Australian opposition decides to sink gay marriage vote

[NumbNut]

13 hours ago, louse1953 said:

What i find pathetic is your understanding of politics.Just because one side won,doesn't mean the losing side has to change on their moral stand.To win any vote a majority has to be gained,if you can't get that the vote is lost.Winning an ekection is not a rubber stamp on all things.

 

Well said louse. 'Mandate' is the most abused word in Aussie politics

[tharae]

16 hours ago, Pepper1959 said:

The difference between other plebiscites and that of our wonderful Australian government is that the Oz one  is not binding on the cockroaches in Canberra. Hence, what is the point in spending $120 million when Conservative rednecks have already stated they will vote NO?

Also, what right does a person have to determine the lifestyle of another person? 

There are many examples in Australian history where referendums/plebiscites were not used on major issues. This plebiscite is the product of a beaten leader, Tony Abbot and the present leader has been stonewalled by the Conservative Right of his own party, with the hope the vote of the plebiscite will be defeated. Unfortunately, it will not and in just a matter of years, these poor backward thinking politicians will have to crawl back into their dark little holes.

Hence it is a total waste of money to hold the plebiscite if these Neandertals are not going to listen to the people who elect them. This is the big problem with our elect reps; they forget they are public servants and not the masters of the Australian population.

 

Are you sure you're a Leftard?  There doesn't seem to be any where near enough hysterics, abuse or expletives in your post. Oh and BTW,  a same sex marriage bill has been tabled in Parliament 15 times (and failed) since Howard's Legislation in 2004, which was opposed by just six senators  at the second reading.

[F4UCorsair]

1 hour ago, kiwiaussie said:

Similarly, in your old age you are losing your memory, and the plot.

 

The ALP opposed the introduction of the GST and voted against it. It managed to pass the senate as the Democrats (remember them!?) agreed to vote with ththe government if food and certain other essentials were exempted.

 

That the ALP when in governemt didnt dismantle the GST is another issue - but largely comes down to you can't unscramble an egg. 

 

The Democrats are gone and the ALP are still around. Says it all really. Sometimes it is worth sticking to your guns. 

 

 

 

 

I'll do some research on that.

 

The ALP will always be around because there are so many losers dependent on social security, and the ALP is the losers' party.  I'd be embarrassed to admit I represented most of the constituents if I was a labor politician.  I saw a figure this morning that showed well over 5 million, almost 20% of the population, are dependent on SS payments.  It now costs $190 BILLION a year, an outrageous amount of money for a population of about 23 million.

 

I do remember the Democrats, and just as surely the Greens will disappear with their primary vote down 30%+ at the last election.  As Paul Keating said recently ( I don't have any time for gutter mouth Keating, incidentally, but this time he got it right), the greens are a 'bunch of Trots hiding behind a gum tree pretending they are the ALP.'

 

The spirit of the Democrats went with Don Chipp, unfortunately, but that's of little consequence with  One Nation now having 4 senate seats.  Both sides are courting her.

 

The ALP would have been very happy with the flow of funds the GST produced, able to prop up their support with even more largesse for the losers of western Sydney, Melbourne, etc.

 

Unfortunately there are more losers than winners in this country, and it's a surprise that the conservatives ever get a run, but since federation, they have been in office about 65% of the time, twice the time of the ALP.   Says it all really.

 

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by F4UCorsair
addition

[simple1]

4 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

I'll do some research on that.

 

The ALP will always be around because there are so many losers dependent on social security, and the ALP is the losers' party.  I'd be embarrassed to admit I represented most of the constituents if I was a labor politician.  I saw a figure this morning that showed well over 5 million, almost 20% of the population, are dependent on SS payments.  It now costs $190 BILLION a year, an outrageous amount of money for a population of about 23 million.

 

I do remember the Democrats, and just as surely the Greens will disappear with their primary vote down 30%+ at the last election.  As Paul Keating said recently ( I don't have any time for gutter mouth Keating, incidentally, but this time he got it right), the greens are a 'bunch of Trots hiding behind a gum tree pretending they are the ALP.'

 

The spirit of the Democrats went with Don Chipp, unfortunately, but that's of little consequence with  One Nation now having 4 senate seats.  Both sides are courting her.

 

The ALP would have been very happy with the flow of funds the GST produced, able to prop up their support with even more largesse for the losers of western Sydney, Melbourne, etc.

 

Unfortunately there are more losers than winners in this country, and it's a surprise that the conservatives ever get a run, but since federation, they have been in office about 65% of the time, twice the time of the ALP.   Says it all really.

 

 

 

Be a good idea for you to have an understanding of SS/Welfare estimated spend spread for 2016/2017 at $159 billion. As an Australian I'm surprised at your lack of understanding how the Howard government dramatically increased costs by attracting votes via middle class welfare and other policies contributing to the overall cost of the total SS annual budget, let alone the tens of billions annual liability for unfunded superannuation for Gov't employees, rather than rabbiting on about 'losers'.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/budget-2016-sliced-diced-interactive/7363834#spending/breakdown/2017/social-security-and-welfare

Edited October 12, 2016 by simple1

[F4UCorsair]

1 hour ago, simple1 said:

 

Be a good idea for you to have an understanding of SS/Welfare estimated spend spread for 2016/2017 at $159 billion. As an Australian I'm surprised at your lack of understanding how the Howard government dramatically increased costs by attracting votes via middle class welfare and other policies contributing to the overall cost of the total SS annual budget, let alone the tens of billions annual liability for unfunded superannuation for Gov't employees, rather than rabbiting on about 'losers'.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-05-03/budget-2016-sliced-diced-interactive/7363834#spending/breakdown/2017/social-security-and-welfare

 

But Howard left $70 Billion in the bank, squandered along with several hundred more billions by Gillard and Rudd, only $125 million of which went toward programmes, mostly $$ wasting like the school halls and pink batts.   

