Positive Impacts of John Howard (1 Viewer)

[katie tully]

Because riding a mining boom was pretty hard to do, as was withdrawing money from tertiary education and starving Medicare.

And taking a confrontational attitude towards Indigenous Australia, dogwhistling the racist politics of Pauline Hanson and pursuing a non-consultative, whitey-knows-best Intervention into Aboriginal communities have been the pinnacle of benevolent and wise social policy decisions.

Well if blackies knew how to feed their kids and not be kiddy fiddlers, they wouldn't require an intervention.

Tell me, is it his fault 18 month old babies had gonorrhea too?

 

[katie tully]

Enlighten me as to his brilliant achievements, because all of his taxes seemed to affect my family and we got none of the benefits despite earning collectively less then 100k a year?

Maybe your family need to manage their funds better? Who knows.

Personal income tax was reduced to offset GST.
And lol at all of you going off about GST. Do you guys realise that there was already a sales tax? All introducing GST did was unify and set a broadbased consumption tax, and that various other taxes were gotten rid of. And that all the money from GST funds the states? States run by Labor governments who have done a preeeeetty good job of pissing your money up the wall.

Anybody who says GST has adversely affected them is a moron. Personal income taxes were reduced significantly to offset GST.

INTEREST RATES AT RECORD LOWS FOR 10 YEARS

No government debt. Which means there's more money to put into welfare and other hippy shit.

 

[katie tully]

Oh hey and you guys know GST was going to be introduced sooner or later ........

 

[Graney]

Workchoices was a great initiative.

 

[katie tully]

meh, depends who you ask.


internet censorship is a pretty great initiative

 

[Makro]

Saying interest rates are at an all time low is retarded if there's GST sitting right there. It's just giving it a different name.

Look we lowered this tax to 1% and GST was introduced, look at how long this tax is!

 

[katie tully]

Saying interest rates are at an all time low is retarded if there's GST sitting right there. It's just giving it a different name.

Look we lowered this tax to 1% and GST was introduced, look at how long this tax is!

No you're retarded, because there was already a wholesale tax implemented, all the GST did was make a uniform consumption tax, which was offset by reducing capital gains tax, personal income tax and a few other levies. That coupled with interest rates at an all time low, tbh, I have no idea what you're all complaining about.

 

[katie tully]

ra ra ra

I think people let Howard's less than ideal social policies out shadow his economic policies. You can argue that they were shit, but for 10 years Australia experienced unprecedented growth, unprecendented unemployment lows and some other shit.

You can argue until you're blue guys, fact is, regardless of what you think of Howard as a person, he did a pretty good job.

 

[supercalamari]

hahaha, i just didn't like the guy. that was my main problem.

workchoices= did it actually affect anyone?

 

[katie tully]

He looked like a ferret. And do you know what they look like?
Dicks with hair.

IDK, I think shift workers in mines were affected the most by workchoices, but tbh I haven't heard of thaaaaaaaaaaat many horror stories.

I'm sure there are some, due to the lax attitude they took towards regulating the contracts.

 

[Graney]

He enacted the worlds most restrictive gun ownership laws. That was pretty shit.

Edit:

Workchoices was a great initiative.

Not a sarcastic comment

 

[supercalamari]

"They might oppose gay marriage, but Mexicans are prone to screwing men, children, infants, animals, and inanimate objects." ?!?!?

Most of those who supported Prop 8 were.... *drumroll*... african-american christians!

so their dreams were realized but mine... squashed. woot.

anyway...

*is a little bit devastated about Prop 8 passing, that's all*


about workchoices:

i thought the ads were kinda funny though.

 

[katie tully]

Hahaha.

Luv living in the country.

GUNS GUNS EVERYWHERRRRRRRRRE

 

[katie tully]

"They might oppose gay marriage, but Mexicans are prone to screwing men, children, infants, animals, and inanimate objects." ?!?!?

Most of those who supported Prop 8 were.... *drumroll*... african-american christians!

so their dreams were realized but mine... squashed. woot.

anyway...

