Instead of giving ten billion dollars in cash to people to spend (and isn't this actually somewhat like the Alaskan oil & gas citizens' dividend that has rightly exercised critics of Sarah Palin recently) why oh why couldn't Swan and Rudd have tremblingly yielded it up in some manner that might make a positive contribution to dealing with our imminent appalling environmental catastrophe?
Or could they at least treat climate change as an actual emergency and respond to it with the same alacrity and quickness as they have responded to this economic situation?
Stupidly and arrogantly framed as Barnaby Joyce's comments yesterday were, I find myself somewhat in agreement with him: if what the economy needs is for us to spend billionz, like right now, then maybe we shouldn't buy Christmas presents with it, since partying and buying unnecessary crap (according to Kevin's stern homily yesterday - & doesn't he grip the sides of the lectern like it's a pulpit?) is what got us into both kinds of the holes we're about to be sucked into.
Why couldn't they have bought ten billion dollars worth of insulation, solar panels and rainwater tanks, for instance, and lotteried off household-sized bundles of them? I guess there aren't enough panels & tanks in the warehouse. Joyce mentioned desalination plants. Those too. Help me with this: how is personal spending better than community projects (apart of course from being more effective in the Alaskan-style voter-bribery stakes)?
I'm not just having this whine because of being, along with Amanda and one or two other people, not in line for a cheque myself. I know perfectly well that if the government gave me a thousand dollars and urged me to spend it tomorrow I'd have no trouble complying. The amount of noise being made over the collapse of capitalism is really very troubling. It's such a distraction from the real problems we've got. And it gives Turnbull an opportunity to be embarrassing.