KGB Tactics

Vigilante perhaps you should re read your post and put yourself in the seat of the recipient. You may know the exact intent of the post as you wrote it. At the other end of the screen the reader hasn't got the advantage of reading body language, just the post.

I perceived the post as arrogant and dismissive, despite your lol. Which may I add is occasionally used as sarcasm on this forum.

 

Wait up now slippery, there was a lot of toing and froing between Garry, dv and myself. You made a valid point whilst we were going blow for blow. You obviously hadn't read the passage leading up to your comment, which I responded to based on our conversations......now you read the (*)(*)(*)(*)nnnnn thing properly and stop being so precious. I'm not going to justify why I inadvertently hurt your feelings man-o-man!!

 

I didn't suggest "now" 50c, I suggested it initially! Now would you complain about this price increase?

 

So, I suggested something as well. But you have claimed to have done the figures, Not suggested them. But yes I would, Not on my part, but more for those who can least afford them.

And yes their are many out there. Just because you can not understand that many people are unable to feed their kids breakfast in the morning, or provide the necessities for basic education, does not mean they don't exist. The salvo's proudly pat themselves on the back for helping to provide these things, does not mean they can afford your any increase to their budget. But hey, they can afford it can't they, because the government compensated them for it.

 

yeah re read unlike yourself and looks the same really....you didn't hurt my feelings, takes a bit more than an arrogant post and gutter mouthed comment like the one above.

you once lectured me on perception regarding posts in another thread, I suggest you practice what you preach.

 

Pleassssseeeee, I was actually making reference to our discussion and basically was joking about you letting us have our fun in the sun with a debate which you correctly said, let's wait and see. The lol has a context slippery and is not always sarcasm, but I'm not wasting my time any further on this discussion. You never usually jump the gun, but this time you were heading for the finish line with blinkers on!

 

But, why concern yourself, when all is compensated for over and above. Anybody who is responsible will not lose out...those that are irresponsible will lose out with a CP or not.

Correct, on the last part!
I have never met anybody who has not been able to afford necessities that is responsible. I personally know of many who are welfare dependent but able to provide essentials. I also know of others who are irresponsible and welfare dependent and struggle due to other vices that take precedence.

 

that is your claim, which you seem too busy trying to justify.

As I stated, it has become abundantly obvious, that your claim is wrong. Gillard herself shows this by her oversights.

Well good for you, because you have not met anybody that needs charity to survive. Luck you, being shielded from such things, BUT how do you explain the increasing need for charities for people to go to school, buy food for the table and just plain survive? 50c to them is a lot of money, but that is your figure. I am expecting more.

What do you say when suddenly you are asked to donate for children to get the basic essentials IN AUSTRALIA? Do you tell the it is all BS because you have not met them?

As I say, get out a little and look about. they are usually right under your nose.

 

Oversights you claim?

You assume I haven't any experience in this area! There are variable reasons why people find themselves in harder positions than others, which is not entirely due to lack of money, especially regarding essentials.

this is a totally different argument, unless you still focusing on the extreme doomsayer projections regarding a CP.

They certainly are under my nose, but without ever meaning to sound derogatory, for every scenario there is a deeper issue underlying. Too many variables to consider, especially when one individual in the very same predicament in another is able to survive with essentials as opposed to the other.

I do like the fact that you are thoughtful though!

 

I had assumed such with your absolute resilience that no person needs to be concerned. but you confirmed it with

and that changes the facts that they can not afford this HOW?

No, it is not a different subject at all. It is one of the major issues in this problem

So, people are actually in the same predicament? No, each person has very different problems. You do show that you really do not understand the fact that charities are growing.

Unfortunately I would not have been some years ago. except I was one of those people. for years I sat and watched governments tell me how much they where going to gouge me, to pay these so called benefits. All the time wondering where I would be able to get the money to feed myself. Thankfully, from the charity of some very good people, who I have repayed many times since, I would not have survived. BUT that is beside the point.

 

LOL

This should be the definition of hypocrisy in the dictionary.
Wait is that actually sarcasm? I can't see how you can be serious.
I applaud you. Best foot in mouth act I have seen thus far on these forums and should be given some kinda award!