*is a little bit devastated about Prop 8 passing, that's all*


about workchoices:

i thought the ads were kinda funny though.

it was a lol quote i found on stormfront forums. they had a nice big discussion on Prop 8 full of lulz

they were discussing how most people who voted for obama (i.e. mexicans and blacks) voted no on prop 8, coz they hate homosexuals as much as WN's, but mexicans also have sex with kids, animals, etc.

 

[robot rabbit]

John Howard had some pretty good forgein relation. He certainly improved relations with the US.

 

[Sastrawan]

katie tully, ummm... lol? :S not that it was particularly funny. "blackies" do know how to feed their kids, and the fact that after over a year that not a single person has been arrested by the Intervention on child abuse charges shows: i) not every single Aboriginal person molests children, and ii) the Intervention is failing on the one objective that it claimed to be addressing. I suspect the Intervention had other, political motives, but I don't know enough specifically about it to make a real argument for that. And no, it's not his fault their babies have gonorrhea, but it's not exactly the parents' choice now is it? The fact is that medical facilities in the Indigenous communities are abysmal, as is sexual health education, so the reason that these people are so stricken with venereal disease and other problems such as alcoholism is not, as you imply, because they fail as human beings, but because of severe infrastructural disadvantages that Howard did little to address. (I must say, for all his symbolism, I haven't seen much out of Rudd in this respect either)

I don't deny that economic conditions were good in Australia 96-07, but this had little to do with Costello's management, and very much to do with the fact that the mining boom was at an all time high, the fact that China's growth, and hence desire for raw materials, was accelerating rapidly during the Howard years (not his idea), and the fact that Australians are good at consuming things. Howard did nothing to keep interest rates low directly, since rates are dictated by the Reserve Bank, who, as in 2007, showed that they act to fulfill their economic mandate with little regard for political factors (ie. the fact that their decision to keep raising the rates effectively ended Howard's prime ministership).

It's pretty easy to ride a boom and claim to have been an awesome economic manager, but in truth, Howard and Costello actually did very little substantial with the economy, bar introducing the GST, which, as kate tully says, was on the cards anyway. I don't particularly hate the GST, I mean... it doesn't seem that big a deal.

Most of the economic reform that allowed for the 90s economic growth was down to Keating. He floated the currency, moved towards a liberalisation of the workplace (which Howard took far too far, imho, with WorkChoices) which increased productivity, and he laid the groundwork in terms of economic relations with Asia that allowed us to benefit from China rise, which as I said was a major factor we were so prosperous during Howard's time. I'm not saying everything Keating did was perfect (lol "the recession we had to have"), but the interest rate did plunge from 18% to 5% during Keating's period. Again this is more complex, because that was largely due to the recession, so people who say that low interest rates are necessarily a good thing (Howard's PR team in the past two elections, and Rudd's in the last) are silly.

WorkChoices was not really that good. It suited the miners in WA, and so they voted for it (WA was the only state to swing towards Howard in '07, and the only one with a current Liberal Premier). However, it particularly hurt young, casual workers, and those employed in small businesses (again, usually young, underqualified part-timers), and from a general social equity point of view, government should seek to protect those who are economically disadvantaged. (That, by the way, is a personal ideological view - you might disagree, but it's not something we can debate very constructively.)

VSU was (and still is) shit. As much as you may despise the very concept of compulsory union membership on an ideological level, if you look at it practically (which is something that conservatives take particular glee in telling liberals to do, to "stop being so ideological"), VSU has meant death of extra-curricular life at most universities that aren't as wealthy as USYD and UNSW. You may not give a fuck about that, but I, and many, many university students, do.

Katie tully hits the nail on the head with this: "I think people let Howard's less than ideal social policies out shadow his economic policies. " I think it's actually the reverse. People, mostly conservatives, go on and on and on about his economic policies (which I've argued have less to do with our real growth than many claim), and ignore the bad, bad social policies he put forward. You might well say, being on the left, that I overemphasise these social policies, but that is simply a matter of political preference, which in the end is why these debates come down to simply "I disagree with your priorities, for I think so-and-so is more important than such-and-such". That doesn't stop of, of course, debating factual/interpretive things like "Was Howard really such an awesome economic manager or not?"

