View Full Version : Do you like the Howard Government?
Aquamarine
01-05-2006, 10:45
Just wondering if you like the way the Howard Government is running this country?
Lately with the new Industrial Relations rules, The Iraq War, our relationship with The US etc etc, it is an interesting question to ask.
Personally I can't stand them. But respect everyones opinion.
To me the world get's a bit crazy when people care more about the price of fuel than people being tortured and shot dead.
That's just me!
This has probably been a thread already, but I am new and am very interested!
Thanks guys,;)
Sally.
Dont shoot me, but I think the Howard Government are doing an ok job. They arent perfect & i dont agree with everything but I would much rather see John Howard leading our country that Kim Beazley.
The opposition always disagrees with whatever the government is saying - but that is their job! Who is to say that Beazley's government wouldnt be doing all the same things if in power? It's easy to make promises when you dont have to follow through with them,
I think in the end it almost comes down to choosing the lesser of two evils. It's sad though, i wish Australia had the same respect for our leaders that some other countries do.
Aquamarine
01-05-2006, 10:58
I would rather have Donald Duck than John Howard!!!
I am not big on Kim Beazley either though.
I just think we need someone that cares about human beings!
I just think we need someone that cares about human beings!
Yeah, but all the people smart enough to care are also smart enough not to get into politics!
Aquamarine
01-05-2006, 11:05
Someone like Nelson Mandella would be perfect!:smiliedance:
Mamaduke
01-05-2006, 11:17
Do I even need to answer this question?
A BIG YES & A :thumbsup: FOR ME!!! (Was anyone really surprised?);)
This country is alot better off than when the Liberal Party first came in...do I need to bump my "Step back in time - A life under Labor" thread?
To me the world get's a bit crazy when people care more about the price of fuel than people being tortured and shot dead.
Wasn't the torture & opression in Iraq one of the reasons we went in in the first place? Remembering that this country had a dictator (& his whacko sons) who used to feed innocent human beings to their lions, and drop chemical bombs on whole villages.
As for Nelson Mandela...he may have softened in his old age but was he not once a terrorist...whether you agree with what he was fighting for or not, he was part of a movement that used 'terror' as a way of fighting for their cause (before anyone posts anything I found apartheid to be totally despicable).
Ready....aim...((Mamaduke ducks for cover));)
I am probably not the most political person, and am also probably way out of my depth even commenting on this thread....
I really don't think there would be a great deal of difference in a Liberal or Labor government to tell you the truth.... I don't think the government is doing too bad a job... and I don't see that the opposition would do things that differently... its easy to make promises when you don't have to follow through... but such is the politicians life!
I don't however really favour John Howard personally, I think he is moreso a sheep rather than the wolf that he needs to be, but I think there are people within his party quite capable of doing the job.... I actually don't mind Peter Debnam, the NSW Opposition Leader.... he is reknowned for telling it like it is, and saying the things that everyone is thinking but no one has the guts to say!
Aquamarine
01-05-2006, 11:30
I don't think violence is the answer mamaduke so no need to duck!
You have such an agresseive opinion on this subject.
I am sure you think you are correct with all the statements you made.
You are lucky that you are happy with the Govt. I wish I didn't feel any guilt about the government Australia elected.
Unfortunately I feel embarrassed and annoyed with what is going on.
When I mention torture, I am speaking about David Hicks etc. He is an Australian who is locked up and treated just the way others have been treated. Do you not think the US and Australia are a little hypocritical?
I don't want this to turn into an agressive argument because that too would be hypocritical.
It is not just the things overseas that have annoyed me, it is also the things closer to home.
How about all the Aboriginal children that were forcebly removed from their families in the middle of the night. And no apology. How would you feel if it were your children?
And what about the Industrial Relations? I suppose you think he is doing a great job looking after battling Aussie families too?
I envy you for not having to worry about it the way I do.
Mamaduke
01-05-2006, 11:52
You have such an agresseive opinion on this subject.
Is it because I don't agree that my opinion is deemed aggressive?:confused:
When I mention torture, I am speaking about David Hicks etc. He is an Australian who is locked up and treated just the way others have been treated. Do you not think the US and Australia are a little hypocritical?
As far as I'm concerned, David Hicks gave up his right to be an Australian when he decided his loyalties lay with a terrorist organisation.
As for hypocritical...why should these terrorists be treated with respect...these are men from the same organisations that used passenger planes as bombs - there were children on board those planes.
How about all the Aboriginal children that were forcebly removed from their families in the middle of the night. And no apology. How would you feel if it were your children?
