Tony Abbott's Support Page

[icyfroth]

A reminder of the debt that Australia has, while Labor can bury their heads and deny it exists the fact remains we have a huge problem with debt and sooner than later the chips will fall, no business, no state and no country can keep operating in the red, eventually those we own the money to will own us. Who will own us?
The state of Qld has debt of $80 billion dollars, Labor are saying they don’t think it’s that bad, Bill Shorten on Australia’s debt, there is no debt crisis, there is a crisis and we are in this situation because of Labor, no one else and the bottom line is Labor can’t fix this problem, their speciality is creating debt not fixing debt.

[icyfroth]

Bias against Tony Abbott is truly sickening

THE ABC is trying to destroy Tony Abbott. Its bias — actually unlawful — has never been so ruthless.

Even the ABC’s hand-picked reviewer had to admit this week that the ABC’s coverage of the Abbott Government’s first Budget was marred by anti-Liberal bias — and she hadn’t even looked hard.

Colleen Ryan, a former Fairfax editor, had been asked by the ABC to check its reporting of the Budget in the week after it was delivered.

This Budget was the country’s first and best hope of reining in Labor’s massive deficits.

If it wasn’t a make-or-break moment for the country, it sure was for Prime Minister Tony Abbott.

And he got smashed, especially by the ABC, our biggest media organisation, with four TV stations, five radio stations, an online newspaper and a publishing house.

Ryan singled out four examples of ABC reporting that suggested bias — each time a bias against the Liberals.

Most dramatic was the flagship 7.30 program’s hostile interview of Treasurer Joe Hockey.

Host Sarah Ferguson kicked it off with a contemptuous statement lightly disguised as a question: “Is it liberating for a politician to decide election promises don’t matter?”

Then there was Lateline host Emma Alberici, who asked a Coalition MP: “Do you think voters are really stupid and can’t recognise a lie when they see one?”

Ryan also criticised Tasmania’s 7.30 edition for pulling the ABC stunt of giving the microphone to a parade of Leftist critics, while The Drum copped it for another old trick — stacking its panel with two pro-Labor panellists against one lone conservative.

The ABC might argue that four examples of bias in a week of coverage isn’t much, but Ryan clearly wasn’t wearing her glasses.

If she thought The Drum’s stack was bad, why didn’t she also criticise the Insiders’ Budget special?

It actually had three Leftist journalists against a lone conservative: Laura Tingle, Lenore Taylor and host Fran Kelly up against poor Niki Savva.

Why didn’t Ryan also mention Lateline’s panel on Budget night?

There host Alberici had two fellow Leftists — Tingle, who claimed the Budget had “lots of little, mean cuts”, and The Age’s Peter Martin, who claimed there were “lots of ... promises they’ve broken”.

Why didn’t Ryan mention ABC Melbourne radio host Jon Faine, who a week after the Budget announcement twice accused the Prime Minister to his face of “political cowardice” and interrupted him 37 times?

Ryan’s report didn’t even come close to diagnosing the scale of the ABC’s political bias, especially its enmity for Abbott, who dared to make tiny cuts to the ABC’s bloated budget of a $1 billion a year.

This bias goes from the very top — the likes of Ferguson and husband Tony Jones, who as Q&A host gave Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull every encouragement this week to attack Abbott — right down to the tips of the ABC’s tentacles.

Entire Article Here

[cherry*135]

ANDREW BOLT OPINION PIECE - biased nonsense.

In that case, so is The Australian and every other msm news outlet in Australia.

Or perhaps Abbott is a dud as PM and they are all publishing truths?

Hockey;s Budget was a dud. Only a few weeks left till the next one is due, and major proposals still stalled and not likely to be passed by Senate.

[cherry*135]

Icy - could you please answer my question below. It is from a post of yours in this thread.

 where did that assumption come from that you posted '' some grads choose marriage and having children instead of employment? (straight after graduating according to your earlier post) to avoid paying back their student loan.

Was it your thought? If so, what did you base that assumption on. Either your thought or someone elses - do you seriously believe that happens?

I have never seen that assumption made in any news articles that relates to unpaid student debts.

[polksaladallie]

---

@gleee58 wrote:

---

@idlewhile wrote:

As if they give a toss about workplace deaths, unless they can gain political mileage out of it.

Would you mind providing some sort of proof to back up your claim that Labor spent billions pulling out the insulation that was installed, please?  And a bit about the billions that you claim is still being spent?   That sounds a bit like fibs.

---

So if your son went to work and didn't come home, ever, that would be who's fault??? oh yes, that would be Labor's fault,  RUDD ignored all warning for months.

So yes, we do give a toss about workplace deaths and to say otherwise is partisan hatred writ large.

---

If one of my children were killed in a workplace accident I would seek answers. I would not blame the PM of the time because it's not his job to supervise every work site in the country.  

Workplace deaths are often caused by poor training, lack of concern for safety issues and complacency.

This whole Rudd RC fiasco was not for the familes it was purely a vehicle for an attack on Rudd.

These people DO NOT CARE how many are killed in the workplace.

