[LINK] This makes me angry.
cas at taz.net.au
Sat Mar 31 12:09:23 EST 2012
On Fri, Mar 30, 2012 at 06:59:34PM +1000, TKoltai wrote:
> I expect the man in the street not to get it, after all, he's there to
> pay taxes, consume beer, buy cinema tickets and shop at Coles, not to
> understand why he pays taxes....
> But when an organisation like Get-up [Can you spell Publicly Funded
> Political Lobbyist] deliberately misleads the public... Then I get angry
> under the collar.
what deception? from what i can see, they're pointing out facts. fact1:
mining companies ARE subsidised by the public to the tune of billions
of dollars per year. fact2: budget cuts are being considered that will
impact on public sector workers being able to do their jobs or even to
keep their jobs.
if you don't like the implications of those facts, whinging about being
informed of them is not a sensible response.
> Here is a excerpt of their latest advertisement:
> I don't understand what the hell public sector workers have to do with
> mining companies...
it's about priorities.
when there are limited resources (i.e. always) then expenditure has to
the implicit question in getup's ad is whether corporate welfare should
be prioritised over public services.
how you answer that is up to your own judgment. there isn't a right
answer. but AFAICT, you're pissed off because you don't want to even
consider the question, you'd rather just ignore it. fine, stick your
head in the sand if that's what you choose to do, but quit whinging
about getup - or anyone else - trying to get the public to at least
thing about something.
what makes me angry is the mindless adoption of libertarian values (i.e.
unregulated capitalism) that automatically forgive any business for any
transgression or hypocrisy, yet hold the public sector and individuals
accountable for even the most trivial.
"free market" businesses can suck at the socialist teat as much as they
want to, but individuals are worthless thieving scum if they do, and the
goverment is evil for allowing them to.
individuals *deserve* to starve if they can't get a job and poor people
are poor *because* of their own moral failings, but it would be an
appalling tragedy that *must* be averted if a big enough business were
to fail due to incompetence, bad planning, obsolescence or any other
> Who does Get-up believe is leading the charge in Australian Economic
> Is it those public sector workers ?
> Could it be Wayne Swan ?
> Would it be well thought out and long term sound economic Government
> policies ?
> or would it be the Mining Industry ?
certainly not the latter.
i'd say it was largely due to the reasonably good (but by no means
perfect) regulation of business and especially banking and finance in
this country that prevented OUR greedy-bastard bankers and executive and
investment classes from getting away with the same level of fraud and
scamming and outright theft that they were allowed in the U.S.
so that would be Government policies. And legislation. and a
willingness to enforce the law against the rich and powerful.
> A paltry 3 billion in subsidies to provide direct jobs for how many
> Australians ?
> A paltry 3 billion in subsidies to provide how much percentage of
> Australia's export earnings ?
funny how 3 billion is "paltry" when it's a handout for the already-rich.
> Politicians are almost never about assisting the economy.
if you think a politician's job or the government's job is solely (or
even largely) about the economy then you have lost the plot, you have
been suckered by the relentless neo-liberal propaganda that there is no
such thing as society, that only the economy matters.
the economy is not an end, it is a means.
> Politicians are about assisting politicians.
mindless libertarian sloganeering. "govt is bad. biz is good. rah rah rah."
the percentage of business-people who are motivated only by
self-interest is far higher than the percentage of politicians so
motivated. at all levels of business - but far more so at the big end of
> Australians need to be aware that a mining company is no different from
> any kind of organisation. If you pull out the financial rug from
> underneath it, it will lay off staff, maybe not today, or even tomorrow,
> but there will be a long term negative knock-on effect. Anyone that
> doesn't get this needs to stop pretending to play at politics.
"too big to fail". now where have i heard that before?
> Whilst I'm a strong believer in social services, I'm also a believer in
> a fair, equitably and balanced approach to funding a welfare state.
> Leaning too far to the left ensures that our young fairer sex will find
> reasons to emulate their UK peers where the average house mother has
> five kids by the time she's thirty to ensure her financial future.
i stopped reading here. i couldn't stomach any more of your net-kookery.
craig sanders <cas at taz.net.au>
BOFH excuse #445:
Browser's cookie is corrupted -- someone's been nibbling on it.
More information about the Link