Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Send Topic Print
Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill (Read 5741 times)
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #30 - Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:55pm
 
TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:53pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:52pm:
TheFunPolice wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:50pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm:
This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation.

Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.

Is that an order?

Shocked


Call me stupid, but I don't understand what you've just written.

It means you're a fascist: like my mum but with a bigger c((((  Wink


By that logic, the UK, Ireland, NZ are fascist too.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #31 - Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm
 
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm:
This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation.

Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.


No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation.

Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need.


I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it.

Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election?


It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block.


Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life?


Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 84209
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #32 - Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:13pm
 
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 8:49pm:
Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 8:25pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm:
This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation.

Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.


That really distills down to an absurd position.  You want to give them four years freedom to legislate carte blanch at will, and potentially totally stuff the place....on the fall back position that after the damage is done, they can be booted.

Nah.




The government in NZ, UK and other Westminster countries have absolute power to legislate on any matter. It is known as parliamentary sovereignty. The idea is based on the concept of 'responsible government.' The institution of the Westminster system is designed to protect against any 'bad legislation'. The UK House of Commons has had for 115 years the power to legislate on any matter without recourse; the House of Lords has not, since 1911, had the power to veto legislation. How do explain Britain's continual and consistent good governance, despite having no restraint on its power, nor any other branch of the Parliament that can stop legislation? Is it that British governments are simply more competent than Australian Governments? New Zealand has had one House since 1956, and has not, until recently, had any restraints on its power, but yet NZ has managed to produce good policy. How do you explain this situation?

In fact, if you look at the States in Australia, particularly Queensland, they have no restrictions to confiscate land without compensation, or to criminalize reading Charles Dickens (as an example). The High Court has no power to strike down laws based on the 'substance' of a law, which is an American practice. It is fair to say that the modern media, and our strong civil service also serve as checks on government power.

The Westminster system lends itself naturally to the concept of 'good government.' This notion that 'the Government can screw things up' doesn't take into consideration our competent civil service, and the fact that the party leadership has sway, to a certain extent, over the party in power.

The Senate was designed to appease the smaller States at Federation, otherwise we wouldn't have had a country. Obviously, the Framers were inspired by the American system in the design of the Senate. However, given the rise of organized political parties, the Senate no longer acts as a 'States House.' It has in fact transformed into a House where minority parties are more present due to the voting system, but of course you already know this. Therefore, it is also valid to state that a minority party that holds the balance of power can stifle the will of the popular 'House'; it can be agreed that the House of Reps is 'closer' to the people than the Senate, given the nature of its composition - i.e. single-member electorates.


And that's precisely where it falls down in Oz.... there was no appeasing the States - they could have simply said 'NO' to Federation and been invaded, like in the United States (well Glory, Glory.... Ah wish Ah wuz in Dixie!)..

Anyone who has been watching the 'popular' house lately will see exactly why both the major parties are in such bad odour with the voting public.

Thank God for the Senate..... We The People PUT them there to keep a close eye on rabicd legislations...

Now what idiot would consider it sound policy to chop again at unemployment benefits while offering bigger childcare subsidies?  All such a policy will do is make it harder for the unemployed to get a job and get off benefits, so where is the real benefit there?  Supporting dual income families by thrusting others on the street is not a 'policy' in any way.. it is pure despotism ... and the crime rate will rise etc, along with demand on health services.  Jeez - we could even have unemployed Muslims running around with guns and selling drugs.....

Look after your own kids, work when you can and let others get a shot.. the end result will be a forced lowering of house prices and more economic activity overall, and a more positive society in which people have some hope of prospering.

Lot of people got a lot of knives and forks on their table... but they ain't got much to eat.. man - they gotta cut something.... Bob Dylan.....
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #33 - Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:22pm
 
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm:
This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation.

Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.


No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation.

Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need.


I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it.

Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election?


It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block.


Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life?


Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks.


You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny.

I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us?

NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens.

The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible?

The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #34 - Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:27pm
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:13pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 8:49pm:
Aussie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 8:25pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm:
This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation.

Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.


That really distills down to an absurd position.  You want to give them four years freedom to legislate carte blanch at will, and potentially totally stuff the place....on the fall back position that after the damage is done, they can be booted.

Nah.




