THE BUDGET

[nero_bolt]

Just how bad will the budget be tonight, how much DEBT has Julia and Swan and Labor run up and how many decades will it take to pay this massive debt back?

-------------------------------------------------------

ALMOST $200 billion of red ink spilled across the nation's balance sheet looks to be Treasurer Wayne Swan's legacy, as forecasters predict budget deficits "as far as the eye can see".

In five previous budgets, the Treasurer has racked up deficits of $173 billion and analysts tip the promised $1.5 billion surplus in last year's budget papers will be replaced a deficit of between $10.9 billion to $22 billion.

The size of a deficit will come under heavy scrutiny when Mr Swan stands up tonight at 7.30pm, as Treasury forecasts have been exposed as being based on too-optimistic outlooks.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/federal-election/federal-budget-get-used-to-deficits-economists-warn/story-fnho52jj-1226641538690

[shepherdsrule]

I just wonder at the word "Budget' - that always meant saving and living within your means in our family - guess it doesn't mean that at all, simply an excuse to spend (other peoples) money and not really have to explain it. X-(

[nero_bolt]

Budget has little to offer but pain and empty pledges

AUSTRALIAN families and anyone planning to have one will have their entitlements slashed to pay for a $78 billion spending spree to deliver Prime Minister Julia Gillard's education and disability reforms

.

Announcing his promised surplus has blown out to an $18 billion deficit, Treasurer Wayne Swan yesterday outlined a further $43 billion in savings over the next four years to help pay for the National Disability Insurance Scheme and Gonski.

This figure will grow to $110.4 billion over a decade.

Families will also be asked to bear the brunt of the government's failed carbon and mining taxes, with the Budget revealing it will receive about $14 billion less from both than forecast.

They will also have to pay for the government's bungled asylum seeker policy, with a $3.2 billion blowout in border security and refugee processing as arrivals reached a record high this year of 20,000.

The full sad story of this sham of a  govt and this fraud ofa  budget here 

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/budget-has-little-to-offer-but-pain-and-empty-pledges/story-fni0cx4q-1226642555810

[katydidthat]

Well, I got a couple of laughs from Joe Hockey this morning.  

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/breakfast/budget-2013-shadow-treasurer-joe-hockey/46902...

Click to Listen Now.

First up he's all coy about whether or not he'll support the cuts to the baby bonus ... despite the fact that he wants to pour millions (if not billions) into supporting already well-paid women on PPL up to the sum of $75,000 for 6 months.  

Then, he says he "understand the pressures families are under".  The base salary for an MP is $190 550:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/pubs/BN/2012-...

How on earth could he understand the pressures families are under if they're receiving PPS or NewStart?  Or those on low incomes?  

Then he mentioned that he has 3 kids under 5 and he had to pay for 3 car seats.

Well, on over $190,550, I don't think that would be too hard, would it?  

Finally, he says he'll be a better Treasurer than Wayne Swan because he has business experience and he will "listen to families".  

Not much to laugh about, but I guess you have to take your humour where you can get it, eh?

[newstart2380]

"First up he's all coy about whether or not he'll support the cuts to the baby bonus ... despite the fact that he wants to pour millions (if not billions) into supporting already well-paid women on PPL up to the sum of $75,000 for 6 months."

Garbage, all working females who choose to have a child should all get a % of the wage they are earning during the time they take maternity leave.

If some are in highly paid jobs they obviously worked hard to get there, why should they be singled out because they have great jobs ?

[katydidthat]

If some are in highly paid jobs they obviously worked hard to get there, why should they be singled out because they have great jobs ?

That was my point, I think.  One set of women are being treated very differently from others.  

They're being rewarded more because they have great jobs ... others are being penalised because they don't.  

[karliandjacko]

The LNP luvvies are waiting for Bolt, Pickering and co to tell them how to think and what to say.

You were right about that  😄

[izabsmiling]

If some are in highly paid jobs they obviously worked hard to get there, why should they be singled out because they have great jobs ?

why is obvious that they all worked hard ?

does that mean people on lower incomes don't work hard ?

[newstart2380]

If some are in highly paid jobs they obviously worked hard to get there, why should they be singled out because they have great jobs ?

That was my point, I think.  One set of women are being treated very differently from others.  

They're being rewarded more because they have great jobs ... others are being penalised because they don't.  

It's not a reward for women who earn a high wage ALL women taking PPL get the same % of the wage they have been earning, you cannot discriminate against someone because they earn a high wage, that is just unfair.

You talk about penalising, you are penalising someone because they earn a great income.

[newstart2380]

If some are in highly paid jobs they obviously worked hard to get there, why should they be singled out because they have great jobs ?

why is obvious that they all worked hard ?

does that mean people on lower incomes don't work hard ?

Not many women get to positions of high management or earn a high wage without very hard work, people with lower incomes also work very hard at their chosen profession and I never ever suggested they didn't. you brought up the subject of the gap between high and lower income earners not me, please read my post before this one and my answer is also in there.

[poddster]

Pretty stupid of the Goose to try and lock in spending on policies for a period of 10 years.

Doesn't he relise that the first thing an incoming government does is dismantle policies that tthe previous government enacted and is not to their liking?

The booby traps in this budget are pretty easy to spot.