This was a totally abhorrent event that occured. I have nothing but sympathy for the families who's children were taken. I believe that at the time, the government thought that they were doing the right thing and were probably under the influence from certain religious organisations who thought the children were better off with white people. During this time, unwed women, the disabled, the mentally ill were also deemed 'unfit' to be parents and they were also pressured into giving up their babies.
And what about the Industrial Relations? I suppose you think he is doing a great job looking after battling Aussie families too?
I'm not falling for the scare tactics being used by the unions. For way too long in this country the unions have held industry at gunpoint, and have gotten away with it. There are alot of people making alot of money from workers' union fees, why would they want to give that up without a fight?
Just for the record, my DH works in a factory & I believe that his job is safe...he's punctual, hard working and honest. If a company doesn't have workers they don't have profits...simple as that!
As much as it sucks that our troops are going to war (and trust me, i know - My Df is going) I do think they need to be there. These terrorists have to be stopped. They know no boundries - they believe that killing as many innocent people as possible is a good thing. I'm sure if our Government could sit down with theirs and discuss it over a coffee and a tim tam, they would. But the cookie doesnt crumble that way (or the tim tam, so to speak).
As for following George Bush, the US is one of our stongest allies and we need to support them - you never know when we will need their support. If Australia was threatned, the US would be on our door step quicker than you could say "Throw another Shrimp on the Barbie!"
Oh, and for the record, I didnt think Mamadukes post was aggressive - she stated her opinion, thats all.
Pippi Longstocking
01-05-2006, 12:27
In a word? No!
In lots of words....no no no no no! I am a big believer in social justice. I believe in the welfare state. I believe in fairness and equity.
J Ho believes in power and greed. He believes in dog eat dog. He believes in oppression, patriarchy and violence.
I do not like J Ho.:no:
Do I like the Howard government?? NO!
I'd be happy to bump up the "bleeding heart, lefty and proud" thread if anyone's interested.
Just a reminder though, everyone is welcome to express their opinions here, but keep it nice please. Opinions and robust debate are welcome. Personal attacks are unhelpful.
Mamaduke and I disagree on just about everything under the sun, but we maintain a healthy respect for each other. I ask that you all pay each other the same courtesy.
Pippi Longstocking
01-05-2006, 12:46
Bron, am I still allowed to refer to him as J Ho or is that disrespectful? :D :o
It makes me giggle every time I write it :yes: :laughing:
Oh my gosh, why didnt my bat phone ring? ;) In one word, no, I do not like Howards Government, and Mamaduke my love, I didnt find your replies aggressive at all, I thought they were well written, even if i didnt agree with any of it :p
Mamaduke
01-05-2006, 12:58
Oh my gosh, why didnt my bat phone ring? ;) In one word, no, I do not like Howards Government, and Mamaduke my love, I didnt find your replies aggressive at all, I thought they were well written, even if i didnt agree with any of it :p
Who would've thought the lefties would be singing my praises!!
Thanks Bron and Coops...
Coops: The Libs have legally tapped your bat phone under the new anti-terrorism laws - all calls alerting you to anti-Howard propaganda have now been barred...have a nice day!;)
Coops: The Libs have legally tapped your bat phone under the new anti-terrorism laws - all calls alerting you to anti-Howard propaganda have now been barred...have a nice day!;)
mmm..... i suspected as much. Thats ok though, Im on to it, I have other sources:D
I have a deep suspicion of all politicians.
I find it a strange irony that ppl who WANT to govern are prob the ones who are really bad at it.
But they are voted in by the people, they are there by the will of the ppl...so if you don't like it - you can vote them out. Hooray for democracy (some aren't so fortunate...)
Cheers
I personally am sick of 'little' Johnny Howard.
He really ticks me off!
I think it's time we had a change!
I feel he has lied to us enough and we need someone honest and who is actually going to READ what gets put in front of him!
SixtiesChild
01-05-2006, 13:12
Howard generally did a better job for this country than the last government did in terms of surplus funds. But I think that our politicians are payed way too much and have way too many life long priviledges funded by the hardworking taxpayer. I'm not too sure exactly how much they are payed but I'm sure it's a lot and Oh yes, they don't have to pay for their petrol and can dine on exqisite food for lunch, and lets not mention the superannuation of millions and we the taxpayer are paying for that.
This attracts greedy people to those political jobs and if they are not already greedy, then there is enough incentive to become greedy.
If political jobs payed ordinary salaries then people with better motives & maturity would be in charge and the people of this nation would be flourishing.
All these current politicians wouldn't be there if that were the case, I think it's all very selfish.
