The Gillard Government

[noco]

I believe Oakshott has his hands tied until August. If he makes any move before hand and brings on an election, he will lose his entitlements.

 

[joea]

Having seen the unemployment figures. Full unemployment fell 10,500 and part time rose 26,000 and thinking the market rose 10 points in 10 minutes on this as good news.
Good bloody news!! It is another stuff up!!

I decided we needed some light entertainment to go with it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEgSbof-qcg&feature=player_embedded

joea

 

[Glen48]

Dear Australian Taxpayer

I want to thank the hard
working Australian people for paying
for my recent vacation in Singapore and Turkey .

I had a wonderful time with Julia.

Honestly, you just haven't lived until you have stayed
at a 5-Star luxury hotel.

Thank you also for the use of the RAAF VIP jet
and the RAAF crew and security staff who tagged
along to be sure we were safe and cared for at all times.

I understand that the fuel usage by the RAAF VIP jet
was minimal for this trip, as were the carbon emissions.

Nevertheless, we must ask Australians
to drive smaller, more fuel efficient cars and
drive less too, so we can lessen our combined
carbon footprint.

I was really exhausted after Julia took me to England for the Royal Wedding
last year but it was worth it to meet the Queen and Prince Philip, although
we didn’t talk very much, as he was not interested in hair dressing. So it
is always a treat to relax and fly with Julia in the RAAF VIP jet
to watch a football match in Melbourne.

Fortunately, although Wayne Swan says that all sectors of the community
must make sacrifices to ensure that he can meet his budget surplus target,
this does not apply to the Prime Minister or Federal Parliamentarians.

They will continue to enjoy the whacking great pay rise
recently approved by themselves; flying Business Class
rather than Economy Class on short trips in Australia (even though
there is insufficient time to serve breakfast on the 20-minute flight
from Canberra to Sydney); overseas “study trips”
at your expense; Ministers will use the RAAF VIP jet on overseas trips, rather than
commercial air services; they will continue to get an enormous pension, and (in Julia’s case)
the use of an office, car and driver and the usual travel perks for the rest of her life
after she is thrown out of her job next year.

I know times are hard and millions of you are struggling
to put food on the table and trying to make ends meet.
So I do appreciate your sacrifices and do hope you
find work soon.

Remember, we all have to share the pain of these
economic times equally!

Cordially,

Tim Mathieson

 

[Eager]

^ Gillard, and particulary the First Bloke, make a poofteenth of the salary of corporate high-flyers, yet your diatribe is directed at those COMPARATIVE paupers.

Why?

At least Gillard and Mathieson pay tax!!!!!

 

[MrBurns]

^ Gillard, and particulary the First Bloke, make a poofteenth of the salary of corporate high-flyers, yet your diatribe is directed at those COMPARATIVE paupers.
Why?
At least Gillard and Mathieson pay tax!!!!!

Those 2 bludgers will be sucking at the teat of the taxpayer for the rest of their miserable lives. Fine reward for protecting their own position at the expense of decency and honesty.

 

[Julia]

Those 2 bludgers will be sucking at the teat of the taxpayer for the rest of their miserable lives. Fine reward for protecting their own position at the expense of decency and honesty.

+1.
And Eager, what a silly comparison you attempt to make.
The people whom you describe as 'corporate high fliers' are not paid by the taxpayer.
It's only the business of the shareholders what the CEOs of corporate Australia are paid.

 

[Logique]

According to the Budget Reply speech, the cumulative budget bottom line has

- deteriorated by $26M in 12 months, and behind the scenes the Govt is
- proposing to add a further $50M to the Commonwealth debt ceiling. This is being hidden in Appropriation Bills.

There's your likelihood of a surplus.

 

[dutchie]

How Labor helps “working families”.

First they encourage working families to join a union so that they can fight those nasty non “working families” that actually provide them a job.

The union members have to pay big annual fees to help fight those nasty non “working families” and have to elect union officials to assist in the spending of that money.

Then unbeknownst to the union members, union officials pocket nearly all the fees paid to feather their own nest (most fair minded people call this embezzlement and in fact it is against the law).

