Does Gillard inspire confidence?

[MrBurns]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

People don't want to throw eggs at her. They just want to throw her out of office.

I doubt we'll get the chance. Labor will throw her overboard first.

I dont think so now... I think all we have seen lately is to protect her from a challenge, knitting for babies, emergency meeting re child care costs, the weakest Q & A I've ever seen etc, etc

 

[MrBurns]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

Your a legend in your own mind. The biggest ego I have ever come across.

You gratuitous insults are really weak these days you must be getting old

 

[drsmith]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

I dont think so now... I think all we have seen lately is to protect her from a challenge, knitting for babies, emergency meeting re child care costs, the weakest Q & A I've ever seen etc, etc

I wouldn't worry about Q&A. Labor will skewer her to the plank with those knitting needles and whatever else is at hand and hack it off as necessary before the next election to salvage whatever's left of their broken furniture.

 

[BradK]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

What a dishonest, one-sided rant this thread is.

I had to get to page two of the thread to see someone who actually watched the same show as I did. And I am no Gillard fan!

I thought it was a great interview where the PM finally got to have her say on some issues without the carping from Mr Abbot in the background.

Are you sure you weren't watching M*A*S*H or something, Mr Burns?

Mostly, I heard an audience saying 'gimme gimme gimme with the left hand' and 'cut cut cut tax with right' *shrugs*

 

[MrBurns]

Gee brad not sure what you were watching but I was watching the most unpopular PM since federation giggling her way through everyone else's economic pain assisted by the ABC

 

[DB008]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

What a dishonest, one-sided rant this thread is.

I had to get to page two of the thread to see someone who actually watched the same show as I did. And I am no Gillard fan!

I thought it was a great interview where the PM finally got to have her say on some issues without the carping from Mr Abbot in the background.

Are you sure you weren't watching M*A*S*H or something, Mr Burns?

Mostly, I heard an audience saying 'gimme gimme gimme with the left hand' and 'cut cut cut tax with right' *shrugs*

Meanwhile, in the real world....

SHATTERED DREAMS: Police recruit denied entry over daughter's autism

• English cop had been offered a job as a constable at Ceduna
• Was due to start work as soon as his visa was approved
• His daughter had not met the legislated health requirement

AN English policeman and his family are devastated after being told they cannot move to South Australia because his stepdaughter, Sarah, is autistic.
London Metropolitan Police sergeant Peter Threlfall is outraged at the decision, which was made despite his daughter Sarah, 25, having two jobs and volunteering with the Scout and Guide movement. She had planned to study hairdressing when they arrived here.
Mr Threlfall was preparing to move his wife and family to South Australia but was told in December they had been denied visas under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme.
He had been offered a job as a constable at Ceduna, on the state's West Coast, and was due to start work as soon as his visa was approved.

LINK

It's ok, those illegal que jumpers will make mighty fine cops one day who will contribute to our society. They won't be a drain on our welfare system and try leach every penny they can get their hands on from honest hard working citizens....(NOT!)

 

[dutchie]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

Meanwhile, in the real world....

SHATTERED DREAMS: Police recruit denied entry over daughter's autism

English cop had been offered a job as a constable at Ceduna
Was due to start work as soon as his visa was approved
His daughter had not met the legislated health requirement



AN English policeman and his family are devastated after being told they cannot move to South Australia because his stepdaughter, Sarah, is autistic.
London Metropolitan Police sergeant Peter Threlfall is outraged at the decision, which was made despite his daughter Sarah, 25, having two jobs and volunteering with the Scout and Guide movement. She had planned to study hairdressing when they arrived here.
Mr Threlfall was preparing to move his wife and family to South Australia but was told in December they had been denied visas under the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme.
He had been offered a job as a constable at Ceduna, on the state's West Coast, and was due to start work as soon as his visa was approved.

LINK

It's ok, those illegal que jumpers will make mighty fine cops one day who will contribute to our society. They won't be a drain on our welfare system and try leach every penny they can get their hands on from honest hard working citizens....(NOT!)

