Tony Abbott - an economic simpleton

[IQS.RLOW]

Your disingenuousness has already been pointed out to you elsewhere that Abbotts stance was based on having a carbon policy forced upon the Australian people along the lines of if you were going to be killed would you prefer to be stabbed or shot.

Take your piss ant arguments back to your fawning sycophants. No one here or in the majority of Australia is buying the bullshit you are selling

F*** off, economic vandal

[Rorschach]

ok where did my reply to fd go?

[Rorschach]

In the Vortex...

can anyone tell me why this reply should end up in the Vortex?

YAWN...
I remember you now... you tell him once... you tell him a thousand time.

I did not say he was revolting. I said he was promoting a carbon tax as a better option. He would not have done that if he did not want it. let me answer in red.... as I and IQS have pointed out Howard and Turnbull decided Liberal policy would be an ETS. Abbott disagreed, stating a tax would be simpler to implement and remove. REMOVE... get it. It ain't about accepting or wanting it at all.

He described the science as crap, but he seriously thought a carbon tax was a better option. He promoted it for several reasons, not just his doubts about the science. Like I said and I can post the quotes to back it up. He preferred a tax because it was simpler to implement and easier to remove than an ETS.

You can read his words for yourself:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/green-tax-shi" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If you look at his more recent announcements, it appears that his direct action policy is only temporary. He has scheduled another backflip for 2015. Ah no he hasn't and no he wouldn't... do try your scare campaign on stupider people like oh I don't know JM, Aussie mel, mantra.... The only reason it would be temporary is if the true believer woke up to themselves

Oh and i think you'll find he wasn't giving speeches for one or campaigning for one merely answering questions in interviews about it.

[Rorschach]

I read an article the other day (by a well known Labor identity) that backed up what many economists have said about the GFC and Labor. Which is basically my view of it... that being it hardly affected us directly anyway. I'll post that article when I find it again.
But for now in line with the topic...

How Labor blew the budget and hocked our future
* by: Andrew Robb
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* April 08, 2013 12:00AM


THE myth that Labor saved Australia from the global financial crisis with its overblown $87 billion stimulus package needs to be dispelled.

For too long Labor has used the GFC as cover for its terrible record, including the four biggest budget deficits in Australia's history, with a fifth to follow.

Labor has also taken federal government net debt from zero, with $70 billion in net assets in 2007, to $168 billion with annual interest payments exceeding $7 billion. Gross debt now stands at $270 billion.

This is despite having benefited from the highest terms of trade in 150 years off the back of the mining boom.

It is now also nearly half a decade since the peak of the financial crisis and even then its principal impact was on the northern hemisphere. YEP

We entered the GFC in September, 2008, in virtually the world's strongest position, so comparing us now to the basket cases of Europe as Labor does is meaningless.

We went in without a sub-prime fuelled housing bubble, with a well-regulated finance sector, zero government net debt, record low unemployment, a strong pipeline of projects and insatiable Chinese demand for our resources.

Analysis by leading academics and economists such as Warwick McKibbin and Andy Stoeckel show that, while providing an initial sugar hit, Labor's stimulus resulted in a net drag on the economy and a "negative multiplier" after the first year.

Labor's overreaction also contributed to the situation where the RBA had to start jacking up interest rates. The debt burden continues to grow as spending outstrips revenue. This debt level brings massive cost and closes options. The $7 billion annual interest bill alone is the equivalent of seven world-class hospitals. It also has to be paid back.

Andrew Robb is shadow minister for finance and debt reduction.

[IQS.RLOW]

ok where did my reply to fd go?

Yeah, Moantra came in and fucked up the thread so I think they just flushed a block of her crap down there. Others just got caught in her filthy backwash

[mellie]

As it might help put things in perspective.

1) The said "Liberal party line" was based on climate science in it's relative infancy, and given a number of these scientists have since come forward and now admit their findings were exaggerated at best..., naturally, this changes things.

2) The Liberal party stressed the importance of this tax being economically destructive unless the rest of the world implemented it.

JOHN Howard wants Julia Gillard to stop using him as an excuse for her carbon dioxide tax, which he fears will cost Australian jobs.


