Sensational-Adelaide.com

How about we have a competition to work out the new name for the building now that 'Dominator 1' has been
scrapped ?

Here are some possible examples :

The Predator
Terminator 1
The Negator

How about we have a competition for a new name for GHS?

The idiot.
The troll.
The loser.
The depressive.
The pessimist.

So Westpac has announced an $8 billion profit.
Commonwealth Bank has had a $9.9 billion profit. This first quarter for 2017/18 they've recorded a $2.6 billion profit.
Along with NAB's $6.6 billion profit.

Tax them. Double the planned tax.
Greedy pigs.

[Shuz] wrote: ↑

Tue Nov 07, 2017 3:12 pm

How about we have a competition for a new name for GHS?

The idiot.
The troll.
The loser.
The depressive.
The pessimist.

I'll take "The Troll" thanks.

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:56 am

So Westpac has announced an $8 billion profit.
Commonwealth Bank has had a $9.9 billion profit. This first quarter for 2017/18 they've recorded a $2.6 billion profit.
Along with NAB's $6.6 billion profit.

Tax them. Double the planned tax.
Greedy pigs.

For context, Commonwealth Banks profit is equivalent to around 0.6% of the entire Australian GDP.

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:39 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:56 am

So Westpac has announced an $8 billion profit.
Commonwealth Bank has had a $9.9 billion profit. This first quarter for 2017/18 they've recorded a $2.6 billion profit.
Along with NAB's $6.6 billion profit.

Tax them. Double the planned tax.
Greedy pigs.

For context, Commonwealth Banks profit is equivalent to around 0.6% of the entire Australian GDP.

So I presume most here work for a living, and pay super? You do realise the super funds invest heavily in banks? I presume we all scream when super returns drop below a certain amount? Bank profits are actually a sign of a healthy economy. God forbid we get into a situation like Greece, where people were restricted to cue to withdraw a maximum of $50EU per day.

Personally I'd rather we were in a situation like Iceland, where the Government didn't bail out the banks when their over-reaching caused the GFC, and prosecuted them instead. Iceland's economy is now one of the best in Europe. Yes, bank profits are a sign of a healthy economy, but not when those profits are gained "at any cost" (money laundering, preying on customers, adding totally un-justified fees, withholding funds for three days unnecessarily, I could go on ...)

Well who woulda thunk it?

This from George Christiansen, of all people:

“There is disgruntlement out in the community with banking practices, which are less than fair, in some cases highly unethical and bordering on the illegal.” (11 April 2016, Fairfax)

“The bank has been ripping people in my electorate to shreds. We now need a commission of inquiry to shine the spotlight on what the banks are doing to farmers and their families.” (28 November 2016, The New Daily)

This was from 12-18 months ago. The banks haven't changed, and still no commission. Fancy that.

rhino wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:22 pm

Personally I'd rather we were in a situation like Iceland, where the Government didn't bail out the banks when their over-reaching caused the GFC, and prosecuted them instead. Iceland's economy is now one of the best in Europe. Yes, bank profits are a sign of a healthy economy, but not when those profits are gained "at any cost" (money laundering, preying on customers, adding totally un-justified fees, withholding funds for three days unnecessarily, I could go on ...)

But we are specifically referring to Australian banks here, and it wasn't Australian banks that caused the GFC. It wasn't even retail banks in America. In fact, the health of the Australian banks and their more rigid lending policies enabled the government to underwrite the banking industry in Australia, knowing there was less likely to be nasty surprises hiding in their books. Comparing the Australian banking system to Iceland is not appropriate, Iceland is not even a pimple on the world economic rankings-nor is their banking system. Banks are not perfect. Nor are they a public service department. They exist to process money, to make money. Everyone invested in banks...that's you, me and most everyone in the economy benefits from the dividends via superannuation. Politicians, unions (with their members funds invested) and other large corporations are the last groups that should be pointing the finger at the banking industry.

claybro wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 08, 2017 2:01 pm

Nort wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 08, 2017 12:39 pm

rev wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 08, 2017 9:56 am

So Westpac has announced an $8 billion profit.
Commonwealth Bank has had a $9.9 billion profit. This first quarter for 2017/18 they've recorded a $2.6 billion profit.
Along with NAB's $6.6 billion profit.