If you look at all the poverty stricken countries around the globe, they are not caused by a lack of money but by the leaders of the country spending the money & not using it for the purposes of looking after their own people.
Knowledge is one thing, but wisdom is altogether something else.
It takes a lot of wisdom to lead a nation for the good of all it's people and frankly that is what is sadly lacking here and all around the world. .:( And at the heart of wisdom is love.
But I think that our politicians are payed way too much and have way too many life long priviledges funded by the hardworking taxpayer. I'm not too sure exactly how much they are payed but I'm sure it's a lot and Oh yes, they don't have to pay for their petrol and can dine on exqisite food for lunch, .
True, true!
I'd like them to eat what I'm eating for lunch today....an apple!
ran out of bread and have no money till tonight.
Oh spent my last 20 on petrol, that should last me a whole 2 days thanks to the high tax on that!
Pippi Longstocking
01-05-2006, 13:24
Howard generally did a better job for this country than the last government did in terms of surplus funds.
But what good is surplus funds when Australians are going without? With the privatisation of health care, people are suffering because they cannot afford treatment. People do not have enough money for adequate food. People are living in substandard housing. Indigenous Australians are living in "fourth world" conditions. Surely that surplus of funds ought to be spent on people who need it?
But what good is surplus funds when Australians are going without? With the privatisation of health care, people are suffering because they cannot afford treatment. People do not have enough money for adequate food. People are living in substandard housing. Indigenous Australians are living in "fourth world" conditions. Surely that surplus of funds ought to be spent on people who need it?
Here Here!!:thumbsup:
SixtiesChild
01-05-2006, 13:30
Yes, the surplus should go back to the people, absolutely!!!!
Mamaduke
01-05-2006, 13:33
John Howard's salary as Prime Minister is $283,990 per year.
You may think that that's alot, but when you're putting it into perspective of what CEO's are getting from companies in Australia...
Australian Financial Review’s seventh annual study of executive pay, published at the end of 2005...
Leighton’s chief executive Wal King received a package worth $12.8 million. He also collected deferred bonus payments for 1988 and 2000 as well as $7 million in interest, bringing his income up to $35 million.
Macquarie Bank CEO Allan Moss received an increase of $5.8 million, bringing his total up to $18.5 million. Macquarie Bank investment group chief Nicholas Moore’s package increased by $6.8 million to $18.2 million. The bank’s executive chairman David Clarke scored $9.2 million.
Babcock and Brown CEO Phillip Green received $10.3 million.
Woolworth’s Roger Corbett got $8.4 million.
Burns Philip managing director Ted Degnan was paid $7.7 million and Lend Lease’s CEO Greg Clarke received $6.5 million.
Westpac’s David Morgan pulled in $7.4 million, ANZ CEO John McFarlane got $6.9 million, and the Commonwealth Bank of Australia’s former CEO David Murray made $5.4 million. National Australia Bank (NAB) chief John Stewart had just renewed his contract for an extra $500,000, bringing his package up to $6.43 million.
Qantas CEO Geoff Dixon received a package worth over $6.4 million.
Newly appointed Telstra CEO Sol Trugillo negotiated an annual base salary worth $3 million plus up to $10 million a year in “performance” bonuses.
So all in all, not a very good wage as far as wages go for CEO's - remembering that the buck stops with him and he is the 'CEO' of this country.
Pippi Longstocking
01-05-2006, 13:36
But Mamaduke, is that salary inclusive of all fiscal rewards? Cars, rent, transport, holidays....?
Mamaduke
01-05-2006, 13:38
But Mamaduke, is that salary inclusive of all fiscal rewards? Cars, rent, transport, holidays....?
No...and neither are the CEO salaries - if I had've posted those I would have been here all day.
Mamaduke
01-05-2006, 13:41
Here are a few of the 'perks' for the CEO's...keeping in mind they're not running a country...
Frank Lowy, chairman of multi-million dollar property firm Westfield, was entitled to 75 hours a year private use of the company’s aircraft, a perk worth $365,805. Even Qantas non-executive director James Packer obtained $4,775 worth of travel benefits. Packer has just inherited his billionaire father’s media empire. Kerry Packer left behind an estimated personal fortune of $7 billion.
Coles Myer executives got free tax planning while non-executive directors received $5,825 a year to cover home-office costs—almost a quarter of the minimum wage of $25,000 a year. Myer division head Dawn Roberson was entitled to three business-class return airfares to the US every year for herself and her dependents. Kmart chief Larry Davis was entitled to six business-class airfares annually. As a matter of course, top executives at Telstra enjoyed free internet services, line rental and mobile phones.