However when these facts start coming to the surface the Labor government comes to the rescue of the “working families” and gets a body that they have set up to oversee these unions (you know it’s good for “working families” because it’s got the word fair in it) to investigate the corruption and deliver a report.

This body then takes over 4 years to deliver this report (despite the fact that any half witted Accounting Associate could have produced it in a week).

Low and behold the embezzlement of some of the money by one of the union officials can’t be prosecuted because the three years statute of limitations has expired – how convenient for the union official - over a quarter million dollars in his pocket and he gets off scot free.

Now this poor down trodden union official who has stolen this money from hard working “working families” gets his legal bills paid by the Labor party. The party that has accepted union contributions to run the Labor party.

So the union official who obviously falls within “working families” has a win win – not only is he able to siphon off money from the union he works so hard for but the union also pays for his legal cost when he has to defend his right to take that money as he pleases.

The “working families” have lost their money and have no say or recourse in the matter because the system has been manipulated and abused.

Now the union official, very happy that he has been able to get ahead by stealing from the “working families” money, uses it to gain a position in a government that runs the country. This now enables him to help “working families” even more. He has hit the mother load and can suck at this teat for a long, long time.

That's how you help “working families”!

 

[dutchie]

Julia Gillard’s attempt to divide Australians into different classes should be vehemently opposed.

One of the strengths of our Australian society has always been that it is classless.

For someone to try and create divisiveness in our society, along class lines, purely for political advantage, is traitorous.

 

[noco]

According to the Budget Reply speech, the cumulative budget bottom line has

- deteriorated by $26M in 12 months, and behind the scenes the Govt is
- proposing to add a further $50M to the Commonwealth debt ceiling. This is being hidden in Appropriation Bills.

There's your likelihood of a surplus.

Logique, make that $50 billion.

 

[Logique]

Thanks Noco,
the sum is billions.

- $26Bill bottom line deterioration in 12 months
- covertly seeking a further $50Bill to the Commonwealth debt ceiling

 

[DB008]

Thanks Noco,
the sum is billions.

- $26Bill bottom line deterioration in 12 months
- covertly seeking a further $50Bill to the Commonwealth debt ceiling

How can the current Government go further in debt, but still have surplus?

There are rumours floating around that the current Gov is borrowing 100million a day? Is this true, are there any links to it?
If so, why isn't the opposition pointing it out.


Only link l could find was;

http://www.aofm.gov.au/

http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2012/04/14/Tony-Abbott-Doorstop.aspx

http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2124:gillard-debt-tops-200-billion-after-labor-borrows-100-million-per-day&catid=97:breaking-news&Itemid=119

 

[joea]

If you watch closely, you will see Labor get going quickly on some of the hand outs.
Then check the current deficit for this current year, at the end of the financial year.
I believe it will be topped up dramatically.
There is a fair chance I will remember to do that.

joea

 

[joea]

How can the current Government go further in debt, but still have surplus?

DB008
Here is Swan's estimate from last year.
Note the current deficit is $44 billion I think.
His original surplus was $3.5 billion.
Sportsbet has it as another deficit next year.

http://australianpolitics.com/2011/11/29/myefo-predicts-small-budget-surplus.html
joea

 

[sails]

How can the current Government go further in debt, but still have surplus?

There are rumours floating around that the current Gov is borrowing 100million a day? Is this true, are there any links to it?
If so, why isn't the opposition pointing it out.


Only link l could find was;

http://www.aofm.gov.au/

http://www.liberal.org.au/Latest-News/2012/04/14/Tony-Abbott-Doorstop.aspx

http://www.international.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2124:gillard-debt-tops-200-billion-after-labor-borrows-100-million-per-day&catid=97:breaking-news&Itemid=119

Dannyboy, I remember the $100m per day being plastered all over the polling boths in the last federal election so it has been brought out. Maybe the libs will zero back in on that for their election advertising.

