Is Julia gillard being targeted due to her gender?

[Eriny]

How is Tony Abbott a misogynist?

Quote: ‘I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons’
He said this in 2010.

 calling Tony Abbott out for his misogyny isn't misandry, it's about time. And yes, these terms have actually existed before you started paying attention to gender politics.

[alondouek]

1) What do you have to go on, but past experience? Please tell me what you are basing your declaration that LNP is economically strong if not on past experience?

2) Economists widely agree that Swannie's stimulus package did in fact save Australia from the recession.

3) You just said that fiscal history is a bygone, but were then happy to credit Howard with it when you thought it helped support your point.

You basically have this pre-conceived notion in your head that LNP = fiscal superheroes and then try to shoehorn whatever evidence you can to fit it, simultaneously dismissing counter-evidence out of hand. It's rather odd.

I think you're straw-manning here.

1) Nope, not past experience. As an 18-year-old, I can freely admit that my physical experience with voting and the like doesn't extend beyond getting a birthday card from the electorate commission saying "Congrats! Now vote". Rather, my position that the LNP is economically better positioned is from its policies, which promote a free market and deregulation. To be honest, I can't see a Gillard-run ALP government having the same level of these things.

2) So Swannie 'saves Australia from the recession'. Nek minnit - he does a backflip late December and announces that there probably won't be a surplus in the next budget.

Sinclair Davidson, Professor of Institutional Economics at RMIT University - "It was inevitable, mostly because this is a government that spends too much money.

Every year they’ve been talking about cuts but these cuts have always been on future expenditure or proposed expenditure. They’ve never actually cut current expenditure. I think the government has been right in trying to return to a budget surplus. It is good policy to have a budget in balance or surplus rather than deficit. Unfortunately they haven’t had the fiscal discipline to cut the spending they should have."

Yah, no more budget surplus... decent treasurer the ALP's got there.

3) There's a massive difference between resigning two cases which cancel out each others contention to the dustbin of fiscal history, and crediting an administration with their gains. I'd rather have a government that sells assets and achieves a surplus, than one which spends unsustainably.

"You basically..." isn't a great way to begin to represent someone's argument. You say that I "dismiss counter-evidence out of hand", but aren't you doing much the same? And regardless, what kind of argument would this be if we weren't doing so?

[enwiabe]

1) Have you even read Abbott's policy document? Tell me which of these policies you think are soooooooo much better than Labor's.

2) Majority of economists agree that it's actually very much acceptable to run at deficit during recession to keep the economy pumping. A paper surplus would do nobody any service because it'd be hoarding money for the sake of hoarding money which is not what we need right now.

3) Labor's spending is sustainable, hence why we have one of the strongest rated economies in the world.

[ninwa]

2) So Swannie 'saves Australia from the recession'. Nek minnit - he does a backflip late December and announces that there probably won't be a surplus in the next budget.

Sinclair Davidson, Professor of Institutional Economics at RMIT University - "It was inevitable, mostly because this is a government that spends too much money.

Every year they’ve been talking about cuts but these cuts have always been on future expenditure or proposed expenditure. They’ve never actually cut current expenditure. I think the government has been right in trying to return to a budget surplus. It is good policy to have a budget in balance or surplus rather than deficit. Unfortunately they haven’t had the fiscal discipline to cut the spending they should have."

Yah, no more budget surplus... decent treasurer the ALP's got there.

Hey, how about you quote the other economists' opinions as well? Or are you ignoring them because they don't suit your argument?
http://theconversation.edu.au/swan-says-budget-surplus-now-unlikely-experts-respond-11448

What the government should do is just accept that occasionally governments go into deficit and that’s a normal way of coping with slowdowns in growth.

...

Most people would understand that occasionally you have to go into deficit to finance key spending. As long as the government does it wisely the same logic should apply.

It surprises me that the government hasn’t used this as a political tool in its favour to differentiate itself with conservative governments in the States who are blindly pushing for surpluses at all costs.

That said, the target wasn’t achievable, mainly because of the lack of revenues coming in — not because of government spending.

