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.
I enjoy it when others make bold assertionst that are incorrect! 
Especially those, that spend most of their time criticsing other posters.
mm12 wrote: The Board Advanced Search protocol is adequate, use it, otherwise frankly without (believable) authentication I find it hard to believe I posted a Dean article. So I do not believe you
OK, authentication has been posted, what's your response now?
Hasn't Slipper been cleared?" NO! - Simple research before posting that would have prevented a big mistake.
Of course, the real purpose of the thread is not the above, it is criticism of the current Govt, valid even if not welcome by some. Reading this thread is not compulsory.
I enjoy it when others make bold assertionst that are incorrect! 
Especially those, that spend most of their time criticsing other posters.
Good point Am
The Board Advanced Search protocol is adequate, use it, otherwise frankly without (believable) authentication I find it hard to believe I posted a Dean article. So I do not believe you. (ask the captain to search).
So the captain searched and found the authentication I asked for, which I had forgotten: an excerpt from a Dean article.
Why exactly is Dean such a problem, other than his politics are hardly likely to endure him to the MYOPS?
Darn, I should have used the A3 defence:
" it was a test to see if you and others picked it up."
Or the D9275 defence:
"Anyway so what?? who are you to judge. All I did was post an article from the Jakarta Post that had been printed, I did not personally write the article."
Or the D9275 defence:
"Anyway so what?? who are you to judge. All I did was post an article from the Jakarta Post that had been printed, I did not personally write the article.
i don't need a defence
go back and find where I said I didn't know whether it was true or not
and at least I don't deny that I posted it
who are you to judge?????
"It is a just a pity that the BIG author and chemtrailing P07 are not present, they really added a little “je ne sais quoi”
"You shouldn't mention people that haven't posted on CS for a long time. You don't know why they stopped posting here, they may or may not 'have the right to reply' to your degrogatory posts that you make about them."
Another rule?
I hardly think mentioning BIG and P07 in "affectionate terms" requires a right of reply, because they certainly did add “je ne sais quoi” to the C&P twittering herein.
I assure you I was not on de grog when I wrote that post!.
@debra9275 wrote:
any comments regarding any of the topics posted here??
No ! Will leave those to you because
