The Great Reverse Government
- Thread starter Strannik
- Start date
Is this the Lib Bash thread? 
Just a reminder to all; it took 6 years for Labour to spend up to the biggest deficit in our history - after inheriting one of the bigger surpluses in history when they took office, riding on the back of the biggest mining boom we've ever had. What a f%ck up mob..
While you lot might slag off the Libs, just remember that they have only been in office 18 months - far too short a time period to turn the ship around - and are being blocked by the Senate at almost every turn, and with the mining revenue tanking continually throughout that time.
How about we pull our heads in until 4.5 more years have passed and let's look at the scoreboard then.
Short memories; Labour were a disgrace for 6 years and couldn't manage to even keep it to just 2 PM's for their duration. They were so inept they even bought back in a spectacular failure PM for a second crack.
Just a reminder to all; it took 6 years for Labour to spend up to the biggest deficit in our history - after inheriting one of the bigger surpluses in history when they took office, riding on the back of the biggest mining boom we've ever had. What a f%ck up mob..
While you lot might slag off the Libs, just remember that they have only been in office 18 months - far too short a time period to turn the ship around - and are being blocked by the Senate at almost every turn, and with the mining revenue tanking continually throughout that time.
How about we pull our heads in until 4.5 more years have passed and let's look at the scoreboard then.
Short memories; Labour were a disgrace for 6 years and couldn't manage to even keep it to just 2 PM's for their duration. They were so inept they even bought back in a spectacular failure PM for a second crack.
Last edited:
you should stop crying about senate. Tony could've called DD election long time ago. the fact he didn't adds another argument to the point that current libs shouldn't be anywhere near running the country, as they are simply lacking the skills to do it.
Is this the Lib Bash thread?
Just a reminder to all; it took 6 years for Labour to spend up to the biggest deficit in our history - after inheriting one of the bigger surpluses in history when they took office, riding on the back of the biggest mining boom we've ever had. What a f%ck up mob..
Just like our old mate Dazz you have forgotten about the GFC and the impact that had on government revenues. Check the revenue figures for 2008 and 2009, and compare the growth to the three or four years prior.
Even though they inherited a surplus, they also inherited unsustainable spending ideas from the Howard govt, like the govt paying 30% of your Private Health Insurance, un-means tested Family Tax Benefit etc. During the last half of the Howard government, spending grew year on year by 6%. SIX PERCENT!
I love how the Senate is a problem NOW, and it's an excuse NOW. Labor didn't have a majority in the senate either, and still managed to get legislation through. Sure, they didn't have to deal with Clive, but they had to deal with other rogue cross benchers. It's an excuse that you and Dazz and Weg and Aaron C (the rusted ons) would never have accepted from the previous government. (To your credit BV, you're still here. The others have gone VERY quiet.)
Tony has promised the world, and delivered and Atlas. And not even a good Atlas. His 18 months as PM have been marked by broken promises, gaffes, backflips, an inability to sell the budget and a spill motion backed by 40% of his party room.
Not a good start.
I am a "usually" Liberal votes ... that sways to independents from time to time in protest ...
Recently, every time Abbott opens his mouth, I just cringe in embarrassment for this country ... the current leadership comes across as not much more than a swinging doormat. This may be because he is unable to "explain" what is really going on - but I'd love to see a group in their with some balls.
The state NSW Liberal government has such and I'd like to see them stay ... but I hope the federal gives time to whomever takes over the reins (a certainty and I wish they'd hurry up) to settle before the next election ... because I fear Shorten will end up being even worse.
Recently, every time Abbott opens his mouth, I just cringe in embarrassment for this country ... the current leadership comes across as not much more than a swinging doormat. This may be because he is unable to "explain" what is really going on - but I'd love to see a group in their with some balls.
The state NSW Liberal government has such and I'd like to see them stay ... but I hope the federal gives time to whomever takes over the reins (a certainty and I wish they'd hurry up) to settle before the next election ... because I fear Shorten will end up being even worse.
In my view you should make an informal vote if you want to protest. The independents are ruining the country. Governments need a majority to govern and put in place their policies and then we can decide after 3 years whether we like it or not. Now they need to negotiate and amend everything to get the support of the independents and nothing ends up getting done. Same thing happened to Labor.
I'm not going to pretend to know a lot about politics.
I do pay attention more to the Australian than I do Canadian...the 'characters' are more entertaining here.
I like Tony Abbott and his team.
Too bad he couldn't actually govern the country, as it needs to be done.
