Federal Coalition Government 2013-?
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
- Status
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
WMD as a reason if you fear they have it and they choose not to show you they don't when they were asked --- leads to suspicion. There are consequences. If Badgad had said have a look and see what you can find and nothing was found then things may well have been very different.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I'll post my response in the new Middle East thread:
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/the-middle-east.14891/
http://www.greenandgoldrugby.com/community/threads/the-middle-east.14891/
Gnostic
Mark Ella (57)
The US cannot admit that sometimes in some cultures a strong government may not necessarily be elected in what they call "fair and free" elections.
The US (and by extension Australia) have a very poor record in the 20th century of supporting "elected" governments at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve. For example the extremely corrupt South Vietnamese government.
In most recent times the lies that Bush, Blair and Howard repeated regarding WMD to justify democratisation of Iraq (and there were dissenting voices in the intelligence agencies that were ignored and ostracised) have backfired big time. I sit back and ask myself are the people of Iraq better off with Saddam's regime gone? They may be in the future, but what about the lost two or three generations between now and then? What about the flow on effects between with other states?
Is Lybia better off without Gaddafi (sp)? Will Syria be better off without Assad? These regimes had serious downsides, very serious, but they also kept the ultra extremists and militarists under control.
Finally I hate hypocrisy, and the Foreign Policies of the west against regimes like those stated nicely ignore their favoured "friends" like the Sauds, Jordan, UAE and various Central American states. Basically as long as you play nice with the west they will endorse and recognise your authority, make the wrong friends (eg. Russia or Iran) or restrain "trade" (read western profits) and you are in world of hurt and will be declared part of the "Axis of Evil" or a "Death Cult"
The US (and by extension Australia) have a very poor record in the 20th century of supporting "elected" governments at the expense of the people they are supposed to serve. For example the extremely corrupt South Vietnamese government.
In most recent times the lies that Bush, Blair and Howard repeated regarding WMD to justify democratisation of Iraq (and there were dissenting voices in the intelligence agencies that were ignored and ostracised) have backfired big time. I sit back and ask myself are the people of Iraq better off with Saddam's regime gone? They may be in the future, but what about the lost two or three generations between now and then? What about the flow on effects between with other states?
Is Lybia better off without Gaddafi (sp)? Will Syria be better off without Assad? These regimes had serious downsides, very serious, but they also kept the ultra extremists and militarists under control.
Finally I hate hypocrisy, and the Foreign Policies of the west against regimes like those stated nicely ignore their favoured "friends" like the Sauds, Jordan, UAE and various Central American states. Basically as long as you play nice with the west they will endorse and recognise your authority, make the wrong friends (eg. Russia or Iran) or restrain "trade" (read western profits) and you are in world of hurt and will be declared part of the "Axis of Evil" or a "Death Cult"
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
Short answer: No.
In the case of Syria, whatever legitimate opposition that was forming against Assad within the country prior to 2011 has now been destroyed as the Syrian people get behind their leader to oppose the insurgent rebel groups.
Libya is now a mess.
sorry but when does any government ever admit a major error
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
The Medibank Private sell-off will gain approx. $4B, yet in government hands it reaps an annual dividend of approx. $500M (which would increase over time).
Thus, eight years of the dividend would account for the sell-off (and Australia would reap it in perpetuity).
Very short-sighted of the Coalition (do they do long-termism?).
Thus, eight years of the dividend would account for the sell-off (and Australia would reap it in perpetuity).
Very short-sighted of the Coalition (do they do long-termism?).
So the government should be in the private insurance industry?
I guess it depends on what you believe a government's role is.
Oh, and is there actual evidence the profit would "increase over time" with calls to drop the rebates? And are the rebates included in the "profit"
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
A Government's key role is to ensure it's own sustainability. They would have many 'assets' that fall outside the typical role of Government as their primary function. It is possible that the purpose they serve to the government is no the primary function of the 'asset'.
I think there is a vast difference between taxpayers owning an asset and the government operating in a private industry.
Is there a compelling reason to sell an asset just because it is currently publicly owned?
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
Governments get into business for some good initial reasons but as economies grow and private enterprise arises and you have competition (ACCC looks after the next issue) then it is a waste of taxpayers funds to be supporting in many cases uncompetive businesses. ALP sold 23 or 24 in a privatization reform process in the Hawke and Keating era.
The ALP then oppossed Telstra's sale for political reasons, because if they had stayed in government it would have gone. So we got the NBN as a Conroy renationalization strategy.
With Medibank there are a number of viable alternatives so why be in it.? The dividend will grow under a privatized system as they trim down the over inflated beuracracy, the public service super, costs, etc will become a private businesses concern and the shareholders will pay tax on the income form the shares. So the revenue stream ( minus costs of the gov't running Medibank) from the sale and tax will be more.
The ALP may well be forcing this type of issue as they continue to block in the senate so more creatinve methods have to be found by the government to pay for the mess left.
The ALP then oppossed Telstra's sale for political reasons, because if they had stayed in government it would have gone. So we got the NBN as a Conroy renationalization strategy.
With Medibank there are a number of viable alternatives so why be in it.? The dividend will grow under a privatized system as they trim down the over inflated beuracracy, the public service super, costs, etc will become a private businesses concern and the shareholders will pay tax on the income form the shares. So the revenue stream ( minus costs of the gov't running Medibank) from the sale and tax will be more.
The ALP may well be forcing this type of issue as they continue to block in the senate so more creatinve methods have to be found by the government to pay for the mess left.
I thought they did that through taxes, not setting up businesses.
I have a philosophical issue with a government running businesses in competition with private enterprises, especially when that enterprise's profitability is predicated on the subsidies the same government provides.
Do they limit more middle class welfare that would lead to lower profit returns to a company they own?
Depends if we want to lower/pay off some debt, the way it has worked for a while is Labor maxes the credit card for a few years and the Libs come in and sell something to get debt back under control.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
That's a pretty narrow minded view. I would be extremely concerned if that was the mindset of our current government.
Me, I want less government, not more
Narrow minded?
Probably, if that means wanting all governments just to govern and live within their means, not compete with businesses for no valid reason.
Scoey
Tony Shaw (54)
The reality is though, that running a country costs a lot of money. Restricting income to taxes isn't sustainable therefore they need to rely on other forms of investment. Owning MBP gives them a revenue stream and that is a valid reason in my book.
How exactly are they running a business though? They just own it. It has a board of directors and the employees aren't members of the public service.
Any government policy affects every other private health insurer in exactly the same way it affects Medibank Private.
Policies such as the private health insurance rebate cost many times more in what the government pays out on an annual basis compared to what the annual dividend from Medibank Private is so I don't see how there could be a conflict between government policy and them owning as asset that competes in an open market with many competitors.
Due to it being in a competitive market, it is less subject to intervention by government policy than one of the toll roads or other utilities owned by a state of federal government.
I have no problem if a decision is made that the public benefit will be greater by selling an asset rather than retaining it but I don't see any conflict in taxpayers owning an asset.
Bullrush
John Hipwell (52)
I don't care what industry the government is in. So long as it is well run, provides a good product/service and is still profitable.
The idea that everything the government runs is more inefficient than something privately run just isn't always true. There seems to be an ideology on the right that anything set-up and/or run by the government is inherently bad, or not as good as private enterprise. Which just isn't true.
MBP's profits are directly linked to the government's private healthcare rebates and penalties designed to drive people to buy private health insurance
- Status