So typical of this pathetic government.

 

[Miss Hale]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

I remember a similar case a few years ago relating to a doctor that wanted to move here, disappointing that they have not altered the regulations after that case which I assumed they would as it all seemed so unreasonable at the time and definitely not something that would make the family in question any less suitable to migrate here.

 

[dutchie]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

So typical of this pathetic government.

Decision overturned by Bowen - well done.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

What a dishonest, one-sided rant this thread is.

I had to get to page two of the thread to see someone who actually watched the same show as I did. And I am no Gillard fan!

I thought it was a great interview where the PM finally got to have her say on some issues without the carping from Mr Abbot in the background.

Are you sure you weren't watching M*A*S*H or something, Mr Burns?

Mostly, I heard an audience saying 'gimme gimme gimme with the left hand' and 'cut cut cut tax with right' *shrugs*

I couldn't bring myself to watch her being interviewed by the soft left Jones and a leftie audience..

It will be interesting to see the viewer numbers for her QANDA "Show".

I would bet London to a brick that nausea would have caused many like me not to watch.

The ABC probably won't have the guts to publish the viewing figures.

gg

 

[sptrawler]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

I couldn't bring myself to watch her being interviewed by the soft left Jones and a leftie audience..

It will be interesting to see the viewer numbers for her QANDA "Show".

I would bet London to a brick that nausea would have caused many like me not to watch.

The ABC probably won't have the guts to publish the viewing figures.

gg

+1 GG
As soon as I see her I switch off and I think that is the problem the government has.
Everyone has made their minds up and most are just killing time untill the next election, I think it will be the biggest bloodbath in history.

 

[Eager]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

I think Gillard handled her composure very well last night, and no doubt she is displaying another look.
There was a blonde lady in a black skivvy who said she was from the middle class and asked why Labor always hurts that class. She said the working class she represents gets minimal compensation from any of the schemes that Julia made reference too. Gillard answered that she must be looking at the wrong sites.
This was the question of the night!! From my perspective.
If that women is correct, I hope it gets exposure for that class(its a big class). Personally I think that Labor is handing out one lot of compo. to cover more that one tax or cost.(say 3)
Anyway that's it from me.
joea

I also watched the show for a few short minutes. I couldn't stand it. Reason? Gillard was giving the same tired old responses, because.....the one-dimensional Libs in the audience were firing the same old tired questions.

I saw the Miss Prissy in the black skivvy too...why didn't anyone ask her why the wealthy middle class should be entitled to unbridled welfare?

 

[sptrawler]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

I saw the Miss Prissy in the black skivvy too...why didn't anyone ask her why the wealthy middle class should be entitled to unbridled welfare?

Can you explain why someone who gets one step up the ladder, has to be kicked in the guts to put them back where they started?

 

[Eager]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

Can you explain why someone who gets one step up the ladder, has to be kicked in the guts to put them back where they started?

After you explain why the wealthy middle class should be entitled to unbridled welfare...

I'm not talking about the Mum & Dad who between them approach $150k per year - that is not necessarily wealthy - I am talking about the mindset of those that see welfare as a right despite their high earning capacity. Welfare is NOT a right for high income earners. Maybe if those that don't actually NEED welfare to exist from week to week gave it up, yours and everyone elses tax bill would be lower.

 

[sptrawler]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

After you explain why the wealthy middle class should be entitled to unbridled welfare...

I'm not talking about the Mum & Dad who between them approach $150k per year - that is not necessarily wealthy - I am talking about the mindset of those that see welfare as a right despite their high earning capacity. Welfare is NOT a right for high income earners. Maybe if those that don't actually NEED welfare to exist from week to week gave it up, yours and everyone elses tax bill would be lower.

