Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[Glen_McWilliams]

The "Schoolkids Bonus" was passed in the House of Reps last night. During debate Mr Abbott argued against the $410 per child (up to $820 per householed) as it doesn't necessarily have to be spent on school fees or education needs and could be squandered. Jenny Macklin retorted "How is that any different to the Baby Bonus?"
Mr Abbott replies "It just is".

Bravo.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

The "Schoolkids Bonus" was passed in the House of Reps last night. During debate Mr Abbott argued against the $410 per child (up to $820 per householed) as it doesn't necessarily have to be spent on school fees or education needs and could be squandered. Jenny Macklin retorted "How is that any different to the Baby Bonus?"
Mr Abbott replies "It just is".

Bravo.

He's a wordsmith, that Abbott.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

You really do buy into Gillards class warfare dont you? Self funded retirees should be congratulated - they never have their hand out. Why punish them?

Good grief… Class welfare would have to be the most abused term in Australian politics outside of UnAustralian.. Try to put a sensible limit of people who can afford to fund things themselves and out it comes...

It's got nada to do with that, it's about the government spending money on people who need it. The reason they don't have their hand out is because they don't need to. They earn 300k a year. Welfare is for people who require assistance. By its general nature it has a class basis. People on 300k+ a year aren't being punished, they earn $6000 a week before tax. If that's punishment I'll take some of that...

To be against supporting those people in our country who are most disadvantaged , is Un-Australian .

I got nothing from the budget
-no income tax cut
-my company missed out on a company tax cut
- I will be duely compensated for any financial effect the price carbon has on me
- I have no kids yet .

That's about all I'm aware of now

But I'm extremely happy with the budget , they have spent what we can afford , and given help to those most In need , whilst keeping emphasis on strengthening the economy .

I'm most happy about the welfare increases , this is despite the fact my parents are self funded retires , I don't have any family members or friends who are disabled . Basicly I'm trying to say I don't benefit directly or indirectly from welfare spending , but I'm very proud of it because :

I dont want to live in a country which allows people like myself to prosper at the expense of people from disadvantaged situations .

Take away welfare and you get a country like America , where 15% of the population live in poverty and crime is out of Control.
\
\
_Posted using RoarFEED 2012_

Have to say I agree Rambo. I, like you, really won't get anything from the budget but I do think that the average voter is extremely selfish and doesn't look at the bigger picture.

I would like to think that any increase in welfare for the disabled or pensioners is applauded by anyone, as God forbid any of us ever end up in the situation where we may have to draw a disability pension, I'd like to know I'd be looked after while I get my life back together.

As long as it doesn't significantly degrade my standard of living I'm happy. If it does, then maybe I need to reassess how badly I need the luxuries I have in life or get a better paying job!

 

[happy_tiger]

CB I wouldn't mind if the $820 was going somewhere that will help the disadvantaged ,homeless ,carers or pensioners

But it doesn't It is going to get the country out of budget deficit

Which really just means "We are using this money to help us get re elected" if that is remotely possible

Stuff the people that really need it

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

The "Schoolkids Bonus" was passed in the House of Reps last night. During debate Mr Abbott argued against the $410 per child (up to $820 per householed) as it doesn't necessarily have to be spent on school fees or education needs and could be squandered. Jenny Macklin retorted "How is that any different to the Baby Bonus?"
Mr Abbott replies "It just is".

Bravo.

It is a handout….who cares. Our retail sector needs a shot in the arm and interest rates are too slow to have an impact.

Whilst it is generalising, families with children in school have lower savings ratios than those that don't. Therefore, these handouts should go straight back into the economy rather than sit in savings accounts/mortgages. Even if it does sit in savings accounts, these families will have increasing propensity to spend in future months.

The economy needs to achieve GDP growth of greater than 3% pa to reduce unemployment. I think the massive turnaround is ridiculous and this infatuation with a surplus economically irrational given current conditions. Would have much preferred to see a $10-$15b deficit for 2012/13 and a surplus in 2013/14 with GDP growth projected to be 3.5% rather than sucking out $30b in 2012/13 and projecting a fragile 3% GDP.