The government in NZ, UK and other Westminster countries have absolute power to legislate on any matter. It is known as parliamentary sovereignty. The idea is based on the concept of 'responsible government.' The institution of the Westminster system is designed to protect against any 'bad legislation'. The UK House of Commons has had for 115 years the power to legislate on any matter without recourse; the House of Lords has not, since 1911, had the power to veto legislation. How do explain Britain's continual and consistent good governance, despite having no restraint on its power, nor any other branch of the Parliament that can stop legislation? Is it that British governments are simply more competent than Australian Governments? New Zealand has had one House since 1956, and has not, until recently, had any restraints on its power, but yet NZ has managed to produce good policy. How do you explain this situation?

In fact, if you look at the States in Australia, particularly Queensland, they have no restrictions to confiscate land without compensation, or to criminalize reading Charles Dickens (as an example). The High Court has no power to strike down laws based on the 'substance' of a law, which is an American practice. It is fair to say that the modern media, and our strong civil service also serve as checks on government power.

The Westminster system lends itself naturally to the concept of 'good government.' This notion that 'the Government can screw things up' doesn't take into consideration our competent civil service, and the fact that the party leadership has sway, to a certain extent, over the party in power.

The Senate was designed to appease the smaller States at Federation, otherwise we wouldn't have had a country. Obviously, the Framers were inspired by the American system in the design of the Senate. However, given the rise of organized political parties, the Senate no longer acts as a 'States House.' It has in fact transformed into a House where minority parties are more present due to the voting system, but of course you already know this. Therefore, it is also valid to state that a minority party that holds the balance of power can stifle the will of the popular 'House'; it can be agreed that the House of Reps is 'closer' to the people than the Senate, given the nature of its composition - i.e. single-member electorates.


And that's precisely where it falls down in Oz.... there was no appeasing the States - they could have simply said 'NO' to Federation and been invaded, like in the United States (well Glory, Glory.... Ah wish Ah wuz in Dixie!)..

Anyone who has been watching the 'popular' house lately will see exactly why both the major parties are in such bad odour with the voting public.

Thank God for the Senate..... We The People PUT them there to keep a close eye on rabicd legislations...

Now what idiot would consider it sound policy to chop again at unemployment benefits while offering bigger childcare subsidies?  All such a policy will do is make it harder for the unemployed to get a job and get off benefits, so where is the real benefit there?  Supporting dual income families by thrusting others on the street is not a 'policy' in any way.. it is pure despotism ... and the crime rate will rise etc, along with demand on health services.  Jeez - we could even have unemployed Muslims running around with guns and selling drugs.....

Look after your own kids, work when you can and let others get a shot.. the end result will be a forced lowering of house prices and more economic activity overall, and a more positive society in which people have some hope of prospering.

Lot of people got a lot of knives and forks on their table... but they ain't got much to eat.. man - they gotta cut something.... Bob Dylan.....


I don't what you're talking about when you say 'they would've been invaded. Invaded by whom? By Britain?

Second, I may not agree with the policy, but let the Government do its job. I'd be making the same argument for any party in power. I trust that no Government will arrest me for reading Ernest Hemmingway.

Third, how bad can any policy get? You mean to insult our institutions by implying that we would descend into a Zimbabwe? It is almost impossible to do so. The foundations on which this country was founded are so strong that we don't need a second House with the power to veto in order to save it. By the way everyone's acting, we'd think the Senate was our saviour.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller
Gold Member
*****
Online


Australian Politics

Posts: 84209
Proud pre-1850's NO Voter
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #35 - Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:54pm
 
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:27pm:
I don't what you're talking about when you say 'they would've been invaded. Invaded by whom? By Britain?

Second, I may not agree with the policy, but let the Government do its job. I'd be making the same argument for any party in power. I trust that no Government will arrest me for reading Ernest Hemmingway.

Third, how bad can any policy get? You mean to insult our institutions by implying that we would descend into a Zimbabwe? It is almost impossible to do so. The foundations on which this country was founded are so strong that we don't need a second House with the power to veto in order to save it. By the way everyone's acting, we'd think the Senate was our saviour.



The Federation would have enforced joining.

The elected government (it is separate from the public service) IS doing its job - through legislation being passed through the House of Representatives and then reviewed by the Senate........ what is this argument that the elected House should be able to govern entirely without oversight?  Sounds like LNP propaganda to me and sour grapes and trying to blame someone else for bad policy year after year.

