|
GDeathe
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.1K,
Visits: 0
|
drawing a dick 'n balls on the house reps
LDP in the senate
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Aikhme wrote:SocaWho wrote:Might vote for the sex party...Fiona Patten looks like a good sort Can she give us a good demonstration of what she stands for? Quote:The Australian Sex Party is an Australian political party founded in 2009 in response to concerns over the increasing influence of religion in Australian politics. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
Ricky Muir gets first senate preference, I'm undecided about HoR.
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Aikhme wrote:SocaWho wrote:Might vote for the sex party...Fiona Patten looks like a good sort Can she give us a good demonstration of what she stands for? Quote:The Australian Sex Party is an Australian political party founded in 2009 in response to concerns over the increasing influence of religion in Australian politics. -PB all the more reason to vote for the sex party
|
|
|
|
|
T-UNIT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.2K,
Visits: 0
|
SocaWho wrote:Where's Napolean Dynamite when you need him Where do ya think??!! 
|
|
|
|
|
Heineken
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 49K,
Visits: 0
|
SocaWho wrote:Heineken wrote:SocaWho wrote:Might vote for the sex party...Fiona Patten looks like a good sort Jesus, has it been a while for you mate. :lol: As you get older you tend to lower your standards a bit...you will find out one day There's a joke in here about a filet mignon and a tub of Vaseline.
WOLLONGONG WOLVES FOR A-LEAGUE EXPANSION!
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:Ricky Muir gets first senate preference, I'm undecided about HoR. Yep, hasn't really put a foot wrong imo. -PB
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:grazorblade wrote:I used to vote informal. Economically I usually agree with the left but I'm also pro-life
Then I lived in the usa and saw what it was like for the working poor and even the middle class without strong unions, a high minimum wage, good public health and education and a safety net. The USA is a downright distopia for half the country and the other half work themselves to death unnecessarily. It wasn't that much less of a shock than a 3rd world country
that was the end of political apathy for me I was never apathetic politically. Always relished voting. I have voted for both sides and consider myself a swinging voter. But right now, I feel very uninspired. We need to choose between 2 idiots - Shorten or Turnbull. If Abbott was still in, I would have voted for him and I will tell you why. He was the only honest PM we ever had ever. He was too honest and perhaps that was his problem. He also never threw anyone under the bus. Old school values I kind of respect. Which is why I would have voted for him. I'm no huge fan of Abbott. But I do think you're kind of right about that. In many ways, he was kind of honest. Honest (or in many ways idealistically honest) to the point of being politically stupid. Bringing back knighthoods and then giving one to the Duke of Edinburgh surely would have been a political death wish given certain aspects of the Australian character. Not suggesting I approve of those aspects of the Australian character. Just Abbott surely would have known that the risks greatly outweighed the rewards. Yeh the Knights and Dames saga was stupid. He shouldn't have done it. I've been told that the Queen actually asked him to do it in order to decorate her husband Philip. I'm not sure if that is true, but that is what I was told from a seemingly good source. But ordinarily, that was a minor issue that became huge. What Abbott needed to do, was sack Hockey and put Morrison into the job. He should have sacked Turnbull as well from Communications portfolio. It was obvious that the Cabinet Leaks were from him. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 01:56:34 AM What kind of source provided you with that information? No offence. I struggle to believe that. It's almost utterly implausible. To paraphrase one of the Queen's former principal private secretaries, I'd be more likely to believe that a herd of unicorns is grazing in the middle of Hyde Park. The Queen tends to steer clear of these kind of things (especially where it concerns dominion nations). Also, (this is just based on Buckingham Palace whispers) when Australia voted against a republic in the referendum, Prince Philip was absolutely staggered. He thought there was something wrong with Australian voters. Edited by quickflick: 14/5/2016 02:08:13 AM My wife is a policy and media advisor. Quite often, what the media portray and what is fact are 2 different things. The media a feral.