Most senior executives are provided with cars for personal use, with free petrol. However, for some, like Publishing and Broadcasting chief executive John Alexandra, the car comes with a driver. Along with other benefits, CSR chief Alex Brennan received $42,275 in “spouse travel expenses, accommodation and corporate hospitality”.
Burswood Casino CEO David Courtney received “complimentary privileges” at Crown and Burswood Casinos and annual return fares for himself and his family between Melbourne and Perth. Fosters directors got free tickets to entertainment and sporting events worth thousands of dollars, many enjoying the luxury of private boxes. To enhance the experience, they received large quantities of free wine, beer and other beverages.
Pippi Longstocking
01-05-2006, 13:41
I suspect that Mr Howard's bills just may be a tad more costly than "other ceos". ;)
Peaceangels
01-05-2006, 14:27
I'm not going to join in on this one........I'll just remain a fence sitter.
Just thought I'd throw in one for debate ..................... They have to be doing something right if they have been in power for as long as they have ............
zafyrezmummy
01-05-2006, 15:06
They have to be doing something right if they have been in power for as long as they have ............
Absolutely Not! Its a disgrace that they are in power!
Unfortunately not enough people take their voting rights seriously.
Last elestion there was not a SINGLE person i know that voted for Howard, they all voted for LABOR!!! I know this because they all were very annoyed when Howard stayed.
So how'd it come to the decision it did?
I reckon it was RIGGED!!!
Just like some years back when Al Gore won the election for President in the states, and there was a conspiracy with the votes, and the end result was George Bush stayed in power.
I dont trust the american government
so how can i put faith in the australian government when they do nothing but follow the USA.
In regard to someones earlier statement that the USA would defend Australia, I doubt it!
But my biggest argument is
The Howard government does not look after the workers. and i mean people who actually work, physical labour. whether that be factory work, waitressing, lawn mowing..etc etc....Howard spits on the workers of Australia.
The way the system is set up now looks after all the wealthy, all the middle to high class people (why are there classes? what happened to equality?)
The way the system is now is designed to keep the rich rich and the poor poorer!
once your on the poor side, its a vicious cycle to try and claw your way out and the Howard government make it all the harder.
I'd like to see John Howard survive on $220 a week!
Then he mite realise that the working class wages are still under the poverty line, and that this is unnacceptable!
I am very glad for anyone who's job is still secure, but in my world, we are all getting scr**ed.. My factory job is gone because of howard, as is alot of jobs that used to be there
With so many out of work, there is a HUGE turnover! Therefore, BUSINESSES DONT CARE WHO THEY HIRE/FIRE, sure, they need the workers for production, what people dont seem to get is that as soon as one is sacked unfairly, there are 5 more willing to take that job, even if for only a day....
well hope my rant makes sense
~dimarie
Dont mean to offend anyone, but I'm very passionate about getting Howard out of power. Do we want to be just another america? Aussies are supposed to stand up for equality! Stand up for the workers!
Maybe someone should just do a poll?
Absolutely Not! Its a disgrace that they are in power!
Unfortunately not enough people take their voting rights seriously.
Last elestion there was not a SINGLE person i know that voted for Howard, they all voted for LABOR!!! I know this because they all were very annoyed when Howard stayed.
So how'd it come to the decision it did?
I reckon it was RIGGED!!!
I would just like to politely point out that your cross section of friends/acquaintances surely would not make a sizeable enough dint in the 17 million odd population of this country. Just because you don't personally know anyone who voted for Howard doesn't mean that NO ONE did and therefore it must have been rigged.
Mamaduke
01-05-2006, 15:22
Last elestion there was not a SINGLE person i know that voted for Howard
If it makes you feel better, I and everyone I know did...I highly doubt the conspiracy/rigging theory. There's alot of people involved in the voting/ballot counting process...that's alot of mouths you have to keep shut.
(why are there classes? what happened to equality?)
That's called communism!
Howard spits on the workers of Australia.
My goodness...:confused:
but I'm very passionate about getting Howard out of power
Good for you...when the option is Labour with all of their in-fighting, backstabbing & lack of policies & leadership, it's making it very easy for Liberal to be the party of choice. They're the opposition any party in power would love to have.
In regard to someones earlier statement that the USA would defend Australia, I doubt it!
I do believe that the US would defend Australia, but lets hope we never have to find out.
I would just like to politely point out that your cross section of friends/acquaintances surely would not make a sizeable enough dint in the 17 million odd population of this country. Just because you don't personally know anyone who voted for Howard doesn't mean that NO ONE did and therefore it must have been rigged.
