The Gillard Government

[Logique]

Embedding a video on ASF is so much easier these days, thanks Joe.

This one (37 secs) came in the latest Australian Taxpayers Alliance email newsletter, the content of which which I'll copy underneath. If you watch it through to the end, it opens a menu of other related videos.

QUOTE..
Dear Taxpayer,
yesterday, Wayne Swan confirmed what we all knew: Julia Gillard's pledge to deliver a budget surplus was a lie. After years of waste and spending that would put a drunken sailor to shame, the money just isn't there. Just like how "there will be no carbon tax", the budget surplus lie has been exposed.

We created this short YouTube video exposing the deceit urging people to take action. I hope you will watch it and share with all your friends! The "There Will Be A Budget Surplus" Lie: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVK5R4aCIkQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player Please forward this to your friends, share this video on facebook: , on Twitter: , and on Google +1. Together, we will fight back. And we WILL win.
Tim Andrews
Executive Director
Australian Taxpayers' Alliance
Web: www.taxpayers.org.au
Email: enquiries@taxpayers.org.au
PO Box A2208
Sydney South, NSW 1235
Australia
..UNQUOTE

 

[sydboy007]

I'm all for the Government cutting family tax benefits and child care rebates. Wouldn't have a problem if they limited the tax benefits to super either - by 2015 it will cost more in more in tax forgone than is spent on the pension.

hey presto, not only would the budget be in surplus by at least 1%, the Govt could also provide income tax cuts too.

Slight problem could be reducing Govt spending to the fam tax benefits and child care rebate might send consumer spending into a downward spiral, leading to a higher unemployment rate, lower tax receipts, higher welfare payments, and maybe even a recession.

I wonder what spending cuts other people are willing to make.

Oh, and I haven't hear Tony say surpluses in his first term are a blood promise. Remember Tonys (other) spiritual leader gave us the core and non core promise.

 

[sails]

I'm all for the Government cutting family tax benefits and child care rebates. Wouldn't have a problem if they limited the tax benefits to super either - by 2015 it will cost more in more in tax forgone than is spent on the pension.

hey presto, not only would the budget be in surplus by at least 1%, the Govt could also provide income tax cuts too.

Slight problem could be reducing Govt spending to the fam tax benefits and child care rebate might send consumer spending into a downward spiral, leading to a higher unemployment rate, lower tax receipts, higher welfare payments, and maybe even a recession.

I wonder what spending cuts other people are willing to make.

Oh, and I haven't hear Tony say surpluses in his first term are a blood promise. Remember Tonys (other) spiritual leader gave us the core and non core promise.

Any backflips of Howard are minuscule in comparison to the Gillard backflips...

It's almost got to the point where one can assume the opposite with anything Gillard says.

She said "No carbon tax" (and we got one)

She said she would stop the boats (we have never had so many boats)

She said there would be a surplus until a few days ago (and now we don't)

She said the world would end according to the Mayan Calendar (and it didn't)

She calls Abbott a misogynist and yet he has a loving wife, three lovely daughters and female staff including his chief of staff. Nothing could be further from the truth.

And the list could go on and on and on and on....​

When could you rely on the opposite being the case whenever Howard spoke? He wasn't perfect, but I have never seen any PM get it wrong so often as Gillard.

 

[MrBurns]

The first sensible words from Mungo Maccallum I've ever seen -

Julia Gillard swore blind that the budget would be back in surplus this year. She vowed it week-after-week, month-after-month. And now she has abandoned her solemn oath, gone on holiday and left it to her hapless treasurer to break the bad news. What can you say? Well, quite a lot, actually, argues Mungo MacCallum.

So Julia Gillard has broken another promise and of course Tony Abbott, on our behalf, is totally outraged.

She swore blind that the budget would be back in surplus this year, no ifs, no buts, come hell or high water it would be done. She vowed it day in, day out, week-after-week, month-after-month, year-after-year.

And now she abandons her solemn oath and she hasn't even got the guts to tell us herself - she goes on holiday and leaves it to her hapless treasurer, Wayne Swan, to break the bad news. I mean, what can you say?

