Does Gillard inspire confidence?

[Eager]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

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.

That's right - you got paid a higher wage, therefore you don't NEED the welfare anymore.

You are not a defenceless chick in the nest squawking for a worm. You can go out and get your own worms. You do not NEED anyone to give you free ones as well.

Your reward for going out and getting a higher paid job is the knowledge that you are not as parasitic as you once were.

 

[Eager]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

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

I thought you were talking about welfare paid every fortnight as a reward while you were working, now this? If I lost my job I'd hardly be a middle class income earner, would I?

I'm confused!

 

[sptrawler]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

I thought you were talking about welfare paid every fortnight as a reward while you were working, now this? If I lost my job I'd hardly be a middle class income earner, would I?

I'm confused!

What I am getting at is why have a system in place that constantly works to encourage failure and punish acievement. Why shouldn't the bloke who has saved his money get the dole for a period of time before he has to spend his savings. Why force him back onto the bottom of the ladder when he has paid his fair share of tax.
The pension system in the U.K and Canada gives everyone a basic pension based on the number of years you have paid tax. Our system was the same untill the politicians saw how they could get their hands on it.

It is a shame they didn't look at their own pension system, when they took welfare off others. What is the politicians super system and perks, if not middle class welfare on a massive scale.
I don't hear you saying anything about that?
Don't worry i'm against middle class welfare, I'm also against welfare that encourages laziness. But what really irks me is the hypocricy of politicians constantly bagging good honest hard workers.

 

[sptrawler]

Re: Gillard on Q & A

Is the dole asset tested?

As far as I know it is.

 

[Julia]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

Is the dole asset tested?

Not so much asset tested in that you can own a house you're living in but savings are considered an income generating asset.
It's one of the reasons I so often raise the unfairness of the dole. Not only is it much less than anyone could reasonably be expected to live on, but you are required to use up almost all your savings before being granted a dollar in dole money. Very tough on someone who has saved hard for many years with the aim of contributing to their own support in retirement, then being made redundant in middle age.

The welfare system is imo very uneven. You have the dole as above as a very unfair contrast to some of the family benefits to the reasonably well off, and worst of all, Tony Abbott's proposed maternity leave scheme.

 

[sptrawler]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

The welfare system is imo very uneven. You have the dole as above as a very unfair contrast to some of the family benefits to the reasonably well off, and worst of all, Tony Abbott's proposed maternity leave scheme.

Is that right, maybe I should use politician welfare as an example. Welfare is welfare,it's all funded through taxes.
I just get fed up of people blindly following attacks on the so called "middle class" just because politicians want to use them as a football. When politicians have the best welfare sytem in the country, tax payer funded.

Maybe someone should put forward there is no welfare untill there is 0 unemployment. The only recipients will have to give just cause as to why they can't take a job, relocate or retrain.
No it's just easier to take cheap shots at the ones who pay most of the tax.
As I said in an earlier post I don't agree with middle class welfare. I've never had welfare, allways worked and payed taxes since 15years old.
Just get fed up with the blind attacking of the real "working family"

 

[Calliope]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

No it's just easier to take cheap shots at the ones who pay most of the tax.
As I said in an earlier post I don't agree with middle class welfare. I've never had welfare, allways worked and payed taxes since 15years old.
Just get fed up with the blind attacking of the real "working family"

I agree. They are an easy target for whingers in the new class warfare attacks instituted by Gillard and Swan. Gillard's "working families" excludes the middle class who pay the taxes.

 

[Julia]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

Welfare is welfare,it's all funded through taxes.
I just get fed up of people blindly following attacks on the so called "middle class" just because politicians want to use them as a football. When politicians have the best welfare sytem in the country, tax payer funded.

I totally agree about politicians, as will 99% of the population.

Cannot agree, though, that because it's all funded through taxes, "welfare is welfare".
Imo we have an absolute obligation to care for people who cannot care for themselves, e.g. the severely disabled.

But I don't understand why we have any such similar obligation to pay people earning $150K pro rata that salary for six months if they choose to have a baby instead of continue to work. (If that figure is not correct, my apologies, but Mr Abbott's scheme from memory is somewhere around that.)

Yes, I have been very irritated over many years at paying taxes that support lazy, layabouts who just don't want to work, and young women who choose to have kid after kid rather than acquire decent education and a job. But the other side of that coin is the person I referred to earlier who has worked hard, saved, then lost a job through redundancy or illness. Imo such people should receive taxpayer support that is actually enough to live on.

 

[sptrawler]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

I totally agree about politicians, as will 99% of the population.

Cannot agree, though, that because it's all funded through taxes, "welfare is welfare".
Imo we have an absolute obligation to care for people who cannot care for themselves, e.g. the severely disabled.

But I don't understand why we have any such similar obligation to pay people earning $150K pro rata that salary for six months if they choose to have a baby instead of continue to work. (If that figure is not correct, my apologies, but Mr Abbott's scheme from memory is somewhere around that.)

Yes, I have been very irritated over many years at paying taxes that support lazy, layabouts who just don't want to work, and young women who choose to have kid after kid rather than acquire decent education and a job. But the other side of that coin is the person I referred to earlier who has worked hard, saved, then lost a job through redundancy or illness. Imo such people should receive taxpayer support that is actually enough to live on.