New Zealand is a different type of country - it's small and filled with very independent-minded individuals - any government that sought to rip its people off would be lynched.  Australia is a large area country, the people are out of touch with one another,  and we have a history of being subservient (well, most do) and kissing the assets of City Hall which is precisely why this nation is in the bind it is right now  .. that's why they're called The Sheeple.

Why don't you just come out and say 'the elected house should be allowed to govern!" as if that were the end of it all.  They ARE governing by our system - but the Senate does not agree with their often stupid policy ideas.

It doesn't have to be Zimbabwean bad to make it bad - we don't live in Zimbabwe and I never made reference to the joint.  You are running a very thin wire there, son, and are making a totally false comparison with the real issues I've already mentioned.

I suspect you more and more of being just another right wing plant and a lackey of the neo NAZIs who want total control to abuse at whim.
Back to top
 

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”
― John Adams
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #36 - Feb 15th, 2017 at 6:36am
 
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:22pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm:
This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation.

Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.


No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation.

Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need.


I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it.

Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election?


It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block.


Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life?


Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks.


You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny.

I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us?

NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens.

The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible?

The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland.


I don't believe I've mentioned Zimbabwe even once.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
whiteknight
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 8092
melbourne
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #37 - Feb 15th, 2017 at 7:29am
 
We don't want the senate to become an automatic rubber stamp.  For the coalition, or labor.   Sad
Back to top
 
 
IP Logged
 
Armchair_Politician
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25877
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #38 - Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:04am
 
Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite.
Back to top
 

Scott Morrison DID wipe the floor with Bull Shitten!!! Smiley Smiley Smiley
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74429
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #39 - Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:08am
 
Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:04am:
Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite.



they can save billions more with changes to NG, health rebates and superannuation concessions .... but the libs can't have that, they  don't attack the poor Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #40 - Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:09am
 
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:22pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:02pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:44pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:38pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:12pm:
crocodile wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 9:09pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 7:04pm:
This indicates one of the short-comings of the Senate; a handful of people can shutdown government legislation.

Let the Libs pass the legislation and answer to the people for it.


No. It requires > 50% of the senate to shut down legislation.

Bigger child care subsidies is just about the last thing we need.


I'm not saying that I agree with the legislation. I wouldn't pass it if I were in Government, but that was what the Liberals have done and they should be able to answer for it.

Wouldn't it be within the realm of possibility that the Libs passed this legislation KNOWING that it would be rejected by the Senate, in order to use it for political gain? If there was no Senate 'to blame', would they have passed the legislation in the first place if they knew that doing so would cost them the election?


It's disgraceful policy. It needs to be rubbed out before it makes the starting block.


Sure, it's a disgraceful policy, so why would you deny the fantastic opportunity for Turnbull to be disgraced for the rest of his life?


Have you thought that one through. There is a choice. Stop the nonsense now or let it go with all the ensuing pitfalls just so that I can have a giggle later on. No thanks.


You tell me physically how a Government, any Government in Australia can turn this country into a Zimbabwe, because that's the extent of the fear that people on this topic seem to be? That if we strip the powers of the Senate to veto Bills, we'll be opening the door up on tyranny.

I asked Aussie the same question, and I'll ask you: the UK Parliament has complete authority to pass any law it wishes without restraint or recourse, and it has existed this way for 115 years since the House of Lords lost their power to veto Bills due to the Parliament Act 1911. How is it that the UK has never fallen into tyranny despite such unrestrained power (and two world wars)? Do they have more angels over there than we do? Are they simply better than us?

NZ is another example: they have a unicameral House with absolute authority to pass any law. The States in Australia have the power to pass laws to allow the police to walk into your house and confiscate your land without compensation. Queensland, which has had a single House since the 1920's has had the absolute power to do anything it wanted, and not once did it confiscate land without compensation, or criminalize a person for reading Charles Dickens.

The Commonwealth has no power to throw anyone in jail for reading Charles Dickens, and you're concerned that the Canberra could 'turn Australia in Zimbabwe? How on earth is that even possible?

The most IMPORTANT thing in politics is accountability. ACCOUNTABILITY. The current Washminster system blurs accountability by perpetuating this blame game between the House and the Senate. Yes, the Senate should have power to review legislation, and make recommendations, but it shouldn't undermine the popular will of the House of Reps. The Senate was a rotten compromise between the small States and the larger States, and was based on the American Senate, which was also a compromise. Other subsequent Westminster systems didn't adopt an American Senate because they knew it was contrary to the institution of the Westminster system: India didn't adopt it, neither did Malaysia; nor did Ireland.


