Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[hammertime]

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.

Our unemployment rate is 4.9%. Hardly needs a shot in the arm, otherwise you just trigger wage inflation. Plus, the RBA has plenty of room to move with interest rates!

The difference between Labor and the Libs is that the libs didn't do a handout every bloody budget! Tax decreases are about reducing the size of government, creating a motivation to work and usually trickles to everyone! Multiple means tested cash handouts IS vote buying!!!!

Retail doesn't need another shot in the arm. It needs to slowly deflate. It's too bloated right now and will shrink as the net becomes more prominent.

We need people to have more kids, no doubt about that. But for god sake, let's focus money on the real issues of getting mums out and back into work and helping with child care. Make our economy productive, not just throw cash around.

Labor need to gain respect for other peoples money.

 

[Winnipeg]

The difference between Labor and the Libs is that the libs didn't do a handout every bloody budget! Tax decreases are about reducing the size of government, creating a motivation to work and usually trickles to everyone! Multiple means tested cash handouts IS vote buying!!!!

http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/1973-the-abbott-fact-check-other-matters

'The tax to GDP ratio of the first 5 Labor Budgets averaged 21.1%. The lowest ever tax to GDP recorded under the Howard government was 22.2% and the average was 23.4%. The last time a Coalition Government delivered a tax to GDP ratio below 21.1% was in 1979-80.'

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

Our unemployment rate is 4.9%. Hardly needs a shot in the arm, otherwise you just trigger wage inflation. Plus, the RBA has plenty of room to move with interest rates!

Whilst the RBA has room, monetary policy is slow with its transmission mechanism. The inflation number has dropped significantly so a slowdown in the economy is occurring now and in my opinion, given that mortgage rates are only marginally below their long term averages, interest rates have been held too high for too long. Another 50-75bps need to come off (implies 40-60bps cuts in mortgage rates).

I would be hesitant on using yesterday's employment number to counter claim a slowdown is occurring as it is a volatile monthly number. Treasury predicts unemployment to rise over the next two years to 5.5% so the predicted growth rate of 3.25% won't be able to keep a lid on the unemployment level. RBA quarterly statement also stated that growth will be below trend, hence the cut in rates.

The difference between Labor and the Libs is that the libs didn't do a handout every bloody budget! Tax decreases are about reducing the size of government, creating a motivation to work and usually trickles to everyone! Multiple means tested cash handouts IS vote buying!!!!

Labor need to gain respect for other peoples money.

Sorry, but this is just rhetoric with no economic foundation. "Labor need to gain respect for other people's money…" please, are you a parent of politicians or something? Ridiculous claim.

 

[Yossarian]

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.

As per usual you put 2 and 2 together to get 5… You were talking about the superannuation tax rate for people earning over 500k and now you present my comment out of that context. The ALP believes in providing assistance to those who need it and placing the appropriate taxation burden on those who can afford it. Wealth redistribution is not exactly an ALP invention. The Liberals are even into it.

I will grant you this - when Gillard made that comment my first thought was "He lives on the Northern Beaches not the North Shore!" but she's from Victoria...

Btw nice dog whistle on the "real family" line. Of course nobody without children is qualified to be a leader in this country...

 

[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.

Our unemployment rate is 4.9%. Hardly needs a shot in the arm, otherwise you just trigger wage inflation. Plus, the RBA has plenty of room to move with interest rates!

The difference between Labor and the Libs is that the libs didn't do a handout every bloody budget! **Tax decreases are about reducing the size of government, creating a motivation to work and usually trickles to everyone!**

Supply side economics? Trickle down effect? Didn't work for Ronnie Reagan, didn't work here.
Motivation to work indeed. I can almost imagine the hordes leaping of their couches at the prospect of an extra $5 a week.

Inflation is down. As you point out unemployment is low. Interest rates are low. The budget in surplus. You lot could whinge at the Olympics…

 

[hammertime]

Wow. Some Laborites on here this morning!

Yoss - Anyone can get employment down my throwing a tonne of money into the system. Yes, the budget is in surplus, but that's only a first step, it would currently it would take 100 years to pay back the debt that has been incurred and when we do have to do it through higher taxes, it will impact employment.

Gary - the fact Labor has wasted money is not retoric. Dodgy insulators & fixes, over paid school halls, a inneficient NBN structure with no proper scrutiny (which is off balance sheet - hense why swan can pull a surplus), Multiple Cash handouts to dead people, prisoners and overseas partial pension recipients. Do I need to list more? Can you provide that many examples over Howards term (which currently is double of Labors)?

