Current Events in the News (commentary) Split #2

[woodworker]

I've noticed there are a lot of Bundy's out there that all seem to be, shall I say, less than desirable people.

Lets see, there's Ted Bundy, (Now deceased), and Al Bundy, (Married with Children), and now this other Bundy that TBG had just mentioned. 

That's a lot of fucked up Bundy's if you ask me.  :screwy:

 

[TBG 150]

Wait another second...Al Bundy is cool in my book.

[woodworker]

Yeah, I know.  He definitely had his moments.  And that daughter of his.  WOW!  The guy had to have something going right to produce a looker like her. 

But then again you have his son Bud?  So, who knows, maybe Peg was getting a little something on the side.

[Ozi]

900 million??? A billion AUSD for 12,000 refugees?  Haha, your government is fucking you right over and you are blaming it on the refugees??!!!  Jesus Christ, that made me laugh!  Follow the money mate, let me guess, there's a shit load of private contracting companies running the various support services for those 12,000 refugees right?  I imagine if you did a modicum of research you'd probably find connections between the board members and shareholders of those firms and your politicians.

Meanwhile, you government tells you that because they have found this new method of draining your tax money from the nation when it should go on the services you mentioned with fucking plenty of it left over for 12,000 people, yet sending it straight into the pockets of their mates, you get angry as fuck at the scapegoat that they have made you believe is the actual problem.

That was the funniest thing I've read on here. Funny if it weren't so fucking sad to see the level of control they have over people who should know better.

As usual, every time you put pen to paper, or in this case, touch the keyboard, you highlight your total ignorance.

Australia is not going to take the first 12,000 refugees that turn up for our selection process, and yes, as flimsy as it might be as hardly any will have documents, there is a background check carried out. To get 12,000 you will need to process closer to 50,000. "That costs money".

Once you’ve selected your 12,000 you have to fly them to Australia. "That costs money". Fortunately, as they are refugees and have very few possessions, there’s probably no excess baggage charge.

Once they arrive in Australia, with no funds and few possessions, they will all be provided with a whole new fitout of clothing and shoes, as well as basic commodities like toiletries and personal hygiene products. "That costs money".

Based on the first group to arrive, let’s average them out as mum, dad and four kids, six to a family. That’s 2,000 houses we will have to provide. "That costs money".

Using the basic family group, that accounts for approximately 8,000 children. Even at our abysmal rate of 40 kids per classroom, we need to find another 200 teachers. "That costs money".

As many are in a poor state of health, most, if not all, will need immediate access to medical facilities and then on going as normal, an additional burden on our overstretched hospitals. "That costs money".

As very few will find employment in the current climate, in addition to lack of language and employability skills, all will be receiving social welfare payments, from unemployment benefits, child allowance and a myriad of other services for most if not all the initial 18 to 24 month period. "That costs money".

My question was where people thought the money comes from. Not one person answered that.

But guess what, you were the only one stupid enough to query the amount, which, if you understand even basic concepts about the process, is not excessive or unrealistic.

Well done, yet again.

[Maturin]

As usual, every time you put pen to paper, or in this case, touch the keyboard, you highlight your total ignorance.

Australia is not going to take the first 12,000 refugees that turn up for our selection process, and yes, as flimsy as it might be as hardly any will have documents, there is a background check carried out. To get 12,000 you will need to process closer to 50,000. "That costs money".

Once you’ve selected your 12,000 you have to fly them to Australia. "That costs money". Fortunately, as they are refugees and have very few possessions, there’s probably no excess baggage charge.

Once they arrive in Australia, with no funds and few possessions, they will all be provided with a whole new fitout of clothing and shoes, as well as basic commodities like toiletries and personal hygiene products. "That costs money".

Based on the first group to arrive, let’s average them out as mum, dad and four kids, six to a family. That’s 2,000 houses we will have to provide. "That costs money".