I was thinking the same thing. Obviously the majority are in favor otherwise he wouldnt be in power & in this instance majority rules.
That's called communism!
I was thinking that myself! And we all know how well thats worked....
zafyrezmummy
01-05-2006, 15:38
oh I'm sorry, I forgot to put in the words - JUST MY OPINION
I'm only going by the entire work force of one factory, at least half the work force of another, a huge dint in quite a few more and basically anybody that doesnt consider themselves middle class
But again - JUST MY OPINION
which as far as i knew this was a place to express our INDIVIDUAL OPINIONS, and my view is only this, my view, an expression of ones thoughts, it is in no way an attempt to change or influence points of views of others as it is also MY OPINION that everyone is allowed their own thoughts and the right to express them.
i did sauy i "reckon" which is not "I know this for afact" etc etc, no, just i reckon....
Mamaduke, Well I'd actually much prefer the greens to run the country :D but we all know that isnt gonna happen in a hurry...oops, meant to say, i think that wont happen in ahurry
and thinking it is not fair to keep the poor poor is not communism!! But again ONLY IN MY OPINION, I am not saying I think we should all be paid the same for different jobs involving different skills etc, but the social stigmas of class for those classed as lower class are very hard to overcome, all i'm saying is shouldnt everybody have the resources to make a go of life fairly?
And i like hearing your opinions and anyone else that chooses to have one as diversity of character and peoples opinions and actions is what makes up such a colourful world,
i will add that I am VERY thankful that these topics seem to be the worst of Aus, meaning, I think Australia is one of the luckiest countries in the world, and I wouldnt want to live anywhere else!
I'm just giving my opinion on the Howard government as was asked of anybody who chose to answer, thats the beauty of a public thought space
hope you are all having a lovely day!
Jomarie, no one is disputing your right to an opinion. This is all merely discussion and debate and sharing of thoughts. No personal attacking, we all realise we are only discussing OUR OWN opinions with each other.
I'm sure I speak for most everyone when I say that no one wants to keep the poor, poor. Its a terribly sad fact of life that there will always be rich, and there will always be poor. As much as we'd all like to come up with a solution, I just don't think there will ever be one.
I do believe that we do all have the resources to better ourselves, and our lives. No matter which government is in power, we have the freedom to do whatever we like with our lives (within the law). There are so many countries where you don't have this choice.
I'd just like to add I'm really enjoying this thread and hearing everyone's thoughts - lets just all keep it nice and respect each others point of view and we can all enjoy a lively discussion :)
zafyrezmummy
01-05-2006, 16:03
Jomarie, no one is disputing your right to an opinion. This is all merely discussion and debate and sharing of thoughts. No personal attacking, we all realise we are only discussing OUR OWN opinions with each other.
MY my I am so being taken the wrong way today, never mind it is probably due to my pregmentia, didnt mean to imply that my rights were being disputed, only was pointing out that it was a just a viewpoint of mine, and not a fact that I know 100% without a doubt...As for personal attacking, I didnt think any of you had attacked me??!! And i have not attacked any of you! again, if I've taken this the wrong way, blame my brain...
I'm sure I speak for most everyone when I say that no one wants to keep the poor, poor. Its a terribly sad fact of life that there will always be rich, and there will always be poor. As much as we'd all like to come up with a solution, I just don't think there will ever be one.
you're probably right
I do believe that we do all have the resources to better ourselves, and our lives. No matter which government is in power, we have the freedom to do whatever we like with our lives (within the law). There are so many countries where you don't have this choice.
Yea, I can see where youre coming from with this, we have freedom here that is only imagined in other places
I just cant wholeheartedly agree with this one though, as i grew up in an area with no resources, went to schools that were underfunded and lacked resources. And we never had the resources to move somewhere that did when i was growing up. and a lot of choices were unavailable
BUT, that was like years ago, and the schools seem to have alot more resources these days i do admit so maybe there is etter chances, but i stand by my opinion of not liking the Howard government one bit!
again, hope youre all having a good day, forgive me my spelling mistakes!
I'm enjoying this thread too... stop crying DS - i want to get an update. lol
I honestly dont think much would change if Labor or anyone else for that matter was in power. I also think that John Howard is damned if he does, damned if he doesnt. What's that saying? "you can never please 100% of the people, 100% of the time" & with that in mind, i think he is doing ok.
jomarie - keep posting, it is good to see other's point of view & outlooks. No-one is right or wrong, just voicing opinions. A heathy (but friendly) debate is good for the mind - especially when you are talking to a 4 month old all day long! :)
MammaMia
01-05-2006, 16:40
I reckon it was RIGGED!!!
