As a person who used to describe and think of himself as that (fiscal conservative, social liberal), it's true, but not intentionally insidious - it's basically the position of being actively anti-racist without having realized or internalized how modern institutions' very structure can result in negative biases even without any racist actions on part of any actors. It's not an easy realization to make, because on a fundamental level it means that a lot of what you've previously taken for granted as "neutral" isn't actually correct.
So I don't criticize people who think that way - they're allies, but allies who are still fighting with decades of indoctrination about what's "right".
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
Oh straight up, I'm not having a go at Fishman in any way at all - I've met the man, and he's a genuinely wonderful human being, the likes of which Earth would benefit greatly from there being more of. Not only am I glad to have met him, I'm proud just to know him. I know for a fact that he's considerate, intelligent, and caring.
I appreciate the irony, but that also seems like a massively under-provisioned building. Your emergency response center building should probably be Chemical Biological Radiological attack/disaster ready. Let alone "smoke ready".
As a person who used to describe and think of himself as that (fiscal conservative, social liberal), it's true, but not intentionally insidious - it's basically the position of being actively anti-racist without having realized or internalized how modern institutions' very structure can result in negative biases even without any racist actions on part of any actors. It's not an easy realization to make, because on a fundamental level it means that a lot of what you've previously taken for granted as "neutral" isn't actually correct.
So I don't criticize people who think that way - they're allies, but allies who are still fighting with decades of indoctrination about what's "right".
Yes, this was me for quite some time. I also bought into the bullshit of the Aussie LNP being, ‘strong economic stewards’. I finally did further reading and realised that fire sales of our infrastructure and resources does not constitute sound long term economic management.
Bearing in mind that ACT's hard right crime-and-punishment swing was a result of getting their lunch eaten when Brash tried to increase the base of National and did so by cannibalising the voters of all the other rightwing alliance partners... it's like what? That election (and all other ones in the last 20-odd years) have shown that it's the middle you need to win to govern, not the extremes. But both big parties are guilty of moving against the minor parties at the expense of diversity of representation for the electorate.
I mean, I miss the 90's ACT party that were about fiscal responsibility and progressive social policies. Remember when ACT was the party of sustainable budgets, paying down the excessive deficit, pro-same-sex marriage and prostitution reform?
These days they are at least pro-abortion law reform, but ugh, some of their other shit. But that's what they need to do to stay alive. The gating that has been implemented into MMP - mainly fucking so-called waka-jumping restrictions - has been a net negative for the ability of diversity of representation in NZ.
Another big middle finger to NZ from Winston, that mummy fuck.
Is it really possible to be fiscally conservative and socially progressive, though? Fiscal conservatism typically indicates policies that disproportionately affect the poor and the "alternative".
Sadly, actual policy of so-called 'fiscal conservative' parties does trend this way, yes. But there are, inherent to fiscal conservatism 2 major general philosophies that often work at cross purposes.
The first, and easiest to grasp, is minimise public expenditure. This is the one that's often touted, for 'minimising taxes' and cutting programmes. Unfortunately this is where some really shit decisions come from, where you often cut off the nose to spite the face to save money for no other reason than to save money. This often does come at the expense of minorities, because of social conservative values which does not consider benefit to the disenfranchised to be beneficial to all of society, because the conservatives are sociopaths.
But there's another monetary philosophy to fiscal conservatism that is worth considering, which is to minimise wasting public money. To measure and evaluate what you're trying to achieve versus what your outcome will be. To prioritise the thing that the people need over what they simply want.
We know that there are any number of services and functions that it is simply more efficient for the government to do than to perform privately; health care is the obvious one. We know, for instance, that a national vaccine program costs money, but the benefits are incredibly so much cheaper than the alternative that we do it.
On the other hand, White Elephant spending often has great appeal; is it a better use of public funds to underwrite a $300k new landmark stadium, or would the public benefit be better spending that money upgrading park & sports ground infrastructure through an entire region, to see more grassroots returns?
This form of fiscal conservatism - that believes that the government should spend money, but prioritises maximisation of public benefits, such that the public gains the most return on their tax dollar - is often lost because it is a more nuanced and occasionally unpopular position.
