Julia's Reign

[Inside Shoulder]

Bloody Mungo Macallum.....I agree they're no better than any of us. And Fortescue has never paid any tax - tax being arguably the price you pay if you want to have a say in how the economy is run - but why do they have to be bashed by the treasurer or Mungo or anyone simply because they are rich: what's the point at issue?
Should they shut up - why?
Do they peddle their own agendas - yes: but so does everyone to the extent he or she can.
So whats the object to be achieved by belting them?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Seems like a typical balanced abc article to me. Funny thing was as I was reading it I was thinking 'I bet this is from the drum'. And people try to say the abc doesn't swing to the left.

well it doesnt swing - its stuck on the left

 

[Bowside]

Bloody Mungo Macallum.....I agree they're no better than any of us. And Fortescue has never paid any tax - tax being arguably the price you pay if you want to have a say in how the economy is run - but why do they have to be bashed by the treasurer or Mungo or anyone simply because they are rich: what's the point at issue?
Should they shut up - why?
Do they peddle their own agendas - yes: but so does everyone to the extent he or she can.
So whats the object to be achieved by belting them?

Why does the treasurer have to be bashed by them (or bolt or abbot or you and scotty) simply because he is concerned about the effect social inequality has on society and the need to limit the power of special interest?

The question that needs to be asked, is their agenda in the best interests of the country?

 

[Bowside]

I dont think the abc is overly 'leftist' (which in itself is somewhat of a redundant term), but rather just seems that way relative to the right wing positions taken by many dominant media outlets in australia.

 

[Scotty]

Yeah that article was straight down the centre.

Bowside,

Dont forget it was swan that started the bashing. Do you honestly think his sole motivation was his concern for social inequity? Explain to me why he singled out three people who did not carry out advertising against the mining tax, forgot about his new mates that did do the advertising and conveniently found three billionaires that he could use to appeal to Australians tall poppy syndrome. Not to mention forgetting that his union friends throw millions of dollars into political advertising each year.

Yes I am sure it was about social inequality and vested interests.

Come to think about it was about vested interests, but not of those that swan spoke.

 

[Bowside]

I don't like the use of the term bashing - he is critical of them, there is nothing wrong with being critical, whether his criticisms are valid or not is another matter.

I believe he made the speech as a reaction certainly to the events surrounding the anti-mining tax protests, but also to Reinhardt's growing media interest.

I don't know if you have seen this video yet, and you may well disagree, but I certainly hope the style of media outlets proposed in it never come to fruition in Australia.

 

[Bowside]

I also refute your claim that he is in effect 'envious' of their success and simply looking to employ tall poppy syndrome. In each case the individual in questions has used, and will continue to use their considerable wealth to protect their self interests. I truly believe that if their "self interest" was a noble cause than swan would not be critical of it, but I think in reality, their self interest is to protect and enhance their wealth and expand their influence over Australian society.

I would argue that the self interests of the richest 1% are not in the best interests of the other 99% percent of the country. I have no problem with them having lots of money, they have no doubt worked hard for it, but when they try and use their money to influence decisions that will effect the majority of the population I feel it is more than reasonable to question their motives. I am glad the treasurer has and I think it is one of the more responsible things he has done.

 

[ChargerWA]

Now if Abbot weren't so unelectable I would look forward eagerly to the next election.

Rather unbelieveably he is only a couple of points behind Ju-liar in the preffered PM poll.

Poor old Joe Hockey had it all worked out. Hang around in the background until Tony Abbotts vomit inducing personality becomes so obviously unelectable, and then swing in 10 months before the next election and present a fresh face to become the next PM.

I guess he would never have thought that Labor would fuck it so bad that they make Abbott look like a viable choice for alternative PM.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

Why does the treasurer have to be bashed by them (or bolt or abbot or you and scotty) simply because he is concerned about the effect social inequality has on society and the need to limit the power of special interest?

The question that needs to be asked, is their agenda in the best interests of the country?

No - the treasurer seeks public office and we are all entitled to criticise his role in that office. Most of us pay his salary though, notably, not fortescue. Because i dont seek public office and Im not paid from the public purse the treasurer has no right to use a public forum to denounce my performance in my job.