(lol if you're going to blame lack of revenue on the government, though I wouldn't be surprised if you tried doing that argument)

The surplus admission from Wayne Swan is not surprising. But what is remarkable is the way in which he got himself cornered in trying to achieve a surplus, when international conditions didn’t favour a budget going to surplus.

It wouldn’t have been good policy to try and persevere when the conditions didn’t warrant it.

Also, try reading something other than The Australian:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-12-20/economists-praise-decision-to-ditch-surplus/4438734

[alondouek]

Hey, how about you quote the other economists' opinions as well? Or are you ignoring them because they don't suit your argument?

Wait, what?

George Argyrous, Senior Lecturer at University of New South Wales - "The attempt to achieve a surplus bought about its own undoing – as you try to achieve a surplus through austerity all you do is drive economic growth downwards, with the implication you’re more likely to get a deficit."

Gregory Melleuish, Associate Professor, School of History and Politics at University of Wollongong - "I wonder whether it was all inevitable. At some stage they were going to have to bite the bullet on the fact that the surplus might not be achievable. The Labor Party was trapped by the idea that it was going to achieve a surplus, using that as a measure of their economic credentials. So they invested an awful lost [sic] of political capital into that idea."

Tim Battin, Senior Lecturer, Political and International Studies, School of Humanities, at the University of New England - "The surplus admission from Wayne Swan is not surprising. But what is remarkable is the way in which he got himself cornered in trying to achieve a surplus, when international conditions didn’t favour a budget going to surplus."

Nick Economou, Senior Lecturer, School of Political and Social Inquiry at Monash University - "They were beginning to believe their own rhetoric about how well they were doing in the polls, but the last Newspoll has reversed that trend. So it looks like the strategy now will be to say to the community: look, in the interest of realism we have to abandon this silly idea of a surplus. It’s probably the wise thing to do – most responsible economists would agree."

It seems to me that all but one of the quoted people (the other being John Wanna) support my point in some way.

EDIT: Missed enwiabe's post.

1) Have you even read Abbott's policy document? Tell me which of these policies you think are soooooooo much better than Labor's.

2) Majority of economists agree that it's actually very much acceptable to run at deficit during recession to keep the economy pumping. A paper surplus would do nobody any service because it'd be hoarding money for the sake of hoarding money which is not what we need right now.

3) Labor's spending is sustainable, hence why we have one of the strongest rated economies in the world.

1) Do you remember that time, like ~1.5 hours ago, when I was really critical of Tony Abbott and his personal politics? I'm still of the same opinion. And I still believe that he shouldn't be heading up the LNP, nor should his cronies. Though, I believe the underlying policies of the actual party are superior to the ALP's

2) Yep, but it's kinda hard to forget that a few short weeks ago, he was actively trying to pursue a surplus in the current economic climate. Yeah, he's switched his position entirely, but it still happened.

3) Again, I posit that Labor's spending is not more sustainable than a free market-oriented LNP without Abbott at the helm. And that we've had one of the "strongest rated economies in the world" for a long time (re: successive LNP governments) says a lot too...

[enwiabe]

alondouek, do you really believe the ALP is not in favour of a free market economy?

Both parties support appropriate regulation for the economy, and obviously oppose each other on the details. It is the ultimate strawman to say that the ALP does not believe in a market economy simply because they support regulation to prevent abuse. No sane person believes in a fully deregulated economy. You certainly won't find many in the LNP who believe that, and definitely not in the ALP. Both LNP and ALP at their core support a strong market economy with robust regulation.

You keep contradicting yourself in terms. You say that the past is simply a bygone and doesn't inform your opinion now, and then you use it as evidence in point 3! You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

[alondouek]

alondouek, do you really believe the ALP is not in favour of a free market economy?

Both parties support appropriate regulation for the economy, and obviously oppose each other on the details. It is the ultimate strawman to say that the ALP does not believe in a market economy.

You're misrepresenting my argument again. Of course the ALP would support a free-market economy - we live in a capitalist country that can maintain said capitalism without too much excess (though our environmental policy needs work, and more acceptance from the general public). My belief is simply that the LNP is better suited, through policy and history, to maintain and expand this than the ALP.