To use a more current example from recent years, I am a known detractor of free tertiary education. It is often touted as a way of freeing up social mobility by providing access to greater education for those in poverty. And while it is possible to hand pick out anecdotal examples of such, at a demographic view it just isn't true. Those in poverty have a vast number of barriers to access of which fees are usually not the greatest (however it is a significant factor to the voting middle class). At the time of the last election when the policy was implemented in NZ, only one university was operating at significantly below capacity - Canterbury, which is still recovering from the Christchurch earthquake.
So the policy does not allow significantly more people to gain an education. It does not significantly increase the social mobility of those in poverty. It does sound like a good simple solution, but as is often the case, this is an expensive and poorly targeted solution to a problem that is more complicated than it seems. I'm not saying free education is bad per say, but I do wonder whether you might have achieved better outcomes if you took those funds and instead, say, built a whole new university increasing national capacity for additional students and providing a targeted scholarship program for people in poverty. Or better, addressing the social inequalities that led to people in poverty not being able to access higher education in the first place, but that's an even bigger issue with even more complexities to resolve.
I don't find any contradiction in saying I'm socially progressive and fiscally a (moderate) conservative. I believe in taxation, I believe that the government is the best place for certain kinds of expenditure, and I believe in getting the best outcomes possible for the entire population. However, there are a number of kinds of public spending I simply don't agree with and I'm okay with saying so.
Oof, my post last night was intended to be talking about party positions, and when applied to individuals sounds SUPER condescending. I'm sorry, Fishman - that was absolutely not intended.
I should note that I'm coming from a perspective of an American, and "fiscal conservative" kinda means one thing, but acts as another - for us, it was shorthand for "behaving responsibly" with fiscal policy (not spending beyond means, etc) but in practice it's ALWAYS meant larger debts because it's just been implemented as "cutting taxes", usually on the rich. I don't know how universal that application is, and I probably shouldn't have applied that to another country blindly (I'm on this side of the planet right now, so it's where most activity is when I'm awake, so I'm paying extra attention.)
I also conflated the above (paying debt fiscal policy) with instituional fiscal policy, which isn't really the right thing to do, but was kinda my gateway to thinking about other angles. Let's take credit scores (is this a thing in Oz? Not sure) - a means for lenders to determine the risk, and therefore the interest rate, for loans. Race and other metrics are not part of it. But at least in the states, it can be used as a proxy due to a historical wealth imbalance, where minority groups were less likely to have a network of friends and family with enough wealth to help out in times of trouble, leading to defaults on predatory loans, leading to entrenchment of the status quo with inequality - see here for more details. How do we fix this? I'm honestly not sure - it feels like it would take a full generation of work, if not longer, to undo, and require government (fiscal) intervention to do so, but I don't know what would work.
So basically, my issue isn't with the concept of paying down debts (although as I've tried to frame governmental debt as inflationary policy instead of like an analog to personal debt, I've become more comfortable so long as more value is added from the expense than is lost in inflation) - I STILL think it's the right policy to pursue. I just feel that pursuit shouldn't be at the expense of active pressure to undo the underlying causes of inequality, and that I don't think acting responsibly should be called fiscal conservatism because it gives conservatives a win that wasn't earned since (at least in my area) they never practiced what they preached
Anyway, I'll just shut up and sit over here with foot-in-mouth disease for a while >_>
I'd say that big purchases look better for politicians as they'd rather invest $millions on big thing than $millions spread over small changes.
So they seek the option that gives them better electoral outcomes.
And that we should nationalise the university system, and target courses to projected job shortages, fund things appropriately, free uni, etc.
FishmanPut your goddamned hand in the goddamned Box of Pain.Registered Userregular
I have taken no offense to anything anyone has said, and in no way feel called out; as far as I'm concerned this is all still a fairly genial conversation about politics.
What I wrote in my previous post was essentially a long winded way of saying that I hold to the tenet that government are guardians of money held in service to the public trust, and as such have a duty of care to ensure that it is used responsibly and wisely; that its usage should be evaluated and interogated to ensure that the achievements match the desired outcomes for the expenditure of that money, and that I hold such a belief to be one of fiscal conservatism.
Additionally, I do not find it contradictory to hold this opinion and also claim a position of being socially progressive.
