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.
The Treasurer was looking most morose in a picture taken by photographer Gary Ramage.
While the casual black jumper promises approachability and the loosened tie suggests long stretches of subterranean toiling, it's the morose, baggy eyes that say: "I have been awake - and possibly crying - for days."
The staged photo opportunity is one of those quirky budget traditions - alongside strategic leaking and the time-honoured lock-up - and is usually used to depict decisiveness, confidence and control in the midst of great expectations.
Inevitably, these pre-budget stunts place the treasurer of the day behind a busy (but never cluttered) desk, firmly grasping a pencil and notepad in which he might be conducting long division, carrying the one, or perhaps erasing a few pesky zeros.
We cannot know for sure what Mr Hockey was scribbling (though the pad, at a flat angle, does appear to be suspiciously blank), but one could theorise a montage of black dogs, nooses and sad clowns.
But, overall, Mr Hockey appears somewhat overwhelmed by his circumstances, not helped by his formless black sweater and a look of resignation that gives the whole picture an air of down-on-his-luck-divorcee-picking-up-the-pieces.
...Online, Mr Hockey's model shot was likened to that of a schoolboy hauled into the principal's office. Others asked whether he was deliberately trying to appear "sad and depressed", while some tried to guess what the Treasurer might have been doodling in his more contemplative moments.
A3: "I note you were quite happy to reply to a quote from an unreliable source (news.net.scot run by volunteers!) in another thread, not one comment about the source. Careful, your bias is showing.
hmmm, double standards."
Really A3? And what quote did I specifically reply to? Please enlighten me.
You might realise A3, if you read the post, the unreliable source and the context, that I was responding to Ladybug's title and comment. But again where is this quote of mine that you allege I replied to
My post:
The man who engineered the downfall of the Gillard government.
I think the demise of the Circus (Gillard government) whilst possibly could be attributed in a small degree to McTernan, who was recruited by Poor Me/ALP, the majority of blame can be laid squarely upon the shoulders of Rudd , and at the end to a little input from Harvey Shorten, with not a little contribution by Poor Me herself who was not strong leadership material.
Blame a man!
No concerns then, about replying to a quote from a unreliable source?
I suggest you actually read my post A3 and then the alleged source. You might then realise A3, if you read the URL and the context, that I was responding to Ladybug's thread title and comment.
But again, where is the quote that you allege I replied to. You made a definitive statement so just post the proof to support it
PS
Unreliable source? newsnet.scot? Really ? Not biased perhaps? I wonder what direction?. And I would quote from it? Really?
But it is the Scottish equivalent of the AIMN much beloved by the BIG and P07, and I would expect also you A3
Show me the quote I replied to, PLEASE
Joho and Scomo.
There seems to be a distinct lack of knives and back stabbing jokes around now rupes chosen ones are in office.
I thought a check today of the much beloved source by political twitterers here, AIMN, and the unreliable source according to A3 of the like biased newsnet.scot might be of interest.
AIMN
newsnet.scot
If newsnet is considered unreliable by those I would expect to embrace it, what does that make AIMN, a boutique unreliable source?
I guess so, because I just read this in the AIMN, (yes, a real quote A3) :
’Ive written before about a clean, simple, narrative based on the idea that wealth equality is good for everyone. It’s good for the rich, it’s good for the poor and it’s good for everyone in in between. I don’t see any evidence of UK Labour, or for that matter, the Australian Labor Party, taking any of my advice while they flounder from one issue to the next, poking holes in the Conservative narrative but not offering anything convincing to hold onto instead. Labour and Labor have mostly the right mainstream progressive policies, which mostly fit neatly into this simple narrative. Wealth inequality is bad for everyone (except the ultra rich). Wealth equality is good for everyone. I just wish progressives would jump on board and help promote this message, and rally Labour and Labor to own it, rather than sticking with the really unhelpful ‘if only Labour/Labor was more left wing’ narrative. Because we have an election of our own coming up and if Abbott wins again, I honestly think I’ll lose my mind."
