This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Tony Abbott for PM

Jump to new
Quite a good article on Digger's perceptions of Kevin Rudd and Tony Abbott in the Townsville Bulletin today.

Reporting on a visit both have made, to the ADF in Townsville and Darwin, the most recent by Tony Abbott at Robertson Barracks in Darwin, yesterday.

http://www.townsvillebulletin.com.au/article/2013/08/24/387925_news.html




It looks like it's all over red rover, for Kevin Rudd in any garrison electorate around the country.

gg
 
Garpal Gumnut said:
It looks like it's all over red rover, for Kevin Rudd in any garrison electorate around the country.

gg
Click to expand...

Yes it's all over gg, the only interest now is how much of a hiding the electorate will give Rudd, I trust it will be substantial.

As time goes on the difference between a BS artist and a genuine person becomes clearer to the electorate.
 
MrBurns said:
Yes it's all over gg, the only interest now is how much of a hiding the electorate will give Rudd, I trust it will be substantial.

As time goes on the difference between a BS artist and a genuine person becomes clearer to the electorate.
Click to expand...

Are you referring to Tony's fiscal conservative claims as shown by his desire for Govt welfare to all - we're Aussie so no means testing please - and PPL - the rich deserve far higher levels of support in raising their children - along with DA - armies of Govt bureaucrats trying to determine the before and after carbon emissions and just how much of my money to handover - and throwing money to Rupert for his privately held Broncos.

So if that's a fiscal conservative, well I must have a very differet view on what one looks like.
 
I suppose to summarise what I mean is the arrogant tosser specialising in nation wrecking has had it, everyone's a wake up and I hope he feels the pain of his demise as he should
As for the rest of your post I say with the deepest respect "blow it out your a***
 
sydboy007 said:
......................... and throwing money to Rupert for his privately held Broncos.
Click to expand...

If you think it will add value to the Broncos you should buy some shares now. Only 30 cents last trade, so join Rupert in making some money if you think it will increase the value.

Cheers
Country Lad
 
Country Lad said:
If you think it will add value to the Broncos you should buy some shares now. Only 30 cents last trade, so join Rupert in making some money if you think it will increase the value.

Cheers
Country Lad
Click to expand...

I'd put owning a sports team up there with an Airline.

Still, the question is why is taxpayer money being given to a team? Privately listed.

When there's deficits for years to come, all these little payouts add up and just says rent seekers apply within.

Sure there's some infrastructure the money could be better spent on??
 


That's a bit one-eyed isn't it. It's OK for the current government to do precisely that, but no other government can?

Why don't you criticise the current government for giving money in exactly the same way to private businesses to improve the facilities and consequently increase the value of their businesses and to give these individual businesses an advantage over their competitors? If one is wrong then so are all these current government handouts.

A small sample of the approvals for this program:

$250,000 to Barton Pty Ltd for the Little Darling Hotel “to introduce a highly competitive and innovative product to the market”.

$238,000 to Sridate Pty Ltd “to deliver a new luxury accommodation venue”.

$250,000 to Moira Station Pty Ltd to “create new, luxurious accommodation quarters”

$210,000 to Fumage Pty Ltd for improvements to “become the rural wedding destination of choice”.

$250,000 to Schwartz Family Co. Pty Ltd for improvements “to directly appeal to 'business tourists'”.

$250,000 to Fraunfelder Holdings Pty Ltd to “install an innovative water play adventure structure at BIG4 Merimbula Tween Waters Resort”.

$250,000 to Lucsan Pty Ltd for improvements to be able to “host intimate weddings, celebrations and corporate functions”.

$200,000 to Ecoline Pty Ltd for “world's longest roller coaster flying fox”.

$167,800 to C and T (NSW) Pty Ltd for motel “Upgrade and Improvement”.

$250,000 to YBOS Pty Ltd for a “water playground” in the BIG4 Tweed Billabong Holiday Park". In the approval notes for this one it blatantly says “will differentiate the park from competitors and provide a unique selling point”.

$249,550 to Croote Pty Ltd to upgrade the caravan park and “increase the star rating of the resort”.

The list goes on and on and on, but you no doubt get the gist of it……….and that is only Round 1.

Cheers
Country Lad
 
Political bias aside, means testing of government assistance is in principle a poor policy as it creates high EMTR's.

The greater consideration is the allocation of government assistance in the first place.
 

I think from my posting you can tell i was criticising both sides for this wasteful spending.
 
drsmith said:
Political bias aside, means testing of government assistance is in principle a poor policy as it creates high EMTR's.

The greater consideration is the allocation of government assistance in the first place.
Click to expand...

Very true, and I've yet to see a reasonable way to solve that issue.

But to have non means tested benefits means a lot of money is provided to those who don't need it, which means less money for those who do, and most likely higher taxes along with it.

IMO the income deciles need to be highlighted to the voters, and get people to understand where they truly are income wise.

Combine that with the top 20 sources of Revenue and spending programs to let the punters know where the money comes and goes to.

The we might be able to have an adult look at how much welfare we need, and who should get it.

You have to admit so far neither side is up to the challenge. Hockey's age of entitlement speech was just hot air. He's done absolutely nothing to push the Coalition towards getting rid of wasteful spending.

One can rightly criticise the current Govt for what they've done. Tony will likely be PM in a few weeks. Isn't it best we start putting a LOT of pressure on the guy to deliver on some decent policy? He's had a pretty free ride the last 3 years, policy wise. Abbott still wants to remove the "means testing" on private health insurance, yet so far there's been no discernible reduction in coverage. Why provide high levels subsidies to people who will get health insurance without them. Now that IS wasteful spending.
 
sydboy007 said:
You have to admit so far neither side is up to the challenge. Hockey's age of entitlement speech was just hot air. He's done absolutely nothing to push the Coalition towards getting rid of wasteful spending.
Click to expand...
You might have cause to reconsider this judgement after the election. I hope so.