Maybe someone should just do a poll?
When in doubt, throw in a conspiracy theory.... without substance or evidence, but creating ripples nonetheless...hint that there is more to an election scrutinsed by thousands of pollsters nation-wide... someone switched the results and snuck The Prime Minister into power once again. Interesting approach to political dissatisfaction.
As for doing a poll, how about a nation-wide one? you know the sort - campaign trails, ads, debates, candidates, voting. Apparently quite effective in judging the mood of the people.
Pippi Longstocking
01-05-2006, 17:45
You know, I suspect there just may be something in the vote rigging idea. I realise that a subjective personal experience does not a debate make, but I too only know one person that voted liberal. My friend and I have discussed this strange phenomenon at length and we came to the conclusion that either it was rigged or we only mingle with cool people :D
Either that or everybody is too embarrassed to admit they voted for J Ho.
Okay - I'll drop by for a quickie, but I can't stay long - New MacDonalds Farm finishes in a couple of minutes and my DS needs me to play a game with him.
Just a couple of points to ponder and no, I am not into the conspiracy theories - the majority of Australians have voted for the Howard government in the last 10years. (Do I throw in here how this is different to previous Labor governments where gerrymandering was rampant?)
A couple of people who are comparing Labor and Liberal governments and salaries, stolen generations etc would do well to look at what's happening in WA at the moment, where we currently have a Labor government. It has been revealed that our Health minister has given himself a $40k rise (to $500k) after being in the job for 6months without any performance indicators. The government is considering some sort of relocation for Aboriginal children in Halls Creek (with the blessing of the elders of that community) to stop the alcohol and abuse which is continuing through generations...
Regarding David Hicks - I think there's a lot we don't know about his situation and to back this up, maybe we should be asking Britain why they didn't want to grant him British citizenship?
Just some food for thought. As for the IR laws - methinks that there has been a fair bit of people taking some advantage of things that have happened at work and then justified it by saying it's to do with the new laws, when there is really no link.
Don't get me started on some of the welfare issues (mainly to do with the previously introduced (by the last Labor government) non-researched child support figures which majorly discriminate against second families). If I have to work to support my family - why doesn't my husband's ex?
From what I know, no government is perfect, however, a well researched one serves it's people much better...
Okay - got to go now, but will be back later to see if I can contribute anything worthy of debate.:)
RedPanda
01-05-2006, 18:12
Wow! Firstly I have to say that I am very impressed that such a controversial thread has remained informative, dignified and respectful!
I majored in politics at uni, and regardless of my own beliefs, I always love to see healthy debate. Australia is one of the most apathetic nations when it comes to political issues, so whenever anyone has strong views either way, I always find it interesting to ask if they've actually done anything about it.
My father is CONSTANTLY complaining about the way everything is run, yet I don't think he's EVER contacted a politician in his life. It's good to have opinions on things, but it's pretty useless unless you make them heard (not saying people don't have a right to voice their opinions, just saying it won't influence change unless you direct it to the right channels). Don't jump on me please! I usually don't join threads like this (bit scary - and I'm over my campaigning uni days!), so be gentle!:(
Pippi Longstocking
01-05-2006, 18:25
Hazel, I completely agree with you. There is no point whinging about things if you are not prepared to actually act. Our local member who happens to be coughliberalcough:o has been contacted by us a few times with positive results.
RedPanda
01-05-2006, 18:30
Hee hee! Good for you ******! I am also known to have contacted certain pollies several times. I almost can't stop myself sometimes, although I have to admit, I'm getting less fiery these days. I must have a chilled-out baby inside me combating my fiery streak!:D
MammaMia
01-05-2006, 18:47
I tend to think that when you have such strong political inclinations, you generally tend to closely associate with others of the same political persuasion.
Have you thought that maybe people don't tell you that they vote for John Howard because they don't feel like being told what a mistake they made .... in your opinion?
I voted for John Howard. And I will probably do so again. I was raised in a family who ran small businesses - under the Labor government. I remember the challenges they faced. Now, we own a business ourselves and we continue to identify more with the Liberal philosophies on a free enterprise. I reserve my views on the IR laws until they have been tested.
I believe in workers needing protection from unscrupulous bosses. I believe in paying taxes and using them for the communal good. I do not believe these to be the bastion of the Labor Party.
I find it disrespectful to address the Prime Minister of our nation as Little Johnny. Whilst I do not support the Labor party, I believe the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to my respect for holding an important position. I accord him that respect. Not only are they each leaders of their respective parties, they are the elected representatives of their electorate and this entitles them to my respect as they act for those individuals who elected them in good faith.