Using the basic family group, that accounts for approximately 8,000 children. Even at our abysmal rate of 40 kids per classroom, we need to find another 200 teachers. "That costs money".

As many are in a poor state of health, most, if not all, will need immediate access to medical facilities and then on going as normal, an additional burden on our overstretched hospitals. "That costs money".

As very few will find employment in the current climate, in addition to lack of language and employability skills, all will be receiving social welfare payments, from unemployment benefits, child allowance and a myriad of other services for most if not all the initial 18 to 24 month period. "That costs money".

My question was where people thought the money comes from. Not one person answered that.

But guess what, you were the only one stupid enough to query the amount, which, if you understand even basic concepts about the process, is not excessive or unrealistic.

Well done, yet again.

Allow me to ignorantly highlight the fact that countries such as Turkey have 4 million refugees. Turkey's GDP is 822 billion (USD) or 10,000 per person. Australia's GDP is 1.5 trillion, or 67,000 per person.  Your government has told you that taking in 12,000 refugees - along with the abhorent process of selecting "good" refugees with its implication that "undesirable applicants" will most likely live out the rest of their days in those disgusting offshore detention centres that are at best little more than concentration camps and are an affront to civilised society - will mean cuts to service, utilities and infrastructure and you lap it up and recycle the party line.

It doesn't suprise me in the least that you make no mention of my point about who runs these detention centres - a quick check shows that they are run by Serco, a private company and were formerly run by G4S, another private company.  This article states that this contract is worth 950 - 1.4 billion ASD - that's the total budget you are moaning about being paid to one private company.  Now, I can't be fucked to do your research for you but I'll leave you with this;

The former company that had this contract, G4S, is notorious in the UK for scandals, over-charging and unprofessional work.  For years there has been a running battle with our Home Seceratary who has been outsourcing roles and jobs to this company that normally fell under the control of the state funded police or prison services. E.g prisoner detention, transportation, public events security, the list goes on.  It turns out that her husband is a major shareholder on the board of G4S and she has been selling bits of the police off to her husband's company - which means that she is basically diverting our tax money into paying her husband's firm to do a job to a lesser standard than the regular national police.  It doesn't surprise me in the least that this is what appears to be happening in Australia and if I were you I would check the link between Serco and your politicians.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/10/serco-australian-immigration-detention-centres-contract-christmas-island

You question about where we think the money comes from is such an elementary point that maybe we missed it, where do you think the money comes from and why do you accept the bullshit that your government tells you about not having enough of it?

[Ozi]

Allow me to ignorantly highlight the fact that countries such as Turkey have 4 million refugees. Turkey's GDP is 822 billion (USD) or 10,000 per person. Australia's GDP is 1.5 trillion, or 67,000 per person.  Your government has told you that taking in 12,000 refugees - along with the abhorent process of selecting "good" refugees with its implication that "undesirable applicants" will most likely live out the rest of their days in those disgusting offshore detention centres that are at best little more than concentration camps and are an affront to civilised society - will mean cuts to service, utilities and infrastructure and you lap it up and recycle the party line.

It doesn't suprise me in the least that you make no mention of my point about who runs these detention centres - a quick check shows that they are run by Serco, a private company and were formerly run by G4S, another private company.  This article states that this contract is worth 950 - 1.4 billion ASD - that's the total budget you are moaning about being paid to one private company.  Now, I can't be fucked to do your research for you but I'll leave you with this;

The former company that had this contract, G4S, is notorious in the UK for scandals, over-charging and unprofessional work.  For years there has been a running battle with our Home Seceratary who has been outsourcing roles and jobs to this company that normally fell under the control of the state funded police or prison services. E.g prisoner detention, transportation, public events security, the list goes on.  It turns out that her husband is a major shareholder on the board of G4S and she has been selling bits of the police off to her husband's company - which means that she is basically diverting our tax money into paying her husband's firm to do a job to a lesser standard than the regular national police.  It doesn't surprise me in the least that this is what appears to be happening in Australia and if I were you I would check the link between Serco and your politicians.