On a side note, can you imagine if Mark Latham had become Prime Minister? That is the most frightening thought to have occurred to me for a while...

EDIT for edit:

You keep contradicting yourself in terms. You say that the past is simply a bygone and doesn't inform your opinion now, and then you use it as evidence in point 3! You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

Nope. As I stated before, the 'bygone' comment was strictly a fiscal point, and one limited to the two opposing cases that we discussed earlier. Don't decontextualise my point!

[enwiabe]

Then why use the term "free-market oriented LNP"? Are you saying there is a non free-market oriented LNP?

You clearly have tried to make the claim that the ALP is not free-market oriented, and are now backtracking when you realise the sheer height of ignorance that that argument betrays.

[alondouek]

Then why use the term "free-market oriented LNP"? Are you saying there is a non free-market oriented LNP?

You clearly have tried to make the claim that the ALP is not free-market oriented, and are now backtracking when you realise the sheer height of ignorance that that argument betrays.

You're really going to reduce your argument down to semantics? The term "free-market oriented LNP" clearly means "the LNP, which is free-market oriented".

[enwiabe]

You're really going to reduce your argument down to semantics? The term "free-market oriented LNP" clearly means "the LNP, which is free-market oriented".

It's not semantics, you clearly tried to make the argument that ALP are not free-market oriented.

[alondouek]

It's not semantics, you clearly tried to make the argument that ALP are not free-market oriented.

Oh, you.

Not only are you blatantly straw-manning again, but you're trying to editorialise a point that wasn't actually made.

[enwiabe]

Oh, you.

Not only are you blatantly straw-manning again, but you're trying to editorialise a point that wasn't actually made.

Let me ask you then, why did you feel like you needed to add that LNP is free-market oriented when both ALP and LNP have free-market support in their platforms?

It'd be like saying the pro-gun NRA, or the pro-environment Greens.

[alondouek]

Let me ask you then, why did you feel like you needed to add that LNP is free-market oriented when both ALP and LNP have free-market support in their platforms?

Again, you're picking apart my wording when it actually doesn't have any impact on my argument. I was simply noting that the LNP is pro-free market.

It'd be like saying the pro-gun NRA, or the pro-environment Greens.

So I used a tautology, sue me!

[enwiabe]

Again, you're picking apart my wording when it actually doesn't have any impact on my argument. I was simply noting that the LNP is pro-free market.

So I used a tautology, sue me!

I think there was a reason why you used the tautology, and that is that you didn't think it was a tautology. You really thought that that was a point which distinguished the LNP from the ALP, and when you actually looked up what the ALP stood for (generally a good idea when trying to argue against them) you have now proceeded to try to worm your way out of it. I'm satisifed that I was right and you're just backpedalling.

You still remain to show how Abbott or an Abbott-less LNP will be stronger for the economy. I've asked you which of their policies will do this, and you're yet to pinpoint one.

[alondouek]

I think there was a reason why you used the tautology, and that is that you didn't think it was a tautology. You really thought that that was a point which distinguished the LNP from the ALP, and when you actually looked up what the ALP stood for (generally a good idea when trying to argue against them) you have now proceeded to try to worm your way out of it. I'm satisifed that I was right and you're just backpedalling.

That's a lot of crap right there. Do you always psychoanalyse someone when you're discussing something with them? What I wrote means exactly what it means, not what you are trying to make of it. If a three-word tautology had proportion, you'd have blown it out.

In fact, with the definition of tautology in mind, nothing you just wrote is valid.

You still remain to show how Abbott or an Abbott-less LNP will be stronger for the economy. I've asked you which of their policies will do this, and you're yet to pinpoint one.

I strongly believe that Abbott's archaic views based on his religious beliefs are holding back the party, with respect to the economy, public health, and social progression.

From the video you posted a while back - he's an idiot, and there's no context required to see that. You don't vaccinate your kids? Stupidest thing to do. Against gender equality - equally stupid.

And I've clearly stated to you my beliefs that an Abbott-less LNP would be better for Australia in all these regards, as well as providing greater fiscal security for this country than Gillard's government could.