 

[happy_tiger]

The "Schoolkids Bonus" was passed in the House of Reps last night. During debate Mr Abbott argued against the $410 per child (up to $820 per householed) as it doesn't necessarily have to be spent on school fees or education needs and could be squandered. Jenny Macklin retorted "How is that any different to the Baby Bonus?"
Mr Abbott replies "It just is".

Bravo.

It is a handout….who cares. Our retail sector needs a shot in the arm and interest rates are too slow to have an impact.

Whilst it is generalising, families with children in school have lower savings ratios than those that don't. Therefore, these handouts should go straight back into the economy rather than sit in savings accounts/mortgages. Even if it does sit in savings accounts, these families will have increasing propensity to spend in future months.

The economy needs to achieve GDP growth of greater than 3% pa to reduce unemployment. I think the massive turnaround is ridiculous and this infatuation with a surplus economically irrational given current conditions. Would have much preferred to see a $10-$15b deficit for 2012/13 and a surplus in 2013/14 with GDP growth projected to be 3.5% rather than sucking out $30b in 2012/13 and projecting a fragile 3% GDP.

But it is only a hand out to replace another hand out Gary If you kept your receipts for external school devices (computers etc) you could claim these back anyway with no income limits

Typical bloody Labor change the name on a policy and rehash it

So much for Labor being concerned about the workers ,the only workers the Labor Party are concerned about is their own jobs

 

[Winnipeg]

No.1, drop the condescending tone. I know how it works. He is the figurehead and thats why I named him.

No.2, This budget has nothing to do with economics. It is all about perception in the media and happily, the Australian public is not as stupid as Labor would hope. Your answer smacks of the obvious contempt that Labor shows every project they are ever involved with. What a soft excuse you have come up with there.

Labors last budget predicted just a tad over 22 Billion dollars deficit. What they have ended up with is 44 Billion dollars plus….and the year has not even finished yet. They will try and rush through the handouts this year so as to make the ludicrous prediction of surplus a reality. They are all style and no substance.

I'm sorry if I came across as condescending, it wasn't meant to be that way. The point is that treasury figures are independent from whoever is in power, Swan isn't to blame any more than Treasurer Hockey would be if he were in power and the numbers came out wrong. A lot of people try to claim that those figures equate to Labor being bad at numbers or that what they say can't be trusted.

You might be surprised to hear it, but I pretty much agree with you on point 2\. Of course it's a political budget. Labor promised a surplus and in the current political climate can't be seen to be breaking any more promises. The thing is, every budget is about buying votes. Why did Peter Costello cut taxes while the RBA was raising interest rates? Because he thought it would be popular with the electorate.

I'm not here to be a cheerleader for the government, I don't think they're a particularly good government, but I think they claims by people like Joe Hockey that the economy has been fundamentally mismanaged are just wrong.

regardless politicians are all the same, it looks like this govt will be gone before long and I hope you're not surprised when the budget trickery and dirty political games continue

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Cb I wouldn't mind if the $820 was going somewhere that will help the disadvantaged ,homeless ,carers or pensioners

But it doesn't It is going to get the country out of budget deficit

Which really just means "We are using this money to help us get re elected" if that is remotely possible

Stuff the people that really need it

Yes, and you don't think that the Libs never did that via tax cuts, baby bonuses etc Happy?

Hopefully these handouts will be put back into the economy and serve their intended purpose. A lot of families are feeling the crunch at the moment and it won't matter whether it goes on schoolbooks, shoes or even to top up the weekly grocery bill. A stagnant economy is far more dangerous than a budget deficit at this point in time.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

But it is only a hand out to replace another hand out Gary If you kept your receipts for external school devices (computers etc) you could claim these back anyway with no income limits

Yes, but the speed is different. The handout is received immediately rather than waiting for people to do their tax.

So much for Labor being concerned about the workers ,the only workers the Labor Party are concerned about is their own jobs

Try to list politicians that don't care for their own jobs. You will find it is non-existent.

