Sensational-Adelaide.com

claybro wrote:

Dog wrote:And John Howard's give away of thousands spent on baby bonus for " flat screen TV's" " Pokies" and single mothers was good public policy.

Completely off topic of the SA economy, but for the record, the idea of the baby bonus was to encourage more people to have babies and therefore create future tax payers.(and quite possible a secret Liberal plan of ensuring the existing anglo gene pool was not too diluted by our commitment to immigration.) It did have an immediate impact on Australia's fertility rate so to that end it was a success. Unfortunately the plan was very poorly executed and probably only resulted in creating future welfare recipients. Howards middle class welfare was supposedly a way of spreading the wealth of a booming economy to those less well off, but in many cases miss guided, and created an era of entitlement that is creating a lot of todays very poor "me too" politics.

you realise how racist your post is? but anyway, I think the "mee too" is a generational thing TBH.

I can also make a broad generalisation, Labor has sought to remove support for the “middle class” to push more people into the “lower class” thus keeping their future voting pool strong.

The halirity of the situation is most countries focus on building a strong middle class, because this class is generally the driver of the economy, in Australia we have actively sought to hamper the middle class, which isn't going to end well.

Waewick wrote:I can also make a broad generalisation, Labor has sought to remove support for the “middle class” to push more people into the “lower class” thus keeping their future voting pool strong.

Careful - they're not called "lower class" - they're "battlers".

Waewick wrote:
I can also make a broad generalisation, Labor has sought to remove support for the “middle class” to push more people into the “lower class” thus keeping their future voting pool strong.

Hypothetically if they tried such a strategy it would backfire spectacularly.

The halirity of the situation is most countries focus on building a strong middle class, because this class is generally the driver of the economy, in Australia we have actively sought to hamper the middle class, which isn't going to end well.

I'm baffled as to what makes you think the government have actively sought to hamper the middle class! Was it an editorial in the Murdoch press?

If there's a party trying to hamper the middle class, it is the Liberal party. Everything they do seems to be aimed at polarising society, creating a society of wealthy people and virtual serfs. If you happen to sit in between, they are more focused on your demotion than your rise into the realms of the wealthy.

Aidan wrote:

Waewick wrote:
I can also make a broad generalisation, Labor has sought to remove support for the “middle class” to push more people into the “lower class” thus keeping their future voting pool strong.

Hypothetically if they tried such a strategy it would backfire spectacularly.

The halirity of the situation is most countries focus on building a strong middle class, because this class is generally the driver of the economy, in Australia we have actively sought to hamper the middle class, which isn't going to end well.

I'm baffled as to what makes you think the government have actively sought to hamper the middle class! Was it an editorial in the Murdoch press?

what 7 years have you been living in? Labors policies over the last 7 years have been directly aimed at the middle class (rightly or wrongly)

I'm not trying to argue for middle class welfare, but merely pointing out that removing has caused an impact to the middle class and their spending habits which drive GDP , also many of Labors policies on small business (including sub contractors) has been a disaster for many many "middle class" people.

rhino wrote:If there's a party trying to hamper the middle class, it is the Liberal party. Everything they do seems to be aimed at polarising society, creating a society of wealthy people and virtual serfs. If you happen to sit in between, they are more focused on your demotion than your rise into the realms of the wealthy.

I think the focus on liberal party being the party for the "rich" is over played and your comments are like someone suggesting LAbor is communist.

I'm not actually sure what the Liberals stand for, but I doubt it is that.

Waewick wrote:I'm not actually sure what the Liberals stand for, but I doubt it is that.

It may not be, but so many policies lean that way. Look at education - the Liberal Party threw more money (per school) at private schools than at public schools - the more money you hved, the better you can afford the best education for your children, and rather than give that opportunity to all children by spreading the money around, they chose to offer it to those who can afford it. They constantly talk of increasing fees for University - once again, education for the wealthy. Look at public transport - the Liberals don't care for it to any great degree, so long as the roads are handling private cars well enough, and there are enough carparks in the cities - and which level of society relies the most on public transport? ....

Waewick wrote:

Aidan wrote:

Waewick wrote:
I can also make a broad generalisation, Labor has sought to remove support for the “middle class” to push more people into the “lower class” thus keeping their future voting pool strong.

Hypothetically if they tried such a strategy it would backfire spectacularly.

