You are viewing tau_iota_mu_c

TimC - Howard annihilation [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]

[ website | Waikikamukauwenewekancicagote ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Howard annihilation [May. 29th, 2007|09:34 pm]
Previous Entry Share Next Entry

Alexander Downer, Peter Costello, and Joe Hockey look so very smug (strangely, John Howard usually doesn't look quite as smug), even when on the back foot. Would you trust these men as used car salesmen?

Howard is going to "inform" us about his climate change policies (c.f. any Labor government which would spew propoganda) -- "Yes yes, I've believed that climate change is real for 5 months now!". But that was a beautiful speech by Rudd in parliament today. An attempt to remind everyone about the biggest most blatant lies over the past 11 years. Quote to come here when the hansard is released tomorrow - I can't find the quote I heard on the 7:30 report or the news, on any of the broadsheet websites. You know, there have been so many despicable acts of treason over the past 11 years, that I can't remember most of them -- a fatigue of rage. But now I remember this, and am wondering how the hell the leader was not thrown out on his arse thouroughly convincingly a year later. Greed I guess. Mass personal greed.

Strangely, I just heard Malcom Turnbill say the most amazing and sensible thing -- finally publically condemming the Japanese practice of scientific-in-name-only killing of whales for their meat.

And it has just started raining finally, up here. And after at least 6 months, the Bureau have finally cleared the blockage in the town's rain meter. 4.4mm so far in 20 minutes.

From: (Anonymous)
2007-05-29 10:59 pm (UTC)



It seems that these days its fashionable to oppose a government that has brought some of the greatest economic advances in australia history to this country.

Nice to see we are going to throw that to the wind, and elect a party which is famous for the highest Interest Rates in Australian History....
[User Picture]From: catsidhe
2007-05-30 12:13 am (UTC)

Re: Fashionability


The sun shines out of John Howard's bottom, so you should be glad of the offered opportunity to lick his arse.

Given the above, if you don't vote Liberal, then you must be (tick all which apply):

1) crazy.
2) a terrorist.
3) a communist. (Also pronounced ‘Unionist’.)
4) sadly misled.
5) going to be shocked when you get what you ask for, YOU (soon to be poor) FOOL!!!
6) stoopid
7) Rudd's rent-boy.
8) a tree-hugging faggot.
9) some other things which I haven't thought of.

... And that's an ‘argument’, is it?
[User Picture]From: tau_iota_mu_c
2007-05-30 01:08 am (UTC)

Re: Fashionability


The economic boom is primarily the result of the mining boom in WA, as far as I can see. By quickly ripping out the finite resources of a country, and selling them, of course we will get short term gain. It's obvious that this is not going to be very sustainable beyond a decade or two.

And when house prices increase as far as they have done in the last decade, any savings anyone makes from lower interest rates quickly gets eaten up by the larger amount they had to pay for their house in the first place. I only know of one of my friends obviously in my rough age cohort, who has been able to buy an apartment, ever. The rest of us get by on renting.

May I remind you of the global economic situation? Take a look at how the various countries mirror each other in chart 1 of . To give John credit for the global interest rates would be a bit misplaced. And then, finally, the old myth of interest rates under Labor circa 1996. In 2004, I saw a graph showing the interest rates since the 1960s, overlayed with each change of government. Not being an economist and knowing how to find the average interest rates over the past 5 decades, I'm not going to produce such a plot today, but I did go searching and found this with an link to an image that no longer exists on the web anymore. Furtunately, the internet archive does remember:

If you doubt this, you may care to do such data analysis yourself -- should be relatively easy. If your hypothesis that Labor governments cause high interest rates is correct, then the red areas of that graph would correspond to increases in interest rates, and presumably the blue areas decreases. Instead, we see the Liberal government "causing" an increase in the rates, Labor coming into power, and it varying up and down, then finally a systematic large decrease, following by the Liberals being elected when the interst rates are already low in 1996, and them keeping it that way. So Liberals only ever cause it to stay the same or get worse, whereas Labor cause it to stay the same or get better. I know who I'd prefer. I'd also prefer house prices to remain managable in the first place, so I'd have any hope whatsoever of being able to aquire a house as a first home owner.