 

[Yossarian]

The "Schoolkids Bonus" was passed in the House of Reps last night. During debate Mr Abbott argued against the $410 per child (up to $820 per householed) as it doesn't necessarily have to be spent on school fees or education needs and could be squandered. Jenny Macklin retorted "How is that any different to the Baby Bonus?"
Mr Abbott replies "It just is".

Bravo.

It is a handout….who cares. Our retail sector needs a shot in the arm and interest rates are too slow to have an impact.

Whilst it is generalising, families with children in school have lower savings ratios than those that don't. Therefore, these handouts should go straight back into the economy rather than sit in savings accounts/mortgages. Even if it does sit in savings accounts, these families will have increasing propensity to spend in future months.

The economy needs to achieve GDP growth of greater than 3% pa to reduce unemployment. I think the massive turnaround is ridiculous and this infatuation with a surplus economically irrational given current conditions. Would have much preferred to see a $10-$15b deficit for 2012/13 and a surplus in 2013/14 with GDP growth projected to be 3.5% rather than sucking out $30b in 2012/13 and projecting a fragile 3% GDP.

I would have thought that 3% GDP growth was a pretty good result, all things considered, with reasonably low inflation.

 

[happy_tiger]

Cb I wouldn't mind if the $820 was going somewhere that will help the disadvantaged ,homeless ,carers or pensioners

But it doesn't It is going to get the country out of budget deficit

Which really just means "We are using this money to help us get re elected" if that is remotely possible

Stuff the people that really need it

Yes, and you don't think that the Libs never did that via tax cuts, baby bonuses etc Happy?

Hopefully these handouts will be put back into the economy and serve their intended purpose. A lot of families are feeling the crunch at the moment and it won't matter whether it goes on schoolbooks, shoes or even to top up the weekly grocery bill. A stagnant economy is far more dangerous than a budget deficit at this point in time.

CB but the Liberals (well Peter Costello) did stand their at every press conference like Swan and shove it down our throats . Why ,because this is Labors only hope (barring an Abbott brainsnap) of getting re elected

If they fail and can't deliver on their promises (yet again) they are well and truly buggered

This isn't for the good of the country ,never has been never will be

It is for the good of the Labor Party

Costello has always cared about the genuine wealth of the nation He still does now

And you brought up the baby bonus ,many industries can't survive in this country because of the lack of population We should never started or tried to maintain the car industry for as long as we have ,textiles you name it Half of our problems are from lack of population

 

[Yossarian]

Come on Happy you're amongst friends now… I grant you Costello was very interested in maintaining a strong economy and he did a pretty good job on that front but his number 1 priority was to win elections. He had plenty of chances to spend big on infrastructure and chose tax cuts. And yep Swan does the same thing and I find that frustrating too...

Also if you can find a stat that proves a genuine link between the baby bonus and an increased population I'd like to read it. If the few grand you get from it is the tipping point for you to start a family, you really need to check your priorities. As someone noted above the beauty of the BB and the school things is that it looks like you're great guys for giving out the cash and it also has a stimulatory effect.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

I would have thought that 3% GDP growth was a pretty good result, all things considered, with reasonably low inflation.

Good result, but that level will see unemployment rise, which will further hit the bottom line.

In addition, I am not one for criticising Treasury's predictions, but given we are currently at 2.8% and this budget will suck out $30b from the economy, 3% could be ambitious. I understand rate cuts have been included, but given the slow mechanism of monetary policy, even allowing for cuts in interest rates makes it, in my opinion, a fragile 3%.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Cb I wouldn't mind if the $820 was going somewhere that will help the disadvantaged ,homeless ,carers or pensioners

But it doesn't It is going to get the country out of budget deficit

Which really just means "We are using this money to help us get re elected" if that is remotely possible

Stuff the people that really need it

Yes, and you don't think that the Libs never did that via tax cuts, baby bonuses etc Happy?