The halirity of the situation is most countries focus on building a strong middle class, because this class is generally the driver of the economy, in Australia we have actively sought to hamper the middle class, which isn't going to end well.

I'm baffled as to what makes you think the government have actively sought to hamper the middle class! Was it an editorial in the Murdoch press?

what 7 years have you been living in? Labors policies over the last 7 years have been directly aimed at the middle class (rightly or wrongly)

Then maybe you'd care to provide some actual examples instead of intensifying your rhetoric in the vain hope that it makes you sound more believable?

The only example I've been able to think of is that they means tested a few benefits - but that's hardly going to push people into the "lower class". Plus they, like most people, have benefitted from lower taxes and lower interest rates.

I'm not trying to argue for middle class welfare, but merely pointing out that removing has caused an impact to the middle class and their spending habits which drive GDP , also many of Labors policies on small business (including sub contractors) has been a disaster for many many "middle class" people.

What has been a disaster for small business was the attempt to rush back to surplus, combined with the setting of interest rates too high. But the Liberals have been even more keen to rush back to surplus, they dislike having interest rates as low as they are, and their promised cut in company tax would produce a structural deficit, meaning much higher interest rates in the next boom.

rhino wrote:Look at public transport - the Liberals don't care for it to any great degree, so long as the roads are handling private cars well enough, and there are enough carparks in the cities - and which level of society relies the most on public transport? ....

Actually, this report shows that, in all capital cities bar Adelaide, the 'rich' are actually bigger users of public transport than the 'poor'. I agree that the Libs care less for public transport than Labor, but I don't necessarily think it's a rich vs poor thing.

Aidan wrote:What has been a disaster for small business was the attempt to rush back to surplus, combined with the setting of interest rates too high. But the Liberals have been even more keen to rush back to surplus, they dislike having interest rates as low as they are, and their promised cut in company tax would produce a structural deficit, meaning much higher interest rates in the next boom.

The reason the Liberals dislike interest rates being this low is because it's a sign that the economy is very weak. Bill Shorten the other day claimed that the Reserve cuts interest rates when the economy is strong -- he's either a bald-faced liar or ignorant. Either isn't particularly attractive to vote for, I wouldn't have thought.

Maximus wrote:

Aidan wrote:What has been a disaster for small business was the attempt to rush back to surplus, combined with the setting of interest rates too high. But the Liberals have been even more keen to rush back to surplus, they dislike having interest rates as low as they are, and their promised cut in company tax would produce a structural deficit, meaning much higher interest rates in the next boom.

The reason the Liberals dislike interest rates being this low is because it's a sign that the economy is very weak. Bill Shorten the other day claimed that the Reserve cuts interest rates when the economy is strong -- he's either a bald-faced liar or ignorant. Either isn't particularly attractive to vote for, I wouldn't have thought.

Crikey puts it best:
“The grown-up of the Coalition’s economic team, Hockey … has suggested rate cuts are a sign the economy has been mismanaged by Labor, while at the same time arguing Labor is spending too much. Maybe, Joe?—?but both can’t be right, unless Labor has found some economically miraculous way of spending money so that it doesn’t end up in the economy.”

The economy is indeed weak. It would be much stronger if the government were spending more. Neither side seems to have much understanding of this, though the Libs have announced policies that would make the problem much worse.

Aidan wrote:

Aidan wrote:

Waewick wrote:
I can also make a broad generalisation, Labor has sought to remove support for the “middle class” to push more people into the “lower class” thus keeping their future voting pool strong.

Hypothetically if they tried such a strategy it would backfire spectacularly.

The halirity of the situation is most countries focus on building a strong middle class, because this class is generally the driver of the economy, in Australia we have actively sought to hamper the middle class, which isn't going to end well.

I'm baffled as to what makes you think the government have actively sought to hamper the middle class! Was it an editorial in the Murdoch press?

what 7 years have you been living in? Labors policies over the last 7 years have been directly aimed at the middle class (rightly or wrongly)

Then maybe you'd care to provide some actual examples instead of intensifying your rhetoric in the vain hope that it makes you sound more believable?

The only example I've been able to think of is that they means tested a few benefits - but that's hardly going to push people into the "lower class". Plus they, like most people, have benefitted from lower taxes and lower interest rates.