Well if the "wealthy" middle class worked their way up from the the socially disadvantaged class and did so by, doing without, saving, working 3 jobs, not pi$$ing it up against the wall.
While at the same time paying increased taxes and recieving less incentive, other than incentive gained through harder work.
Why should they not be entitled to some return on the extra they have put in, as opposed to those who don't strive and choose to rely on welfare ? I do realise there are some with real problems, however we are talking generally.
Please don't say it is lack off opportunity, apparently there is heaps of opportunity, just lack of interest?LOL,LOL

 

[Eager]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

Well if the "wealthy" middle class worked their way up from the the socially disadvantaged class and did so by, doing without, saving, working 3 jobs, not pi$$ing it up against the wall.
While at the same time paying increased taxes and recieving less incentive, other than incentive gained through harder work.
Why should they not be entitled to some return on the extra they have put in, as opposed to those who don't strive and choose to rely on welfare ? I do realise there are some with real problems, however we are talking generally.
Please don't say it is lack off opportunity, apparently there is heaps of opportunity, just lack of interest?LOL,LOL

LOL,LOL, it's great to see that you have embraced cyber language. Are you 80? LOL,LOL,LOL

"Why should they not be entitled to some return on the extra they have put in,"

FFS the return for the extra that they have put in is measured by the extra dollars in their pockets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you are saying is that if a person works hard enought to earn $200k instead of $140k, the Government is compelled to 'reward' them with a free handout.

Bizarre.

 

[sptrawler]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

LOL,LOL, it's great to see that you have embraced cyber language. Are you 80? LOL,LOL,LOL

"Why should they not be entitled to some return on the extra they have put in,"

FFS the return for the extra that they have put in is measured by the extra dollars in their pockets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you are saying is that if a person works hard enought to earn $200k instead of $140k, the Government is compelled to 'reward' them with a free handout.

Bizarre.

Well from personal experience a few years ago but still the same principle. After job promotion more resposibility, more accountability, more hassle.
The end result was after loosing child support the take home wage was the same as i was on before the promotion.
You can laugh and some would say, go back to the workshop floor, but that is the problem why strip out incentive.
The U.K system is what our welfare sytem was based on and they still maintain that if someone has paid in to the system for their working career they get the basic pension. Canada has a similar sytem and still aligns with the U.K.
What you are saying is if someone works hard don't reward the effort with a token amount(doesn't have to be much).
Rather reward those that do sod all, don't want to take on jobs in the bush, want to sit on welfare.
While we debate bringing in foriegn workers for the jobs they don't want to do.
Like that is going to help the situation. Why does someone that chooses not to work, deserve to have someone who works hard support them.
Funny the Germans are asking the same question, I love how you are taking the Greek, Italian , Spain attitude.

 

[sptrawler]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

LOL,LOL, it's great to see that you have embraced cyber language. Are you 80? LOL,LOL,LOL

"Why should they not be entitled to some return on the extra they have put in,"

FFS the return for the extra that they have put in is measured by the extra dollars in their pockets!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

What you are saying is that if a person works hard enought to earn $200k instead of $140k, the Government is compelled to 'reward' them with a free handout.

Bizarre.

I'll put it in terms that you may understand.
Eager, is a young bloke who is on top of the game and getting good money, putting in lots of hours saving tons.
Well unfortunately there is a huge downturn by China and Eager is laid off.
He isn't too worried he has saved $50k during the good time, toward the deposit for a house in the future.
Well after applying unsucessfully for several jobs, Eager is getting nervous as he has spent $10k of his $50k.
So he decides to see what C.E.S has to offer if the problem persists, they tell him when you have spent the rest of the $50k come back and see us.
Eager say's, rightfully, I have paid my taxes why do I have to spend the money I have saved and done without, to put together. When I could have taken o/s holidays and pi$$ed it up to the wall.
Well why should the government support you when you have money?
Untill you experience it you don't understand it.IMO and I'm not 80 I'm 56 cheeky $hit

 

[waimate01]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

...they tell him when you have spent the rest of the $50k come back and see us....

Is the dole asset tested?

 

[wayneL]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

I'm worried.

First I agreed with something Keating said in the other thread...

...now I'm agreeing with Eager.

Middle Class welfare is an oxymoron. Why take it away then give it back? Just lower taxes.