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:grazorblade wrote:I used to vote informal. Economically I usually agree with the left but I'm also pro-life
Then I lived in the usa and saw what it was like for the working poor and even the middle class without strong unions, a high minimum wage, good public health and education and a safety net. The USA is a downright distopia for half the country and the other half work themselves to death unnecessarily. It wasn't that much less of a shock than a 3rd world country
that was the end of political apathy for me I was never apathetic politically. Always relished voting. I have voted for both sides and consider myself a swinging voter. But right now, I feel very uninspired. We need to choose between 2 idiots - Shorten or Turnbull. If Abbott was still in, I would have voted for him and I will tell you why. He was the only honest PM we ever had ever. He was too honest and perhaps that was his problem. He also never threw anyone under the bus. Old school values I kind of respect. Which is why I would have voted for him. I'm no huge fan of Abbott. But I do think you're kind of right about that. In many ways, he was kind of honest. Honest (or in many ways idealistically honest) to the point of being politically stupid. Bringing back knighthoods and then giving one to the Duke of Edinburgh surely would have been a political death wish given certain aspects of the Australian character. Not suggesting I approve of those aspects of the Australian character. Just Abbott surely would have known that the risks greatly outweighed the rewards. How can anyone call Abbott honest when the 2013 election campaign was one of the most dishonest in history? That is not quite true. Everyone knew where they stood with Abbott. You don't with either Turnbull or Shorten. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 05:54:40 PM
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
Aikhme wrote:mcjules wrote:quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:grazorblade wrote:I used to vote informal. Economically I usually agree with the left but I'm also pro-life
Then I lived in the usa and saw what it was like for the working poor and even the middle class without strong unions, a high minimum wage, good public health and education and a safety net. The USA is a downright distopia for half the country and the other half work themselves to death unnecessarily. It wasn't that much less of a shock than a 3rd world country
that was the end of political apathy for me I was never apathetic politically. Always relished voting. I have voted for both sides and consider myself a swinging voter. But right now, I feel very uninspired. We need to choose between 2 idiots - Shorten or Turnbull. If Abbott was still in, I would have voted for him and I will tell you why. He was the only honest PM we ever had ever. He was too honest and perhaps that was his problem. He also never threw anyone under the bus. Old school values I kind of respect. Which is why I would have voted for him. I'm no huge fan of Abbott. But I do think you're kind of right about that. In many ways, he was kind of honest. Honest (or in many ways idealistically honest) to the point of being politically stupid. Bringing back knighthoods and then giving one to the Duke of Edinburgh surely would have been a political death wish given certain aspects of the Australian character. Not suggesting I approve of those aspects of the Australian character. Just Abbott surely would have known that the risks greatly outweighed the rewards. How can anyone call Abbott honest when the 2013 election campaign was one of the most dishonest in history? That is not quite true. Everyone knew where they stood with Abbott. You don't with either Turnbull or Shorten. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 05:54:40 PM Not really, nobody was expecting him to break so many election promises. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
SocaWho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.3K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Aikhme wrote:mcjules wrote:quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:grazorblade wrote:I used to vote informal. Economically I usually agree with the left but I'm also pro-life
Then I lived in the usa and saw what it was like for the working poor and even the middle class without strong unions, a high minimum wage, good public health and education and a safety net. The USA is a downright distopia for half the country and the other half work themselves to death unnecessarily. It wasn't that much less of a shock than a 3rd world country
that was the end of political apathy for me I was never apathetic politically. Always relished voting. I have voted for both sides and consider myself a swinging voter. But right now, I feel very uninspired. We need to choose between 2 idiots - Shorten or Turnbull. If Abbott was still in, I would have voted for him and I will tell you why. He was the only honest PM we ever had ever. He was too honest and perhaps that was his problem. He also never threw anyone under the bus. Old school values I kind of respect. Which is why I would have voted for him. I'm no huge fan of Abbott. But I do think you're kind of right about that. In many ways, he was kind of honest. Honest (or in many ways idealistically honest) to the point of being politically stupid. Bringing back knighthoods and then giving one to the Duke of Edinburgh surely would have been a political death wish given certain aspects of the Australian character. Not suggesting I approve of those aspects of the Australian character. Just Abbott surely would have known that the risks greatly outweighed the rewards. How can anyone call Abbott honest when the 2013 election campaign was one of the most dishonest in history? That is not quite true. Everyone knew where they stood with Abbott. You don't with either Turnbull or Shorten. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 05:54:40 PM Not really, nobody was expecting him to break so many election promises. -PB Every politician breaks promises.
