzy schemes that Abbott has cooked up? You cannot have it both ways.

John Smith wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:54pm:

so why waste taxpayer dollars on tree planting and other ponzy schemes that Abbott has cooked up? You cannot have it both ways.

because we have to reduce the impact of the Kyoto penalty that Rudd agreed to when he ratified Kyoto

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:53pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:51pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:49pm: Here's a thought Maqqa - maybe the carbon tax is about both carbon and tax.... Geez I've only been saying this since 2007 no you haven't ... you've been claiming it's about the tax ...... hush little one....the adults are talking we are having a tax on carbon or direct action plan is because your moronic Rudd decided to ratify Kyoto

by the time adults get to your age, they revert back to childhood .... maybe you should leave the thinking to those who don't suffer from senility !!!!

John Smith wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:56pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:54pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:53pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:51pm: freediver wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:49pm: Here's a thought Maqqa - maybe the carbon tax is about both carbon and tax.... Geez I've only been saying this since 2007 no you haven't ... you've been claiming it's about the tax ...... hush little one....the adults are talking we are having a tax on carbon or direct action plan is because your moronic Rudd decided to ratify Kyoto by the time adults get to your age, they revert back to childhood .... maybe you should leave the thinking to those who don't suffer from senility !!!!

adult has nothing to do with age

Swan, Gillard et al are all advanced in age but they are morons

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:54pm: so why waste taxpayer dollars on tree planting and other ponzy schemes that Abbott has cooked up? You cannot have it both ways. because we have to reduce the impact of the Kyoto penalty that Rudd agreed to when he ratified Kyoto

what a bullsh it excuse ...

he doesn't seem concerned about the asylum seeker treaty australia signed up too? He doesn't seem to care about any rules if they are in his way, why let this one stop him? He could easily pull out of it if he wanted to.

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:50pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:21pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:13pm: Abbott has painted himself into a corner.....How the hell will Abbott ever find the revenue to fund anything now that he has promised no new taxes and to abolish revenue raising policies.....Abbott has not thought past the next election date!!! ::) ::) ::) So you agree it's not about the environment phil? The ETS will raise revenue and fund the ALP clean energy policy Macca.....The mining tax will also raise revenue now that commodity prices have recovered from the lows of last year.....So it is not only about the environment it is also about funding very expensive policies to reduce carbon emissions.....The money must come from somewhere??? The Coalitions Direct Action policy is funded from consolidated revenue that is already stretched and the policy simply will not work!!! There is no choice between the two policies when it comes to achieving our emissions targets!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) and what observable changes will it make in the environment if China and India is dumping more into the environment that we are cutting? the carbon we hope to cut by 2020 is what China dumps into the atmosphere every 12 days

The issue is about which policy is best to reduce Australia's emissions by 5% on 2000 levels......The Coalitions policy is an insult to any self respecting Australian who takes the environment seriously.....I personally do not let my opinions or politics be determined by the Chinese or Indians Macca.....I care about our planet man!!!

8-) 8-) 8-)

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:58pm:

adult has nothing to do with age

so in your opinion, my 3 yr old can be classified as an adult?

he's certainly smarter than you ....

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:55pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:54pm: so why waste taxpayer dollars on tree planting and other ponzy schemes that Abbott has cooked up? You cannot have it both ways. because we have to reduce the impact of the Kyoto penalty that Rudd agreed to when he ratified Kyoto

Yes but Abbott agreed it was the right thing to do along with the apology to the stolen generation.....Your opinion has no political support in this country Macca.....Perhaps you should consider moving to China???

;) ;) ;)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 10:59pm:

The issue is about which policy is best to reduce Australia's emissions by 5% on 2000 levels......The Coalitions policy is an insult to any self respecting Australian who takes the environment seriously.....I personally do not let my opinions or politics be determined by the Chinese or Indians Macca.....I care about our planet man!!! 8-) 8-) 8-)

(1) We have to even consider it because Rudd ratified up to the Kyoto penalties
(2) The Kyoto penalty is 30% fine
(3) 5% of 1.3%

You can't blame the Opposition for having a bad solution to a problem you created and ignore the fact that you created the problem

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:59pm: The issue is about which policy is best to reduce Australia's emissions by 5% on 2000 levels......The Coalitions policy is an insult to any self respecting Australian who takes the environment seriously.....I personally do not let my opinions or politics be determined by the Chinese or Indians Macca.....I care about our planet man!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) (1) We have to even consider it because Rudd ratified up to the Kyoto penalties (2) The Kyoto penalty is 30% fine (3) 5% of 1.3% You can't blame the Opposition for having a bad solution to a problem you created and ignore the fact that you created the problem

then use a good solution ... even Tony previously admitted a carbon tax is the best way to go ....