 

Reading through the posts, it`s obvious that the proponents of the Carbon Tax have no idea what it effect it will have on the cost of living. Not very smart to support something one doesn`t understand. I predict that when these posters find that "those other people" won`t be paying the carbon tax for them, and their own living costs rise further than expected, they`ll then blame those "other people", and not the big new tax.

The calcs for cost effect of the carbon tax on any given item, are astronomical compared to the GST for example. If this carbon tax is so inocuous, as being proported by it`s supporters, why then is there a need to crush the publicising of the cost of this big new tax?

When I read of the "new" energy saving measures being used by the supporters of this tax, I have to wonder why they have left it this long to implement these energy saving measures? Anybody with an ounce of sense has been economising in these ways for years now. I live a fair way out of town. I do a 150K riund trip to work & back. I`ve just finished wearing a small car out, & have recently bought another little petrol sniffer to replace it. No prizes for guessing who in this area still drive V8`s to work, one person per car. All conservative types in this area have had small cars for years, it`s the bogans who hang on to the guzzlers, the ones who`s limit of political nause extends to their often repeated, "I`ve always voted labor, and always will". Is it any wonder that the present shower of a Federal Government can pull the wool over their closed eyes?

 

Bottom line is you believe low income earners will be worse off, but I beg to differ. You believe Abbott and the coalition and the hysteria, I believe the experts.

Something was going to be done about climate change.....Abbott's direct action plan, which was a no brainer and opposed by the experts, or gillards, which had unanimous support from experts. The price is another contentious part. It then wouldn't address climate change and therefore behaviours, if too low. Colin Barnett said gillard should lower the price but says the lower price won't do anything....hmmmmm! Prices globally are vastly different and well above Australia's in some instances, which apparently is the reason for our set price that will give it some traction. The argument is really about AGW or natural climate change, and we know where the experts stand on this unless you like to chase conspiracies!

 

Reading through the posts, it`s obvious that the opponents of the Carbon Tax have no idea what effect it will have on the cost of living.

Yes the cost of living will go up, no one said it wouldn't. The costs have been modeled, I have seen it, it has been debated in many threads. I am not going to reiterate them again, read the other threads. But that's the problem, you guys just keep recreating the same thread. Yesyerday I proved that in two threads, the links on which they were based were fraudulent, and cast reasonable doubts on others. Today there are at least two new threads, saying the same tired out argument.

I'll save you the trouble. Costs will rise, that's the point

 

In a nutshell.

Prices will rise.
Will it work? Not sure 100%
Will Liberals idea (they have no policy) work. Not sure 100%
Is global warming true? Not sure 100% but the stakes are so high, it's not a gambling matter.
Will either sides ideas work. I don't think they will 100%, it is more up to the attitude of the people.
If you cannot see much difference in the two sides, why pick a tax that will raise prices.

Both ideas will cost money, has to. My gripe is who pays. The CTS gets the money from those that pollute, pollute a lot, pay a lot, pollute a little, pay a little. If a product is resource hungry, it will go up in price and become a less attractive option. If a product is eco friendly, it will remain static or reduce in price.
User pays

The opposition, tax everyone, usually the low to middle class most. Exempt big polluters.

What is going to happen to the money.

Some is being given as relief packages to the lower incomes.
Some is going to research.
Some is going to help buy carbon soaks especially in third world countries and places like the amazon.
Carbon soak investment is available to everyone including banks.
Some money is being given to international management and research groups.
Some will be ripped off by unscrupulous people.
Some will be squandered.

Liberal version. Give the money to the polluters, smack their wrists, say don't do it again, accept a liberal party campaign donation

 

You know, maybe it is some sort of "KGB" tactics, the carbon tax that is. Maybe it has to be ... unfortunately.

We are here where we are, due to arrogance, greed, ignorance, laziness, apathy and generally turning a blind eye to what was happening.

We are in general, over weight, lazy, greedy, self centred couch potatoes.

This is our wake up call, of course some people are deaf.

 

I agree with the post, we are self obsessed.

The KGB tactics is in reference to the threat put forward by Gillard to take legal action against those who not only put prices up far exceeding the tax, but also those who put forward mis information in its regards.

 

Well if you except the experts, why do you not except that this tax will actually not do what you proclaim it to do. According to Gillard it will wipe about 160mt of carbon from the atmosphere. However, that treasury modelling, you like to consider as experts, say that it will actually increase by 155.5mt? Who do you believe? the experts you lay your faith in? OR do you actually look back to examples of previous changes of such magnitude and see how they got it wrong?