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
paulbagzFC wrote:Aikhme wrote:mcjules wrote:quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:grazorblade wrote:I used to vote informal. Economically I usually agree with the left but I'm also pro-life
Then I lived in the usa and saw what it was like for the working poor and even the middle class without strong unions, a high minimum wage, good public health and education and a safety net. The USA is a downright distopia for half the country and the other half work themselves to death unnecessarily. It wasn't that much less of a shock than a 3rd world country
that was the end of political apathy for me I was never apathetic politically. Always relished voting. I have voted for both sides and consider myself a swinging voter. But right now, I feel very uninspired. We need to choose between 2 idiots - Shorten or Turnbull. If Abbott was still in, I would have voted for him and I will tell you why. He was the only honest PM we ever had ever. He was too honest and perhaps that was his problem. He also never threw anyone under the bus. Old school values I kind of respect. Which is why I would have voted for him. I'm no huge fan of Abbott. But I do think you're kind of right about that. In many ways, he was kind of honest. Honest (or in many ways idealistically honest) to the point of being politically stupid. Bringing back knighthoods and then giving one to the Duke of Edinburgh surely would have been a political death wish given certain aspects of the Australian character. Not suggesting I approve of those aspects of the Australian character. Just Abbott surely would have known that the risks greatly outweighed the rewards. How can anyone call Abbott honest when the 2013 election campaign was one of the most dishonest in history? That is not quite true. Everyone knew where they stood with Abbott. You don't with either Turnbull or Shorten. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 05:54:40 PM Not really, nobody was expecting him to break so many election promises. -PB He only really broke one and he did come up with a reasonable explanation why. He was pretty poor at political talk. What you got from him was the authentic Tony. The guy was a career politician but not good at politics. His delivery was poor which meant he was too honest. Hence the nickname Honest Tony. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 08:03:06 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
He was hopeless . He was all bluster . He needed to turn down the attack dog persona he had whilst opposition leader .
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:He was hopeless . He was all bluster . He needed to turn down the attack dog persona he had whilst opposition leader . Ever heard of Costello and Keating? I don't think anyone cared about the bluster. He was the most politically naive politician in living memory. What the people actually want is a politicians who can spin a few believable lies in political speak. He was bad at that. Very bad. And too loyal to those who didn't deserve it. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 08:20:11 PM
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:He was hopeless . He was all bluster . He needed to turn down the attack dog persona he had whilst opposition leader . This is all true but his downfall was that they promised to "fix the debt" but to do it without raising any taxes or cutting anything that people care about like pensions or Medicare. Then the first budget came through and it was full of ideologically driven crap that simply wasn't palatable to the population. This is why it was a dishonest election campaign. The comments trying to whitewash Abbott's history as leader of the Liberal party as just a "politically naive politician" are just embarrassing :oops:
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
Aikhme wrote:quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:grazorblade wrote:I used to vote informal. Economically I usually agree with the left but I'm also pro-life