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2014/dec/10/serco-australian-immigration-detention-centres-contract-christmas-island

You question about where we think the money comes from is such an elementary point that maybe we missed it, where do you think the money comes from and why do you accept the bullshit that your government tells you about not having enough of it?

Yet again, you still continue to show total ignorance of the topic.

The 12,000 refugees that we are taking are additional to our usual immigration quota. They will go through a selection process like any other legal applicant. They will be coming directly to Australia as successful candidates of our immigration program. They will not be processed offshore with the illegal asylum seekers. However, unlike normal migrants, they will be arriving with not much more than the clothes on their backs, hence the direct costs associated with settling them into the country.

Serco has nothing to do with them.

And comparing the GDP of two countries is meaningless, without critical comparisons that effect the cost of living in those countries. The average monthly wage in Turkey is $1,731 compared to Australia at $2,610. The cost of living per month for a single person in Ankara is less than $700 per month. In Sydney it's over $1,200 per month.

And, they will be living in houses, not tents. Any idea what 2,000 homes cost in Australia?

As usual, you haven't got a clue what you are talking about.

[Maturin]

You still haven't explained why a bill that is a tiny percentage of Australia's GDP means that cuts to other services need to be made.  It's quite easy to tell people that they haven't got a clue what they are talking about in an effort to avoid repeated questioning.

Where does the money come from and why is Australia in such dire straights that a 1 billion spend means cuts to education, infrastucture and all the rest across the whole country?  Show us that you actually know what you are talking about by answering that, instead of just parroting the government line.

[Maturin]

Another quick google about it on your behalf shows that the Aussie gov is running a deficit of 37 billion but a government minister blamed it on the increased refugee commitments.

Yet, as stated by yourself and confirmed in this article, the refugee commitments come to 900 million, so what are they doing with the other 36.1 billion?  The truth of the matter is that all governments nowadays run a deficit because the money they invest generally goes out of the public purse into shareholders bank accounts - instead of being reinvested into the economy.  900 million from 37 billion in no way justifies the cuts you have described yet as the MP in the articles states, it's the refugees fault?!! There's no hard maths in the above is there, it's a simple case of you looking at what you have said, which is confirmed by the article and deciding for yourself whether:

1) The figures stated don't logically mean that anything should be cut. Why should the addition of 900 million to a deficit of 36 billion mean cuts to so many neccessary things?

2) Oh, hang on, the MP says it's the refugees. I believe him.

or

3) Tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when all I've done here is corroborate what you've stated, then asked you a question about it, and even given you two possible answers!

Three possible answers now, obviously, I wonder which door you'll take.

edit, forgot the link  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-15/steph/7030866

[Ozi]

Another quick google about it on your behalf shows that the Aussie gov is running a deficit of 37 billion but a government minister blamed it on the increased refugee commitments.

Yet, as stated by yourself and confirmed in this article, the refugee commitments come to 900 million, so what are they doing with the other 36.1 billion?  The truth of the matter is that all governments nowadays run a deficit because the money they invest generally goes out of the public purse into shareholders bank accounts - instead of being reinvested into the economy.  900 million from 37 billion in no way justifies the cuts you have described yet as the MP in the articles states, it's the refugees fault?!! There's no hard maths in the above is there, it's a simple case of you looking at what you have said, which is confirmed by the article and deciding for yourself whether:

1) The figures stated don't logically mean that anything should be cut. Why should the addition of 900 million to a deficit of 36 billion mean cuts to so many neccessary things?

2) Oh, hang on, the MP says it's the refugees. I believe him.

or

3) Tell me I don't know what I'm talking about when all I've done here is corroborate what you've stated, then asked you a question about it, and even given you two possible answers!

Three possible answers now, obviously, I wonder which door you'll take.

edit, forgot the link  http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-15/steph/7030866

What, so now you are an expert on Australia?.