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:55pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:54pm: so why waste taxpayer dollars on tree planting and other ponzy schemes that Abbott has cooked up? You cannot have it both ways. because we have to reduce the impact of the Kyoto penalty that Rudd agreed to when he ratified Kyoto Yes but Abbott agreed it was the right thing to do along with the apology to the stolen generation.....Your opinion has no political support in this country Macca.....Perhaps you should consider moving to China??? ;) ;) ;)

Read the WHOLE transcript rather than grab the sound byte that Labor wants you to listen to. He said they lost the election based on those things therefore if they wanted to win the election then they should have done things differently.

Why would I want my opinion have political support?

Right is right.

John Smith wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:05pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:03pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:59pm: The issue is about which policy is best to reduce Australia's emissions by 5% on 2000 levels......The Coalitions policy is an insult to any self respecting Australian who takes the environment seriously.....I personally do not let my opinions or politics be determined by the Chinese or Indians Macca.....I care about our planet man!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) (1) We have to even consider it because Rudd ratified up to the Kyoto penalties (2) The Kyoto penalty is 30% fine (3) 5% of 1.3% You can't blame the Opposition for having a bad solution to a problem you created and ignore the fact that you created the problem then use a good solution ... even Tony previously admitted a carbon tax is the best way to go ....

then admit you created the problem

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:59pm: The issue is about which policy is best to reduce Australia's emissions by 5% on 2000 levels......The Coalitions policy is an insult to any self respecting Australian who takes the environment seriously.....I personally do not let my opinions or politics be determined by the Chinese or Indians Macca.....I care about our planet man!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) (1) We have to even consider it because Rudd ratified up to the Kyoto penalties (2) The Kyoto penalty is 30% fine (3) 5% of 1.3% You can't blame the Opposition for having a bad solution to a problem you created and ignore the fact that you created the problem

Are you blaming Kevin Rudd for Climate Change Macca.....I know he is full of hot air and self promotion but I think that is stretching it a little???

:-? :-? :-?

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:05pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:03pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:59pm: The issue is about which policy is best to reduce Australia's emissions by 5% on 2000 levels......The Coalitions policy is an insult to any self respecting Australian who takes the environment seriously.....I personally do not let my opinions or politics be determined by the Chinese or Indians Macca.....I care about our planet man!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) (1) We have to even consider it because Rudd ratified up to the Kyoto penalties (2) The Kyoto penalty is 30% fine (3) 5% of 1.3% You can't blame the Opposition for having a bad solution to a problem you created and ignore the fact that you created the problem then use a good solution ... even Tony previously admitted a carbon tax is the best way to go .... then admit you created the problem

No problem  ...I'll admit I'm just as guilty of recklessly emitting carbon as every other Australian ... happy.

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:03pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:59pm: The issue is about which policy is best to reduce Australia's emissions by 5% on 2000 levels......The Coalitions policy is an insult to any self respecting Australian who takes the environment seriously.....I personally do not let my opinions or politics be determined by the Chinese or Indians Macca.....I care about our planet man!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) (1) We have to even consider it because Rudd ratified up to the Kyoto penalties (2) The Kyoto penalty is 30% fine (3) 5% of 1.3% You can't blame the Opposition for having a bad solution to a problem you created and ignore the fact that you created the problem Are you blaming Kevin Rudd for Climate Change Macca.....I know he is full of hot air and self promotion but I think that is stretching it a little??? :-? :-? :-?

Where did I say that?

I was very specific - go back and read it. I've highlight the response in blue

John Smith wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:12pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:07pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:05pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:03pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:59pm: The issue is about which policy is best to reduce Australia's emissions by 5% on 2000 levels......The Coalitions policy is an insult to any self respecting Australian who takes the environment seriously.....I personally do not let my opinions or politics be determined by the Chinese or Indians Macca.....I care about our planet man!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) (1) We have to even consider it because Rudd ratified up to the Kyoto penalties (2) The Kyoto penalty is 30% fine (3) 5% of 1.3% You can't blame the Opposition for having a bad solution to a problem you created and ignore the fact that you created the problem then use a good solution ... even Tony previously admitted a carbon tax is the best way to go .... then admit you created the problem No problem  ...I'll admit I'm just as guilty of recklessly emitting carbon as every other Australian ... happy.

you are as stupid as phil is - and I am being civil here

read the part in blue

The difference between me as opposed to you and Abbott is Macca.....

