From: yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
Subject: Re: Fightback! the politics and the sums
Reply-To: yar@cluster.cs.su.oz (Ray Loyzaga)
Organization: Basser Dept of Computer Science, University of Sydney, Australia
Date: Mon, 21 Dec 1992 07:21:18 GMT

In article <1992Dec17.073758.16431@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris O'Neill) writes:
>In article <1992Dec17.013702.29526@cs.su.oz.au> yar@cs.su.oz.au (Ray Loyzaga)
>writes:
>>In article <1992Dec15.041401.15407@trl.oz.au> c.oneill@trl.oz.au (Chris
>O'Neill) writes:
>>>In the case of Jeff Kennet's government, "little" is the operative word.
>>
>>Of course the previous government which you seem to support, was able to keep
>>the people of Victoria happy by borrowing on their behalf so that they could
>>look like the caring concerned little citizens that they were, now that
>>meany Jeff K. has to actually make Victoria pay for itself and he will be
>>know as the bad guy. What exactly do you oppose about the "Kennett reforms"
>>it sure is easy to play games with this bad-guy stereotype but how about
>>some specifics??? 
>
>You wouldn't happen to be employed under a Victorian State Industrial award or
>be covered by WorkCover and be at risk of losing an arm or something.  You're
>not!  Lucky you.

OK, I want to give people that lose an arm $1B compensation (my guess is
that Jeff K does too), but I can't afford it, and neither can the Vic.
economy. Whatever the compensation system it should be the best that
can be afforded, not one that in collaboration with similarly misguided
feel-good policies brings the state so close to bankrupcy that it would
be difficult for it to provide other essential services.
The NSW Govt introduced a new Workcover system, it reduced many payouts
but it was at least funded. I believe that the Victorian and NSW systems
give less than $65k for the loss of an arm, I don't think that they
compensate joy-riding bicyclists so it probably means that their
system is vastly inferior to the one proposed by the Labor Party.
I guess the only other difference is that this level of payment
is available to all, not just to a few close friends.

>>Nope that would be too hard, and maybe if you did mention
>>them and they were put in the context of what came before him it might
>>make you look like a partisan twerp, 
>
>No, it just makes you look like a partisan twerp.

My god but you are original, I bow to your obviously superior
witty repartee.

>>so it is best to just stick to the glib remarks.
>
>I'll leave that to you.

Oh, what a cutting comeback, I am mortally wounded.

>>>> and that the present mindset that
>>>>favours mediocrity might change for the better.
>>>
>>>Thanks for your mindset.

Geeze, you're on a roll.....

>>Is the fact that your added zero to this discussion indicative of yours?
>        ^^^^ i.e. Ray Loyzaga's opinion
>
>So the points of mine that you deleted without response are zero.  Does this
>mean that any argument against yours for which you could not think of a
>response does not exist.  i.e. there is no valid argument against your point of
>view.  You are always right.

Well I am trying to limit the amount of your included gibberish, I only
respond to the more flagrant rubbish. But yes, for the most part, in my
discussions with you, it would be correct for you to assume that I am
always right.

[stuff deleted about "right-wing" views of taxation and "fairness"]

>>you seem to want to concentrate on one
>>aspect, tax, to show that less progressive is less fair or course this
>>seem to ignore any other avenue of addressing the "fairness" question.
>
>It does not ignore any other avenue, it just says it is part of the fairness
>question.

Imagine the government instituted a policy of taxing the poor an extra
$100 but then mailing them a check for $1000.
In your opinion it is OK to argue about the fairness of the $100 tax
in isolation to the compensation, because it is "one part of the
fairness question", what a load of codswallop, you either talk
about the whole story or don't bother.
Any fool can point to one area of any policy and say that it
has a negative effect if you ignore any of the positive effects that
are instituted to either eliminate or soften these negatives.

[stuff about rightwing deleted]
>Well I'm sorry if anyone changes the original meaning.  I'll get a dictionary
>meaning for you tomorrow.

I will be very interested in a normal dictionary that defines the
term right wing in terms of "fairness" and taxation policy.

>>>>The neo-nazis are called right wing, 
>>>
>>>Who by?  Natsi stands for Nationalist Socialist by the way.
>>Happy Birthday, since I guess you were born yesterday, are you serious?
>>You don't recognise that Nazi's are known as right wing??? 
>
>I think you'd better enlighten us with your understanding of the term "right
>wing".

Easy, its a meaningless term used by left wingers as a label on their
opponents. The same is true for left wing. They are also useful keywords
for switching off in a conversation. 

>>Ok
>>so they call themselves Nationalist Socialists, big deal, I guess
>>if they call themselves the National front for the salvation of the
>>Jewish state, you'll think the Holocaust was a Hollywood invention
>>you really have to be kidding, or maybe your for real and any
>>attempt at intellegent reasoning with you is a waste of time?
>
>You'd better not get too carried away with your ignorance.

Maybe you should go out and take a straw poll of people you know
and ask them the simple question "Would you consider a nazi to be
right wing", it appears that you will be surprised by the results,
assuming that the people you know are able to dress themselves
and do not have copious amounts of hair growing across their
foreheads.

[more stuff on the relevance that the different sides of a bird
have on peoples perceptions of the fairness of tax deleted
in the interests of sanity].