There most certainly exist forms of restraint and recourse. The House may introduce legislation but there is one last step. Did you forget about Royal Assent. A perfunctory exercise today but only due to sensible legislation. Try it on with something nasty and we'll see.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Armchair_Politician
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 25877
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #41 - Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:12am
 
John Smith wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:08am:
Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:04am:
Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite.



they can save billions more with changes to NG, health rebates and superannuation concessions .... but the libs can't have that, they  don't attack the poor Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy


They aren't poor. The people getting benefits aren't entitled to them and don't need them. I know some families on nearly $200k who have cleverly set up their finances in a way that allows them to pocket significant sums for childcare rebates and so on. Stop portraying these people as victims. It's us taxpayers (not you) who are the victims.
Back to top
 

Scott Morrison DID wipe the floor with Bull Shitten!!! Smiley Smiley Smiley
 
IP Logged
 
crocodile
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 6683
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #42 - Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:14am
 
Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:04am:
Never mind that the billions of dollars in savings that Labor advocated pre-election are now being blocked by the same ALP for no reason other than spite.


Armie, we don't need further child care subsidies. Once implemented they are difficult to remove. The current subsidies are very expensive and should never have been introduced. Howard needs his arse kicked for their introduction and Rudd castrated for increasing them. The senate is at least showing some good sense.
Back to top
 

Very funny Scotty, now beam down my clothes.
 
IP Logged
 
Auggie
Gold Member
*****
Offline


The Bull Moose

Posts: 8571
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #43 - Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:14am
 
Grappler Truth Teller Feller wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:54pm:
Auggie wrote on Feb 14th, 2017 at 11:27pm:
I don't what you're talking about when you say 'they would've been invaded. Invaded by whom? By Britain?

Second, I may not agree with the policy, but let the Government do its job. I'd be making the same argument for any party in power. I trust that no Government will arrest me for reading Ernest Hemmingway.

Third, how bad can any policy get? You mean to insult our institutions by implying that we would descend into a Zimbabwe? It is almost impossible to do so. The foundations on which this country was founded are so strong that we don't need a second House with the power to veto in order to save it. By the way everyone's acting, we'd think the Senate was our saviour.



The Federation would have enforced joining.

The elected government (it is separate from the public service) IS doing its job - through legislation being passed through the House of Representatives and then reviewed by the Senate........ what is this argument that the elected House should be able to govern entirely without oversight?  Sounds like LNP propaganda to me and sour grapes and trying to blame someone else for bad policy year after year.

New Zealand is a different type of country - it's small and filled with very independent-minded individuals - any government that sought to rip its people off would be lynched.  Australia is a large area country, the people are out of touch with one another,  and we have a history of being subservient (well, most do) and kissing the assets of City Hall which is precisely why this nation is in the bind it is right now  .. that's why they're called The Sheeple.

Why don't you just come out and say 'the elected house should be allowed to govern!" as if that were the end of it all.  They ARE governing by our system - but the Senate does not agree with their often stupid policy ideas.

It doesn't have to be Zimbabwean bad to make it bad - we don't live in Zimbabwe and I never made reference to the joint.  You are running a very thin wire there, son, and are making a totally false comparison with the real issues I've already mentioned.

I suspect you more and more of being just another right wing plant and a lackey of the neo NAZIs who want total control to abuse at whim.


I don't want the senate abolished. It should be there. I want a Senate that should be able to propose and suggest amendments. It would only be able to delay bills for one year, or even two, like in House of Lords. One year is a lot of time in politics and public opinion can change during that time. I think a one year delay is sufficient scrutiny.

Second, I'm definitely not fascist. If you read my other posts on a variety of issues i am and considered myself to be a liberal.

My point about Zimbabwe is that people refute my argument by implying that without an equally powerful senate, Australia would descend into chaos. I actually believe we would believe have better government in the long term under a pure Westminster system.
Back to top
 

The Progressive President
 
IP Logged
 
John Smith
Gold Member
*****
Offline


Australian Politics

Posts: 74429
Gender: male
Re: Nick Xenophon Blocks Govts Omnibus Bill
Reply #44 - Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:15am
 
Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 15th, 2017 at 8:12am:
The people getting benefits aren't entitled to them and don't need them.



if they're getting them, they're entitled to them you idiot
Back to top
 

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.
 
IP Logged
 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6
Send Topic Print