1. I believe in Climate Change
2. I believe in a free market mechanism to drive innovation and change
3. The Coalitions policy relies on unproven technology of storing carbon in soil
4. This unproven technology of storing carbon in soil accounts for 60% of the Coalitions reductions
5. Storing carbon in soil is not counted in the protocol
6. The Coalitions policy simply will not work
7. Tony Abbott thinks Climate Change is CRAP and his policy reflects that position because it is also CRAP

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:25pm:

The difference between me as opposed to you and Abbott is Macca..... 1. I believe in Climate Change 2. I believe in a free market mechanism to drive innovation and change 3. The Coalitions policy relies on unproven technology of storing carbon in soil 4. This unproven technology of storing carbon in soil accounts for 60% of the Coalitions reductions 5. Storing carbon in soil is not counted in the protocol 6. The Coalitions policy simply will not work 7. Tony Abbott thinks Climate Change is CRAP and his policy reflects that position because it is also CRAP ::) ::) ::)

Nice 2nd attempt at diverting and not address the point about Rudd ratifying Kyoto which condemns Australians to the Kyoto penalty

Seems that no one on the left is prepared to or has the courage to admit there is a penalty - and that penalty is only effective if you ratify

your first attempt was saying that I think Rudd is responsible for climate change

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:30pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:25pm: The difference between me as opposed to you and Abbott is Macca..... 1. I believe in Climate Change 2. I believe in a free market mechanism to drive innovation and change 3. The Coalitions policy relies on unproven technology of storing carbon in soil 4. This unproven technology of storing carbon in soil accounts for 60% of the Coalitions reductions 5. Storing carbon in soil is not counted in the protocol 6. The Coalitions policy simply will not work 7. Tony Abbott thinks Climate Change is CRAP and his policy reflects that position because it is also CRAP ::) ::) ::) Nice 2nd attempt at diverting and not address the point about Rudd ratifying Kyoto which condemns Australians to the Kyoto penalty Seems that no one on the left is prepared to or has the courage to admit there is a penalty - and that penalty is only effective if you ratify your first attempt was saying that I think Rudd is responsible for climate change

Point #1 Macca

1. I believe in Climate Change

Hence I believe ratifying Kyoto the right thing to do.....It is one of the only things I agree with Tony Abbott on!!!

:) :) :)

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:48pm:

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:30pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:25pm: The difference between me as opposed to you and Abbott is Macca..... 1. I believe in Climate Change 2. I believe in a free market mechanism to drive innovation and change 3. The Coalitions policy relies on unproven technology of storing carbon in soil 4. This unproven technology of storing carbon in soil accounts for 60% of the Coalitions reductions 5. Storing carbon in soil is not counted in the protocol 6. The Coalitions policy simply will not work 7. Tony Abbott thinks Climate Change is CRAP and his policy reflects that position because it is also CRAP ::) ::) ::) Nice 2nd attempt at diverting and not address the point about Rudd ratifying Kyoto which condemns Australians to the Kyoto penalty Seems that no one on the left is prepared to or has the courage to admit there is a penalty - and that penalty is only effective if you ratify your first attempt was saying that I think Rudd is responsible for climate change Point #1 Macca 1. I believe in Climate Change Hence I believe ratifying Kyoto the right thing to do.....It is one of the only things I agree with Tony Abbott on!!! :) :) :)

Therefore the ratification created the penalty which forces us to look at ways to pay the penalty or reduce its impact

If you still don't have the courage to look at the Abbott's comments in context

or ignore that ratification is about reducing 5% of 1.5%

then that's your limitation

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:53pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:48pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:30pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:25pm: The difference between me as opposed to you and Abbott is Macca..... 1. I believe in Climate Change 2. I believe in a free market mechanism to drive innovation and change 3. The Coalitions policy relies on unproven technology of storing carbon in soil 4. This unproven technology of storing carbon in soil accounts for 60% of the Coalitions reductions 5. Storing carbon in soil is not counted in the protocol 6. The Coalitions policy simply will not work 7. Tony Abbott thinks Climate Change is CRAP and his policy reflects that position because it is also CRAP ::) ::) ::) Nice 2nd attempt at diverting and not address the point about Rudd ratifying Kyoto which condemns Australians to the Kyoto penalty Seems that no one on the left is prepared to or has the courage to admit there is a penalty - and that penalty is only effective if you ratify your first attempt was saying that I think Rudd is responsible for climate change Point #1 Macca 1. I believe in Climate Change Hence I believe ratifying Kyoto the right thing to do.....It is one of the only things I agree with Tony Abbott on!!! :) :) :) Therefore the ratification created the penalty which forces us to look at ways to pay the penalty or reduce its impact If you still don't have the courage to look at the Abbott's comments in context or ignore that ratification is about reducing 5% of 1.5% then that's your limitation

I do not really give a stuff if Abbott believes in a carbon tax or not Macca....My guess is he has NFI.....A market based mechanism is the best policy and Abbott's Direct Action policy is crap.....End of the debate really!!!