I have explained this in a previous post, but will repeat it again for your benefit:

- Two of our biggest exports are iron ore and coal that nobody wants. In 2013/14 we exported 650m tonnes of iron ore worth $750 billion. But in 2014/15 we increased the export to 750m tonnes of iron ore but instead of the expected $900 billion it was only worth $550 billion and still falling. Now, not only has the price fallen further, but so have the quantities exported.

- Coal went the same way. In Jan 2011 it peaked at around $185 per tonne, but in Jan 2015 it was well below $50 per tonne. Couple that with the fear of global warming and the problems with fossil fuels, we are in serious trouble.

- The Labor government did exactly the same as the Coalition government they took over from, they looked at the mining boom and decided it would last forever, so borrowed against it, spent future projected income, made commitments years in advance. The trouble is the GFC did impact on Australia; it crippled our exports, bursting the mining boom bubble. Add to that their philosophy of increasing welfare support and weakening our borders with increased asylum seekers, it’s like any other business, if your income is less than your expenditure, you go broke.

So you don’t understand basic economics. A company selling its goods at a reduced price when its production costs increase due to inflation, makes less profit. Less profit means less taxes to the government. And the mining companies do pay taxes, despite what some idiots claim. Less profit means less jobs which means less income tax to the government and potentially more unemployed on welfare. Less personal income means less disposable income, which impacts on small business. And so on and so on and so on.

In addition to GDP, you need to look at our Balance of Payments (BOP), not just the difference between our imports and exports, you also need to factor in the fluctuations in commodity prices and exchange rates. But you would have done that when comparing GDP. Right?

As of 28 February 2014, the gross Australian Government debt was A$300,628 million; at 15 August 2014 it was A$326,552 million; and at 13 March 2015 it was A$361,085 million. That’s an increase of just over 20% in 12 months. Due to our reliance on mining exports and our increasing requirement to imports due to the collapse of our manufacturing industry, that deficit will continue to grow. In other words, we are going broke, and have been for years.

But once again, you fail to grasp the topic. I have blamed the greed of our unions and mismanagement by all governments for our dilemma. I have stated that the migrants have contributed to the problem but are not the sole cause. I have highlighted that the Australian Government’s last budget had already made cuts to education, health and genuine social welfare programs to try and reduce the Current Account Deficit. This additional $900 million for the 12,000 refugees therefore, has to be found in addition to the budget cuts already proposed and as the Government are intent on reducing the deficit, have flagged more cuts.

If our deficit has increased by 20% in 12 months and the trend looks to continue, then I support the government in its efforts to reduce the trend. What I don't support is the cuts made to genuine programmes in need of more not less, then spending $900 million on a bunch of refugees. We have people suffering in corridors in our hospitals, that don't even get a proper bed. We have pensioners living below the poverty line. So yes fuck the refugees and leave them where they are, we have enough of our own needy to care for.

[Maturin]

That's a lot of words describing how shit your successive governments have been with their history of poor decision making yet making hay whilst the sun shines with a bit about refugees tacked on to the end.  I suggest we leave the negligable effect of refugees out of any future discussion as I'm sure that, as the above indicates, you understand that refugees aren't the problem - it has always been the people you choose to govern yourselves.

[Ozi]

That's a lot of words describing how shit your successive governments have been with their history of poor decision making yet making hay whilst the sun shines with a bit about refugees tacked on to the end.  I suggest we leave the negligable effect of refugees out of any future discussion as I'm sure that, as the above indicates, you understand that refugees aren't the problem - it has always been the people you choose to govern yourselves.

No, my problem has been trying to have a logical discussion with an idiot, so will just cease all discussions not just the topic of refugees.

[Maturin]

No, my problem has been trying to have a logical discussion with an idiot, so will just cease all discussions not just the topic of refugees.

Typical Ozi response when the penny that he's been given by the people who control his thoughts finally drops.

Tune in next week folks when the discussion will be, "And Another Thing About How The Refugees Are Ruining Australia, Chapter 89"