Sensational-Adelaide.com

OlympusAnt wrote:Rudd could have upgraded many times over back in 2008/9 but $900 cheques were better

OlympusAnt wrote:Rudd could have upgraded many times over back in 2008/9 but $900 cheques were better

rubberman wrote:

OlympusAnt wrote:Rudd could have upgraded many times over back in 2008/9 but $900 cheques were better

Well, he could have if there had been sufficient projects "shovel ready". But there weren't.

Getting a major project to the "shovel ready" stage takes four years or more.

Now since history has shown that economies move in cycles, booms have been followed by busts since biblical times, a prudent government during boom times would be building up a stock of economically viable, fully designed and documented set of projects to have ready to go when the inevitable boom went bust...as it did.

Of course, a reckless and financially inept government would think that a boom would never end and not make such plans four or five years ahead. Thus, when a bust hit, it would be inevitable that the only thing to be done was pink batts, school halls and $900 handouts.

Now who was it that was in power four years before 2008, and who should have been preparing for the inevitable downturn?

Having said that, let me be even-handed in my criticism. If the SA Government, knowing that had had State projects shovel ready, it would have happened. Further, given the example of the lack of planning by the Feds in the early 2000's, there's no excuse over a decade later for the State not having projects on the shelf ready to go. Right. Now.

Nor is there any excuse for an opposition spokesperson promising support for a project that is barely past "brainfart" status at this time.

Waewick wrote:voters don't vote governmnets in for long term visions, they vote governments in for instant gratification.

Phantom wrote:

Waewick wrote:voters don't vote governmnets in for long term visions, they vote governments in for instant gratification.

Gotta disagree with you, Waewick. Stalin's five-year plans worked a fucking treat.
I mean shit, they were in power from 1922 to 1991...

GoodSmackUp wrote:

Phantom wrote:

Waewick wrote:voters don't vote governmnets in for long term visions, they vote governments in for instant gratification.

Gotta disagree with you, Waewick. Stalin's five-year plans worked a fucking treat.
I mean shit, they were in power from 1922 to 1991...

Didn't they immediately denounce Stalin after he died and went on a completely different path then what he envisioned?

Waewick wrote:

rubberman wrote:
Well, he could have if there had been sufficient projects "shovel ready". But there weren't.

Getting a major project to the "shovel ready" stage takes four years or more.

Now since history has shown that economies move in cycles, booms have been followed by busts since biblical times, a prudent government during boom times would be building up a stock of economically viable, fully designed and documented set of projects to have ready to go when the inevitable boom went bust...as it did.

Of course, a reckless and financially inept government would think that a boom would never end and not make such plans four or five years ahead. Thus, when a bust hit, it would be inevitable that the only thing to be done was pink batts, school halls and $900 handouts.

Now who was it that was in power four years before 2008, and who should have been preparing for the inevitable downturn?

Having said that, let me be even-handed in my criticism. If the SA Government, knowing that had had State projects shovel ready, it would have happened. Further, given the example of the lack of planning by the Feds in the early 2000's, there's no excuse over a decade later for the State not having projects on the shelf ready to go. Right. Now.

Nor is there any excuse for an opposition spokesperson promising support for a project that is barely past "brainfart" status at this time.

pretty naive post.

voters don't vote governmnets in for long term visions, they vote governments in for instant gratification.

you watch the next Federal election, the winner won't be the mob with a better vision it will be the best mudslinger and who can convince voters they'll give them something immediately.

rubberman wrote:

Waewick wrote:

rubberman wrote:
Well, he could have if there had been sufficient projects "shovel ready". But there weren't.

Getting a major project to the "shovel ready" stage takes four years or more.

Now since history has shown that economies move in cycles, booms have been followed by busts since biblical times, a prudent government during boom times would be building up a stock of economically viable, fully designed and documented set of projects to have ready to go when the inevitable boom went bust...as it did.

Of course, a reckless and financially inept government would think that a boom would never end and not make such plans four or five years ahead. Thus, when a bust hit, it would be inevitable that the only thing to be done was pink batts, school halls and $900 handouts.

Now who was it that was in power four years before 2008, and who should have been preparing for the inevitable downturn?

Having said that, let me be even-handed in my criticism. If the SA Government, knowing that had had State projects shovel ready, it would have happened. Further, given the example of the lack of planning by the Feds in the early 2000's, there's no excuse over a decade later for the State not having projects on the shelf ready to go. Right. Now.

Nor is there any excuse for an opposition spokesperson promising support for a project that is barely past "brainfart" status at this time.

pretty naive post.

voters don't vote governmnets in for long term visions, they vote governments in for instant gratification.

you watch the next Federal election, the winner won't be the mob with a better vision it will be the best mudslinger and who can convince voters they'll give them something immediately.

That will certainly be the outcome Waewick if we don't call them out on it.

So, the choice is:

Critcise one side, depending on one's pov and be dismissed as partisan, or
Criticise neither side, and both sides get away with it, or
Criticise both so they at least know we are on to them.

If you don't like the third option, is that any worse than the other two? And whoch of those other two do you prefer?

In regard to Stalin, he did put in rather a nice subway system and trams.

https://youtu.be/Q--3O6DaIUw

Otoh, I'd prefer no trams to genocide.

The youtube video has some good tram scenes from the thirties in the USSR.

Waewick wrote:

GoodSmackUp wrote:Didn't they immediately denounce Stalin after he died and went on a completely different path then what he envisioned?

from memory that didn't involve mass genocide either, probably one of the better ideas they had.

Adelaide councils told to put up cash if they want to be connected with trams first.

Councils wanting an extended Adelaide tram network to service their regions have been told to put up the cash if they want to jump the queue.

more: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-21/a ... on/7345502