There is a difference between 'small government' and 'efficient government' fiscal conservatism; indeed, I hold that it is position that as a philosphy the position of 'efficient government' is actually more useful, because it actually deals with the concept of the management of public money; how to adjudicate between different opportunities with limited resources. By contrast the the position of 'small government' is often conflated into goverment getting out of spending money altogether, a position essentially as useful and informative to sound fiscal governance as the warts on a toads scrotum.
We know that there are things it's simply more efficient for governments to provide. Taxation isn't a burden, it's a bargain! The amount I pay for the public services and infrastructure I am provided is a measily pittance against what I would pay for these to be provided to me privately. Sometimes I look at what so-called 'fiscal conservatives' tout as 'sound economic policy' and just think "What fucking crack are you smoking?"
It is unfortunate that the term 'fiscal conservative' - like that of 'gamer' - has taken on a lot of bullshit baggage that can make one hesitate when confronted with it. In an ideal world, neither term should make someone sideeye you, but people are absolutely justified in doing so because a lot of people who claim such sobriquets have metaphorically undone their trousers, leaned over a parapet, and defecated on any and all who might be somewhere below. And I suspect sometimes not even metaphorically.
Firefighter compensation government sham
Jan 08 2020
Updated January 9, 2020
Wendy Creighton
Only a very few volunteer firefighters or SES members are likely to be eligible for the compensation package promised by the Prime Minister Scott Morrison and the Premier Annastacia Palaszczuk.
The promise was that if the volunteer spent 10 days or more on the fire line or in direct support of those on the fire line, then they could be eligible for up to $300 per day, capped at $6,000.
The details of the compensation package were revealed yesterday and on investigation the Fassifern Guardian has found that the reality falls far short of the expectations raised by the promises.
The expectation was that the volunteer could claim for the first 10 days on the fire line and any days thereafter.
WRONG.
The first 10 days makes the volunteer eligible, but those first 10 days cannot be claimed, only day 11 onwards can be claimed.
The expectation was that the volunteer could claim $300 per day.
WRONG.
The volunteer can only claim their normal working day wage, after tax.
The expectation was that the volunteer could claim for the day they spent on the fire line.
WRONG.
If the volunteer’s normal working day was 8.00am to 5.00pm and they spent from 6.00pm to 10.00am fighting fires or directly supporting those fighting fires and then turned up for work, then they can only claim the two hours out of their normal working day - 8.00am to 10.00am.
If the volunteer did a deal with their boss and worked out of hours to make up for the time they were away from work, then they cannot claim compensation.
If the volunteer was retired and does not have a ‘working day’ then they too are not eligible to claim compensation.
In announcement on the Liberal party website it was posted: "The Prime Minister says this will include farmers, small business owners, tradies and contract workers in rural and regional areas who have been hit especially hard by this fire season."
But if the volunteer is a primary producer and cannot prove that they lost income by being away from their property to fight the fires, then they too are not eligible to claim compensation. The Fassifern is experiencing the worst drought on record, many are not planting crops due to lack of water; many have had to sell the majority or all of their herd due to lack of feed and water and many simply do not have an income - and so they too will not be eligible to claim compensation.
The expectation was that the compensation would be a fair and equitable process and that all volunteers could claim for the 10 days or more they spent on the fire line.
WRONG.
If the volunteer was a part time or casual worker and fought the fires on days they would not normally be working, then they cannot claim for those days.
If the volunteer undertook a full working day and then spent much of the night on the fire line before turning up to work the next day, they cannot claim for any of those hours on the fireline.
If the volunteer did not fight on the fire line and undertook, for example, the role of getting out of bed as soon as one or more of the trucks returned to the fire shed to undertake maintenance - check the engines, clean the filters, top up the fuel tanks and the water tanks so the firies could take a break before returning to the fire line and the support worker did this before turning up to their normal place of work - they are not eligible to claim compensation.
Article: ‘Bloody biased’: Farmers fume over firie compensation
OPINION:
The Fassifern Guardian contends that there is a huge difference between the expectations raised by the promises made by the Prime Minister and the Premier and the reality.
The promises were made long before the details of the eligibility criteria were revealed and won front page headlines.