He is stonewalled every time he wants to do anything.
You know why?...he is dealing with a population of spoiled brats.
So you will end up with the government and future financial problems you rightfully will deserve.
I love it when it is brought up about how families used to be able to buy a house or raise a family on one income. They won't concede that they refuse to live like we did back then. No mobile phones, one tv with no cable, one car, no restaurants, no elaborate vacations.The houses had one bathroom, 3 bedrooms, and was basic.
People retired at 65 and died usually 7-10 years later.
If their daughters got into 'trouble', the family took responsibility.
We didn't have disability pensions, for the flavor of the week conditions. All you hear about now is depression, stress, autism. Next it will be obesity, IMO.
Get rid of your ridiculous minimum wage levels. The market will determine the pay rate. All you need is a minimum wage overall. (personally, I don't think this is even required) Penalty rates, vacation,super rates are obscene.
Australia is nothing like USA when referring to their health and minimum wage.They have all sorts of welfare entitlements when low income.
Their country is headed for a world of hurt, when the next wave of foreclosures hit in 12-18 months (according to a recent TV show)
Maybe Australia should take a closer look at Canada.
We have a minimum wage that is livable. Our health care takes care of us.
We still have too much welfare for my liking.
I do pay attention more to the Australian than I do Canadian...the 'characters' are more entertaining here.
I like Tony Abbott and his team.
Too bad he couldn't actually govern the country, as it needs to be done.
He is stonewalled every time he wants to do anything.
You know why?...he is dealing with a population of spoiled brats.
So you will end up with the government and future financial problems you rightfully will deserve.
I love it when it is brought up about how families used to be able to buy a house or raise a family on one income. They won't concede that they refuse to live like we did back then. No mobile phones, one tv with no cable, one car, no restaurants, no elaborate vacations.The houses had one bathroom, 3 bedrooms, and was basic.
People retired at 65 and died usually 7-10 years later.
If their daughters got into 'trouble', the family took responsibility.
We didn't have disability pensions, for the flavor of the week conditions. All you hear about now is depression, stress, autism. Next it will be obesity, IMO.
Get rid of your ridiculous minimum wage levels. The market will determine the pay rate. All you need is a minimum wage overall. (personally, I don't think this is even required) Penalty rates, vacation,super rates are obscene.
Australia is nothing like USA when referring to their health and minimum wage.They have all sorts of welfare entitlements when low income.
Their country is headed for a world of hurt, when the next wave of foreclosures hit in 12-18 months (according to a recent TV show)
Maybe Australia should take a closer look at Canada.
We have a minimum wage that is livable. Our health care takes care of us.
We still have too much welfare for my liking.
probably is..dont know
How sad is that that, people stuff their face... not going there today
Kathryn and Angel, I understand why you vote Liberal. You come from a different point of view--"pull your boot straps up, stop whining, work and save". I get it. My parents think like that and they are Liberal voters. It is the same reason the bulk of middle class in the States votes Republican--they don't like bludgers; they think that anybody can make something of themselves. But take it from someone who has worked with pollies for the last 20 years or so--the Libs don't actually care about people like you or my parents. They don't care about people with 'some' money; they only care about people with 'lots' of money. And when I say 'lots' I mean the people with large networks of trusts, money in overseas tax havens--the really big boys. The people who are the movers and shakers, and the people who pull government strings. I was a Liberal voter until I started working with politicians. WHen I saw how things worked, I started voting Labor.
As a PR, I am not permitted to vote (my husband does though).
I honestly don't even care if the rich make more money. Good on them.
If corporations are going to keep jobs in the country, give them lots of tax breaks. Give them incentives to stay, or they simply won't.
Encourage business owners to hire employees.
I don't want the bludgers who did little to nothing during their life to have a larger government pension, than someone who sacrificed during their life.
What should happen, is everyone is entitled to the same pension/ benefits, and if you also saved more during your life, you have a more comfortable retirement.
So a millionaire gets an old age pension? That's the sort of thinking that got Australia into a mountain of debt in the first place.
Welfare is a safety net, for those who NEED it, not a bonus payment for reaching old age.
i think there's two sides to it
on one hand, if one has worked hard all his life, and managed to save up some money there is no reason he shouldn't be entitled to spend all his money on blow and hookers in one go and then get government pension, just like the bum next door to him, who never worked a day in his life.
on the other hand the system can't support everyone since we are living longer and longer.
making euthanasia legal should probably be part of the solution.
on one hand, if one has worked hard all his life, and managed to save up some money there is no reason he shouldn't be entitled to spend all his money on blow and hookers in one go and then get government pension, just like the bum next door to him, who never worked a day in his life.
on the other hand the system can't support everyone since we are living longer and longer.
making euthanasia legal should probably be part of the solution.