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/4442368.html

 

[Julia]

The first sensible words from Mungo Maccallum I've ever seen -

Thanks, Mr Burns. Agree that it's pretty atypical from Mungo Macallum.

However, one of his most realistic points is this:

But given that every rational economist has been urging this course of action for some time, uncommitted voters are more likely to regard it as a belated but sensible piece of pragmatism rather than the terrible moral betrayal Abbott is spruiking. And I suspect it will do the Government a lot less harm than the desperate attempt to preserve the budget at all costs - even at the cost of other, perhaps more immediate, commitments.

I think he's right. After the months of frustration with the government's unrealistic assertions that they will produce a surplus, the main response on the ditching of this does seem to have been relief, even praise.

 

[MrBurns]

Thanks, Mr Burns. Agree that it's pretty atypical from Mungo Macallum.

However, one of his most realistic points is this:


I think he's right. After the months of frustration with the government's unrealistic assertions that they will produce a surplus, the main response on the ditching of this does seem to have been relief, even praise.

Double c in Maccallum ?

I think he's just tried to salvage something out of it, I don't think anyone cares if we have a surplus or not, it's the way it's been handled that's at issue, they've really made themselves look like idiots when it really wasnt nessessary.
They have no idea.

 

[dutchie]

**** Craig Emerson to release new song ****

An EMI spokesperson has stated that the new release was to be put out before Xmas but because of circumstances beyond their control it won't be released until the new year. However they did release some of the lyrics of the new song.

You know the tune...

"No Promised Surplus right there on my TV
No Promised Surplus right there on my TV
No Promised Surplus right there on my TV
Shockin' me right out of my brain
Shockin' me right out of my brain"

 

[MrBurns]

**** Craig Emerson to release new song ****

An EMI spokesperson has stated that the new release was to be put out before Xmas but because of circumstances beyond their control it won't be released until the new year. However they did release some of the lyrics of the new song.

You know the tune...

"No Promised Surplus right there on my TV
No Promised Surplus right there on my TV
No Promised Surplus right there on my TV
Shockin' me right out of my brain
Shockin' me right out of my brain"

 

[shag]

How is this one going by the way? Anyone know? Last I heard the rollout and take-up have been pretty average. Another white elephant?

we may get it....this decade.....kennas
when i looked our rollout was beyond my timeframes anyway. 2015?
i already have post 20meg/s anyway on cheapo plan, 4 years, on cu/copper.
neighbours optics cable is often down for long periods while my cu is always fine.

kill the witch i say. a public burning is appealing with her fiscal tool/fool, the fat one. bondi runs large public events...
sell tickets maybe to pay down their debt.

cu should run 100m/s if they wished imo. fibre optics was from my uni days, ie the dim ages, just like the hume highway, in its present state.

 

[sails]

This is worrying for our freedom of speech and considering Gillard has control of both houses, there is nothing to stop this sort of legislation getting through easily...:

Is this the beginning of political control such as is seen under communist regimes?

'Roxon's Human Rights and Anti-discrimination Bill 2012 will not only extend the range of conduct deemed unlawful from matters of race to matters of religion, social origin, nationality and political opinions. Her bill also removes any notion of objectivity. It is enough that conduct by one person "offends, insults or intimidates" another person. This completes the legal slide from words that incite violence to those that merely insult. Sensible gradations of offence have been lost.'

Full Article:
Nanny Roxon won't let you spit the dummy

 

[Julia]

Agree, sails. This was first raised a few weeks ago and I was incredulous. Since then it is being peddled as 'entirely reasonable and sensible' by various of the luvvies on ABC Radio. Will the Greens support it to get the legislation through? Not sure. The Coalition certainly won't.

 

[sails]

Agree, sails. This was first raised a few weeks ago and I was incredulous. Since then it is being peddled as 'entirely reasonable and sensible' by various of the luvvies on ABC Radio. Will the Greens support it to get the legislation through? Not sure. The Coalition certainly won't.