Perhaps those who designed the eligibility criteria should have first spent a 12 to 18 hour day on the fire line - as many of our firefighters did on the 74 days of fire in the Fassifern - then perhaps they would not equate a normal working day with the horror, the sweat, the heat, the physical and mental hardship and the danger of fighting or mopping up after a wildfire.
Photo: Drew Creighton
The promise
Eligibility criteria: 10 days or more volunteering as a Rural Fire Brigade member fighting fire
Compensation: $300 per day up to a maximum of $6,000
The reality in Queensland
Eligibility criteria:
• Volunteer becomes eligible to claim for days on the fire line after fighting fires for 10 days - cannot claim for first 10 days, can only claim for days after the first 10
• Can only claim for those hours fighting the fires within normal working hours e.g. if a firefighter fought fire for 18 hours on one day and only 4 of the 18 hours were within the volunteer’s normal working day, then can only claim for those 4 hours
• If a firefighter made up the hours away from work by working at night or on the weekend, or received payment from their employer, then cannot claim those hours
• Must prove loss of income
Compensation:
• Volunteer can only claim a daily rate commensurate with their normal daily wage, after tax, up to a maximum of $300
• If a volunteer works part time and they fought a fire on days that they do not normally work, then they cannot claim for those days
• If a volunteer is retired, then they cannot claim any days
• If a volunteer is a primary producer then they must be able to prove that if they had stayed home on the days they fought the fire, they would have made money
That's what I would've expected extrapolating from all the 'volunteers want to be there, they don't want compensation' noise.
As opposed to renumerating them according to the gap they fill in our employed regular fire service.
I can't help but look at that, and their earlier sales pitch regarding the policy, and ask how they can be so incompetent as to think that attempting to restrict it to save money is going to go down well. Like, did no one in the upper echelons even deign to look at the proposal?
Id heard about his dumb "I stopped these" boat trophy for a while but when I actually saw it for the first time and saw how creepily childish and weird it looked was when I really feel like I got a glimpse of who he is
Heaven forbid you incentivise anyone into fighting fires, can't have that fucking message go out. People may end up getting paid for doing work they would normally do for free!
TeeMan on
+2
Options
VivixenneRemember your training, and we'll get through this just fine.Registered Userregular
can’t have them firies rorting the system by putting their actual lives in danger for too many hours, now can we?
I do love the idea that if you're a regular worker, but spend from 6pm to 8am fighting fires, you're required to either show up to work, or not get compensated.
Yeah, fuck that. If you fight fires and that severely impacts your ability to work, then you should be compensated, regardless of what time of the day it was.
Also, the argument that if you go into work on your normally scheduled days off (Saturday and Sunday for most workers), then you essentially don't get compensated.
So a volunteer firey who fights fires 6pm-6am every weekday, gets no compensation. A volunteer firey who fights fires 6am-6pm every weekday who goes into work on Saturday and Sunday, gets essentially three days compensation.
Fuck these bureaucrats who came up with this accounting.
That's what I would've expected extrapolating from all the 'volunteers want to be there, they don't want compensation' noise.
As opposed to renumerating them according to the gap they fill in our employed regular fire service.
This is why you should never volunteer for stuff like this. If they want you to do the work of a professional then they should hire you like a professional.
+1
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
That's what I would've expected extrapolating from all the 'volunteers want to be there, they don't want compensation' noise.
As opposed to renumerating them according to the gap they fill in our employed regular fire service.
This is why you should never volunteer for stuff like this. If they want you to do the work of a professional then they should hire you like a professional.
1: Do you have any idea how cliquey it is to get into a paid firefighting position in Australia? You'd better hope the last three generations of your family were all firefighters, oh, and you married the station chief's kid, too.
2: Rural fire services are almost all volunteer. Only a tiny percentage of the country (by area) is covered by paid fire services.
That's what I would've expected extrapolating from all the 'volunteers want to be there, they don't want compensation' noise.
As opposed to renumerating them according to the gap they fill in our employed regular fire service.
This is why you should never volunteer for stuff like this. If they want you to do the work of a professional then they should hire you like a professional.
1: Do you have any idea how cliquey it is to get into a paid firefighting position in Australia? You'd better hope the last three generations of your family were all firefighters, oh, and you married the station chief's kid, too.