Agree completely, what I am going on about is the way the debate has been hijacked and is completly focused on the middle class welfare debate. It is a huge con job, this would be a miniscule part of the welfare debate.
Like i said it is a con and I'm sick of hearing it. Why do they keep harping on about the ones whose net contribution would be hugely tax positive. That is so we don't talk about the ones who contribute nothing and have no intention of doing so.
Also I am not including people who have a genuuine reason to be on welfare.

 

[Calliope]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

But I don't understand why we have any such similar obligation to pay people earning $150K pro rata that salary for six months if they choose to have a baby instead of continue to work.

Abbott will put that one on hold after he is safely elected and gets Costello to audit the books, as the Qld LNP government has done. Pie in the sky.:shake:

His first priority should be to weed the deadwood out of the bloated public service as Newman has done.

 

[noco]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

Abbott will put that one on hold after he is safely elected and gets Costello to audit the books, as the Qld LNP government has done. Pie in the sky.:shake:

His first priority should be to weed the deadwood out of the bloated public service as Newman has done.

Yes I agree. I believe there are over 1000 PS on the Climate Change committee or what ever they call it.
'CANDO' in Queensland threw it and Greg Withers out the window in the first month

 

[noco]

I have noticed Gillard is endorsing the MP "DIRT FILE" in manner of using it to back up her statements by Greg Combet that Abboot has been saying "the coal mines will close due to the Carbon dioxide tax ( ops sorry Julia, it's called carbon price)" Originally she denied knowing anything about it ahla Sargent Schultz."I know nothing".
Gillard is trying to smear coalition MPs who may or may not have bought shares in coal mines. I hope she comes up with a shovel full of mud that blows back in her face.

 

[markforex]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

Yes I agree. I believe there are over 1000 PS on the Climate Change committee or what ever they call it.
'CANDO' in Queensland threw it and Greg Withers out the window in the first month

I dont get it, how did climate change enter the debate?

 

[Julia]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

I dont get it, how did climate change enter the debate?

The observation was made by noco that Cando Newman slashed public service numbers when taking office. Amongst this, was the closing down of the office of climate change, headed by Greg Withers, husband of Anna Bligh, late Premier.
OK?

 

[sails]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

I dont get it, how did climate change enter the debate?

Because this thread is about Gillard and Gillard has not only broken a pre-election strong commitment NOT to introduce carbon tax, she then went ahead and legislated it with much glee against the will of the majority of voters (as per opinion polls).

It is not unusual for the "climate change" excuse for her tax to be discussed whenever Gillard's name is mentioned. She will probably always be remembered as Ms broken promise carbon tax.

But surely, that's stating the obvious...

 

[sptrawler]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

Just watching Q & A on ABC, it is all a bit like a Julia advert, nobody is questioning her answers. It appears very staged and a bit of a saturday night live show.

 

[markforex]

Oops sorry! Australia is not a republic!

Not yet anyway, which Gillard in charge who knows what could happen.

 

[StumpyPhantom]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

Just watching Q & A on ABC, it is all a bit like a Julia advert, nobody is questioning her answers. It appears very staged and a bit of a saturday night live show.

Happy with that little 'ivory tower' display by Gillard and her supporters. Happier still to see a bounce in the polls for Gillard to remove talk of her removal in 2012.

Hopefully by 2013, the ALP will think it too late to remove her. The carbon tax will be the one that comes back to bite. Every 3 months in fact, and 'family assistance' money will be long gone by then.

Come the election, we will all be reminded about "There will be no carbon tax under the Government I lead". I heard someone persuasively say the other day - It wasn't a lie, she just changed her mind. Maybe Richo, I don't know. That makes sense, I suppose.

But it's the way this has all been shoved down our throats that will deliver the killer blow at the election. If you changed your mind, just put your hand up and say it. Don't insult our intelligence by saying to us "Open wide, this bitter pill is good for you".

So let's have Gillard on Q&A every week. From all reports, it was good practice for the stage-managed economics forum in Brisbane the next week.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm dying to see the face of remorse on Gillard on election night 2013. It would be mind-boggling to hear her if she displays stubborn pride by saying "I knew it would come to this, but I did it because it was good for you"

 

[joea]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm dying to see the face of remorse on Gillard on election night 2013. It would be mind-boggling to hear her if she displays stubborn pride by saying "I knew it would come to this, but I did it because it was good for you"

Yeah I have been talking to the Coalition.
That print with "she is gone" on the bottom will be on sale to the general public.
At this point in time we think we can take 15% off the deficit in the first year from sales.
Of course there will be international sales as well.
joea:bananasmi

 

[Julia]

Re: Gillard on Q&A

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm dying to see the face of remorse on Gillard on election night 2013. It would be mind-boggling to hear her if she displays stubborn pride by saying "I knew it would come to this, but I did it because it was good for you"

I hope you're not holding your breath for this, Stumpy. I don't anticipate ever seeing the slightest shred of remorse from Ms Gillard. She has a self belief greater than any politician I've ever seen.
It's her greatest disattribute, imo, because it doesn't allow her to see the real impact of her decisions on the electorate.
She's like a steamroller.