Their agenda only needs to be in the best interests of their shareholders: its not their role to protect or promote the country's interests. In any event to the extent that our interests as a nation do not coincide with their surely that is an occasion for rational debate not public abuse.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I truly believe that if their "self interest" was a noble cause than swan would not be critical of it, but I think in reality, their self interest is to protect and enhance their wealth and expand their influence over Australian society.

I would argue that the self interests of the richest 1% are not in the best interests of the other 99% percent of the country. I have no problem with them having lots of money, they have no doubt worked hard for it, but when they try and use their money to influence decisions that will effect the majority of the population I feel it is more than reasonable to question their motives. I am glad the treasurer has and I think it is one of the more responsible things he has done.

Whats ignoble about their cause?
You assume that the wealthy 1% have an influence on the way we live - i am not sure they do. If they do how do they and what is it?
Sure they influence us financially to a degree - but only as much as our addiction to flat screen TVs made in places other than Australia.
there will always be a richest 1%

 

[Scotty]

Bowside,

You are the one that brought up the 'bash' business. I was just responding to that.

Why does the treasurer have to be bashed by them (or bolt or abbot or you and scotty) simply because he is concerned about the effect social inequality has on society and the need to limit the power of special interest?

The question that needs to be asked, is their agenda in the best interests of the country?

 

[Scotty]

I also refute your claim that he is in effect 'envious' of their success and simply looking to employ tall poppy syndrome. In each case the individual in questions has used, and will continue to use their considerable wealth to protect their self interests. I truly believe that if their "self interest" was a noble cause than swan would not be critical of it, but I think in reality, their self interest is to protect and enhance their wealth and expand their influence over Australian society.

I would argue that the self interests of the richest 1% are not in the best interests of the other 99% percent of the country. I have no problem with them having lots of money, they have no doubt worked hard for it, but when they try and use their money to influence decisions that will effect the majority of the population I feel it is more than reasonable to question their motives. I am glad the treasurer has and I think it is one of the more responsible things he has done.

It isn't quite what I was saying. A few comments:

1. I don't think he personally is envious, but he is certainly leveraging tall poppy syndrome in his audience.
2. I agree that people will often (but not always) use their money and influence to promote their self interests. This will include billionaires.
3. I don't understand how you don't see the irony of what you are saying however. There is no doubt that Swan was also promoting his own self interest. He was using his own influence and power to do so publicly. If he is allowed to do it - why aren't others?
4. If a billionaire was using his influence to push an agenda that aligned with what the Labor party wanted to do, but against the Liberal party - do you think Swan would have mentioned them in his article and speech? Funny how Swan would only consider it promoting self interest or not in the benefit of the Australian people if it is against what his beliefs are (do you really think all his ideas and beliefs are for the benefit of the majority of Australians)?
5. Why did he not have a go at the multi-nationals, BHP, Rio and Xstrata, they were the main objectors to the first mining tax. He didn't pick out these guys because it wasn't in his own interest.

 

[Scotty]

Whats ignoble about their cause?
You assume that the wealthy 1% have an influence on the way we live - i am not sure they do. If they do how do they and what is it?
Sure they influence us financially to a degree - but only as much as our addiction to flat screen TVs made in places other than Australia.
there will always be a richest 1%

They have much less influence on out lives that the likes of Swan and Gillard. Swan and Gillard are much more responsible for lowering our standard of living in the future and increasing our national debt than the top 1% are!

 

[Bowside]

Bowside,

You are the one that brought up the 'bash' business. I was just responding to that.

IS did actually, I was responding to him. But it's semantics in any case - lets forget about it.

It isn't quite what I was saying. A few comments:

1. I don't think he personally is envious, but he is certainly leveraging tall poppy syndrome in his audience.
2. I agree that people will often (but not always) use their money and influence to promote their self interests. This will include billionaires.
3. I don't understand how you don't see the irony of what you are saying however. There is no doubt that Swan was also promoting his own self interest. He was using his own influence and power to do so publicly. If he is allowed to do it - why aren't others?
4. If a billionaire was using his influence to push an agenda that aligned with what the Labor party wanted to do, but against the Liberal party - do you think Swan would have mentioned them in his article and speech? Funny how Swan would only consider it promoting self interest or not in the benefit of the Australian people if it is against what his beliefs are (do you really think all his ideas and beliefs are for the benefit of the majority of Australians)?
5. Why did he not have a go at the multi-nationals, BHP, Rio and Xstrata, they were the main objectors to the first mining tax. He didn't pick out these guys because it wasn't in his own interest.