Bottom line is, yes lower income earners who can least afford it will be the ones to suffer most. It is great to throw what you can afford about, but (in a word) inhumane to expect that everybody else can meet your standards.

I do believe some of the coalition spin, that business will suffer and jobs will be lost. Gillard beleives, as the greens do, that these jobs will be picked up in other areas, such as bureaucracy. So going from productive jobs to nothing jobs really helps the economy, HOW?

Experts do not disagree or agree with anybodies plans at all. They all sit about saying wait and see what happens, as you continue to do. They already know that this policy is what is happening NOW and well, it is get on with it, the good, the bad, the ugly.

Carbon taxes and ETS's abroad are failing baddly, not due to prices, but of economic circumstances. You can not try and assess you carbon tax on others as they seem to be a major economic hit, that governments can not adjust for.

However, you totally miss the point that Australia has one of the Highest costs of manufacturing, which is only negated by government subsidise and policys. Adding any cost to production will mean either the government will need to subsidise MORE or business will be lost. This TAX is a direct hit to the costs of manufacturing in Australia, which yes the Government is compensating for. BUT who are they compensating? The export meat industry alone, is dominated by one company, that is subsidiesed heavely for their exports already. Now they will be subsidised MORE, from the Australian population. Guess who owns that company? NOT AUSTRALIA.

So industry is becoming more and more an import market for Australia, The biggest manufacture in Australia, your experts consider a great indicator, is BHP. BHP has more off shore interests than it does in Australia. Papua mining and african mining interests dwarfs Australian interest. How many other, companies are owned by Australia. So, you are prepared to see 40% ODD of your money going to help the export interest keep prices competitive for companies that will send it overseas?

All in the name of climate change, you like to sell your entire country away.

 

Hey dom

Not a KGB tactic its a bankers tactic.

You see the carbon tax / ETS if all countries jump on the gravy train will generate $2 trillion dollars per annum.

Now you telling me the bankers eyes wont light up?

 

Well said aussie,

But not all labor supporters go around following their leaders blindly.

Some actually do have a brain that can think for itself. LOL

 

*There is a context to your claim regarding the 155mt increase garry, and i'm pretty sure you know it.

*So you do believe in someones opinion that is not yours, and that's the coalition!

*Experts did agree that the CTS is by far superior to the direct action plan. This information has been provided numerous times on this forum.

*No, the ETS isn't failing abroad. There are teething problems, which we are lucky to implement now and address with ours.

*The costs aren't major re: manufacturing in the whole scheme of things. Our manufacturing will be set up nicely once the rest jump on board, which they invariably will. In any instant, manufacturing has been looking gloomy for years. You are just adding your CP spin on things.

 

Yes, there is. Carbon Emissions will actually increase in real terms, not decrease as Gillard claims. That is Treasury modelling you claim to believe, as the great expert. Also to that note, That over 50% of overseas abatement will be needed to offset the increase.

Yes, at times, BUT I never claim it as my own or use it to support my opinion.

However, that is not your claim is it, what was that again

Which is not actually true, is it. as you can see from this forum.

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/consultat...5553393-31_friends_of_the_earth_europe_en.pdf

http://www.corporateeurope.org/news/eu-ets-failing-third-attempt

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/5631048/Slow-down-ETS-implementation-report
How much more evidence do you need?

Oh yes, the cost is not major. they can support it.

However, how will they be set up nicely, when they already rely on government subsidises to make them competitive? You do not seem to understand, that Australia was already a very expensive country to manufacture in. With removal of tariffs, much of the manufacturing industry exported their industry and sell back to Australia, Because it was cheaper.

Fact is, that ANY cost increase to manufacturing will lose Australian demand. Gillard knows this and is why 40% of the compensation package is ear marked for the export market, to subsidise the cost of increases costs.

It is you who really do not know, or most likely can not correlate the funding to businesses such as GMH and FORD in the hundreds of millions to keep them viable on a global market. It is you who does not know that, regardless of those hundreds of millions, the government announced they are giving to these car manufacturers, they already give them millions on a yearly basis, to make them globally competitive.