Agree. It has now become a cliche, but this middle class welfare is just unnecessary and wasteful.
 
The impact of means testing of the Private Health Insurance rebate is yet to be fully felt as private health insurance could be forward purchased in the final year of the non means tested rebate (2011/12).

For Medibank Private this effectively extended the non-means tested rebate to the end of 2013.
 
sydboy007 said:
IMO the income deciles need to be highlighted to the voters, and get people to understand where they truly are income wise.
Click to expand...

Yes. I'm sure most voters don't know what an "income decile" is. Spell-ckeck didn't recognise it and I had to go to Google.

decile;
a. one of nine actual or notional values of a variable dividing its distribution into ten groups with equal frequencies: the ninth decile is the value below which 90% of the population lie.
Click to expand...

Well done Syd.
 
As a matter of basic principal, the starting point for government welfare should be a basic safety net in times of hardship. This should be non-means tested and in the form of an allowance (Newstart for example) for those without income grading to a tax free threshold for those with enough income to support themselves. This would avoid the high and complex EMTR's associated with means tests.

Beyond that, individual items need to be considered on merit and that includes whether or not they are managed within a government framework. Below are a few examples.

Dependents (children for example): Obviously the allowance above would need to be higher where a household has children. If this falls on the side of government responsibility, then a higher tax free threshold is also required for those households in line with the above principal:

Paid maternity leave and childcare: These in my view fall beyond the basic safety net. That being the case, they should not be part of government welfare programs regardless of who is in office. Where a net overall economical and social benefit can be reasoned for entitlements such as this, they should be structured outside government support. A more appropriate arena in which to consider these entitlements is within workplace conditions. If they don't stack up there, they shouldn't be introduced. I wouldn't though necessarily rule out government involvement in discussions on this approach, but the government shouldn't be funding such schemes or involved in their day to day management.

Overall, this is very difficult to solve due to the sheer amount of welfare in operation now and the means tests required to contain costs. The problem is the number of losers any solution would result in and to manage that, change to the ideal would needed to be staged. On another topic of discussion, the same approach goes for the removal of negative gearing of investment costs against unrelated income.
 
MrBurns said:
If you want to know where it should start, watch this............all of it, I was ashamed.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/07/01/3791178.htm
Click to expand...
Thanks for putting that link up, Mr Burns. This is the sort of misery I was contrasting when criticising the Abbott PPL. I'd willingly give up franking credits to support people whose lives have fallen apart mostly through no fault of their own, and business leaders have made it clear they support more help for the unemployed, so if the 1.5% levy on business were to be diverted to the truly disadvantaged, that would be a huge step in the direction of a more fair society.

I won't be holding my breath, however. It seems so easy for those of us who are financially comfortable to just 'not see' those who are not.
 

I'd like Tony Abbott to see that show.
I really makes a lot of other expenditure look so trivial, we don't need it, but this we do need.

I sent the link to him via his web site, at least it makes me feel better.
 
Julia said:
You might have cause to reconsider this judgement after the election. I hope so.


Agree. It has now become a cliche, but this middle class welfare is just unnecessary and wasteful.
Click to expand...

Best to judge by what they're saying. The future may be different, maybe not. I'm preparing for the worste.

I just don't know how they will find the $30B or so to meet their current commitments, let alone the extra money for bring back the 30% rebate for all on health insurance.

We might be deemed worthy to find out on the 4th or 5th of September?
 
MrBurns said:
I'd like Tony Abbott to see that show.
I really makes a lot of other expenditure look so trivial, we don't need it, but this we do need.

I sent the link to him via his web site, at least it makes me feel better.
Click to expand...

That's where I think it's important to have people understand where they are on the income ladder.

If a political leader (rare as hens teeth me thinks) could say we are going to abolish $25B in current welfare (I'd say not too difficult), with an increase in welfare to the poorest 30%, while the rest will receive tax cuts, I'd seriously look at how they will be achieving this and probably give them my vote.

When the politicians say they feel the pain of pensioners finding it so difficult to make ends meet, but then turn their backs on the unemployed who had to make do with so much less, I say boils on their flabby butts so they have to get back out into the real world.

It's too easy to demonise the poor and unemployed for not sorting themselves out. For some that's probably true, but for a large majority they're where they are through circumstance. I remember some of the comments my family used to get with my dad on the dole. The judgement is quite hurtful. My dad wasn't lazy. he did whatever odd jobs he could find. the problem is much harder these days I think, because a lot of the lower end jobs are no longer here, they've been off shored.

Abbott and Rudd are both reasonably religious people, but neither of them seems to have much Christian charity in them. Jesus used to spend his time with the poor, the unclean, the outcasts of society. Seems there's no money or votes in that
 
MrBurns said:
If you want to know where it should start, watch this............all of it, I was ashamed.

http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/stories/2013/07/01/3791178.htm
Click to expand...

Thanks Mr Burns, that was certainly a very thought-provoking video.

I'm quite lost for words. While one of the interviewees mentioned that some people do choose to stay on income support, I feel for those who are not there by their own choice. It's not immediately obvious to me how these people have a viable chance at escaping this poverty cycle. The money provided (approx $35 a day) doesn't seem enough to allow them to find sustainable employment. These are decent people we are talking about, who just need something in life to turn in their favour.

Hopefully one day I'll have the means to do my bit to make this all better. Something along the lines of providing employment and/or training for vulnerable members of our community. Something which is sustainable in the long term...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...