Oceania ELECTION 04 - Who *will* win? (Official Discussion of 2004 Federal Election)

I don't believe for a second that banning these sorts of ads is "the answer" but I do think it's a step in the right direction.

And honestly, the only TV I watched when I was a kid was the ABC - no ads. Of course, we only had 2 channels growing up, so it's not like I had a choice! And I was in my teenage years when the first McDonalds came in, so I can't really compare.

What I do know is different is the amount of time parents give to their kids. My mum stayed at home, so there was plenty of healthy, home cooked meals. We only ever had tuckshop one day a week in primary school as well, so we had to bring stuff from home (thanks again mum!)

And I do believe that exercise is the key - but it's becoming increasingly difficult in this sedentry age.

I don't think this is a "big brother" thing either. I think it's just something that will help parents educate their kids better. And hey, maybe if tv is filled with boring ads for bananas, the kids will get outside again!

 

Maybe not directly, but you *did* say it's OK for a politician to be a loudmouth cretin from the safety of backbench, but when they're public, it's OK for them to change their tone...

If it's OK for them to change, then it's OK to be fickle. I don't think that boorish behavior is becoming in any public figure, full stop.

You totally missed the sarcastic dig at John Howard and those accusing Latham of being fickle in my reply. Maybe it was too subtle.

 

I see John's answer to the obesity problem is to get kids to salute the flag for two hours a week at school.

Go John, take us back to the 50's. You know you want to.

 

Just got my HECS statement today. My repayment rate after graduation has increased, the discount I get for upfront payments has decreased and the textbook subsidy scheme has disappeared entirely, making my hundreds of dollars worth of textbooks about 8% more expensive. Guess who just lost the student vote, ****wit.

 

Sing God Save the Queen a few times. You'll get over it.

 

Yeah, recieved mine the other day. It's an annoying thing, but as they say money rules the world. The fees are just crazy though, and to think they want to increase them further.

 

Buy the books before the subsidy expires!!

 

Yeah, in 8 days. I'm going to do it, but what about next semester or the 3 years of my degree after that? We're all a bit screwed after that, aren't we?

 

Or do as I do and don't buy textbooks, use the libary and just hope you don't get a late fee (55 dollars I had to pay for a book 11 days overdue what).

It means you'll end up with at least 600 a semester extra to spend on more important things, like food, or rent.

 

Guess who just lost the student vote, ****wit.

Yes, you do of course realise that no political party gives a flying **** about students, no?

And do you know why?

Because simply put you are not an electoral block. Students live all over, so it's not like students are concentrated in a few swing seats in each city. And yes I am talking about BOTH political parties, despite ALP promises. Given the way the ALP is whoring itself out for business, I wouldn't be surprised if Latham went from promising students money at one conference to another promising to cut Uni spending and increase something else. Sorry, until students matter enough in the distribution of seats...


E_S

 

I gave up buying text books when I had to buy a maths textbook for around $80 in first year and I used it once. A great big hulking paper weight. I got through the rest of my degree by stealing my flatmate's.

Of course medicine text books are probably helpful in some way.

 

Yeah, I was lucky.

I dropped law after a year...

And Politics... Well, the books were largely crap and better ones could be found in the library.

Plus Club Mac always put them on the web, so it didn't matter if you didn't buy them.

E_S

 

I wasn't particularly calling Howard and Co. ****wits for managing to lose the vote of most students in Australia, it was more just because it suits them and they're making me pay even more money for something they received for free. I do get your point, and I think it's unfortunate, but that doesn't mean they're any more morally responsible for doing it. But I guess any moral politician is too much to ask for, eh?

 

I think it's a bit prescriptive to suggest their policy is amoral or immoral simply because you don't agree with it.

They have their reasons, and their reasons are sound enough to them. Many of the Libs have kids at University level, so they're not exactly uncaring about the costs. Maybe, also, it's the Universities who are milking you? I mean, the GST made things cheaper by replacing a hidden sales tax of 25% with a direct tax of 10%, and for a time things were cheaper. Then, people just compensated with higher markups - 15% higher markups - so they got their old prices back. Does that make the GST bad (obviously some hysteria still exists, but I think you and I are above that ) or what?

I mean, if we're to taint them based off one policy, could we not say the ALP is immoral for wanting to replace the Budget's family assistance package with tax cuts, taking the $900+ in pocket from the Family Assistance plan and replacing it with 7c a week - $3.64 a year - in tax cuts?

E_S

 

If its a Liberal policy, of course its bad, evil and immoral

 

No, they don't like it because it's hitting their hip pocket, not because it's the Libs policy.

 

As a recent graduate, I gotta wonder: is it the youthful narcissism that assumes students are the centre of the universe, or is it mere naivety, that we assume society at large should be burdened by our 3-4 years, on average, of tertiary study? Students don't like it because on our pissant wages it's a frightful sum. However, if you consider that it's 3-4 years of debt that we're expecting the people who've paid their dues to cover the costs of, then you realise that it's hardly fair on either side.

E_S

 

But the returns to the nation of our tertiary education through higher incomes (and therefore higher tax returns, higher spending etc) means that the government actually makes money off university students.

So is low student fees really a burden? Is increased public funding of education a burden? Not on your life. Its an investment. And those doing the investing sure as hell get a lot more out of it than they put in.

 

Yes, and I've said I agree before, but what I think is a part of it is the tendency we have during our University years is to mix life inexperience with a kind of self-importance that lends itself to higher expectations - like someone owes us. Moreover, for people struggling to make ends meet, there are more "expedient" uses for the funds...

E_S

 

I don't think the government particularly owes me anything, I just don't understand how we're expected to afford an education when we don't have the time to work.

 

Yep, I agree with that... Meh...

 

Our $1,200 one off family payment election bribe from John Howard is due any day now. I'm getting the car fixed. Thanks Johnny!

 

It's already your money

 

You are right we got it earlier this week, I just checked. Though I only get 33% of that because I only have substantial care at the moment.

Yay. $400 will be very nice.