"What is now being proposed is well ahead of the rest of the world," the former prime minister warns.

Howard's rebuke just confirms why not a word Gillard says in favour of her dangerous tax can be trusted.


On Sunday, Prime Minister Gillard misleadingly named just two people in her support as she unveiled her plans for a $23 a tonne price on carbon dioxide emissions.

"Another female leader, (former British prime minister) Margaret Thatcher, warned the planet about the effects of climate change," said Gillard.

"John Howard, when he was prime minister, determined to put a price on carbon pollution."

In her address to the nation and each day since, Gillard repeatedly named Howard as someone who agreed with "a price on carbon", hoping by her pitch to win over conservatives and embarrass the Opposition.

But Howard has had enough. He won't admit he was wrong on global warming or wrong to promise an emissions trading scheme in his last desperate bid to stave off defeat at the 2007 election.

Yes, says Howard, he did promise to bring in an ETS by 2012, but that was always conditional on the rest of the world moving to something similar.

"I indicated at the time we would act in concert with the rest of the world, and not ahead of it," he says.

Otherwise, big Australian emitters would simply lose business to other countries without an ETS or carbon dioxide tax, costing us money and jobs, without cutting global emissions.

Howard concedes he did not always make this as clear as he should have, but points to his speech to the Liberal Party federal council in June 2007, in which he spelled out his caveat:

"The scheme will be national in scope and as comprehensive as practicable, designed to take account of global developments and to preserve the competitiveness of our trade-exposed emissions-intensive industries."

Since then, any hope or fear of a global agreement on cutting emissions has died, following the collapse in 2009 of the Copenhagen negotiations.

China, the world's biggest emitter, explicitly says it will not cut its emissions, which are predicted to soar over the next two decades, much of it through burning the Australian coal that Gillard and the Greens now want to stop Australians themselves from using for cheap power.

The United States, the world's second-biggest emitter, will not agree to any national ETS or carbon dioxide tax, either, especially now that it's drowning in debt and strangled by an unemployment rate of 9.2 per cent. Even President Barack Obama has abandoned his own plans for an ETS.

Meanwhile, our main competitors in coal exports, such as Canada and Brazil, are guaranteeing investors they will not impose a tax like ours.

As Howard says, this means Gillard's carbon dioxide tax will put Australia "well ahead of the rest of the world" - and well ahead of anything Howard could endorse.

And how wedded were Howard's Liberals to an ETS anyway? Two former ministers say privately they cannot recall Howard ever seeking formal Cabinet endorsement for the ETS he campaigned on at the 2007 election, and Opposition Leader Tony Abbott yesterday refused to confirm - or deny - it had received Cabinet approval.

Yet Howard's promise of an ETS left the Liberals with a legacy that Labor has exploited to this day. He could undo some of that damage by finally saying that real-world evidence has changed his mind about how clear a danger man-made warming really is.

Indeed, Margaret Thatcher in 2003 backed away from her own early alarmism, which makes Gillard's use of her name even more misleading.

In her book Statecraft, Thatcher devoted a chapter she headed "Hot Air and Global Warming" to attacking warmist "doomsters", casting doubt on their theories and warning against "costly and economically damaging" schemes to cut carbon dioxide emissions - schemes like Gillard's.

On Sunday, one of the world's greatest climate scientists, Prof Richard Lindzen of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, made the very same criticisms of Gillard's tax.

Lindzen, a former lead author of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, noted that "since ... 1995, there hasn't been much warming, certainly not that can be distinguished from noise," and global warming models had wildly overestimated the warming we should expect.

Moreover, even if man was warming the planet slightly, that warming could be good for us, and nothing Australia did could stop it anyway, even if the whole world joined us.

"I think there's no disagreement in the scientific community that this will have no impact on climate, so it's purely a matter of government revenue."

All of which explains why Gillard cannot sell her carbon dioxide tax.

It's not that she's a bad saleswoman, although she is. It's that what she's selling is a giant fraud that mere spin cannot hide.

The world isn't warming as she thought. That warming isn't producing the dangers she and her advisers predicted, with the drought now ended, the number of cyclones falling, sea rises slowing and the ski slopes as full of snow as ever.

