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.
that is what the liberal party is all about. one would have to be blind (with the fingers chopped off) and deaf, extremely gullible or mentally disabled to expect anything else of the liberal party.
You left out greedy
...do you think the people who voted for liberal deserve what we all got now?
maybe they do. just for inflicting that bunch onto the rest of australia. 
i am still undecided if (willful) ignorance and stupidity deserves to be punished (what i mean is: do the (not rich) australians deserve what they voted for?).
Admitting mistakes is a problem for most people, both highly educated and not terribly bright people will try and kid themselves and justify things. I don't believe anyone should be punished for who they vote for, unless making them look silly is punishment, in that case I agree! 
replying to borisg, who said:
The Joint Strike Fighter purchase: Someone must have been smoking one
The Joint Strike Fighter is "flying dog meat", writes Sydney bureau chief and military buff Ross Jones, and anyone who goes near this lemon has rocks in their heads.
Anyone who goes near the Joint Strike Fighter has rocks in their heads.
It’s the Liberals, I rest my case
These things aren’t going to keep us safe from anybody. The word Joint in the JSF of the Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II means just that. Not single strike fighter — a joint strike fighter. It needs another aircraft to protect its lumbering airframe, packed to the gunwhales with 8 million code lines of stuff — too slow to turn and too slow to run.
$12.4 billion on this lemon, while the budget axe falls. Co-payments, retire at 70, welfare to the poor — we all need to put our shoulder to the budget wheel to pay for this thing.
As reported by ABC PM, the price tag for the JSF-35 is $24 bilion, not $12 billion, which is just for the equipment.
...........................................................................................................................................................
White paper leaves carbon questions unanswered
Economists and environment groups have rounded on the Abbott government’s Direct Action climate change policy after key details of its centrepiece, an emissions reduction fund, were revealed on Thursday.
Environment Minister Greg Hunt used a late afternoon press conference to unveil the long-awaited white paper explaining how his alternative to Labor’s carbon tax **bleep** emissions trading scheme will work.
But serious questions remain over key parameters of the policy, including what price will be paid per tonne of carbon abatement, how the scheme will be policed, and even how he plans to get the scheme through a hostile Senate.
Economist and climate change expert Frank Jotzo, from the Australian National University’s Crawford School of Public Policy, said the policy was economically inefficient and would slug taxpayers instead of polluters and it was “inconceivable” that it would lead to a lasting change in Australia’s emissions trajectory.
Illustration: Cathy Wilcox
amazing the lengths people will go to to try and win votes-attention seek, deals, shining a torch on themselves at every opportunity even! LOL