I was sort of typing the original post knowing that you would point this out, I see the irony and I understand the point you are trying to make. I would argue that Plamer, Reinhardt and Forrester are promoting self interest whereas swan as treasurer is promoting the nations interest.

I think swans self interest and the nations interests are different things. If swan was really obsessed with self interest, economically at least he would probably not be in government but rather working somewhere in the private sector. He is the treasurer, it is part of his job to use his power and influence to further the national interest. That is why the Australian public elected him.

You then go on to say "If he is allowed to do it - why aren't others?", if that is in reference to the public criticisms of palmer and co., I actually said a few posts above that I thought there is nothing wrong with them being critical - but that doesn't make their criticisms valid. If it is a reference (as I suspect it is) to using ones influence/money/power to influence others, then again I would argue that swan has a mandate to influence (in the national interest of course) by virtue of being the treasurer.

At the end of the day, yes, for the most part I think his ideas and beliefs as treasurer are for the benefit of the majority of Australians - as they should be. You obviously don't - fair enough. I dont think there is much to be gained from talking about this any further.

I apologise for the quality of my response and the spelling and grammatical errors - it is late.

 

[Bowside]

I really did not mean for this argument to develop in the way it did. However I think it is important to learn from the mistakes of others and I think in this case there are some very visual mistakes in american society (regarding special interests and how they have effected policy making) which I believe need to be avoided at all costs in our society.

 

[Inside Shoulder]

I really did not mean for this argument to develop in the way it did. However I think it is important to learn from the mistakes of others and I think in this case there are some very visual mistakes in american society (regarding special interests and how they have effected policy making) which I believe need to be avoided at all costs in our society.

We agree on that.
Did you see clive palmer on 7:30 report (NSW at least).
It was the first time I've seen him at any length and I thought he was a fairly unassuming knock about sort of bloke. He certainly didnt seem up himself or condescending.
When badgered by Chris Uhlman's implication that he didnt contribute as much as he should (which is somewhat ironic coming from a bloke who is suckling on the public teat - but I dont mind him) he admitted to having contributed $100m to an aboriginal charity in WA and $6m for help under privileged kids participate in the Duke of Endiburgh program.
I reckon thats a pretty high price to pay for the right to have and express an opinion and puts the man in a somewhat different light.
Its an enormous amount of money.

 

[Scotty]

I really did not mean for this argument to develop in the way it did. However I think it is important to learn from the mistakes of others and I think in this case there are some very visual mistakes in american society (regarding special interests and how they have effected policy making) which I believe need to be avoided at all costs in our society.

No argument at all, just a discussion. What it all comes down to is this one question, 'is swan acting in the national interest or in his own self interest?'.

You believe he is, I believe he might have 10% national interest with a heap of self interest. Unfortunately I am always skeptical of politicians motives - particularly those that have been performing poorly.

 

[matty_k]

We agree on that.
Did you see clive palmer on 7:30 report (NSW at least).
It was the first time I've seen him at any length and I thought he was a fairly unassuming knock about sort of bloke. He certainly didnt seem up himself or condescending.
When badgered by Chris Uhlman's implication that he didnt contribute as much as he should (which is somewhat ironic coming from a bloke who is suckling on the public teat - but I dont mind him) he admitted to having contributed $100m to an aboriginal charity in WA and $6m for help under privileged kids participate in the Duke of Endiburgh program.
I reckon thats a pretty high price to pay for the right to have and express an opinion and puts the man in a somewhat different light.
Its an enormous amount of money.

A quick question: do you see anyone employed by the government in some way as suckling on the public teat?

 

[Inside Shoulder]

A quick question: do you see anyone employed by the government in some way as suckling on the public teat?

Depends what they do: emergency services, nurses & teachers - no; everyone else is under suspicion of being unnecessary or not fully employed.

 

[matty_k]

Depends what they do: emergency services, nurses & teachers - no; everyone else is under suspicion of being unnecessary or not fully employed.

But the ABC provides a public and technically unbiased news service to Australia.
They also give opportunities for TV shows/music/other entertainment/art that normally wouldn't get a run in a completely commercial world.
And I could go on.