But I do think that it is not the government's only role to preside over economic growth, and I think that a government must not run policies that favour economic growth over social services, over education and health. The federal-state system is really fucked up, and the states have to be blamed a lot for failings in the areas of health and education (caused, I believe, by a rather conservative economic rationalist approach to state policy, but that's another thread). Howard did some very bad things for our society. He made racism a major issue in politics again, with Hanson, with the Intervention and with his ridiculously inflammatory "we will decide who comes to this country" shit. He exploited Australians' fear of terrorism for his own reelection, opened a cruel detention system that made refugees feel like criminals for simply trying to escape atrocity and made the country a generally more paranoid and fearful one.

His lap-dog attitude towards a man who is universally becoming acknowledged as one of the worst US presidents in many decades was very bad. I don't agree that it was vital to the US-Aus relationship to do it like this - the US and NZ have a very strong relationship and a commitment to ANZUS, and yet Helen Clark disagreed with Bush on many fundamental foreign policy issues. Howard's gung-ho militarism caused great hostility in Indonesia, a country that is vital to our long term security. I'm not saying he caused the Bali bombings, but violence is only met with violence. I believe the only way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again is to offer aid, to educate those dirt-poor East Javanese kids who have nothing, to show them that the West is not some Islam-bashing bully that is xenophobic (which, having no education, they easily believe).

Anyway, as you can see, I'm really bored. Although I disagree with katie tully on some things, I respect the fact that he's clear in his explanations, and doesn't rip on people just because they think differently to him (xONBROKENWINGSx, take note). Most political disagreements are just matters of priority (which are matters of upbringing and personal values), but nevertheless, there's room for discussion.

 

[kaz1]

The Iraq war.

 

[studentcheese]

Racist Ten Point Plan for Aborigines.

Howard has joined APEC, improved our relations with USA, kept economy interest rates low and improved Australia's national security (counter terrorism)

 

[kevinx2]

Gun control legislation
Ministerial Code of Conduct
Wik 10 point plan
Native Title
Privitisation of Telstra
Increase in uni fees
Private health insurance rebate
"Work for the dole" system
GST
Joined APEC
East Timor shit
Afghanistan shit
Iraq shit
Some stuff to do with same-sex faggots
Abolition of compulsory uni student union fees
Liberalisation of media ownership laws
Industrial relation changes
WorkChoices
Kept interest rates low
Anti-terrorism stuff
Mandatory detention policy
Improved foreign relations with the yanks
Fully not signing the Kyoto Protocol brah

Not necessarily positive, not necessarily politically correct

 

[katie tully]

katie tully, ummm... lol? :S not that it was particularly funny. "blackies" do know how to feed their kids, and the fact that after over a year that not a single person has been arrested by the Intervention on child abuse charges shows: i) not every single Aboriginal person molests children, and ii) the Intervention is failing on the one objective that it claimed to be addressing. I suspect the Intervention had other, political motives, but I don't know enough specifically about it to make a real argument for that. And no, it's not his fault their babies have gonorrhea, but it's not exactly the parents' choice now is it? The fact is that medical facilities in the Indigenous communities are abysmal, as is sexual health education, so the reason that these people are so stricken with venereal disease and other problems such as alcoholism is not, as you imply, because they fail as human beings, but because of severe infrastructural disadvantages that Howard did little to address. (I must say, for all his symbolism, I haven't seen much out of Rudd in this respect either)

I don't deny that economic conditions were good in Australia 96-07, but this had little to do with Costello's management, and very much to do with the fact that the mining boom was at an all time high, the fact that China's growth, and hence desire for raw materials, was accelerating rapidly during the Howard years (not his idea), and the fact that Australians are good at consuming things. Howard did nothing to keep interest rates low directly, since rates are dictated by the Reserve Bank, who, as in 2007, showed that they act to fulfill their economic mandate with little regard for political factors (ie. the fact that their decision to keep raising the rates effectively ended Howard's prime ministership).