 

I am all for Australians being treated equally, and if that means someone in a high income bracket receiving the same allowances as a low income earner, then that's the way it should be.   I contributed millions in personal taxation, and don't receive a cent from the government in retirement, on top of which the new 'initiatives' on super tax will cost me near $50K a year.  

 

This link is worth a look

 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/australias-welfare-bill-to-top-190b-with-taxpayers-funding-240-million-payments-a-year/news-story/0e6be93c70fe359caa2b8e7ed4ae8312

 

To put the social security budget in context, the total Defence funding for 2016–17 is $32.4 billion, about a sixth of the social security budget!!!

 

If you're so sensitive about losers, perhaps you're one??  I don't give a tinker's cuss for them.  They're in the position they are because most are too lazy to get off their ar$es and have a go in life.

 

If you'd paid as much tax as I did when working, you'd care about it being squandered on losers too.

 

 

 

Edited October 12, 2016 by F4UCorsair

[kiwiaussie]

7 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

 

I'll do some research on that.

 

The ALP will always be around because there are so many losers dependent on social security, and the ALP is the losers' party.  I'd be embarrassed to admit I represented most of the constituents if I was a labor politician.  I saw a figure this morning that showed well over 5 million, almost 20% of the population, are dependent on SS payments.  It now costs $190 BILLION a year, an outrageous amount of money for a population of about 23 million.

 

I do remember the Democrats, and just as surely the Greens will disappear with their primary vote down 30%+ at the last election.  As Paul Keating said recently ( I don't have any time for gutter mouth Keating, incidentally, but this time he got it right), the greens are a 'bunch of Trots hiding behind a gum tree pretending they are the ALP.'

 

The spirit of the Democrats went with Don Chipp, unfortunately, but that's of little consequence with  One Nation now having 4 senate seats.  Both sides are courting her.

 

The ALP would have been very happy with the flow of funds the GST produced, able to prop up their support with even more largesse for the losers of western Sydney, Melbourne, etc.

 

Unfortunately there are more losers than winners in this country, and it's a surprise that the conservatives ever get a run, but since federation, they have been in office about 65% of the time, twice the time of the ALP.   Says it all really.

 

 

Don't be so outraged. Half of the recipients are either aged pensioners or veterans.

 

http://theconversation.com/factcheck-is-half-to-two-thirds-of-the-australian-population-receiving-a-government-benefit-41027

 

That is only going to get worse given demographics and aging populations.

 

what you should be worried about is the middle class welfare. baby bonuses, first home buyer grants, child care rebates, private Heath insurance subsidies, no fuel indexation. Politically, hard to touch these days. That is where the real 'fat' is.

 

Traditional 'dole' welfare has been cut to the bone as it is an easy political target. 

 

baxk in the 80s I worked a bit on Keatings famous 'Option C' which was a broad based consumption tax. He got rolled by the unions and Hawke though. Those were the days. 

 

Now, back to dinner plans...and other more important things...

[simple1]

2 hours ago, F4UCorsair said:

 

But Howard left $70 Billion in the bank, squandered along with several hundred more billions by Gillard and Rudd, only $125 million of which went toward programmes, mostly $$ wasting like the school halls and pink batts.   

 

I am all for Australians being treated equally, and if that means someone in a high income bracket receiving the same allowances as a low income earner, then that's the way it should be.   I contributed millions in personal taxation, and don't receive a cent from the government in retirement, on top of which the new 'initiatives' on super tax will cost me near $50K a year.  

 

This link is worth a look

 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/australias-welfare-bill-to-top-190b-with-taxpayers-funding-240-million-payments-a-year/news-story/0e6be93c70fe359caa2b8e7ed4ae8312

 

To put the social security budget in context, the total Defence funding for 2016–17 is $32.4 billion, about a sixth of the social security budget!!!

 

If you're so sensitive about losers, perhaps you're one??  I don't give a tinker's cuss for them.  They're in the position they are because most are too lazy to get off their ar$es and have a go in life.

 

If you'd paid as much tax as I did when working, you'd care about it being squandered on losers too.

 

 

 

 

I recall your aggressive manner. To be direct I do not understand why someone who proclaims a great deal of financial / business success is so angry towards others who are less motivated or probably really don't care for a variety of reasons. I also paid a fair amount of tax, not millions, whilst working in sales in the IT industry, but damned if I'm going to indulge in bitter commentary on a forum towards those receiving welfare, for me personally wouldn't contribute to my sense of self worth or happiness.

 

Given around 50% of Australian income earners pay zero net tax, no wonder the costs involved. Plus from memory the number of Australians receiving some form of welfare income in Australia is in the region of seven million. Naturally all this is way off topic so no further comment on welfare.

 

IMO there should just be a vote in Parliament to enact or not relevant legislation, rather than all the blah blah going on right now.

Edited October 12, 2016 by simple1

[Prbkk]

The very last thing Australia needs is a plebiscite that will hand the floor to the loony-fringe 'christian' hate mongers, paid out of the public purse. A simple vote of parliament: it would not hurt Turnbull; in fact it would help him fend off the dinosaurs like Abetz , Abbott and Bernardi once and for all. So what if it was an election "promise"; we all know how rubbery such things are and in any case with 70% pro equality in the polls, they appear to have a mandate for changing the 'promise' to a 10 minute vote. The end of the matter.