Did you complain when the government gave multi-million dollar grant to Mitsubishi who then proceeded to close in Australia, taking that money back to Japan? Why did they go? It was too expensive to continue to manufacture in Australia.

Ford has announced on several occasions that the will review Australian manufacturing (or did you not know ford is not Australian?) in the view of closing the arm of their business, due to the cost of manufacture in Australia?

It already is happening, and you just try to blow it off with 'The costs aren't major' , naive at best.

 

Provide your link that states this Garry. I'm aware of this, but in context. You provide links to support other argumensts, why not this one?

Well, yes you are, whether it be inadvertantly or not! common garry, stop being silly please!

It is actually true my friend, nobody has stated anything different regarding Abbott's action plan on this forum to support it. It will burden us even further. So taking 10's of billions of dollars from our budget to give to the biggest polluters is your option. It means we will be paying more taxes! We all know that the coalition are the biggest taxing party!

You know, I know and everbody else knows that there is a load of other stuff out their to counter this. Do you really want to get into this little game?

Of course I understand this, but this is not the argument. These issues have been around since adam was a boy. The question is, is how much more impact will this have as a consequence of the CP....it will be insignificant as per my previous post!

Well, what is your problem then. Importing and exporting issues have been around since that proverbial boy.

Great.....they need it. It has kept them in Australia for many years. As all countries invariably jump on the ETS ship, we will be hugely advantaged! They are a visionary party garry. Just think about the floating of the dollar and superannuation. Hugely visionaries!

There was obviously a good reason.....do you really think that the government would have said " hey mitsubishi, here is a couple of million to take home with you"?

Not as a consequence of the CP though. It has always been on a knifes edge, for many years anyway!

Absolutely garry.......I just can't stand negativity for the sake of being negative when nobody really knows the intracacies but pretend to.

 

OH you have not seen it? OK

http://www.countercurrents.org/polya180711.htm

Put that in your context of REAL increases in carbon emissions.

LOL...No

However, Gillard does not have UNANIMOUS support from the experts as YOU claimed has she? Do you really believe that you will not pay MORE taxes under this scheme?

So, you do not like the evidence that governments around the world have been failing in one way or another over this very issue? You want to try and debunk the the fact that many changes are being made in attempt to get them working, and some are even been scrapped?

How will it be less? As Australia has already priced themselves out of the global market, and dependent on government handouts, to be able to compete will a further increase on costs be insignificant, when the Government has not got those incoming funds to subsidise those companies? Yes you guessed it, it will have to come from higher taxes.

You are obtuse aren't you?

LOL... advantaged HOW? You continue to say this, but it is obvious that you ignore the fact that your already starting from a position on disadvantage and assuming that you will suddenly become an advantage because...I don't know. Do you actually consider that Australia is paying more in power prices or resources that will be taxed higher than any other nation? Is that what you consider is the reason for higher cost of production? Visionary, no, This policy ignores some of the fundamentals of the an economy that is reliant on public welfare to compete on a global scale.

Yes there was a good reason. I stated it simply for you and you ignored. So let us state it a little better for you.

The Australian car industry does not survive on Australian sales. They need to export a considerable amount of product to overseas nations. Mitsubishi, being in the same position could not sustain the cost of production, compared to the export market in Australia (even with their government exporting grants). So, Mitsubishi decided to move (I suggest they knew this when the Government gave them the money) Back to Japan to consolidate their resources and cost. Of course the government did not know this would be the outcome, However, that does not detract from what actually occurred.

So the reason was COST OF PRODUCTION.

The point is not that they are talking about it due to carbon tax. The point is that it is still another added cost to production, regardless of size, that will impact on their future considerations in Australia.

Oh, I see, YOUR the Authority on those Issues. Perhaps if you don't like what is put in front of you, and consider it all just rubbish because you can not envisage what is happening around the nation, then you should not comment on such things. Seems real stupid to me, to comment on something, you claim to hate, without even considering what is being said.

How visionairy is some body, that does not realise that their nation, is at a disadvantage before they start?

 

We are in a pretty good position still, but you can continue to be pessimistic if you like, I choose to be optimistic! Get a bit of optimism about yourself garry. (Ask not what the planet can do for you, ask what you can do for the planet!) We will be okay if we initiate a plan now from all expert opinion.