::) ::) ::)

Maqqa wrote on Feb 27^th, 2013 at 11:20pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:12pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:07pm: John Smith wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:05pm: Maqqa wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 11:03pm: philperth2010 wrote on Feb 27th, 2013 at 10:59pm: The issue is about which policy is best to reduce Australia's emissions by 5% on 2000 levels......The Coalitions policy is an insult to any self respecting Australian who takes the environment seriously.....I personally do not let my opinions or politics be determined by the Chinese or Indians Macca.....I care about our planet man!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) (1) We have to even consider it because Rudd ratified up to the Kyoto penalties (2) The Kyoto penalty is 30% fine (3) 5% of 1.3% You can't blame the Opposition for having a bad solution to a problem you created and ignore the fact that you created the problem then use a good solution ... even Tony previously admitted a carbon tax is the best way to go .... then admit you created the problem No problem  ...I'll admit I'm just as guilty of recklessly emitting carbon as every other Australian ... happy. you are as stupid as phil is - and I am being civil here read the part in blue

your the one being stupid ... if Abbott pulls out there are no penalties ... they can set whatever targets they like as a penalty ... It's up to Australia if it wants to play along.

Maqqa do you agree with Abbott that the best way to put a price on something is to put a price on it, then give people their money back after they wait 6 months and do all the paperwork?

freediver wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 9:55pm:

Maqqa do you agree with Abbott that the best way to put a price on something is to put a price on it, then give people their money back after they wait 6 months and do all the paperwork?

In reference to the interview - your question is incorrect contextually therefore there is no answer to you question.

If you want to quote him from the interview - reference the exact time within that interview and the statement he made at the time and I'll answer it.

Otherwise you question is nonsense because it does not accurately reflect what was said

John Smith wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 8:30am:

your the one being stupid ... if Abbott pulls out there are no penalties ... they can set whatever targets they like as a penalty ... It's up to Australia if it wants to play along.

why would he want to?

you voted in Rudd to ratify it - why would Abbott want to now withdraw from it?

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 28^th, 2013 at 12:00am:

I do not really give a stuff if Abbott believes in a carbon tax or not Macca....My guess is he has NFI.....A market based mechanism is the best policy and Abbott's Direct Action policy is crap.....End of the debate really!!! ::) ::) ::)

if you don't give a stuff then don't raise the issue

Abbott's plan is there to fix the Labor mistake

Apparently according to the conservatives when Abbott said that" If you want to price carbon then why not a carbon tax...... pay at the bowser,,,, electricity billls etc"

It had absolutely no meaning.

He didn't really mean that if you want to price carbon then why not a carbon tax at all.

Unbelievable

Dnarever wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 11:49pm:

Apparently according to the conservatives when Abbott said that" If you want to price carbon then why not a carbon tax...... pay at the bowser,,,, electricity billls etc" It had absolutely no meaning. He didn't really mean that if you want to price carbon then why not a carbon tax at all. Unbelievable

because you only listened to what you want to hear that fits your bias

Maqqa wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 11:54pm:

Dnarever wrote on Mar 1st, 2013 at 11:49pm: Apparently according to the conservatives when Abbott said that" If you want to price carbon then why not a carbon tax...... pay at the bowser,,,, electricity billls etc" It had absolutely no meaning. He didn't really mean that if you want to price carbon then why not a carbon tax at all. Unbelievable because you only listened to what you want to hear that fits your bias

And You are any different.

In that case what did his statment about why not a carbon tax mean????

Looking at the excuses on this thread the statment had no meaning it is like he said nothing or something else.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 1^st, 2013 at 11:45pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 28th, 2013 at 8:30am: your the one being stupid ... if Abbott pulls out there are no penalties ... they can set whatever targets they like as a penalty ... It's up to Australia if it wants to play along. why would he want to? you voted in Rudd to ratify it - why would Abbott want to now withdraw from it?

then don't try to use it for an excuse .... either he agree's with it, or he doesn't ....

"Let me tell you something, yeah sure we all have to do something on climate change. We need to leave the world a better place, I think everyone in the house agrees on that one.