Then I lived in the usa and saw what it was like for the working poor and even the middle class without strong unions, a high minimum wage, good public health and education and a safety net. The USA is a downright distopia for half the country and the other half work themselves to death unnecessarily. It wasn't that much less of a shock than a 3rd world country
that was the end of political apathy for me I was never apathetic politically. Always relished voting. I have voted for both sides and consider myself a swinging voter. But right now, I feel very uninspired. We need to choose between 2 idiots - Shorten or Turnbull. If Abbott was still in, I would have voted for him and I will tell you why. He was the only honest PM we ever had ever. He was too honest and perhaps that was his problem. He also never threw anyone under the bus. Old school values I kind of respect. Which is why I would have voted for him. I'm no huge fan of Abbott. But I do think you're kind of right about that. In many ways, he was kind of honest. Honest (or in many ways idealistically honest) to the point of being politically stupid. Bringing back knighthoods and then giving one to the Duke of Edinburgh surely would have been a political death wish given certain aspects of the Australian character. Not suggesting I approve of those aspects of the Australian character. Just Abbott surely would have known that the risks greatly outweighed the rewards. Yeh the Knights and Dames saga was stupid. He shouldn't have done it. I've been told that the Queen actually asked him to do it in order to decorate her husband Philip. I'm not sure if that is true, but that is what I was told from a seemingly good source. But ordinarily, that was a minor issue that became huge. What Abbott needed to do, was sack Hockey and put Morrison into the job. He should have sacked Turnbull as well from Communications portfolio. It was obvious that the Cabinet Leaks were from him. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 01:56:34 AM What kind of source provided you with that information? No offence. I struggle to believe that. It's almost utterly implausible. To paraphrase one of the Queen's former principal private secretaries, I'd be more likely to believe that a herd of unicorns is grazing in the middle of Hyde Park. The Queen tends to steer clear of these kind of things (especially where it concerns dominion nations). Also, (this is just based on Buckingham Palace whispers) when Australia voted against a republic in the referendum, Prince Philip was absolutely staggered. He thought there was something wrong with Australian voters. Edited by quickflick: 14/5/2016 02:08:13 AM My wife is a policy and media advisor. Quite often, what the media portray and what is fact are 2 different things. The media a feral. She's right. The media can distort things. I can't say with absolute certainty anything in particular about the Queen. But what I do is I base my opinion on a range of sources. Some of these sources are more reliable media sources (still taken with a grain of salt), others are published diaries of other members of the Royal Household and politicians, others are a couple of people I've known (a family friend and friend I worked with) who have personal experience with members of the Royal Family. Again, I don't take their words as Gospel, but I build up a picture based on sources which corroborate the same (or a similar) story. I gather the Queen, ironically, isn't into pretensions. She's not perfect and there may have been times when she has like the trappings of royal life. In the religious sense, she is fairly conservative. She forbade her sister, Princess Margaret, to marry the divorced Group Captain Townsend, whom she loved, and this interference in her sister's personal life didn't help. The Queen Mother was a shocking woman who did like pretensions (at least to some extent), was incredibly jealous and rather stupid. But the Queen, herself, wouldn't be the type to pressure an Australian PM to granting a knighthood to the Duke of Edinburgh. The word is that the Queen despises Princess Michael of Kent who is all about the trappings. And one of the Queen's favourite members of the Royal Family is her daughter-in-law, the Countess of Wessex, who is really laid back and, a bit like your wife, had a career in public relations before marrying into the Royal Family.