The people she cites as supporters say they're not, and even the very words she uses to describe carbon dioxide - "carbon pollution" - are a lie. Carbon is a solid. Carbon dioxide is a gas.

Pollution kills stuff. Carbon dioxide makes plants grow, and if we scrubbed the atmosphere clean of this gas, we'd die, too, from cold and lack of plant-made oxygen.

The nation is being led to a gigantic folly, lured to a cliff.

And John Howard, for one, has had enough.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/pm- ... 6093324596

[mellie]

Since then, any hope or fear of a global agreement on cutting emissions has died, following the collapse in 2009 of the Copenhagen negotiations.

- John Howard


And why did negotiations collapse?


Because the leading institute (CRU) who were entrusted with the responsibility of advising the world and UN in this most crucial area of 'science' scoff...were found to be unscrupulous just before the summit in question.

Recall the wikileaks climate-gate scandal?

This occurred in 2009, in the lead-up to Copenhagen, well after Howard lost the election in 2007... so when Howard was seemingly pro-EST....it was well before the world knew it's scientists were cooking their data in support for a "Global Carbon Tax" based the theory, Global Warming.

Had this occurred prior to his election loss, i'm sure his policy direction, ( that in regard to an ETS) would have been very different.

Like the rest of the world, he too believed the CRU , once.....

The trouble is, regardless of our having not warmed in the 15 years of them collecting data, some are still hell-bent on assaulting their nations economies with a go-it-alone Carbon Tax ... based on what can only be described as a hoax.

Needless to say, Gillard hates Julian Assanges guts.

[skippy]

FD...
As Skippy has already pointed out.... Publicly Abbott was supporting the Party line.
.

Liar, I accept your surrender.

[skippy]

I read an article the other day (by a well known Labor identity) that backed up what many economists have said about the GFC and Labor. Which is basically my view of it... that being it hardly affected us directly anyway. I'll post that article when I find it again.
But for now in line with the topic...

How Labor blew the budget and hocked our future
* by: Andrew Robb
* From: The Daily Telegraph
* April 08, 2013 12:00AM


THE myth that Labor saved Australia from the global financial crisis with its overblown $87 billion stimulus package needs to be dispelled.

For too long Labor has used the GFC as cover for its terrible record, including the four biggest budget deficits in Australia's history, with a fifth to follow.

Labor has also taken federal government net debt from zero, with $70 billion in net assets in 2007, to $168 billion with annual interest payments exceeding $7 billion. Gross debt now stands at $270 billion.

This is despite having benefited from the highest terms of trade in 150 years off the back of the mining boom.

It is now also nearly half a decade since the peak of the financial crisis and even then its principal impact was on the northern hemisphere. YEP

We entered the GFC in September, 2008, in virtually the world's strongest position, so comparing us now to the basket cases of Europe as Labor does is meaningless.

We went in without a sub-prime fuelled housing bubble, with a well-regulated finance sector, zero government net debt, record low unemployment, a strong pipeline of projects and insatiable Chinese demand for our resources.

Analysis by leading academics and economists such as Warwick McKibbin and Andy Stoeckel show that, while providing an initial sugar hit, Labor's stimulus resulted in a net drag on the economy and a "negative multiplier" after the first year.

Labor's overreaction also contributed to the situation where the RBA had to start jacking up interest rates. The debt burden continues to grow as spending outstrips revenue. This debt level brings massive cost and closes options. The $7 billion annual interest bill alone is the equivalent of seven world-class hospitals. It also has to be paid back.

Andrew Robb is shadow minister for finance and debt reduction.

By Andrew Robb, you wanker.

[mellie]

I am wondering if any of you have actually read the emails, or only read what our MSM cherry-picked then published to appear unbiased when they covered the Climategate affair...that or only read the following MSM discussion about the leaked emails.

Did any of you go to the trouble of actually reading the emails yourselves?


An overview...

http://wikileaks.org/gifiles/docs/40631 ... ate-.html



Also... Climategate lll is believed to have been released.

Discussion about this latest release (along with password) can be followed here....

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/13/c ... -released/