Tell you what though, I'll be God-damned if the United States is going to be left picking up the check for China and the rest of the world's pollution. 'Cos thats what all these Treaties want"

Steven Palazzo, US Congress
(Republican, Mississippi)

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:17am:

"Let me tell you something, yeah sure we all have to do something on climate change. We need to leave the world a better place, I think everyone in the house agrees on that one. Tell you what though, I'll be God-damned if the United States is going to be left picking up the check for China and the rest of the world's pollution. 'Cos thats what all these Treaties want" Steven Palazzo, US Congress (Republican, Mississippi)

The USA is doing it state by state which is how they tend to do things over there.
As usual California and the wealthy North Eastern states are leading the way with the poor hick states doing their usual nothing about anything.
We all know that federally the USA with its "states rights" issues is very different from all other western democracies.
Ive spent some time in MS on cycling trips and although like most of the south its a beautiful place its also years behind the rest of the USA

Mississippi and Alabama - which is home to a the carbon intensive Gulf of Mexico refining processes - has not a single programme in place state-wide to handle carbon emissions.

The problem in some ways is that they see the rest of the world getting away with murder but demanding the US pay for it.

I can tell you thats how people see it here.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:35am:

Mississippi and Alabama - which is home to a the carbon intensive Gulf of Mexico refining processes - has not a single programme in place state-wide to handle carbon emissions. The problem in some ways is that they see the rest of the world getting away with murder but demanding the US pay for it. I can tell you thats how people see it here.

AL and MS...home of the tattooed and toothless..lets not use them as shining examples of how we should run anything.

Quote:

The problem in some ways is that they see the rest of the world getting away with murder but demanding the US pay for it. I can tell you thats how people see it here.

That's how a lot of people see it here too - hence all the insistance that China is a really big country, they they should do everything and we should do nothing.


Quote:

In reference to the interview - your question is incorrect contextually therefore there is no answer to you question.

LOL, spoken like the slipperiest of politicians. What else would I expect from Maqqa?


Quote:

If you want to quote him from the interview - reference the exact time within that interview and the statement he made at the time and I'll answer it.

You mean like I already did a dozen times in this thread, only to watch you dance around the elephant in the room? It was your quote that I am using Maqqa. You seemed to think it would help his case, but it just makes him look like a complete idiot.


Quote:

Otherwise you question is nonsense because it does not accurately reflect what was said

Can you offer an alternative explanation that does not make Abbott look like a fool?

Here you go Maqqa, lets see if you can dream up another way to dodge this:


Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden."

Pretty stupid don't you think? Or do you agree with Abbott?

I agree with Tony...a simple tax on carbon is the best way to go.

adelcrow wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:57am:

I agree with Tony...a simple tax on carbon is the best way to go.

I don't agree, I think a fixed price on Carbon is a better option.

All of Tony's ideas have one thing in common, we pay to subsidise the potluters who will benifit more if they can polute more.

Quote:

I don't agree, I think a fixed price on Carbon is a better option.

What's the difference between that and a tax?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 9:35am:

Mississippi and Alabama - which is home to a the carbon intensive Gulf of Mexico refining processes - has not a single programme in place state-wide to handle carbon emissions. The problem in some ways is that they see the rest of the world getting away with murder but demanding the US pay for it. I can tell you thats how people see it here.

The problem in some ways is that they see the rest of the world getting away with murder

Now that want to start shooting people because they get away with it in China?

Maqqa? Come dance around the elephant in the room a bit more for us....

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 4:33pm:

Maqqa? Come dance around the elephant in the room a bit more for us....

Maqqas all for pumping more and more pollution onto our land and into our oceans, waterways and atmosphere but it would be nice to know why.

Dnarever wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 10:08am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 9:35am: Mississippi and Alabama - which is home to a the carbon intensive Gulf of Mexico refining processes - has not a single programme in place state-wide to handle carbon emissions. The problem in some ways is that they see the rest of the world getting away with murder but demanding the US pay for it. I can tell you thats how people see it here. The problem in some ways is that they see the rest of the world getting away with murder Now they want to start shooting people because they get away with it in China?

freediver wrote on Mar 2^nd, 2013 at 10:05am:

Quote: I don't agree, I think a fixed price on Carbon is a better option. What's the difference between that and a tax?

The difference is context

Maqqa wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 5:53pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 2nd, 2013 at 10:05am: Quote: I don't agree, I think a fixed price on Carbon is a better option. What's the difference between that and a tax? The difference is context

A price on carbon, as Gillard promised us before the last election and subsequently delivered, just as promised - is only paid for by the large emitters.

However, a "carbon tax" as Tony proposes with his "Direct Action" scheme will be paid to the big emitters and paid for by ALL tax payers.

Personally, I think a market-based users-pays model is better than a Big Government solution where the government taxes everybody to pay the big emitters.  But I suppose the Communists will be happy with Tony's plan.

Nice dancing Maqqa.

Rabbit, a carbon tax is a type of price on carbon - the other common type being a trading scheme.


Quote:

However, a "carbon tax" as Tony proposes with his "Direct Action" scheme will be paid to the big emitters and paid for by ALL tax payers.