2: Rural fire services are almost all volunteer. Only a tiny percentage of the country (by area) is covered by paid fire services.
It is like this in the US as well. This is why I say don't volunteer for a job that they want you to work and act like a professional for. If the job needs doing then it should be compensated. If people refused to volunteer then payment and compensation would be offered. But why bother compensating people for what they are doing for free.
+2
Options
Donovan PuppyfuckerA dagger in the dark isworth a thousand swords in the morningRegistered Userregular
That's what I would've expected extrapolating from all the 'volunteers want to be there, they don't want compensation' noise.
As opposed to renumerating them according to the gap they fill in our employed regular fire service.
This is why you should never volunteer for stuff like this. If they want you to do the work of a professional then they should hire you like a professional.
1: Do you have any idea how cliquey it is to get into a paid firefighting position in Australia? You'd better hope the last three generations of your family were all firefighters, oh, and you married the station chief's kid, too.
2: Rural fire services are almost all volunteer. Only a tiny percentage of the country (by area) is covered by paid fire services.
It is like this in the US as well. This is why I say don't volunteer for a job that they want you to work and act like a professional for. If the job needs doing then it should be compensated. If people refused to volunteer then payment and compensation would be offered. But why bother compensating people for what they are doing for free.
Everybody in the volunteer fire service in Australia lives in the area they protect.
If they just give up and quit, next fire season their whole town burns to the ground.
What you are suggesting is tantamount to "if you don't like how agriculture is harming the environment, just stop eating food."
That's what I would've expected extrapolating from all the 'volunteers want to be there, they don't want compensation' noise.
As opposed to renumerating them according to the gap they fill in our employed regular fire service.
This is why you should never volunteer for stuff like this. If they want you to do the work of a professional then they should hire you like a professional.
1: Do you have any idea how cliquey it is to get into a paid firefighting position in Australia? You'd better hope the last three generations of your family were all firefighters, oh, and you married the station chief's kid, too.
2: Rural fire services are almost all volunteer. Only a tiny percentage of the country (by area) is covered by paid fire services.
It is like this in the US as well. This is why I say don't volunteer for a job that they want you to work and act like a professional for. If the job needs doing then it should be compensated. If people refused to volunteer then payment and compensation would be offered. But why bother compensating people for what they are doing for free.
If Australia's fire fighting system is too cliquey to expand while under the pressure of world historic natural disasters, and the government stiffs the volunteers it needs to expand its ranks, then your choice as a society is either to break up those cliques by force of law or let your nation burn.
Just curious because I haven't seen a good explanation anywhere. People are blaming the fires on arson, but if it was arson I don't understand why people are starting these fires. Does anyone know the thinking behind this?
Posts
Conservative money policy is actively harmful to minorities and the LGBTQIA+ community.
So I don't criticize people who think that way - they're allies, but allies who are still fighting with decades of indoctrination about what's "right".
I appreciate the irony, but that also seems like a massively under-provisioned building. Your emergency response center building should probably be Chemical Biological Radiological attack/disaster ready. Let alone "smoke ready".
edit: also Dutton is in charge of that department and the man could fuck up a jam sandwich.
Yes, this was me for quite some time. I also bought into the bullshit of the Aussie LNP being, ‘strong economic stewards’. I finally did further reading and realised that fire sales of our infrastructure and resources does not constitute sound long term economic management.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
Sadly, actual policy of so-called 'fiscal conservative' parties does trend this way, yes. But there are, inherent to fiscal conservatism 2 major general philosophies that often work at cross purposes.
The first, and easiest to grasp, is minimise public expenditure. This is the one that's often touted, for 'minimising taxes' and cutting programmes. Unfortunately this is where some really shit decisions come from, where you often cut off the nose to spite the face to save money for no other reason than to save money. This often does come at the expense of minorities, because of social conservative values which does not consider benefit to the disenfranchised to be beneficial to all of society, because the conservatives are sociopaths.
But there's another monetary philosophy to fiscal conservatism that is worth considering, which is to minimise wasting public money. To measure and evaluate what you're trying to achieve versus what your outcome will be. To prioritise the thing that the people need over what they simply want.
We know that there are any number of services and functions that it is simply more efficient for the government to do than to perform privately; health care is the obvious one. We know, for instance, that a national vaccine program costs money, but the benefits are incredibly so much cheaper than the alternative that we do it.
