on โ20-04-2014 10:21 PM
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.
on โ14-05-2015 12:55 PM
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-28/labor-blocking-five-billion-of-own-savings-measures/5684750
If you read the whole article-
I did indeed read the article T2844. As with any paper, the conclusion always sums up what has preceded and addresses the initial proposition/introduction which in this case was:
Fact check: Labor blocking $5 billion of its own savings measures
Which resulted in:
The verdict
While Labor says it has good reason for blocking the legislation, each of the three areas had been identified by it as an appropriate way to find savings, regardless of how the savings would be applied.
In any event, Senator Cormann is not making a claim about why Labor is blocking legislative changes that it proposed first, only that it is.
The measures that Labor is opposing would save the budget more than $5 billion.
Senator Cormann is correct.
That is: correct !
on โ14-05-2015 01:26 PM
Gosh, I expect the Kudos tag team swapping, but now 2 posts both with the same URL, both for the same article, both sans any comments !
Excerpt 1 yesterday
accelerated depreciation tax deduction for small business
But the newly ebullient Treasurer has conceded one of his budget's key stimulus measures, the accelerated depreciation tax deduction for small business, has had to be funded out of general revenue despite earlier stipulating that all new spending would be offset by new and equivalent savings.
Excerpt 2 today
Federal budget 2015: Joe Hockey's growth message is spend, spend, spend
But the newly ebullient Treasurer has conceded one of his budget's key stimulus measures, the accelerated depreciation tax deduction for small business, has had to be funded out of general revenue despite earlier stipulating that all new spending would be offset by new and equivalent savings.
I am used to minimal/no research or any original contribution with C&Ps, even a Kudos being given for nothing other than a link, but I would expect the team to "glance" at each others work (C&Ps) .
on โ14-05-2015 01:27 PM
yes, correct... and thank goodness too. That's what the opposition does, block bills that they do not agree with, the 2014 "opposers were Labor, the Greens and most of the independants
I wonder if abbott or the LNP have ever blocked or tried to block Lab policies??
โ14-05-2015 01:34 PM - edited โ14-05-2015 01:36 PM
my error, I meant to post a similar article from the age, but seriously who cares if the same article has been posted twice. If it bothers you so much.... don't read it!!!
But the newly ebullient Treasurer has conceded one of his budget's key stimulus measures, the accelerated depreciation tax deduction for small business, has had to be funded out of general revenue despite earlier stipulating that all new spending would be offset by new and equivalent savings.
And as the details of the budget become clearer, the government has also found itself on the back foot over tightened eligibility for paid parental leave.
The admission that the 100 per cent instant asset write-off for small business paid for by borrowings โ given the deficit currently sits at $41.1 billion - came as Mr Hockey used his post-budget address to the National Press Club to hammer the theme of confidence, defending an increased tax-to-GDP ratio which will climb to a seven-year high of 24 per cent in 2015-16 while imploring Australians to get out and spend
so there it is again
โ14-05-2015 01:51 PM - edited โ14-05-2015 01:54 PM
"I wonder if abbott or the LNP have ever blocked or tried to block Lab policies??"
You miss the point D9275, which is:
Labor blocking $5 billion of its own savings measures.
So In the spirit of the "new" duality protocol:
Labor blocking $5 billion of its own savings measures
PS
Oh gosh we have a 3rd repeat of the same URL sans meaningful comment!
So: Labor blocking $5 billion of its own savings measures
on โ14-05-2015 02:03 PM
oh OK they should just agree to let the libs use and take credit for their policies
on โ14-05-2015 02:14 PM
Labors policies but with some changes made
However, Mr Hockey's memorandum does not repeat the following paragraph in Mr Swan's memorandum under the heading 'Context of amendments':
"Part of the savings from this measure will be used to fund other Government priorities, including reforms announced in the Government's Industry and Innovation Statement, 'A Plan for Australian Jobs'."
Three weeks later, Labor MP Tony Zappia told Parliament that there were "major differences" between the Labor and Coalition proposal to reduce R&D tax concessions which meant Labor would not support it.
"The proposition from the previous government was tied to a whole host of job-creating initiatives that would have been directly funded as a result of the savings made...This legislation does not do that. It simply makes the cuts, and I assume the funds go into general revenue," he said.
Basically Labor policies but with some differences
on โ14-05-2015 02:18 PM
another little snippet from Fact Check
on โ14-05-2015 02:25 PM
@debra9275 wrote:Labors policies but with some changes made
However, Mr Hockey's memorandum does not repeat the following paragraph in Mr Swan's memorandum under the heading 'Context of amendments':
"Part of the savings from this measure will be used to fund other Government priorities, including reforms announced in the Government's Industry and Innovation Statement, 'A Plan for Australian Jobs'."
Three weeks later, Labor MP Tony Zappia told Parliament that there were "major differences" between the Labor and Coalition proposal to reduce R&D tax concessions which meant Labor would not support it.
"The proposition from the previous government was tied to a whole host of job-creating initiatives that would have been directly funded as a result of the savings made...This legislation does not do that. It simply makes the cuts, and I assume the funds go into general revenue," he said.
Basically Labor policies but with some differences
Ooops, aren't you following the Abbott and monocell's's lead? Rinse and repeat
โ14-05-2015 02:28 PM - edited โ14-05-2015 02:30 PM