No idea what you are talking about here. If it was Abbot talking about a carbon tax he probably has it deliberately backwards.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 6:27pm:

Nice dancing Maqqa. Rabbit, a carbon tax is a type of price on carbon - the other common type being a trading scheme. Quote: However, a "carbon tax" as Tony proposes with his "Direct Action" scheme will be paid to the big emitters and paid for by ALL tax payers. No idea what you are talking about here. If it was Abbot talking about a carbon tax he probably has it deliberately backwards.

Abbott proposes a GREAT BIG TAX on carbon. 

Except he calls it "Direct Action" so he doesn't have to use the "T" word.

the Coalition plans to tackle carbon emissions by paying industry to pollute less, through an Emissions Reduction Fund. As the Direct Action policy document states:

The Fund will commence operation in 2011-12 with an initial allocation of $300 million, increasing to $500 million in 2012-13, $750 million in 2013-14 and $1 billion by 2014-15. It is envisaged that the Fund will invest an annual average of around $1.2 billion in direct CO2 emissions reduction activities through to 2020.

The Coalition will also spend another billion or so on policies such as its $400 million "one million solar roofs" program.

Totalling those numbers up gives a total spend of $9.22 billion out to 2020.

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html

9.2 billion straight from the tax payer.

A GREAT BIG TAX.

He uses direct action because that is the appropriate term for what he currently proposes. It would be absurdly confusing if he (or anyone else) were to start referring to that as a carbon tax.

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:19pm:

He uses direct action because that is the appropriate term for what he currently proposes. It would be absurdly confusing if he (or anyone else) were to start referring to that as a carbon tax.

He's using direct action because it's the best way to fix the Kyoto mess Rudd got us into

Maqqa wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: He uses direct action because that is the appropriate term for what he currently proposes. It would be absurdly confusing if he (or anyone else) were to start referring to that as a carbon tax. He's using direct action because it's the best way to fix the Kyoto mess Rudd got us into

Abbot seems to disagree with you:

Abbott : "A tax on carbon is the simplest, fairest and cheapest way of combating carbon pollution and the coalition would give it some serious thought if we win the next election"

Maqqa, you still haven't said whether you agree with Abbott that it would be a great idea to tax people then give all the money back at the end of the year provided all the paperwork is in order. What do you think of that idea? Do you agree with Abbott that it would not be a burden?

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:43pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 7:39pm: freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: He uses direct action because that is the appropriate term for what he currently proposes. It would be absurdly confusing if he (or anyone else) were to start referring to that as a carbon tax. He's using direct action because it's the best way to fix the Kyoto mess Rudd got us into Abbot seems to disagree with you: Abbott : "A tax on carbon is the simplest, fairest and cheapest way of combating carbon pollution and the coalition would give it some serious thought if we win the next election" Maqqa, you still haven't said whether you agree with Abbott that it would be a great idea to tax people then give all the money back at the end of the year provided all the paperwork is in order. What do you think of that idea? Do you agree with Abbott that it would not be a burden?

If you don't give reference and context then you can get stuffed freediver

Maqqa, you still haven't said whether you agree with Abbott that it would be a great idea to tax people then give all the money back at the end of the year provided all the paperwork is in order. What do you think of that idea? Do you agree with Abbott that it would not be a burden?

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 8:36pm:

Maqqa, you still haven't said whether you agree with Abbott that it would be a great idea to tax people then give all the money back at the end of the year provided all the paperwork is in order. What do you think of that idea? Do you agree with Abbott that it would not be a burden?

Only in context of the Abbott's whole interview I posted at the beginning of this thread

Maqqa wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 7:39pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: He uses direct action because that is the appropriate term for what he currently proposes. It would be absurdly confusing if he (or anyone else) were to start referring to that as a carbon tax. He's using direct action because it's the best way to fix the Kyoto mess Rudd got us into

Tony Abbott's carbon plan more expensive

TONY Abbott's direct action plan to reduce pollution would be more expensive than a carbon tax and emissions trading scheme, Treasury estimates show.

The Coalition policy, which includes planting trees and giving solar panel rebates to a million homes, could cost the equivalent of having a $62 a tonne carbon price by 2020, the modelling says.

A summary of the Coalition policy's economic and fiscal impacts has been released on Treasury's website via Freedom of Information.

The government has seized on the modelling, saying it meant Mr Abbott's policy would lead to a $48billion hit on the Budget by 2020.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/tony-abbotts-carbon-plan-more-expensive/story-fn7x8me2-1226128360196#sthash.zkGc9tCU.dpuf

Why do you want Tony's GREAT BIG TAX?

