Goods & Services that Have Risen in Price Due to The Carbon Tax
- Thread starter eKwatee
- Start date
Yes, i have to admit. That is a large list of alarmist liars. 
Look, it goes like this. If the carbon tax didnt affect anyone's income, wealth or whatever it would be accepted by Liberals. If global warming (which Tony Abbott agrees with btw) didnt affect anyone's income, wealth or whatever it would eb accepted by Liberals and supporters. Same with the NBN.....And on it goes.
Heres just one eg. From today.
Dick Smith takes 'high risk' swipe at Murdoch
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/dick...-at-murdoch-20120723-22jqc.html#ixzz21Q3hSRuG
In the letter, Mr Smith, who is a vocal supporter of the need to act on climate change, said that it was in News's commercial interests to oppose the idea that people were responsible for the rise in global temperatures.
"And I'm on to you. When friends ask me why your organisation runs such opposing views on climate change – from Fox News's claims that it's all bunkum to The Australian newspaper occasionally claiming it's accepted science - I am able to say: 'It's simple,'" he writes.
"It's all about making more money. They have worked out they will get more advertising and make more money on Fox News if climate change is debunked using sensationalism while they are likely to get greater circulation and more advertising dollars if The Australian shows a different view, so staff are directed accordingly."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/dick...-at-murdoch-20120723-22jqc.html#ixzz21Q3TzTRP
Look, it goes like this. If the carbon tax didnt affect anyone's income, wealth or whatever it would be accepted by Liberals. If global warming (which Tony Abbott agrees with btw) didnt affect anyone's income, wealth or whatever it would eb accepted by Liberals and supporters. Same with the NBN.....And on it goes.
Heres just one eg. From today.
Dick Smith takes 'high risk' swipe at Murdoch
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/dick...-at-murdoch-20120723-22jqc.html#ixzz21Q3hSRuG
In the letter, Mr Smith, who is a vocal supporter of the need to act on climate change, said that it was in News's commercial interests to oppose the idea that people were responsible for the rise in global temperatures.
"And I'm on to you. When friends ask me why your organisation runs such opposing views on climate change – from Fox News's claims that it's all bunkum to The Australian newspaper occasionally claiming it's accepted science - I am able to say: 'It's simple,'" he writes.
"It's all about making more money. They have worked out they will get more advertising and make more money on Fox News if climate change is debunked using sensationalism while they are likely to get greater circulation and more advertising dollars if The Australian shows a different view, so staff are directed accordingly."
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/dick...-at-murdoch-20120723-22jqc.html#ixzz21Q3TzTRP
"Luckily" is the correct terminology.
The majority of uneducated people working for wages think that their 9% super will look after them for al of their retirement.
This is far from the truth. The government will still have to kick in pension money to support these people sold the lie that super is something to aspire to in retirement.
It's only luck, that the majority will have enough money to live off in retirement.
Yes, i have to admit. That is a large list of alarmist liars.
funny - nearly 80% of those organisations are funded directly by the govt.
you generally dont bite the hand that feeds you.
?????
Are you saying most of the governments in the developed world, of both political persuasions, have an interest in faking climate change science?
Given how easy it is to deal with as a political issue, I suppose?
Your'e kidding. Can you guys never find something that cant be complained about? Now its not enough super.
If they raised it because 9% wasnt enough there would be an outcry from every right wing Liberal voter in the country.
Yes, maybe 'luckily' wasnt a good choice of word. I should used 'fortunate'. As in "fortunate" that Labor had the foresight when Liberal didnt.
If they raised it because 9% wasnt enough there would be an outcry from every right wing Liberal voter in the country.
Yes, maybe 'luckily' wasnt a good choice of word. I should used 'fortunate'. As in "fortunate" that Labor had the foresight when Liberal didnt.
Funny, They are independent bodies. And they exist whether they are receiving funding from a govt. that supports global warming or one that doesnt.
And, by your logic, if Liberal National party wins the next election the CSIRO,
Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Institute of Physics and Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society will suddenly change their policy to become climate change deniers?
The lengths you guys go to to try to prove a point just gets more and more bizarre.
And, by your logic, if Liberal National party wins the next election the CSIRO,
Bureau of Meteorology, Australian Institute of Physics and Australian Meteorological and Oceanographic Society will suddenly change their policy to become climate change deniers?
The lengths you guys go to to try to prove a point just gets more and more bizarre.
BTW that doesn't make sense either, given it is also the policy of the Liberal party is to cut greenhouse emissions by 5% from 1990 levels by 2020. So, using this logic, govts of both persuasion support action on climate change and they lean on govt funded agencies to find in favour of climate change risk and so on it goes. Hence the CSIRO and BoM haven't changed their tune regardless of who was in charge.
I've never been impressed by conspiracy theories of course. The earth is really flat doncha know... all those NASA images of the moon landing and round earth were photoshopped etc etc and on it goes. There are still people harping on about this.
I, Andrew Bolt and many, many other Libs have no care about any income issue with the CT.
The affect of it on my/our income has never entered my head; it only enters the head of those who need the compensation to offset the $10 per week they are supposedly going to be out of pocket.