Hopefully these handouts will be put back into the economy and serve their intended purpose. A lot of families are feeling the crunch at the moment and it won't matter whether it goes on schoolbooks, shoes or even to top up the weekly grocery bill. A stagnant economy is far more dangerous than a budget deficit at this point in time.

CB but the Liberals (well Peter Costello) did stand their at every press conference like Swan and shove it down our throats . Why ,because this is Labors only hope (barring an Abbott brainsnap) of getting re elected

If they fail and can't deliver on their promises (yet again) they are well and truly buggered

This isn't for the good of the country ,never has been never will be

It is for the good of the Labor Party

Costello has always cared about the genuine wealth of the nation He still does now

And you brought up the baby bonus ,many industries can't survive in this country because of the lack of population We should never started or tried to maintain the car industry for as long as we have ,textiles you name it Half of our problems are from lack of population

Find me a politician who isn't in it for themselves, and a lesser extent, their mates in their party?

In all seriousness, what's $5000 going to do for new parents these days? It costs over $300K to raise a child, however I would be interested to see that statistic for single teenage mothers before and after the introduction of the baby bonus.

 

[Yossarian]

I would have thought that 3% GDP growth was a pretty good result, all things considered, with reasonably low inflation.

Good result, but that level will see unemployment rise, which will further hit the bottom line.

In addition, I am not one for criticising Treasury's predictions, but given we are currently at 2.8% and this budget will suck out $30b from the economy, 3% could be ambitious. I understand rate cuts have been included, but given the slow mechanism of monetary policy, even allowing for cuts in interest rates makes it, in my opinion, a fragile 3%.

Fair enough. Although some of that $30B was on things like foreign aid that will have a pretty minor if any impact on the domestic economy.

 

[happy_tiger]

Come on Happy you're amongst friends now… I grant you Costello was very interested in maintaining a strong economy and he did a pretty good job on that front but his number 1 priority was to win elections. He had plenty of chances to spend big on infrastructure and chose tax cuts. And yep Swan does the same thing and I find that frustrating too...

Also if you can find a stat that proves a genuine link between the baby bonus and an increased population I'd like to read it. If the few grand you get from it is the tipping point for you to start a family, you really need to check your priorities. As someone noted above the beauty of the BB and the school things is that it looks like you're great guys for giving out the cash and it also has a stimulatory effect.

So you disagree that many of our industries flounder due to lack of population Yoss ??

 

[Yossarian]

Come on Happy you're amongst friends now… I grant you Costello was very interested in maintaining a strong economy and he did a pretty good job on that front but his number 1 priority was to win elections. He had plenty of chances to spend big on infrastructure and chose tax cuts. And yep Swan does the same thing and I find that frustrating too...

Also if you can find a stat that proves a genuine link between the baby bonus and an increased population I'd like to read it. If the few grand you get from it is the tipping point for you to start a family, you really need to check your priorities. As someone noted above the beauty of the BB and the school things is that it looks like you're great guys for giving out the cash and it also has a stimulatory effect.

So you disagree that many of our industries flounder due to lack of population Yoss ??

Not what I said…

 

[Knuckles]

Wonder what sort of a Treasurer Joe Hockey would make ?

 

[stryker]

You will find out soon knuckles. These morons are well on their way to an historic defeat.

 

[stryker]

Good grief… Class welfare would have to be the most abused term in Australian politics outside of UnAustralian.. Try to put a sensible limit of people who can afford to fund things themselves and out it comes...

:laughing: Rubbish!

This is Labors main weapon. Problem is only their one eyed supporters believe it isnt. Everyone else sees right through them. Only yesterday the PM claimed Abbott needed to leave the North Shore (where apparently he doesn't even live…), to get out into the community and meet 'real families' :laughing:

What on earth would she know about 'real families' that Abbott doesnt know? He is a part of a 'real family' and is constantly out in the community talking to people. Labor believes that their target constituents are those in the low economic bracket. How cliche is that? This budget was aimed squarely at these people. Too bad most of them have turned their backs on this party as well.