Punch: Malcolm Turnbull is not that scary

watty says:

12:20pm | 08/06/09

Facts are more potent yet I can not see any reference by you to the fact that the mining industry not the handouts saved Rudd’s bacon.

As for “scare campaigns” Turnbull is just a mere learner compared to Rudd,Wong and Brown and their “Global Warming ” alarmism.

But that is permissable why?

Rowan M says:

02:29pm | 08/06/09

watty - it’s permissable because it is based in fact.

and yes, it is very scary, which is why some people have been trying to raise the alarm for over fifteen years.

doesn’t make it any less true

Anthony S says:

05:40pm | 08/06/09

Jason.
Your assumption that the Liberals would borrow $275 Billion is simply wrong and your insistence on repeating that number undermines your argument. You’re simply regurgitating Rudd’s spin.

Also a lot has changed since the1930’s for example we now have allot of automatic stabilisers built into our economy which but the budget into deficit into automatically when we hit a downturn. This reduces the need for huge extra spending packages of which make up 2/3rds of this years budget deficit. Rudd is just using the 1930’s and the Keynesian ideas to justify his big spending spree and to increase the government’s role in the economy. If Keynes theories didn’t fit in so neatly with the goals of the ALP I’m sure they would find some other person. Don’t forget the huge breaks-outs of inflation in the 1970’s that occurred as a result of deficiencies in Keynes theories.

The Liberals are not criticising going into debt specifically it is the size of the debt and the poor way with which it is being spent. Only 20% of the cash handouts were spent which is clearly POOR economics. The Liberals alternative was ‘temporary superannuation guarantee relief’ for businesses which would have saved much more jobs meaning we *COULD* have had the same effects on the economy but with less debt at the end of it. Rudd’s stimulus packages were poorly planned and as a result wasted huge amounts of taxpayer’s money and left us with a debt that will leave Australia with a huge fiscal drag for decades to come. It’s not a scare campaign to remind people that we are heading for AUS$300,000,000,000 of debt - it is simply a fact.

watty says:

03:09am | 09/06/09

What is based on fact Rowan,

Gore’s blatherings?Flannery’s predictions of ghost towns and no rainfall? Williams (ABC) 6 metre tides rushing down Pitt St?

What is a fact is that some very smart snake oil salesmen are hoping to rake in $billions on the back ofs o called man made “Global Warming”.

ps when NASA can’t get their story straight who do you rely on for info?

Rowan M says:

12:47pm | 09/06/09

i use a wide range of sources for information, not just one or two books.

the general scientific consensus is that IF the average temperature rises by a couple of degrees the impact on biodiversity will be irreversible.

Biodiversity, in case you’re in need of elucidation - is the food chain.  when that goes, nothing will be the same.

in terms of whether this climate change is man-made or not?  it’s hardly the point.  we had 30 degree days in late April. global warming is happening.  look outside and tell me it isn’t?

if we can do something to reverse the trend - and currently reducing carbon emissions (NOT trading them) is the only foreseeable impact we can make - it is my belief we should. 

obviously you believe we should do nothing as it’s all a capitalist conspiracy.

this is one time i’m happy to be wrong.  but unfortunately i’m right about most things, it’s the general result of honest research.

Ben Payne says:

01:37pm | 09/06/09

Watty – who, exactly, are the “snake oil salesmen” who would “rake in $billions” from global warming?  From what everyone seems to be saying, it is going to cost $billions to modify existing business processes and machinery to deal with the changes that are being suggested, but there does not appear to be any particular winners in this scenario. 

I’m not sure about your NASA reference; perhaps you could provide a link to this information?  If you are referring to changing policies over time, then yes, this is completely normal – it is called scientific method.  A theory is put forward, that its proponents feel not only fits in with current empirical evidence, but can be used to predict future events, and meet changing evidence.  If a current theory does not fit new data, then it is discarded in favour of one that better describes the evidence.  The current theory, which best meets this criteria, says that global warming is a fact, and that unless we do something about it sooner rather than later, the human species will likely die out.  I, for one, am against this.

Anthony – I really don’t give a crap how much the Liberals would ‘borrow’.  Luckily, they are not in power at the moment, and the point is moot.  The very idea of raising cigarette tax (which is essentially a tax on the lowest income earners), combined with a raping of the superannuation guarantee (once again, aimed at the lowest income earners, who cannot afford to pay into their own superannuation, and would then have to rely on welfare payments, thereby increasing future government spending – duh!) shows just how ignorant Mr Turnbull’s ideas are.

I don’t know where you get the “only 20% of cash handouts spent” – I have to admit, I didn’t take the $900 cheque down to the local Myers and sign it over to them, but I paid it into my credit card, thereby reducing the interest I need to pay, but also allowing me to spend it when and where I want to spend it.  By reducing my credit card interest, I am also freeing up the cash that I would have had to pay to the bank, allowing additional spending, and further helping the economy.  It was the injection of cash into the marketplace, regardless of where it went, that has made all the difference.

Marianna says:

11:04pm | 28/08/09

Watching Jason on Lateline right now - cannot believe that I find a politician… really HOT!!