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.
"yes I like my freedom just the same as you do Icy- it's a shame I am so 'watched' though"
But here you are the most prolific (C&P) poster now, with occasional additions (and Kudos) from the sprinkling of lieutenants
The squeaky wheel analogy springs to mind in this politically cathartic thread now, because the other posters / squeakers of "interest' like BIG and Poo7, also the Captain currently, are not contributing . At least they added some personal content to their C&P's, even had some original contributions worthy of chuckles..
"I knew at least one of her figures was wrong, but I couldn't be bothered answering you as my point was this part of the article" :
Social Services Minister Scott Morrison has told retirees hit by tougher pension rules that they must run down their superannuation savings to maintain their incomes and can't expect to pass on to their children large sums of cash accumulated with the help of generous tax concessions.
He firmly rejected arguments that the current mix of tax and welfare payments provide a perverse incentive not to save โ and instead rely on the pension โ on the basis that investment earnings will generate less income than the pension.
Actually if you had appreciated the article you would have found more than one mistake e.g.
The retiree on $757,267 ??? That actually is the CURRENT cut off for a single homeowner now, the PROPOSED (2017) is $547,000
"The retiree on $757,267 will not be eligible for any pension payment, and will receive $43,467 income based on a 3 per cent return"
Actually 3% on $757,267 is $22,718. However the proposed cut off (single homeowner) is to be $547,000 ( 3% = $16,410)
" a retiree with $325,000 of assets will be eligible for $33,717 in age pension payments" ???? Wrong again, a single pensioner receives $ 22,365 (max) NOT $33,717, which is for couples (max) .
However, if you knew of at least one "wrong figure" and the article was based upon the included figures, why C&P/link to it ?
PS
So where is MY alleged post containing " shorten will be gone in a week" by Rowan Dean ?
PS
So where is MY alleged post containing " shorten will be gone in a week" by Rowan Dean ?
I did not write " shorten will be gone in a week" I posted a completely separate part of an article, which I deliberately did not link to, because that would, de facto, indicate endorsement/acceptance of the whole link / article.
Attempting to indicate that I support a whole article (unlinked) because of an excerpt is just plain silly, you even say that I posted it which is absolute nonsense.
I suppose if I quote recommendation 7 from the Henry Tax Review, you will then write that I posted recommendations 1-6, and 8-138.
d9275: " you posted " shorten will be gone in a week" by Rowan Dean ( in March. I think that was,)"
So produce the post, without silly obfuscation. perhaps you could use these excuses, or variations thereof, which you have before, or I could if you produce the imaginary post. CHUCKLE
" I remember them very well so not necessary for me to search for them."
"Really it's the job of the journo to research what they're putting to print, that responsibility doesn't lie with people reposting their articles on a chat board"
"so what?? who are you to judge. All I did was post an article from Jakarta post that had been printed, I did not personally write the article, nor do I live in Indonesia. Do you??"
Captains choice: it covers everything: " it was a test to see if you and others picked it up."
Show us the post
Treasury Secretary John Fraser says Sydney's housing market is showing "unequivocal" signs of a housing bubble, as are up-market areas of Melbourne.
He has pointed to the proliferation of television home renovation shows, saying they are a sign of the way in which low interest rates are affecting Australia's culture.
what a bizarre thing for the head of treasury to say : that high house prices are the result of shows like The Block 
and there's abbott
"I want housing to be affordable but nevertheless, I also want house prices to be modestly increasing
huh?? 
And this from Abbott today. "As someone who along with a bank owns a house in Sydney I do hope that our housing prices are increasing. I do want housing to be affordable, but nevertheless I also want house prices to be modestly increasing."
The Prime Minister of Australia who should be looking out for all Australians, those who are struggling to get into the housing market, those who are struggling to pay mortgages and rent, oh and you know, the homeless. Didn't even enter his head.
Gittins, the slightly pink economist from the Age!
"The short answer is that Hockey is stretching the truth, creating illusions and padding his budget. And that's without questioning his forecasts and projections for the economy (as opposed to those for his budget).
Saul Eslake, of Bank of America Merrill Lynch โ who, along with former econocrat Dr Mike Keating, wins the prize for most diligent examination of budget entrails โ has noted a change in the accounting rules so that, from 2020-21, the annual net earnings of the Future Fund will be counted as budget revenue, not as an increase in the balance in the fund.
More trivia? Not quite. Eslake estimates that this seemingly petty change will account for more than half of the budget surpluses projected for 2024-25 and 2026-26.
These books have been cooked."
I would assert that Gittins is perhaps being a little half-baked with the above,and just a little disingenuous. Clever(ish) though, in that the so called "changes to the accounting rules" discovery, have been attributed to Saul Eslake. You would expect Gittins/Eslake to know the framework of the Future Fund since the Future Fund Bill of 2005, . and the subsequent 2006 "Act"
Schedule 2 โ Debits of amounts from the Future Fund
10.2 It is important that the Fund is able to be drawn upon to relieve pressure on the budget at a time when the Government is facing spending pressures associated with an ageing population. The 2002 Intergenerational Report suggests that this time is likely to arise by 2020. Consequently, the Fund can be drawn on from the earlier of the point at which Fund assets are sufficient to offset the unfunded liabilities and 1 July 2020.
Simply put, from the resulting Act (2006) and any amendments:
Legislation stipulates that money may not be withdrawn from the Future Fund until 2020 except for the purpose of meeting operating costs or unless the Future Fund's balance exceeds the target asset level as defined by the Future Fund Act.
No cooking involved, the Act has been around and set for 9 years (includes the Circus days sorry), and Eslake/Gittins have just noticed the 2020 "Birthday present" due for any colour administration ?
