2006 Australian gvt spent 24 bil. on overseas but spent "nothing" on Aussie Telecommunication?

I like the remark from Strikealite in thread
http://groups.google.com/group/aus.c...c0f8024b993158

>>As long as coonan and howard can get coverage from
>>parliament house to the airport in canberra............

This is exactly what I am talking about.

Howard spend 24 millions Au$$$ in 2006 on war somewhere
and during that time Telstra Mobile is the worst network in the world.

War cost a shit lot of money,(look at history)
during that time the poor bastard at home can starve?

Who are the friends and ennemies?

Georges

On 14 May 2007 21:29:07 -0700, "gnh888@gmail.com" <gnh888@gmail.com> wrote:

>I like the remark from Strikealite in thread
>http://groups.google.com/group/aus.c...c0f8024b993158
>
>>>As long as coonan and howard can get coverage from
>>>parliament house to the airport in canberra............
>
>This is exactly what I am talking about.
>
>Howard spend 24 millions Au$$$ in 2006 on war somewhere
>and during that time Telstra Mobile is the worst network in the world.

Umm, why should the Aust govt spend anything on upgrading Tel$tra's network?
They are a shareholder. Are you expecting the OTHER shareholders to also fund
Tel$tra expansion/upgrading? Nooooo, they - the shareholders - gave Tel$tra
their money for shares in the company. The company makes a friggin huge profit
which it ought to spend on upgrading. Shite, does BHP expect the Aust govt to
fund expansion of their mines? Get a grip!

gnh888@gmail.com wrote

> I like the remark from Strikealite in thread
> http://groups.google.com/group/aus.c...c0f8024b993158

More fool you.

>>> As long as coonan and howard can get coverage from
>>> parliament house to the airport in canberra............

Even someone as stupid as you two should have noticed that pollys do
have an electorate they do spend so time in, so its just a tad unlikely
that they only care about the coverage while they are in canberra.

> This is exactly what I am talking about.

More fool you.

> Howard spend 24 millions Au$$$ in 2006 on war somewhere and
> during that time Telstra Mobile is the worst network in the world.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

> War cost a shit lot of money,(look at history)
> during that time the poor bastard at home can starve?

> Who are the friends and ennemies?

Wota terminal fuckwit.

> Howard spend 24 millions Au$$$ in 2006 on war somewhere
> and during that time Telstra Mobile is the worst network in the world.

What does John Howard and Telstra Mobile have to do with each other?

"Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:axp2i.38389$M.35926@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>> Howard spend 24 millions Au$$$ in 2006 on war somewhere
>> and during that time Telstra Mobile is the worst network in the world.
>
> What does John Howard and Telstra Mobile have to do with each other?
>
>
Majority shareholder



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"thegoons" <thegoons@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:464c5146$0$16377$88260bb3@free.teranews.com.. .
>
> "Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:axp2i.38389$M.35926@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>>> Howard spend 24 millions Au$$$ in 2006 on war somewhere
>>> and during that time Telstra Mobile is the worst network in the world.
>>
>> What does John Howard and Telstra Mobile have to do with each other?
>>
>>
> Majority shareholder

Nope, its 100% privatised now sonny
>
>
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

quandong said....

> upgrading. Shite, does BHP expect the Aust govt to fund expansion of
> their mines? Get a grip!

Lots of private companies are out there seeking government funding for
developmental and expansion purposes.

For example the mob that I work for is looking for federal funding to
help install some new technology. Now, to be eligible for this funding
the company and its related entities need to comply with the building
construction industry code of practice AND the Workchoices legislation.

We're going through EBA negotiations at the moment, and we've been
presented with this. The company wants the federal (taxpayers') funding.
Therefore our next EBA needs to comply with Workchoices and the Building
Code, even though it's not a construction company.

Is this right? Should a foreign owned multinational be able to dip into
the taxpayer pockets? Remember that all its profits go offshore, and
that it has the usual tax minimisation structures in place.

So, should the unions, and hence, its members, the employees work to
help comply with the two pieces of legislation and code, or should they
tell the company to get stuffed and go for whatever they can get under
the existing rules? And tell it to use its own money for investment in
its company?

That's the question that's facing the employees at the moment.