It's pretty easy to ride a boom and claim to have been an awesome economic manager, but in truth, Howard and Costello actually did very little substantial with the economy, bar introducing the GST, which, as kate tully says, was on the cards anyway. I don't particularly hate the GST, I mean... it doesn't seem that big a deal.

Most of the economic reform that allowed for the 90s economic growth was down to Keating. He floated the currency, moved towards a liberalisation of the workplace (which Howard took far too far, imho, with WorkChoices) which increased productivity, and he laid the groundwork in terms of economic relations with Asia that allowed us to benefit from China rise, which as I said was a major factor we were so prosperous during Howard's time. I'm not saying everything Keating did was perfect (lol "the recession we had to have"), but the interest rate did plunge from 18% to 5% during Keating's period. Again this is more complex, because that was largely due to the recession, so people who say that low interest rates are necessarily a good thing (Howard's PR team in the past two elections, and Rudd's in the last) are silly.

WorkChoices was not really that good. It suited the miners in WA, and so they voted for it (WA was the only state to swing towards Howard in '07, and the only one with a current Liberal Premier). However, it particularly hurt young, casual workers, and those employed in small businesses (again, usually young, underqualified part-timers), and from a general social equity point of view, government should seek to protect those who are economically disadvantaged. (That, by the way, is a personal ideological view - you might disagree, but it's not something we can debate very constructively.)

VSU was (and still is) shit. As much as you may despise the very concept of compulsory union membership on an ideological level, if you look at it practically (which is something that conservatives take particular glee in telling liberals to do, to "stop being so ideological"), VSU has meant death of extra-curricular life at most universities that aren't as wealthy as USYD and UNSW. You may not give a fuck about that, but I, and many, many university students, do.

Katie tully hits the nail on the head with this: "I think people let Howard's less than ideal social policies out shadow his economic policies. " I think it's actually the reverse. People, mostly conservatives, go on and on and on about his economic policies (which I've argued have less to do with our real growth than many claim), and ignore the bad, bad social policies he put forward. You might well say, being on the left, that I overemphasise these social policies, but that is simply a matter of political preference, which in the end is why these debates come down to simply "I disagree with your priorities, for I think so-and-so is more important than such-and-such". That doesn't stop of, of course, debating factual/interpretive things like "Was Howard really such an awesome economic manager or not?"

But I do think that it is not the government's only role to preside over economic growth, and I think that a government must not run policies that favour economic growth over social services, over education and health. The federal-state system is really fucked up, and the states have to be blamed a lot for failings in the areas of health and education (caused, I believe, by a rather conservative economic rationalist approach to state policy, but that's another thread). Howard did some very bad things for our society. He made racism a major issue in politics again, with Hanson, with the Intervention and with his ridiculously inflammatory "we will decide who comes to this country" shit. He exploited Australians' fear of terrorism for his own reelection, opened a cruel detention system that made refugees feel like criminals for simply trying to escape atrocity and made the country a generally more paranoid and fearful one.

His lap-dog attitude towards a man who is universally becoming acknowledged as one of the worst US presidents in many decades was very bad. I don't agree that it was vital to the US-Aus relationship to do it like this - the US and NZ have a very strong relationship and a commitment to ANZUS, and yet Helen Clark disagreed with Bush on many fundamental foreign policy issues. Howard's gung-ho militarism caused great hostility in Indonesia, a country that is vital to our long term security. I'm not saying he caused the Bali bombings, but violence is only met with violence. I believe the only way to prevent this kind of thing from happening again is to offer aid, to educate those dirt-poor East Javanese kids who have nothing, to show them that the West is not some Islam-bashing bully that is xenophobic (which, having no education, they easily believe).

Anyway, as you can see, I'm really bored. Although I disagree with katie tully on some things, I respect the fact that he's clear in his explanations, and doesn't rip on people just because they think differently to him (xONBROKENWINGSx, take note). Most political disagreements are just matters of priority (which are matters of upbringing and personal values), but nevertheless, there's room for discussion.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Man. You're a sped. Congratulations. Blackies can't feed their kids. I see it everyday. Theyre useless.