It comes back to the same old argument about who should get the support.
Do you give more support to those who are growing the economy, providing jobs, paying taxes...or do you give more support to those who are in need and not able/want to contribute for the greater good?
People with "some" money are able to help themselves and are mostly employees with decent jobs and regular work....they can sorta look after themselves; don't really need help.
But in the larger scheme they don't really contribute to the major volume of employment - as employers or entities which can make serious jumps in growing the economy, such as major manufacturers and mining etc..
Collectively, all small business owners might; so they should be given a lot of incentive, because they not only provide lots of employment, but they are also folks who are not dipping into the Gubb coffers of "help money".
It's a tough balancing act, but the danger in giving too much support to those who can't/won't contribute to the greater good is; you might tip the scales too far in favour of a system that makes it too easy -or even worse - encourages more folks to not contribute where they might have done so if they had less choice and less help.
For example; it was mentioned yesterday on ABC that the jobless figures had decreased...sounds great.
But, the next comment was that X amount of people had withdrawn from looking for work, so they are not counted in the figures.
Why have they withdrawn? Most likely because there are no jobs near them which they are qualified for...they have given up probably; and many cases thye might have worked out it is nearly as good financially for them to be on the dole than to go to work, pay for travel, pay for child care, pay for clothes etc.
This doesn't mean there is no work; there is work around, but it doesn't always suit everyone, and many folks don't want to move outside their selected industry or area where they live, etc.
To folks like the ones you describe above; for folks like me this falls into the category of "too bad; suck it up and find work - any work".
Obviously; this is simplistic, but in reality; if we had less help and less hand-outs; we would have no choice but to go out and find the work - it may require moving, or a longer commute, etc.
Failing that; we could always employ loads of unemployed folks in the public service - in its many different forms - work for the dole type programs, or even in the Army etc - not as cannon fodder, but as public servants helping to manage the day to day around the Country.
I can hear folks saying right now; "You can't make people do that!!"
Therein lies the problem; we are turning into a Nanny State, and Pollies are scared to hurt people's feelings and risk votes.
So, rather than upset the masses, they provide concessions to soothe and keep them quiet, and keep them voting - and set about working with the bigger players who are prepared to do stuff and keep the joint ticking over.
there is always a choice. another option would be to grab a knife and a balaclava and visit nearby convenience store.
Correct.
So then we would have a growing industry of employment - more prison builders, corrections officers and police.
Imagine that load on the Gubb coffers; all those prisoners we have to house and feed.
I disagree.
I've always been a lower-end average paid worker.
During conversations over my life time (I'm 54) people would always say how unfair they considered the pensions system.
Our Canadian system is similar to the Australian.
The average person saw no benefit to saving extra in their working years because it was clawed back from their government benefits.
The ones who chose to do nothing, would receive the basic pension, and then they received the 'supplemental' amount to top this up.
They would also receive other concessions.
It doesn't matter if the amount lost (clawed back) is a small amount compared to how much they could have by providing their own retirement. Many times it is about perception.
Most people just don't see the benefit.
What got Australia and Canada into debt, is trying to win votes.
Labor spent like crazy, from what I'm told.
Liberals are trying to pull in the reins, getting stonewalled at every turn.
No wonder they need to back track on all their suggestions.
If they can do nothing else, except keep the status quo, it is a hell of a lot better than allowing Labor back in for more reckless spending.
So their perception is the system is unfair, even though it isn't? That isn't a problem with the system, it's a problem with people's understanding of the system. A problem of the people, not the system.
The 'average person' would always be better off saving for their retirement, as the 'claw back' is never dollar for dollar, it's a small percentage. In most cases, the working poor are simply unable to save any meaningful amounts for their retirement, because they are concerned with paying the mortgage and other bills now.
It's not a matter of 'choosing to do nothing'.
IMO if you've been able to save for retirement, had a good job, worked hard and retired without a pension, you're miles ahead of someone solely reliant on the old age pension.
We are too worried as a society about what others are getting, and why aren't I getting that too.
Well, depends who does the telling. Go and see who introduced paying 30% for everyone's health insurance, and 50% for everyone's child care, and Family Tax Benefit Part B for stay at home spouses, regardless of what their spouse earned.
Don't believe everything you are told!
Similar threads