Yes, the tax to GDP was higher and they kept working to lower it by reducing our interest burden from the billions in debt…. plus the ComSuper off balance sheet debt labor had left!! That allowed them to reduce the taxes to the levels Labor inherited. Look at trends, not averages.

 

[Yossarian]

Wow. Some Laborites on here this morning!

Yoss - Anyone can get employment down my throwing a tonne of money into the system. Yes, the budget is in surplus, but that's only a first step, it would currently it would take 100 years to pay back the debt that has been incurred and when we do have to do it through higher taxes, it will impact employment.

Well this man was a massive contributor to that. $9.6 billion in 1983 alone.


 

[happy_tiger]

Wow. Some Laborites on here this morning!

Yoss - Anyone can get employment down my throwing a tonne of money into the system. Yes, the budget is in surplus, but that's only a first step, it would currently it would take 100 years to pay back the debt that has been incurred and when we do have to do it through higher taxes, it will impact employment.

Gary - the fact Labor has wasted money is not retoric. Dodgy insulators & fixes, over paid school halls, a inneficient NBN structure with no proper scrutiny (which is off balance sheet - hense why swan can pull a surplus), Multiple Cash handouts to dead people, prisoners and overseas partial pension recipients. Do I need to list more? Can you provide that many examples over Howards term (which currently is double of Labors)?

Yes, the tax to GDP was higher and they kept working to lower it by reducing our interest burden from the billions in debt…. plus the ComSuper off balance sheet debt labor had left!! That allowed them to reduce the taxes to the levels Labor inherited. Look at trends, not averages.

Don't worry Hammer They will be close to the only 3 that vote for Labour at election time

Hope the 3 aren't all in the same electorate :laughing:

 

[Glen_McWilliams]


Looks like he is considering a tactical spew so he can finish the rest of his vodka and lemonade to save face with the lads.

 

[Cultured_Bogan]


Looks like he is considering a tactical spew so he can finish the rest of his vodka and lemonade to save face with the lads.

:roll

I vote this for best post of the year. You have no idea how hard I'm laughing right now.

 

[Glen_McWilliams]

The thread needed to lighten up a bit. Happy to oblige.

 

[Gary_Bakerloo]

Gary - the fact Labor has wasted money is not retoric. Dodgy insulators & fixes, over paid school halls, a inneficient NBN structure with no proper scrutiny (which is off balance sheet - hense why swan can pull a surplus), Multiple Cash handouts to dead people, prisoners and overseas partial pension recipients. Do I need to list more? Can you provide that many examples over Howards term (which currently is double of Labors)?

This is your standard response every time and it is generalising based on experience of a very small minority. I could do the same with Howard on Baby Bonuses and other welfare handed out to the middle class as vote buyers (we should have had marginally bigger surpluses) but it is all at the edges and irrelevant. All governments have some level of leakage and waste - they key item to discuss is overall economic path being plotted.

Now I am not in the surplus 2012/13 camp, I would have much preferred to see a reduced deficit for 2012/13 and then see a surplus. When you dive into the department details, there are some pretty big cuts, particularly in health. Abbott and Hockey are thumping their chests claiming they can make more cuts, but when you look at the budget numbers, they will get shock as there will not be much more to cut without some significant impact on social and economic welfare. Hence Abbott can't state yet what he will cut….

Yoss - Anyone can get employment down my throwing a tonne of money into the system. Yes, the budget is in surplus, but that's only a first step, it would currently it would take 100 years to pay back the debt that has been incurred and when we do have to do it through higher taxes, it will impact employment.

So would your argument be to pay down all debt?

 

[Yossarian]


Looks like he is considering a tactical spew so he can finish the rest of his vodka and lemonade to save face with the lads.

:roll

I vote this for best post of the year. You have no idea how hard I'm laughing right now.

Agreed. It cracked me up big time. Tactical spew! I'm still laughing :roll

 

[stryker]

Btw nice dog whistle on the "real family" line. Of course nobody without children is qualified to be a leader in this country…

Lol. You claimed I took you out of context, which I didnt and then you turned around and did the same thing!

You claimed that the term 'class warfare' is overused thus eluding to the fact that you dont think it happens. I claimed that it certainly does exist, especially with Labor governments and as some in the media describe this budget as a 'robin hood budget' that further convinces me. Labor think that a family bringing in $150K a year is rich. This is rubbish. Sure some of them are on great coin, but for others that may mean working 3 jobs, or doing a combined 60 hours overtime a week. These people arent rich….they are hard workers who deserve the spoils of their labour. These same people are the ones that always pay for the unmotivated and the lazy. I have nothing against the disability pension or welfare for pensioners.