And here is a website which explains debt vs. deficit: http://thenationaldebtcrisis.com/national-debt-vs-budget-deficit/

In my basic understanding:

Income less expenses = deficit or surplus (cashflow or lack of)
Expenses include interest expense incurred from loans (debt)

I am sure someone will correct me if I have it wrong...lol

 

[Eager]

+1.
And Eager, what a silly comparison you attempt to make.
The people whom you describe as 'corporate high fliers' are not paid by the taxpayer.
It's only the business of the shareholders what the CEOs of corporate Australia are paid.

Glenn's post was all about people enjoying a high life due to their priveliged positions. I appreciate the difference between taxpayer funded and not, but realistically, even if Gillard was paid $10m per year that only equates to less than a dollar for each taxpayer.

 

[Julia]

Glenn's post was all about people enjoying a high life due to their
privileged positions.

No it wasn't. It was about what the taxpayer is funding.
I'm sure Glenn will correct me if I have it wrong.

I appreciate the difference between taxpayer funded and not,

Really? Your post suggested otherwise.

but realistically, even if Gillard was paid $10m per year that only equates to less than a dollar for each taxpayer.

It doesn't matter what she is paid if she is not delivering value for money. And she sure as hell is not. All she is about is maintaining her own position at the expense of the electorate and the long term good of the country.
A less amoral person would crumble in shame.

 

[bellenuit]

Dannyboy, I remember the $100m per day being plastered all over the polling boths in the last federal election so it has been brought out. Maybe the libs will zero back in on that for their election advertising.

And here is a website which explains debt vs. deficit: http://thenationaldebtcrisis.com/national-debt-vs-budget-deficit/

In my basic understanding:

Income less expenses = deficit or surplus (cashflow or lack of)
Expenses include interest expense incurred from loans (debt)

I am sure someone will correct me if I have it wrong...lol

I don't understand why the coalition doesn't emphasise the difference between the current account deficit and the national debt and hammer home that getting the budget into surplus, particularly if only a billion or so, will have a negligible impact on the national debt.

I believe public debt is in the region of $235B, but many of the less financial literate people I know seem to think that getting the budget into surplus means that this debt will be eliminated by the end of 2012/2013 year. They do not understand that the budget only applies to current year income/expenditure and is different from the debt. A surplus will reduce the debt by the amount of the surplus, but with the debt in the hundreds of billions and the project surplus in the single billions, the impact on the debt will be negligible.

 

[sptrawler]

I believe the reason she is doing o.k in the polls is she keeps harping on that they will bring the budget to surplus. The general public is thinking that means they are out of debt.
What Abbot needs to do is start and tell the public how much debt we have on board due to these goons.
Also how long it will take to feasably get back to where we were 5 years ago.

I agree bellinuit, as the above post shows, back in March we were saying the same thing.

 

[bellenuit]

I believe the reason she is doing o.k in the polls is she keeps harping on that they will bring the budget to surplus. The general public is thinking that means they are out of debt.
What Abbot needs to do is start and tell the public how much debt we have on board due to these goons.
Also how long it will take to feasably get back to where we were 5 years ago.

The other thing that p****S me off is those that say Labor has saved us from the effects of the GFC. If they get us back to where we were 5 years ago, with the surplus we had 5 years ago (not current account but public savings in the kitty) and we do not have some sort of recession, then they can claim they saved us from the effects of the GST. But all they have done up to now is the easy bit. They have spent our savings. They need to restore our savings to where they were before they can claim success.

If I am a household and have $100K in savings and then times turn bad. If I keep the food on the table by spending the $100K as well as spending another $200K that I borrowed, I can't go around boasting what a great financial manager I am because no one yet has gone hungry. It's when I no longer borrow more and return my savings to where they were and still keep food on the table that I should be able to start boasting about my financial prowess.

The spending is the easy part. It p****s me off when Swan goes around saying they made the hard choices and claim credit for keeping us out of recession, when they have just done the easy bit. The hard bit is getting us back to where we were, but at best they can only keep us treading water where we currently are and with great pain. I don't understand why so many political and financial commentators allow Swan to get away with that claim.