Why do you want your tax money to go to paying the large emitters?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 8:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 7:39pm: freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: He uses direct action because that is the appropriate term for what he currently proposes. It would be absurdly confusing if he (or anyone else) were to start referring to that as a carbon tax. He's using direct action because it's the best way to fix the Kyoto mess Rudd got us into Tony Abbott's carbon plan more expensive TONY Abbott's direct action plan to reduce pollution would be more expensive than a carbon tax and emissions trading scheme, Treasury estimates show. The Coalition policy, which includes planting trees and giving solar panel rebates to a million homes, could cost the equivalent of having a $62 a tonne carbon price by 2020, the modelling says. A summary of the Coalition policy's economic and fiscal impacts has been released on Treasury's website via Freedom of Information. The government has seized on the modelling, saying it meant Mr Abbott's policy would lead to a $48billion hit on the Budget by 2020. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/tony-abbotts-carbon-plan-more-expensive/story-fn7x8me2-1226128360196#sthash.zkGc9tCU.dpuf Why do you want Tony's GREAT BIG TAX? Why do you want your tax money to go to paying the large emitters?

So what!!

The plan is there to fix Labor's mistake when it ratified Kyoto

Maqqa wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 8:43pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 8:36pm: Maqqa, you still haven't said whether you agree with Abbott that it would be a great idea to tax people then give all the money back at the end of the year provided all the paperwork is in order. What do you think of that idea? Do you agree with Abbott that it would not be a burden? Only in context of the Abbott's whole interview I posted at the beginning of this thread

Interesting. Can you explain how the context makes his remarks any less stupid?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 9:05pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 8:57pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 7:39pm: freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 7:19pm: He uses direct action because that is the appropriate term for what he currently proposes. It would be absurdly confusing if he (or anyone else) were to start referring to that as a carbon tax. He's using direct action because it's the best way to fix the Kyoto mess Rudd got us into Tony Abbott's carbon plan more expensive TONY Abbott's direct action plan to reduce pollution would be more expensive than a carbon tax and emissions trading scheme, Treasury estimates show. The Coalition policy, which includes planting trees and giving solar panel rebates to a million homes, could cost the equivalent of having a $62 a tonne carbon price by 2020, the modelling says. A summary of the Coalition policy's economic and fiscal impacts has been released on Treasury's website via Freedom of Information. The government has seized on the modelling, saying it meant Mr Abbott's policy would lead to a $48billion hit on the Budget by 2020. http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/tony-abbotts-carbon-plan-more-expensive/story-fn7x8me2-1226128360196#sthash.zkGc9tCU.dpuf Why do you want Tony's GREAT BIG TAX? Why do you want your tax money to go to paying the large emitters? So what!! The plan is there to fix Labor's mistake when it ratified Kyoto

How was ratifying Kyoto a "mistake"

Do you trying to deny that anthropogenic global warming is a problem?

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 9:35pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 8:43pm: freediver wrote on Mar 3rd, 2013 at 8:36pm: Maqqa, you still haven't said whether you agree with Abbott that it would be a great idea to tax people then give all the money back at the end of the year provided all the paperwork is in order. What do you think of that idea? Do you agree with Abbott that it would not be a burden? Only in context of the Abbott's whole interview I posted at the beginning of this thread Interesting. Can you explain how the context makes his remarks any less stupid?

Asking that question makes you look even worse than him - in context

You don't understand the question do you Maqqa?

freediver wrote on Mar 3^rd, 2013 at 8:36pm:

Maqqa, you still haven't said whether you agree with Abbott that it would be a great idea to tax people then give all the money back at the end of the year provided all the paperwork is in order. What do you think of that idea? Do you agree with Abbott that it would not be a burden?

Is that with having a new tax? If it is, then it cant be answered as Abbott wouldn't go with a new tax, but labor would. So if you are going to have an ETS or carbon tax, both new taxes, then I would agree with Abbott.

But thank goodness Abbott is not going to have either.

Gillards track record of the climate change. Doesnt give much confidence in her to use the carbon tax well.

http://www.kellyodwyer.com.au/assets/12-10-18-Labors-top-20-climate-change-bungles.pdf

Progs this is what Abbott actually said. Do you agree with him that it would be a good idea? And that it would not increase the burden in any way, yet still actually increase the price?


Maqqa wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2013 at 3:25pm:

Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation

Maqqa actually posted that in defense of Abbott on the first page of this thread, but did not appear to realise how stupid it actually is until I pointed it out to him. Since then he has been having trouble understanding the question. He claims to agree with it, but only in context, and cannot say how the context changes the meaning to something that is not stupid.

freediver wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 10:22pm:

Progs this is what Abbott actually said. Do you agree with him that it would be a good idea? And that it would not increase the burden in any way, yet still actually increase the price? Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation Maqqa actually posted that in defense of Abbott on the first page of this thread, but did not appear to realise how stupid it actually is until I pointed it out to him. Since then he has been having trouble understanding the question. He claims to agree with it, but only in context, and cannot say how the context changes the meaning to something that is not stupid.