The whole issue for all of us is due to the fact that the CT is not going to change the world's temp by even .001 of a degree - the whole point of the tax, so from a Lib point of view it is:
a) a waste of money - a massive cost with no result.
b) goes against the Lib whole mantra; it's stealing from the rich to give to the poor
It only affects your income if you are in one of the GW marketing programs that are being pooh-hoo'ed more and more, and thus losing support - and you've been receiving an income from it.
Question; do all the heavy-hitter supporters of all the GW movements fly to their various GW commitments?
They might pay the little extra and buy the ticket with carbon offset. Perhaps they are part of the one in a hundred who do.
http://www.iata.org/pressroom/facts_figures/fact_sheets/pages/carbon-offsets.aspx
If it doesn't affect you (and all the other whingers) materially, then why worry about it? If a company reduces their pollution and/or moves to modern technology they won't pay the penalty on polluting. Simple. That's it's reson de être.
How can that be bad?
Everything the liberal supporters whinge about has something to do with impacting their income, wealth etc.
There is no other reason to whinge. Because what's being done by labor is good for our country, not just short term but long term.
How can that be bad?
Everything the liberal supporters whinge about has something to do with impacting their income, wealth etc.
There is no other reason to whinge. Because what's being done by labor is good for our country, not just short term but long term.
True, but I don't think Abbott and the Libs are fully committed to it. I don't think they are committed to anything that doesn't get votes. They have no policy and principals.
They remind me of the old joke " if you don't like my principals, I have others"
But what you say then, makes Aarons Statement even more ridiculous.
They remind me of the old joke " if you don't like my principals, I have others"
But what you say then, makes Aarons Statement even more ridiculous.
That's your mindset in a nutshell,it's not about income-wealth is about freedom of speech,being able to start in the gutter and make something of your life,our sit down and do nothing and complain when the sit=down tax payer funded cheque does not go into their bank account,your little Socialist Dream died the minute UNION Gangbangers started taking money from blue collar trades union menbers to use on their capitalist red neck standover lifestyles,only when the jail door slams and they spend the first night in the slammer does reality bite,as it will..
What?
Firstly, Labor are the party to help struggling people get on their feet and get start.
2nd, your post is a typical Liberal reaction. Do you think Labor limits free speech? Limits options in life? You're kidding.
Liberal do exactly that through their supporting shock jocks, Loony Murdoch right wing press etc...
Its a crazy world.
Firstly, Labor are the party to help struggling people get on their feet and get start.
2nd, your post is a typical Liberal reaction. Do you think Labor limits free speech? Limits options in life? You're kidding.
Liberal do exactly that through their supporting shock jocks, Loony Murdoch right wing press etc...
Its a crazy world.
Here we go round the Mulberry bush, the Mulberry bush, the.....
I could draw a longer bow though, and predict that it will ultimately cost jobs, and the money they generate from the tax will have to go to fund the welfare payments.
Funnily enough; in the Cate Blanchett ad, she was standing in front of a group of chimneys bellowing.....steam.
How is it good for the Country at all?
It won't change the temperature one iota,
It will result in increased costs for many goods and services down the line.
The low income earner won't benefit more than about a few dollars per week it seems. I'm still waiting for my cheque.....
Hang on; found a couple -
I guess you could say that the extra few scheckels the low income earners will get will be "re-invested" back into their spending, thus giving the economy a bit of a kick, or pay down the CC debt.
And Labour might be able to use it to pay down some of their deficit.
Because Julia said she wouldn't bring it in, then did, then it was found it won't make any diff to the climate, and it isn't pollution....for starters.
I could draw a longer bow though, and predict that it will ultimately cost jobs, and the money they generate from the tax will have to go to fund the welfare payments.
You call it pollution. I call it CO2 - been around for millions of years before us.
Funnily enough; in the Cate Blanchett ad, she was standing in front of a group of chimneys bellowing.....steam.
How is it good for the Country at all?
It won't change the temperature one iota,
It will result in increased costs for many goods and services down the line.
The low income earner won't benefit more than about a few dollars per week it seems. I'm still waiting for my cheque.....
Hang on; found a couple -
I guess you could say that the extra few scheckels the low income earners will get will be "re-invested" back into their spending, thus giving the economy a bit of a kick, or pay down the CC debt.
And Labour might be able to use it to pay down some of their deficit.
The CT limits pollution (ive already explained that), the NBN provides a modern world standard data networkf or the future, the NDS benefits disability.......on and on........look at the pic below.
But youre not saying how it affects you and your life materially. The fact is, it doesn't. It benefits it, and everyone else in this country.
Can you reply with promised Liberal National policies and they will be funded? Thanks.
And FFS! just stop whingeing. Please. Is it really that bad?
But youre not saying how it affects you and your life materially. The fact is, it doesn't. It benefits it, and everyone else in this country.
Can you reply with promised Liberal National policies and they will be funded? Thanks.
And FFS! just stop whingeing. Please. Is it really that bad?
Attachments
Last edited:
Well; I reckon it will be; we'll have to wait and see.
Still not got me on ignore? Glutton for punishment.
How 'bout you stop whinging about whinging.
I and others are just responding to you....discussion and argument.
Are you gunna switch it back to a plain old whinge blame every time someone
disagrees with you?
I don't care, but someone else might.
Love the tags to this thread.