Now for your hypocracy...I did not say that those without children are not qualified to lead this country. Gillard claimed that Abbot needed to get out into the community and learn about real Australian families. Despite the fact that he has one, he also gets out into the community and talks to people from all different backgrounds - constantly. She does not. In fact the last time I saw her out in public talking to people was in a shopping mall last election where she was hit with some hard questions that she walked away from. So all this put together vindicates my question of what she does know about 'real families' that Abbot doesnt? My answer is she doesnt know any more. She sees these families as Labor voters and is trying to get them onside by depicting her opposition as a rich snob. This may have succeeded a few years ago but not now. People are waking up and are taking the time to wade through her bullcrap to see what is actually happening.

Her attempts at portraying herself as an everyday joe, whilst portraying Abbott and co. as high faluting upper class members who only care about big business is so transparent it is hillarious.

 

[Yossarian]

Did anyone from the government really say they were rich? I would have thought the 3k a week gross pay packet was the spoils of their labour. Seriously suggesting someone who works 60 hour weeks as a cleaner is "unmotivated and lazy" is just crazy. Wages aren't always an indicator of how hard someone works.

The whole idea is to ensure that government assistance is given to those who can afford it. Giving the same help to someone on 50k as opposed to someone on 150k makes no sense.

It seemed to me your real families jibe was a reference to Gillard not having children but you say that's not how you meant it. In that spirit I apologise for the inference. But to question her toughness or resolve to answer tough questions is a bit much. For all her faults she's pretty tough to get where she's got to today.

Maybe if Abbott and co spent less time hanging around with Clive Palmer and Triggy Forrest they might have less of an issue with being linked to them.

 

[stryker]

In no way am I inferring that someone who works 60 hours a week as a cleaner or anything else is lazy. I am obviously referring to the thousands of bludgers who do bugger all and always seem to be looked after. Those cleaners, as per your example, deserve a helping hand and I do not begrudge them that as they are having a red hot go and are contributing.

I dont care whether Gillard has children. I am not having a go about this…I dont have any either. I am also not questioning the PM's toughness. She has a hide like an elephant and is obviously a very strong person. I do object to her trying to pull the wool over voters eyes by declaring that only her party care about low to middle wage earners. This is incorrect and to me it is a desperate attempt to inflame an us v them mentality....ala the percieved class wars.

 

[hammertime]

Wow. Some Laborites on here this morning!

Yoss - Anyone can get employment down my throwing a tonne of money into the system. Yes, the budget is in surplus, but that's only a first step, it would currently it would take 100 years to pay back the debt that has been incurred and when we do have to do it through higher taxes, it will impact employment.

Gary - the fact Labor has wasted money is not retoric. Dodgy insulators & fixes, over paid school halls, a inneficient NBN structure with no proper scrutiny (which is off balance sheet - hense why swan can pull a surplus), Multiple Cash handouts to dead people, prisoners and overseas partial pension recipients. Do I need to list more? Can you provide that many examples over Howards term (which currently is double of Labors)?

Yes, the tax to GDP was higher and they kept working to lower it by reducing our interest burden from the billions in debt…. plus the ComSuper off balance sheet debt labor had left!! That allowed them to reduce the taxes to the levels Labor inherited. Look at trends, not averages.

Don't worry Hammer They will be close to the only 3 that vote for Labour at election time

Hope the 3 aren't all in the same electorate :laughing:

Haha, let's hope happy.

It's amazing to see that even after all the scandals, lies, backroom deals, bad policy and wasted billions that some people here can still be bought out with a cash handout.

….that should really fire them up :laughing:

 

[Knuckles]

I wonder how the Craig Thomson saga will play out ? He told Laurie Oakes on Ch 9 it was all a big set up to ruin his career. I think he speaks before the parliament in a week or so's time … Wonder if the Independants will pull up stumps ?

 

[Balmain_Bobby]

Craig Thomson, will be protected under parliamentry privelidge, and by the ranga. Questions over her dealings when a union lawyer, and the purchase of a house and the loans for such, have never been thouroughly scrutinised.
Thompson may be telling the truth, your dealing with Union Bosses, where this type of behaviour is more the norm than you would think. In fighting in Unions and the LP are legendary.
Don't think for one moment that the LNP is any different. They have slush funds at their command to ruin people, as Abbott did to Pauline Hanson in having her sent to gaol on a false premise. Most of what they do though is undercover and rarely does the fit hit the shan.
All politicians may enter politics with the best intentions, but rarely do they come away not needing a gallon of disinfectant and soap to clean of the stains of party politics.

If I was an Ombudsmen, I'd be taking a very serious look at why Bob Browne took the long walk, more to this than meets the eye.

 

[BenjiMagic96]

I wish Tony Aboot played 1/2 for us maybe he is the man that can help us