Unfortunately, with the labor leaning independents and the labor/green senate all supporting Gillard, I think they will have no problem pushing it through both houses easily. The coalition are powerless at this stage which is so wrong as it appears that two of those independents come from strongly conservative electorates whom they are clearly not representing.

I shudder to think what other legislation this minority lot have been pushing through. I can only hope that the coalition get a good majority in both houses as that is the only way that this country can be put back on the right track again by repealing any damaging legislation.

Although, the senate doesn't change until mid 2014, so it will take time.

 

[Julia]

From "The Australian 28 December:

UN funding rises as efficiency drive hits public service

AUSTRALIA'S financial contribution to the UN will rise by at least 14 per cent next year as the government pushes ahead with a drive to slash departmental expenses and promote public service efficiencies.

 

[Calliope]

The polls are looking better for Labor.



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...r-from-a-victory/story-e6frg75f-1226544786837

 

[noco]

So Jenny Macklin can live on $35 per day. What an absolute she is to make a comment like that.!!!

She takes home over $6000 per week.

Read the rest.


http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-dole-for-a-week/story-fncyva0b-1226546531719

 

[Calliope]

Who cares whether Jenny Macklin could live on the $35 per day Newstart Allownnce . The dole is deliberately kept low so that recipients cannot live on it. If they could live on it they wouldn't look for a job.

THE Greens have challenged Families Minister Jenny Macklin to live on the dole for a week after she declared she could manage on the $245-a-week unemployment allowance.

Acting Leader Adam Bandt invited Ms Macklin to join him in trying to pay food, rent and bills on Newstart for seven days in February.

Ms Macklin - who has gone to ground today and is refusing to comment any further on the issue - has come under fire from welfare groups for claim she could live on the $35-a-day dole payment

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-those-on-dole/story-fn59niix-1226546468804

 

[dutchie]

Who cares whether Jenny Macklin could live on the $35 per day Newstart Allownnce . The dole is deliberately kept low so that recipients cannot live on it. If they could live on it they wouldn't look for a job.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-those-on-dole/story-fn59niix-1226546468804

Good point.

 

[noco]

Who cares whether Jenny Macklin could live on the $35 per day Newstart Allownnce . The dole is deliberately kept low so that recipients cannot live on it. If they could live on it they wouldn't look for a job.




http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...to-those-on-dole/story-fn59niix-1226546468804

Yes Calliope I agree with you. The point I was making was the stupid statement Macklin made.

She was probably only thinking of goes in her mouth and judging by th size of her she would probably eat $35 worth of food a day.

 

[Julia]

The dole needs to be low enough to drive recipients to look for a job but not so low that it impedes their capacity to do this. $35 per day is not enough. It wouldn't even pay the rent on most one bedroom flats in capital cities, let alone allow for children to have their own room.

If a person cannot meet the rent, let alone buy food, pay utilities, phone etc, get to job interviews, how is the extremely low payment promoting their capacity to find a job?
All it will do is drive the rate of homelessness higher, not to mention the misery to so many of living below the poverty line.

If we can house asylum seekers in air conditioned comfort, provide taxpayer funded housing for them, how the hell is it appropriate to treat job seekers so much less helpfully?

 

[DocK]

As I understand it the main group who are about to suffer a large reduction in benefits are single parents whose youngest child is over 6 or 7 - due to changes in legislation they'll go from sole parent to newstart allowance? My concern is that those sole parents of "difficult" children, or those with disabilities, who have little or no family support system will be made to suffer, along with their kids. Not all young children are suited (or welcome) in before or after school care programmes so that Mum or Dad can hold down a job. Yes, society wants to reduce the burden on the tax system and encourage sole parents to return to work - but I'm sure we don't want to see single mums turning tricks to make ends meet, or having entire families living in one room as rents become unmanageable. Naturally there are those who will always milk the system for all they can - and we'd all like to see them forced to get a job - but it seems that a lot of single parents and their kids are going to suffer on such a pittance that newstart allowance provides.