I do not believe any political party or government gets it right all the time. I am not naive enough to think that they do not consider their own agenda at times.
But it is a system - an old system and it is better than the alternatives I see demonstrated throughout the world.
I value a strong Opposition. I think it is an asset in setting the agenda, in keeping the government of the day accountable and facilitating productive debate. I consider that the Federal Opposition has let down the Australian people by not being a strong Opposition for some years. I think another classic example of this is presently demonstrated in Queensland - Labor government, Coalition Opposition.
So, those are my thoughts.
I tend to think people are quick to jump on the Government when they get something wrong, but just as quick to forget about the positives.
Just going back to the terrorist thing (sorry, i dont know enough about some of the other topics to discuss them) why is it that Australia hasnt been targeted? Is it just because we havent made it to the top of the list yet or is it because of the tough anti-terror laws the government has introduced since 9/11? We wont know for sure, but I know I feel comfortable that John Howard's Government is doing everything possible to protect Australia & it's people.
Mamaduke
01-05-2006, 18:59
I find it disrespectful to address the Prime Minister of our nation as Little Johnny. Whilst I do not support the Labor party, I believe the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to my respect for holding an important position. I accord him that respect. Not only are they each leaders of their respective parties, they are the elected representatives of their electorate and this entitles them to my respect as they act for those individuals who elected them in good faith.
Here here...:yelclap:
jessgray
01-05-2006, 20:19
i think john howard is trying hard to do his best sure george bush mis-lead him and tony blair into the war on iraq with what we now know was false evidence of weapons of mass destruction. and sure there was the children over board scandal. i dont agree with the IR laws.
but i think he is doing the best he can he is trying to curb welfare cheats and medicare fraud, and heaps of places of childcare are being promised in the new budget as well as a $1000 payment aimed at mothers.
i've only voted once. i dont understand politics but IMO anything is better then george bush:laughing:
stormanet
01-05-2006, 20:20
Hey Hey, Ho Ho, Johnny Howard's got to Go!!!
misskittyfantastico
01-05-2006, 20:28
I can't stand the man, his policies, his government.
jessgray
01-05-2006, 20:44
i dont agree with how america is aloud to treat us and other countries. its like we are forced to kiss americas bum :laughing: and what do we get out of it :confused: :laughing:
I value a strong Opposition. I think it is an asset in setting the agenda, in keeping the government of the day accountable and facilitating productive debate. I consider that the Federal Opposition has let down the Australian people by not being a strong Opposition for some years. I think another classic example of this is presently demonstrated in Queensland - Labor government, Coalition Opposition.
So, those are my thoughts.
Hear, hear. I voted Lib, but I would love to have the Labor Party make me actually think about it, even for just 30 s :thumbsup:
MrsMiggins
01-05-2006, 22:13
I grew up in a Lib voting family & when I started voting I did my duty & voted the same way as the rest of my family.
Then I started becoming aware of politics & world events & I realised that in voting Liberal just because my family has always done so I was making my vote pointless.
If I was going to go to the trouble of voting, I decided I had a responsibilty to make my vote count! Women have fought for the vote for so long & here I have the right to vote & I'm not doing anything with it!!
When I really started to look at the issues, I could not in good conscience keep voting Liberal.
My 2 main beefs with this Government (and there are plenty more I won't go into here) are how they handle foreign relations (including refugees) and their total lack of common sense when it comes to education funding.
As I explained to my Liberal voting husband in the last election, how can you vote for a government who wants to make it impossible for our children to get a good education in a public school? Why should we have to put ourselves into poverty so that we can afford a decent education in a private school for our children? I simply cannot do that. He also admitted that he voted Liberal purely & simply because he & his parents always had.
I can't stand the man, his policies, his government.
You're cool milliesmum. :yelclap:
Is any one else also concerned about the new card that he is introducing?
It will start being phased in over a 2 yr period in 2008. It apparently will replace all the various pension/healthcare cards and will contain in a microchip various information about you and your family, including photo etc. Apparently its not 'compulsory' but you wont be able to access goverment services like medicare without it :rolleyes: ok, maybe i am getting off track now, where has that bleeding heart thread got to................
You're cool milliesmum. :yelclap:
She is isnt she :D I think we have found a fellow comrade Bron........
We seem to have 2 schools of thought on this thread:
One group who are stating that this is a government that's doing what it has to do (nobody's said it's perfect), but that there hasn't been enough intelligent opposition from the opposition.
The other group seems to be stating that the government is no good, has to go, bllindly follows in George Bush's wake etc.