Tax them. Double the planned tax.
Greedy pigs.

For context, Commonwealth Banks profit is equivalent to around 0.6% of the entire Australian GDP.

So I presume most here work for a living, and pay super? You do realise the super funds invest heavily in banks? I presume we all scream when super returns drop below a certain amount? Bank profits are actually a sign of a healthy economy. God forbid we get into a situation like Greece, where people were restricted to cue to withdraw a maximum of $50EU per day.

Yeh, we know, it's a great little Ponzi scheme, if you happen to be a bank.
Play with peoples money, peoples savings, peoples retirement funds, essentially high stakes, high risk gambling with the potential for economic catastrophe, and when things go wrong, government will bail you out because "you're too big to fail".

For us to end up in the predicament Greece finds it self in, we would have to be part of a European Union like body, with a common currency that doesn't work because every state has their own fiscal policies as "nations", where we would have decades of high level government corruption and inefficiency/red tape that saw the ballooning of the public sector to be as large as that of a country 6-7 times larger, where in the end we end up almost doubling our debt/GDP ratio because our politicians are that weak and pitiful they accepted taking on the burden of bailing out two larger countries banking system, with not even pocket change left over for our government, in exchange for slashing government spending to dangerously low levels while raising taxes ensuring economic growth will be stymied, where at one stage a referendum was held and the people rejected a further "bailout" but the government was then blackmailed and threatened by the larger governments and forced to accept all of the above and then some, such as accepting illegal immigrants in the hundreds of thousands and then forced, while cutting pensions to elderly citizens, to pay a monthly allowance to illegal immigrants, and so on and so forth.

So no, in short, the situation in Greece is not comparable or even applicable in any way shape or form to Australia.

RIP Bank Tax

crawf wrote: ↑

Wed Nov 15, 2017 4:58 pm

RIP Bank Tax

They picked a great day to quietly drop it ... Such a shame too, would have liked to see it go through

Weatherill took a fair old bruising over this for, at the end of the day and in the context of a government budget, a relatively small amount of money.

He's generally a clever operator and I wonder if there's a longer term play here where he wedges Marshall and Xenophon about the tax cuts that the bank tax was ostensibly intended to fund.

Surprised no-one reported the SA Newspoll results yesterday.

Primary Vote
SAB - 32%, LIB 29%, LAB 27%, GRN 6%, OTH 6%

Better Premier
NX (SAB) - 46%
JW (LAB) - 22%
SM (LIB) - 19%

Think we're in for one of the most exciting and highly anticipated state election campaigns in living memory.

Xenophon apparently doesn't even want to be premier.

He's the popular choice right now, not because of substance, but because of the allure of change, of something new and fresh, as opposed to the same old same old Labor and Liberal faces.
He will continue the populist charm as long as he can, without really showing us what SAB is or will be about. How they will govern better as opposed to Labor.
I wonder how many of his candidates/members will quit though if elected, like his federal stint? Will it be stable government?

He's team orange. Does that mean he's going to "Make South Australian Great Again"..?

From the SABEST website.

SA-BEST will be relentless in:

Ensuring responsible, transparent and accountable government
Making our essential services accountable, reliable and affordable
Ensuring efficient delivery of health and community services
Revitalising our economy and give our kids a solid future
Making SA the most desirable place in Australia to live and work

Ok..How?

Q. Where are your detailed and costed policies?

A. We see our primary role as being the watchdog against waste and a promoter of dynamic and practical ideas for the state. Our federal representatives adhere to policy principles that guide our actions. These can be viewed here. Our track record at a federal level is all about ensuring accountability and taxpayers getting value for money.

So they them selves don't even believe they will form government.


So far they have 11 candidates for the lower house.

So whose funding Nick Xenophon's two political parties? It's hard enough funding, and running, one party, he's got two simultaneously running that he's the leader of now.