Posts by Greg Dawson
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
OnPoint: Dear Labour Caucus, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
the 1%, and those with a delusional aspiration to that status.
Isn't it part of the point of a capitalist society that those with said delusional aspirations make up rather a lot of it?
-
Legal Beagle: Election #11: Notings, in reply to Joshua Arbury,
I realise some Green voters hate Labour as much as National/Act/UF. I just wonder whether it’s still not getting through that vote splitting is fine.
I think you'll see once the split votes stats come through that Green voters tend to be a lot more tactical than Labour voters.
-
Legal Beagle: Paula's Peril; or The…, in reply to Raymond A Francis,
I feel dropping the threshold is a goer
I for one welcome our new ALCP coalition-building overlords (that's right, meme'ing like it's y2k biznitches)
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Angus Robertson,
(the stimulus didn’t work). Either way we don’t need more stimulus.
The core problem I see with the argument is that you seem to only be open to one possible form of stimulus - tax cuts and pork.
You're using the failure of a specific stimulus program to say that all stimulus programs will fail.
Sensible investments in long term growth strategies (with proven histories of success, unlike say "trickle down") haven't really been tried.
-
Hard News: The Next Labour Leader, in reply to Isaac Freeman,
I dunno. EQC had to hire a lot of people very fast, and it's hardly unusual for people to get entry-level positions in their parents' organisations.
All well and good as an argument, provided you completely ignore the salaries being paid for these "entry level" positions.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Graeme Edgeler,
I have it at $157,900 as from 1 July 2011.
Can I have that too?
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to HenryB,
What sort of sacrifice were you thinking of? And would it be universal?
... The idea that baby boomers are an undifferentiated wealthy lot who all did well seems strange to me and at variance with my experience and the statistical facts.
Absolutely it should be universal. I believe we can be the bigger generation :)
As to the rapine, it was widespread but not universal, for sure. And I don't propose removing the social contract in any form - the whole point is to preserve our ability to care for the less well off into the future.
Asset testing - man did that get a bad rap. Chalk another one up to the f'ing housing market being rooted.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to bulbul,
@Greg Dawson 8:45
Not intended.
In which case I apologise for the aspersions.
I agree that a knee jerk "blame the old" is not helpful; I might suggest it seems like a by-product of the disinclination to grow up that has otherwise defined our modern society. "You're not my real dad I don't have to pay your taxes I hate you I'm going to run away".
However, I do think that we need to still accept that there are some serious imbalances in the world (and opportunities) presented to different generations.
As someone who expects to never quite reach "retirement age" as it constantly moves back, I don't think it's unreasonable to expect some sacrifice on the part of the people who might still get there.
-
OnPoint: Spending "Cap" is Fiscal Anorexia, in reply to Tom Semmens,
by privatising the attractive bits of the education system (Charter Schools)
My thought on reading about the charter schools clause was that it was a means to fund the hyper-religious evolution-is-a-theory sort, rather than the attractive bits.
-
I think we can call that a successful troll, as the the thread is well derailed.