On the other hand, White Elephant spending often has great appeal; is it a better use of public funds to underwrite a $300k new landmark stadium, or would the public benefit be better spending that money upgrading park & sports ground infrastructure through an entire region, to see more grassroots returns?
This form of fiscal conservatism - that believes that the government should spend money, but prioritises maximisation of public benefits, such that the public gains the most return on their tax dollar - is often lost because it is a more nuanced and occasionally unpopular position.
To use a more current example from recent years, I am a known detractor of free tertiary education. It is often touted as a way of freeing up social mobility by providing access to greater education for those in poverty. And while it is possible to hand pick out anecdotal examples of such, at a demographic view it just isn't true. Those in poverty have a vast number of barriers to access of which fees are usually not the greatest (however it is a significant factor to the voting middle class). At the time of the last election when the policy was implemented in NZ, only one university was operating at significantly below capacity - Canterbury, which is still recovering from the Christchurch earthquake.
So the policy does not allow significantly more people to gain an education. It does not significantly increase the social mobility of those in poverty. It does sound like a good simple solution, but as is often the case, this is an expensive and poorly targeted solution to a problem that is more complicated than it seems. I'm not saying free education is bad per say, but I do wonder whether you might have achieved better outcomes if you took those funds and instead, say, built a whole new university increasing national capacity for additional students and providing a targeted scholarship program for people in poverty. Or better, addressing the social inequalities that led to people in poverty not being able to access higher education in the first place, but that's an even bigger issue with even more complexities to resolve.
I don't find any contradiction in saying I'm socially progressive and fiscally a (moderate) conservative. I believe in taxation, I believe that the government is the best place for certain kinds of expenditure, and I believe in getting the best outcomes possible for the entire population. However, there are a number of kinds of public spending I simply don't agree with and I'm okay with saying so.
I should note that I'm coming from a perspective of an American, and "fiscal conservative" kinda means one thing, but acts as another - for us, it was shorthand for "behaving responsibly" with fiscal policy (not spending beyond means, etc) but in practice it's ALWAYS meant larger debts because it's just been implemented as "cutting taxes", usually on the rich. I don't know how universal that application is, and I probably shouldn't have applied that to another country blindly (I'm on this side of the planet right now, so it's where most activity is when I'm awake, so I'm paying extra attention.)
I also conflated the above (paying debt fiscal policy) with instituional fiscal policy, which isn't really the right thing to do, but was kinda my gateway to thinking about other angles. Let's take credit scores (is this a thing in Oz? Not sure) - a means for lenders to determine the risk, and therefore the interest rate, for loans. Race and other metrics are not part of it. But at least in the states, it can be used as a proxy due to a historical wealth imbalance, where minority groups were less likely to have a network of friends and family with enough wealth to help out in times of trouble, leading to defaults on predatory loans, leading to entrenchment of the status quo with inequality - see here for more details. How do we fix this? I'm honestly not sure - it feels like it would take a full generation of work, if not longer, to undo, and require government (fiscal) intervention to do so, but I don't know what would work.
So basically, my issue isn't with the concept of paying down debts (although as I've tried to frame governmental debt as inflationary policy instead of like an analog to personal debt, I've become more comfortable so long as more value is added from the expense than is lost in inflation) - I STILL think it's the right policy to pursue. I just feel that pursuit shouldn't be at the expense of active pressure to undo the underlying causes of inequality, and that I don't think acting responsibly should be called fiscal conservatism because it gives conservatives a win that wasn't earned since (at least in my area) they never practiced what they preached
Anyway, I'll just shut up and sit over here with foot-in-mouth disease for a while >_>
So they seek the option that gives them better electoral outcomes.
And that we should nationalise the university system, and target courses to projected job shortages, fund things appropriately, free uni, etc.
What I wrote in my previous post was essentially a long winded way of saying that I hold to the tenet that government are guardians of money held in service to the public trust, and as such have a duty of care to ensure that it is used responsibly and wisely; that its usage should be evaluated and interogated to ensure that the achievements match the desired outcomes for the expenditure of that money, and that I hold such a belief to be one of fiscal conservatism.