---

As at 16 February 2015, 20 Australian workers have been killed while at work.

http://www.safeworkaustralia.gov.au/sites/swa/statistics/work-related-fatalities/pages/worker-fatali...

[gleee58]

---

@idlewhile wrote:

---

Rudd personally IGNORED ALL WARNINGS. Garret repeatedly warned him but Rudd wouldn't listen.

Your one eyed stance on the facts and the truth of this tragedy staggers belief.

You standing up for Rudd and the last labor govt on this shows you do not care about deaths in the workplace.

---

There had already been enquiries into the workplace deaths and into the insulation scheme. 

The Royal Commission was not held because they care about workplace deaths.  The only reason for it was a political attack in the hope of destroying any opposition party that could be a threat to the born to rulers election chances in the future.

I don't give a toss about Rudd. My comments are not made to stand up for Rudd.  

My comment is about the current govt not giving a damn how many people are killed in workplace related accidents.

[icyfroth]

---

@am*3 wrote:

icy - where did that assumption come from that you posted '' some grads choose marriage and having children instead of employment? (straight after graduating according to your earlier post)

Was it your thought? Either your or someone elses - either way - do you seriously believe that happens?

---

You seem to be grappling with that a bit, Am. Why? Is it close to home for you?

That statement from my post 545 was:

"It is for ppl who go overseas the minute they graduate, or decide get married and raise a family as against seeking employment, or cannot find work that puts them over the $49,000 per year threshhold."

In fact I said "go overseas the minute they graduate" which of course was an exaggeration, meaning many would have jobs already lined up overseas pre-graduation and would head off overseas too work after grauation as soon as practical.

It's an assumption of mine, but I think a fair one.

Also I think it's a fair assumption that many young women with a degree have a change of  heart and choose marriage and family over a career and will not be obliged to pay of their HECS debt, seeing they are under the threshhold and probably would remain so for some time.

Is that what you did?

[#8]

"It is for ppl who go overseas the minute they graduate, or decide get married and raise a family as against seeking employment, or cannot find work that puts them over the $49,000 per year threshhold."

In fact I said "go overseas the minute they graduate" which of course was an exaggeration, meaning many would have jobs already lined up overseas pre-graduation and would head off overseas too work after grauation as soon as practical.

It's an assumption of mine, but I think a fair one.

Also I think it's a fair assumption that many young women with a degree have a change of  heart and choose marriage and family over a career and will not be obliged to pay of their HECS debt, seeing they are under the threshhold and probably would remain so for some time.

Is that what you did?

[gleee58]

Why do you imply that if they have children they will not work and repay their HECS debt?

Is that what your family and friends do?  Kinda like the real housewives of wherever shows?

Everyone that I know works and repays their HECS one way or another.  If they had time off work for a family they returned to work when they could.  If they went OS for work they eventually returned to work here.  We follow the principle that if you are paying back HECS debts be thankful that your income is high enough for the deductions to kick in.  

I know of one who got his ed before HECS.  He decided to pay back Australia in another way and got repeatedly kicked and jumped on by the current mob of imbeciles for his efforts.

[cherry*135]

Also I think it's a fair assumption that many young women with a degree have a change of  heart and choose marriage and family over a career and will not be obliged to pay of their HECS debt, seeing they are under the threshhold and probably would remain so for some time.

I picked up on this because I have seen the same comment posted before on CS.

So it iwas just your thought then? 

I think that view is totally inaccurate and a very poor assumption, and I doubt you would find any statisitcs/data from any reliable source to back it up.

It is also very unrealistic, to think a young women would study for 3-5 years, then decide to get married and have children.. before getting work experience in her degree field (if successful in gaining a job on graduation) and returning to work at some stage in the same field (after children start school etc).

Even the suggestiong the couple get married & have children is very outdated, couples can live together and have children without being married.

So it really is not in anyway a suitable reason to try and explain why student debts remain unpaid.

The main reasons for unpaid student loans -  graduates who can't get jobs at all or a job that the salary is over the threshold for compulsory payments and that some graduates work overseas and don't make payments on their student debt.

I know a lot of Uni students, past graduates ( via my children)  and the above assumption is nonsense.

It is 2015, not 1960!

[cherry*135]

Is that what you did?

I was married for 20+ years before I went to Uni, icy, not that that is any of your business but it blows your theory out the window!

I also went to TAFE before that and got a lot of credits for UNI subjects, so didn't have to do the full degree

[azureline**]

---

@idlewhile wrote:

---

@debra9275 wrote:

why does the LNP need to spend $12 billion on jets, 20 billion on subs and 400million per year on metadata storage when they claim we are in an emergency situation??

aren't they over-spending?

---

Why did Labor spend $billions on pink batts then spend $billions taking them out and we are still paying $billions for the  remedial  work.  Labors incompetence? no it's much worse than that,  it's criminal murder, they killed 4 young men, we can never bring them back.

But not to worry you got your free batts eh.

---

I suspect you may discover that pink batts were never removed from ceilings after all..........................the young people who died were installing foil insulation as I recall.

Metallic fasteners were used, in clear breach of safe work practices.