As it's more than 100 days now, it has been suggested that a new thread was needed. The current govt has been breaking promises and telling lies at a rate so fast it's hard to keep up.
This below is worrying, "independent" pffft, as if your own doctor is somehow what? biased, it's ridiculous. So far there is talk of only including people under a certain age 30-35, for now. Remember that if your injured in a car, injured at work or get ill, you too might need to go on the DSP. They have done a similar think in the UK with devastating consequences.
and this is the 2nd time recently where the Govt has referred to work as welfare???? So when you go to work tomorrow (or tuesday), just remember that's welfare.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-20/disability-pensioners-may-be-reassessed-kevin-andrews/5400598
Independent doctors could be called in to reassess disability pensioners, Federal Government says
The Federal Government is considering using independent doctors to examine disability pensioners and assess whether they should continue to receive payments.
Currently family doctors provide reports supporting claims for the Disability Support Pension (DSP).
But Social Services Minister Kevin Andrews is considering a measure that would see independent doctors reassess eligibility.
"We are concerned that where people can work, the best form of welfare is work," Mr Andrews said at a press conference.
for someone who uses a red and blue animal to somehow advertise that they unlike most are impartial i have yet to see any impartiality ever....how about an expose on the other murdoch rags front page lie the other day, now that would be something to see from the impartial (smirk) one.....you can post to your hearts content from the murdoch press, less and less people are swallowing the lies but never mind, oh well.
There is no reason a government shouldnโt increase its debt if it has unemployed labour resources, growing unemployment, an absence of inflation and inflationary expectations, record low interest rates and โ given wise governance โ opportunities for investment where the social and economic return on the investment is higher than the cost of capital.
Debt is not a burden where it finances fruitful investment. Christians of the Catholic variety are well represented in the Abbott ministry. Even if they haven't a feel for economics, they should be able to apply Christs parable of the talents, where three servants were given money to invest by their master. The servant who buried his money for safekeeping had it taken away and he was cast into the outer darkness.
The people cast into the outer darkness by this and future budgets planned by the Abbott government are those dependent on welfare. The impact of the budget on the victims is not only wicked but wasteful in that this budget is a brake on, rather than a boost to, the most vulnerable achieving their full economic potential.
This is not surprising. Over the six years of the Rudd/Gillard government the Coalition banged on about the increase in the burden of debt ($241 billion), in contrast to the 11 years of debt reduction ($140 billion) under the Howard government. Never mentioned in these diatribes was where the economy was in the business cycle, that the prime purpose of budgetary policy is to balance the economy (as distinct from the budget) in order to iron out potential destabilising booms and busts.
Prudent budgetary policy during the Howard years was to cut net spending. Also, some $80 billion of the debt reduction was a result of a massive privatisation program. These sales were offset by the fall in Commonwealth net worth. The reduction in public debt was offset by increased private debt to finance the privatisation purchases. The macro-economic impact was zero.
The Rudd/Gillard period coincided with the downswing in the business cycle precipitated by the global financial crisis โ the worst recession since the 1930s Great Depression. It was necessary to pump up domestic demand to offset the collapse in private demand.
Without the net $40 billion a year pumped into the income-expenditure stream by the willingness of the Rudd/Gillard government to finance the spending by increasing debt, Australia would have experienced slower growth, higher unemployment and possibly recession, despite the boost to the economy from the mining boom generated by the Chinese export boom.
In terms of the impact on growth, inflation and employment, it is not the size of the budget surplus/deficit but the change in the budget surplus/deficit compared with the previous year that measures the inflationary/deflationary impact on the rest of the economy.
Oh bliss, a C&P with graphs, and from the ABC Fact Check.
Joe Hockey correct on Australia's debt, spending
"Of the 17 top surveyed IMF countries, Labor left us with the fastest growth in spending of anyone in the world... and they left us with the third highest growth in debt of anyone in the top 17,"
"So, the fact of the matter is they've left a whole lot of landmines in the budget. We need to carefully remove those landmines and put us back on a path that gets us away from $123 billion of deficit, and starts to pay down the logjam of $667 billion of debt."
ABC Fact Check investigates Mr Hockey's claims about Australia's level of spending and debt.
The first graph, titled 'Change in Real Expenditure', supports Mr Hockey's claim that Australia's spending rate is the highest among the 17 nations surveyed
The second IMF graph, titled 'Change in Net Debt', is the basis of the Treasurer's other claim - that growth in Australia's net debt is the third highest among the 17 nations surveyed. On this point, he's also correct.
The verdict
Mr Hockey's claims about Australia's forecast levels of debt and deficits may be "pessimistic", but they are consistent with Treasury modelling.
His comments on growth in spending and debt compared to the 17 nations surveyed by the IMF check out..
This C&P is fun.
A quick outside of others comments and C&P: Why do you think it costs more (10 yr bond rate interest) for Australia to raise money on the international market (3.77%) than for instance the UK (2.65%), when their debt to GDP is far higher than ours?
nษฅยบษพ
Am, an advertising campaign? seriously even with the murdoch empire behind them they still can't sell the unsellable.
@boris1gary wrote:Am, an advertising campaign? seriously even with the murdoch empire behind them they still can't sell the unsellable.
Smells of desperation.