It is all irrelevent once Abbott muttered the words "If you want to put a price on carbon" and has a policy that does not price carbon. He must have considered many things before making a rock solid, rolled gold promise not to price carbon, but to use the available tax base on direct action.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 10:35pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 10:22pm: Progs this is what Abbott actually said. Do you agree with him that it would be a good idea? And that it would not increase the burden in any way, yet still actually increase the price? Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation Maqqa actually posted that in defense of Abbott on the first page of this thread, but did not appear to realise how stupid it actually is until I pointed it out to him. Since then he has been having trouble understanding the question. He claims to agree with it, but only in context, and cannot say how the context changes the meaning to something that is not stupid. It is all irrelevent once Abbott muttered the words "If you want to put a price on carbon" and has a policy that does not price carbon. He must have considered many things before making a rock solid, rolled gold promise not to price carbon, but to use the available tax base on direct action.

But since Abbott thinks "climate change is crap" - why does he want to give us a GREAT BIG DIRECT ACTION TAX to achieve the same emission reduction goals as Labor?

Why will he use our tax payers money $9.22 billion out to 2020. - to pay to the big polluters?

the Coalition plans to tackle carbon emissions by paying industry to pollute less, through an Emissions Reduction Fund. As the Direct Action policy document states:

The Fund will commence operation in 2011-12 with an initial allocation of $300 million, increasing to $500 million in 2012-13, $750 million in 2013-14 and $1 billion by 2014-15. It is envisaged that the Fund will invest an annual average of around $1.2 billion in direct CO2 emissions reduction activities through to 2020.

The Coalition will also spend another billion or so on policies such as its $400 million "one million solar roofs" program.

Totalling those numbers up gives a total spend of $9.22 billion out to 2020.
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2804206.html

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 10:35pm:

freediver wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 10:22pm: Progs this is what Abbott actually said. Do you agree with him that it would be a good idea? And that it would not increase the burden in any way, yet still actually increase the price? Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation Maqqa actually posted that in defense of Abbott on the first page of this thread, but did not appear to realise how stupid it actually is until I pointed it out to him. Since then he has been having trouble understanding the question. He claims to agree with it, but only in context, and cannot say how the context changes the meaning to something that is not stupid. It is all irrelevent once Abbott muttered the words "If you want to put a price on carbon" and has a policy that does not price carbon. He must have considered many things before making a rock solid, rolled gold promise not to price carbon, but to use the available tax base on direct action.

But he is putting a price on carbon ... even his Direct Action, with an estimated spend of $9B by 2020 to reduce carbon, the reality is he has put a $9B price on carbon ... sure, it's an indirect price, but that's simply semantics.

Australian Business and Banks will fall...that much is certain, their own corruptions have sealed their fate...I prophesy the downfall of Australia the Babylon... 8-)

John Smith wrote on Mar 4^th, 2013 at 10:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 10:35pm: freediver wrote on Mar 4th, 2013 at 10:22pm: Progs this is what Abbott actually said. Do you agree with him that it would be a good idea? And that it would not increase the burden in any way, yet still actually increase the price? Maqqa wrote on Feb 23rd, 2013 at 3:25pm: Quote: "If you want to put a price on carbon why not just do it with a simple tax. Why not ask motorists to pay more? Why not ask electricity consumers to pay more? And then at the end of the year, you can take your invoices to the tax office and get a rebate on the carbon tax you paid. It would be burdensome, all taxes are burdensome, but it would certainly change the price on carbon, raise the price of carbon without increasing in any way the overall tax burden." I have now posted the exact words from the interview - does skippy have the courage to change his signature or continue with misinformation Maqqa actually posted that in defense of Abbott on the first page of this thread, but did not appear to realise how stupid it actually is until I pointed it out to him. Since then he has been having trouble understanding the question. He claims to agree with it, but only in context, and cannot say how the context changes the meaning to something that is not stupid. It is all irrelevent once Abbott muttered the words "If you want to put a price on carbon" and has a policy that does not price carbon. He must have considered many things before making a rock solid, rolled gold promise not to price carbon, but to use the available tax base on direct action. But he is putting a price on carbon ... even his Direct Action, with an estimated spend of $9B by 2020 to reduce carbon, the reality is he has put a $9B price on carbon ... sure, it's an indirect price, but that's simply semantics.

That is not pricing carbon, pricing carbon is to put up the prices to the consumer in order to slow them down.

That isnt what direct action does at all.