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
AUSTRALIA election winners since 1983 and informal voting percentage
Winner - year - Informal voting percentage
Labour 1983 - 2.1%
Labour 1984 - 6.3%
Labour 1987 - 4.9%
Labour 1990 - 3.2%
Labour 1993 - 3.0%
Coalition 1996 - 3.2%
Coalition 1998 - 3.8%
Coalition 2001 - 4.8%
Coalition 2004 - 5.2%
Labour 2007 - 4.0%
Labour 2010 - 5.55%
Coalition 2013 - 5.9%
|
|
|
|
|
quickflick
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
People are getting more and more disenchanted by the major parties. That or they're getting cleverer.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Aikhme wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:He was hopeless . He was all bluster . He needed to turn down the attack dog persona he had whilst opposition leader . Ever heard of Costello and Keating? I don't think anyone cared about the bluster. He was the most politically naive politician in living memory. What the people actually want is a politicians who can spin a few believable lies in political speak. He was bad at that. Very bad. And too loyal to those who didn't deserve it. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 08:20:11 PM His poli speak was mind numbing and very forced. Even though he ripped into Julia, she told him the way he was in private should be the guy we see in public, apparently he was a very great guy who knew how to relax and be himself . It seeemed he was a puppet ,
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:He was hopeless . He was all bluster . He needed to turn down the attack dog persona he had whilst opposition leader . This is all true but his downfall was that they promised to "fix the debt" but to do it without raising any taxes or cutting anything that people care about like pensions or Medicare. Then the first budget came through and it was full of ideologically driven crap that simply wasn't palatable to the population. This is why it was a dishonest election campaign. The comments trying to whitewash Abbott's history as leader of the Liberal party as just a "politically naive politician" are just embarrassing :oops: That's what happens when he loyal to the right of his party. He needed to be more centre and populist. The right faction of the libs live in their little bubble where everything is super awesome and screw anyone who needs help.
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:quickflick wrote:Aikhme wrote:grazorblade wrote:I used to vote informal. Economically I usually agree with the left but I'm also pro-life
Then I lived in the usa and saw what it was like for the working poor and even the middle class without strong unions, a high minimum wage, good public health and education and a safety net. The USA is a downright distopia for half the country and the other half work themselves to death unnecessarily. It wasn't that much less of a shock than a 3rd world country
that was the end of political apathy for me I was never apathetic politically. Always relished voting. I have voted for both sides and consider myself a swinging voter. But right now, I feel very uninspired. We need to choose between 2 idiots - Shorten or Turnbull. If Abbott was still in, I would have voted for him and I will tell you why. He was the only honest PM we ever had ever. He was too honest and perhaps that was his problem. He also never threw anyone under the bus. Old school values I kind of respect. Which is why I would have voted for him. I'm no huge fan of Abbott. But I do think you're kind of right about that. In many ways, he was kind of honest. Honest (or in many ways idealistically honest) to the point of being politically stupid. Bringing back knighthoods and then giving one to the Duke of Edinburgh surely would have been a political death wish given certain aspects of the Australian character. Not suggesting I approve of those aspects of the Australian character. Just Abbott surely would have known that the risks greatly outweighed the rewards. Yeh the Knights and Dames saga was stupid. He shouldn't have done it. I've been told that the Queen actually asked him to do it in order to decorate her husband Philip. I'm not sure if that is true, but that is what I was told from a seemingly good source. But ordinarily, that was a minor issue that became huge. What Abbott needed to do, was sack Hockey and put Morrison into the job. He should have sacked Turnbull as well from Communications portfolio. It was obvious that the Cabinet Leaks were from him. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 01:56:34 AM What kind of source provided you with that information? No offence. I struggle to believe that. It's almost utterly implausible. To paraphrase one of the Queen's former principal private secretaries, I'd be more likely to believe that a herd of unicorns is grazing in the middle of Hyde Park. The Queen tends to steer clear of these kind of things (especially where it concerns dominion nations). Also, (this is just based on Buckingham Palace whispers) when Australia voted against a republic in the referendum, Prince Philip was absolutely staggered. He thought there was something wrong with Australian voters. Edited by quickflick: 14/5/2016 02:08:13 AM My wife is a policy and media advisor. Quite often, what the media portray and what is fact are 2 different things. The media a feral. She's right. The media can distort things. I can't say with absolute certainty anything in particular about the Queen. But what I do is I base my opinion on a range of sources. Some of these sources are more reliable media sources (still taken with a grain of salt), others are published diaries of other members of the Royal Household and politicians, others are a couple of people I've known (a family friend and friend I worked with) who have personal experience with members of the Royal Family. Again, I don't take their words as Gospel, but I build up a picture based on sources which corroborate the same (or a similar) story. I gather the Queen, ironically, isn't into pretensions. She's not perfect and there may have been times when she has like the trappings of royal life. In the religious sense, she is fairly conservative. She forbade her sister, Princess Margaret, to marry the divorced Group Captain Townsend, whom she loved, and this interference in her sister's personal life didn't help. The Queen Mother was a shocking woman who did like pretensions (at least to some extent), was incredibly jealous and rather stupid. But the Queen, herself, wouldn't be the type to pressure an Australian PM to granting a knighthood to the Duke of Edinburgh. The word is that the Queen despises Princess Michael of Kent who is all about the trappings. And one of the Queen's favourite members of the Royal Family is her daughter-in-law, the Countess of Wessex, who is really laid back and, a bit like your wife, had a career in public relations before marrying into the Royal Family. I'm not casting any aspersions on Queen Elizabeth herself which I have no reason to doubt that she might not be into the pretensions. But the story I got, from the inside, is that the decision about Kinights and Dames was not Abbott's decision entirely. It was done as a personal favour to Philip. Once again, I am not 100% whether this is true. But the sources are from within the Party itself. At the end of the day, people are still not going to listen. This issue was blown way out of all proportions. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 11:07:49 PM
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:He was hopeless . He was all bluster . He needed to turn down the attack dog persona he had whilst opposition leader . This is all true but his downfall was that they promised to "fix the debt" but to do it without raising any taxes or cutting anything that people care about like pensions or Medicare. Then the first budget came through and it was full of ideologically driven crap that simply wasn't palatable to the population. This is why it was a dishonest election campaign. The comments trying to whitewash Abbott's history as leader of the Liberal party as just a "politically naive politician" are just embarrassing :oops: He never promised to fix the debt in 3 years. It was always a 10 year forward projection.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
He actually promised to fix the debt very quickly. Where you got ten years from i have no idea.
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:He actually promised to fix the debt very quickly. Where you got ten years from i have no idea. No he made no mention of fixing the debt at all. It was already approaching half a trillion before he got to office. He made promises regarding the $50 Billion dollar deficit. But he never promised to fix it within 2 years. That is impossible.
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Again where the hell did he say 2 years or 10 ??
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:Again where the hell did he say 2 years or 10 ?? In the budget and forward projections. I am sure you can get a copy. And I am not saying 10 years. It is whatever the forward projection is. I believe the first budget mention 2019 but the second 2022. That was the deficit and not the debt. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 11:14:35 PMEdited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 11:15:57 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Carlito
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 28K,
Visits: 0
|
Im asking where you got him saying its a 10 ywar propistion or 3 year? Not what you think .
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:He actually promised to fix the debt very quickly. Where you got ten years from i have no idea. Yes crazy promise. :oops: Anyone who had been following why the deficit was increasing in the proceeding years, knew that claim was ridiculous and that as soon as they got in they were going to say "we didn't know it was THIS BAD, we're going to need more time". Sure enough "Labor's Mess™" was born. Edited by mcjules: 14/5/2016 11:18:12 PM
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:Im asking where you got him saying its a 10 ywar propistion or 3 year? Not what you think . He wouldn't say it. He also didn't say he will fix a $50 billion deficit in 1 term. They form a budget and talk about trajectory and forward projections. That is what they mean.
|
|
|
|
Aikhme
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 2.4K,
Visits: 0
|
mcjules wrote:MvFCArsenal16.8 wrote:He actually promised to fix the debt very quickly. Where you got ten years from i have no idea. Yes crazy promise. :oops: Anyone who had been following why the deficit was increasing in the proceeding years, knew that claim was ridiculous and that as soon as they got in they were going to say "we didn't know it was THIS BAD, we're going to need more time". Sure enough "Labor's Mess™" was born. Edited by mcjules: 14/5/2016 11:18:12 PM Be on track to deliver a budget surplus. In other words - projected trajectory. He didn't say he will deliver a surplus in the first year. Edited by Aikhme: 14/5/2016 11:21:06 PM
|
|
|
|