Additionally, I do not find it contradictory to hold this opinion and also claim a position of being socially progressive.
There is a difference between 'small government' and 'efficient government' fiscal conservatism; indeed, I hold that it is position that as a philosphy the position of 'efficient government' is actually more useful, because it actually deals with the concept of the management of public money; how to adjudicate between different opportunities with limited resources. By contrast the the position of 'small government' is often conflated into goverment getting out of spending money altogether, a position essentially as useful and informative to sound fiscal governance as the warts on a toads scrotum.
We know that there are things it's simply more efficient for governments to provide. Taxation isn't a burden, it's a bargain! The amount I pay for the public services and infrastructure I am provided is a measily pittance against what I would pay for these to be provided to me privately. Sometimes I look at what so-called 'fiscal conservatives' tout as 'sound economic policy' and just think "What fucking crack are you smoking?"
It is unfortunate that the term 'fiscal conservative' - like that of 'gamer' - has taken on a lot of bullshit baggage that can make one hesitate when confronted with it. In an ideal world, neither term should make someone sideeye you, but people are absolutely justified in doing so because a lot of people who claim such sobriquets have metaphorically undone their trousers, leaned over a parapet, and defecated on any and all who might be somewhere below. And I suspect sometimes not even metaphorically.
Case in point:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficiency_dividend
As opposed to annual budget cut.
Good lord how is he so bad?
I cannot EVEN with this sack of shit.
He simply does not care about others. At all.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Let's be real, Burns has more charisma and capability than Morrison.
Steam: https://steamcommunity.com/id/TheZombiePenguin
Stream: https://www.twitch.tv/thezombiepenguin/
Switch: 0293 6817 9891
And best of all, burns is only fictional
Like, even if you just robotically followed the script, it's not a hard script to follow.
*dials 000*
“Oh look the AFP are on my doorstep with a battering ram And handcuffs”
What a reality we live in now
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Found it on reddit
https://www.fassifernguardian.com/bushfires/firefighter-compensation-government-sham
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
As opposed to renumerating them according to the gap they fill in our employed regular fire service.
Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better
bit.ly/2XQM1ke
At least since 'Robodebt is working as intended'
... And it's clicked.
ScoMo's Stop the Boats was not only a good slogan, but also thought to be good policy with no regard to human cost.
Good god
By their own Government.
I can't help but think of the phrase "burn it all down"
Like, rebuild our government from scratch and put in proper checks and balances to prevent fuckers like these from ever coming to power again.
It's just so tiring seeing all the shit these people get away with.
Steam / Origin & Wii U: Heatwave111 / FC: 4227-1965-3206 / Battle.net: Heatwave#11356
Yeah, fuck that. If you fight fires and that severely impacts your ability to work, then you should be compensated, regardless of what time of the day it was.
Also, the argument that if you go into work on your normally scheduled days off (Saturday and Sunday for most workers), then you essentially don't get compensated.
So a volunteer firey who fights fires 6pm-6am every weekday, gets no compensation. A volunteer firey who fights fires 6am-6pm every weekday who goes into work on Saturday and Sunday, gets essentially three days compensation.
Fuck these bureaucrats who came up with this accounting.
This is why you should never volunteer for stuff like this. If they want you to do the work of a professional then they should hire you like a professional.
1: Do you have any idea how cliquey it is to get into a paid firefighting position in Australia? You'd better hope the last three generations of your family were all firefighters, oh, and you married the station chief's kid, too.
2: Rural fire services are almost all volunteer. Only a tiny percentage of the country (by area) is covered by paid fire services.
It is like this in the US as well. This is why I say don't volunteer for a job that they want you to work and act like a professional for. If the job needs doing then it should be compensated. If people refused to volunteer then payment and compensation would be offered. But why bother compensating people for what they are doing for free.
Everybody in the volunteer fire service in Australia lives in the area they protect.
If they just give up and quit, next fire season their whole town burns to the ground.
What you are suggesting is tantamount to "if you don't like how agriculture is harming the environment, just stop eating food."
If Australia's fire fighting system is too cliquey to expand while under the pressure of world historic natural disasters, and the government stiffs the volunteers it needs to expand its ranks, then your choice as a society is either to break up those cliques by force of law or let your nation burn.