I'm not trying to argue for middle class welfare, but merely pointing out that removing has caused an impact to the middle class and their spending habits which drive GDP , also many of Labors policies on small business (including sub contractors) has been a disaster for many many "middle class" people.

What has been a disaster for small business was the attempt to rush back to surplus, combined with the setting of interest rates too high. But the Liberals have been even more keen to rush back to surplus, they dislike having interest rates as low as they are, and their promised cut in company tax would produce a structural deficit, meaning much higher interest rates in the next boom.[/quote]

The implementation is means testing does effect middle class because that is who they were aimed at!

It may not directly "push people into lower class" but it still has an impact in conjunction with the other poor polices the government has rolled out (IR, independent contractor laws, Union power on construction contracts etc etc )

They may not have pushed people into the Lower class, but they have inhibited the ability for the middle class to grow, which is what is causing half their revenue problems in the first place.

Waewick, do you work for the Liberal Party? Because now we see you've been spinning policies which slightly adversely affect some middle income earners as an attempt to hamper the middle class in order to relegate some people to the lower class! You're treating some very reasonable relaxation of Howard government's curbs on union power as if it were a return to the BLF era! And you claim, without evidence, that the independent contractor laws are inhibiting the ability of the middle class to grow.

Face it: the claim that Labor are trying to reverse, halt or even slow the expansion of the middle class is nothing more than a vicious lie. The main thing that puts people in the middle class in the first place is education, and it was the Labor government that uncapped university places and is investing a lot more in schools.

The Liberal Party may be better at helping those who are already rich, but it is Labor who are better at helping people when they actually need help - although being better at that than the Liberals really isn't much of an achievement.

Aidan wrote:Waewick, do you work for the Liberal Party? Because now we see you've been spinning policies which slightly adversely affect some middle income earners as an attempt to hamper the middle class in order to relegate some people to the lower class! You're treating some very reasonable relaxation of Howard government's curbs on union power as if it were a return to the BLF era! And you claim, without evidence, that the independent contractor laws are inhibiting the ability of the middle class to grow.

Face it: the claim that Labor are trying to reverse, halt or even slow the expansion of the middle class is nothing more than a vicious lie. The main thing that puts people in the middle class in the first place is education, and it was the Labor government that uncapped university places and is investing a lot more in schools.

The Liberal Party may be better at helping those who are already rich, but it is Labor who are better at helping people when they actually need help - although being better at that than the Liberals really isn't much of an achievement.

no I don't hell, I didn't even vote Liberal at the last election.

I gather you are a labor voter however, I must admit you are better than me a generalisations and waffling on, so I think i may have met my match

(I'm not having a go at you either, a mean it in a friendly manner, I just can't find the appropriate emotion to reflect a laugh that is intended to be friendly rather than to reflect a level of disrespect)

Aidan wrote:The economy is indeed weak. It would be much stronger if the government were spending more. Neither side seems to have much understanding of this, though the Libs have announced policies that would make the problem much worse.

If we accept your premise as correct, I would assume you don't actually believe that you understand this but that the entirety of the Labor and Liberal Parties combined don't understand it. Why, then, do you believe that both Parties are, according to your premise, acting in a manner that's not most beneficial to the health of the economy?

rhino wrote:If there's a party trying to hamper the middle class, it is the Liberal party. Everything they do seems to be aimed at polarising society, creating a society of wealthy people and virtual serfs. If you happen to sit in between, they are more focused on your demotion than your rise into the realms of the wealthy.

Now here is an interesting point. After nearly a decade of Federal Labor and over a decade of state Labor. I don't believe there is a single person I have spoken to who work in private enterprise, or who are self employed (ie the middle class) who feels better off, or even as secure as under the previous Liberal Federal government. Most Labor supporters would blame the GFC for that, and yet by Labors own promotion, their actions where supposed to have saved us from the GFC, and that we have had a mining and Chinese investment boom since the GFC. So what is it to be, either they successfully rode out the GFC or it failed. Either we have just had a boom, (which most of the middle class missed) or we are still in the GFC. Cant have it both ways guys, but something has gone wrong in both our state and federal economies since Labor took charge. Most wage earners in private enterprise are now worse off (less overtime, less part time hours, worse job security) most business owners are drowning in red tape, green tape, compliance requirements, increased fees, charges, taxes, and have just stopped investing and employing.