The problem I have with the second group of statements is that they don't seem to have any substance to them. They are inflammatory, and really don't say anything. They remind me of people who write on their ballot papers (I've worked on about 15 elections counting votes etc) that they hate the government, but haven't proposed anything different, and really have nothing to back themselves up. Their votes end up in the bin and ignored by all. Actually, the other employees of the electoral commission look at them and laugh saying how silly people like that are...
We have indeed Coops. :thumbsup:
MrsMiggins
01-05-2006, 22:34
I agree Pegasus. If it's one thing I can't stand, it's deliberate donkey voting!! Some people say that this is making a statement, but all you're really doing is ushering the current government in for another term!
I did say in my post that I disagree with the Liberal Government based on their issues (just answering the OP question I guess) but I have to admit I am at a loss as to any real solution. I voted for the Greens in the last Federal election because I found I tended to agree with more of their policies than with those of any other party. My problem with this is then of course preferences. So even if you are voting for a candidate/party you agree with, your votes end up going to a party you may not necessarily agree with.
My support for the ALP in recent years has gone from mediocre to somewhat less than mediocre. Not because I necessarily disagree with their policies so much as I have doubts that they could competently run the country.
(Top work on the cake, BTW! It looks great!! :chef: :thumbsup:)
We seem to have 2 schools of thought on this thread:
One group who are stating that this is a government that's doing what it has to do (nobody's said it's perfect), but that there hasn't been enough intelligent opposition from the opposition.
The other group seems to be stating that the government is no good, has to go, bllindly follows in George Bush's wake etc.
The problem I have with the second group of statements is that they don't seem to have any substance to them. They are inflammatory, and really don't say anything. They remind me of people who write on their ballot papers (I've worked on about 15 elections counting votes etc) that they hate the government, but haven't proposed anything different, and really have nothing to back themselves up. Their votes end up in the bin and ignored by all. Actually, the other employees of the electoral commission look at them and laugh saying how silly people like that are...
I cant speak for everyone, but I know for me and probably some of the other longer term members we have voiced our thoughts in more detail before and so just dont want to do it over, whilst still appreciating that for some it is the first time they have had this discussion on a forum.
Doesnt mean we dont want to put our 2c in, I mean the title of the thread is only 'do you like Howards government?' not 'why do you like Howards Government'
As for the other comment, well I am not one of 'those' people who doesnt try and make her vote count, nor are most of the other woman here I am sure. :)
Ana Gram
01-05-2006, 22:45
I have donkey voted in the past and have no problem admitting it. It's not about making a statement, and I am not in a position to offer an altenative solution. The way the current voting works is they give you basically two parties to vote for. I don't like either of the options, so why do I have to vote for them?
I have donkey voted in the past and have no problem admitting it. It's not about making a statement, and I am not in a position to offer an altenative solution. The way the current voting works is they give you basically two parties to vote for. I don't like either of the options, so why do I have to vote for them?
Good point Chelle, if you dont feel strongly towards any of the parties, why pick any of them? I just think if you do want your voice heard about a particular party, then you should use your opporunity to vote wisely. :)
MrsMiggins
01-05-2006, 22:51
At the risk of highjacking this thread (sorry!!:o ), I think you've made a very valid point, chellgoth. My opinion is however that to this day around the world, people die for the right to vote, so I feel I should use it to the best advantage seeing that I was born with that right.
Ana Gram
01-05-2006, 22:59
So because people in other countries have died for the right to vote, I have to vote for a political party just because I have that right?
Lots of valid points being made here. Yes, coops - we've had some of these conversations before, so there's probably no reason to revisit...I think the info that will come out in this thread has probably been written before, but again, we revisit the same ground. You know that I love a healthy debate on these sort of things:wave: Maybe we should refresh the Bleeding heart and step back in time threads so we can show what's been written before?
My main difficulty is people who seem to say things like: "it's the government's fault", or "I hate the government" without actually backing up their statements as to why. I fully acknowledge that not everyone has solutions, and in that case it does make it difficult, but unless I can back up my statements with experiences, or facts, or alternatives, I try not to open my mouth. (It's better to be thought an idiot than to open your mouth and prove people right)
As for the donkey vote - therein lies a quandry - what do you do if you don't want any of them? My post was more about the fact that some people really do use their ballots to make statements that are only seen by electoral commission employees, and get ridiculed rather than revered. Another valid point from fiona_t regarding the fact that in some other countries you can't even vote. (PS I was proud of my cake - hence the change in avatar for 24 hours).
Okay - here's another to ponder - (sorry - I know this is supposed to be about the Howard government), but if voting wasn't compulsory, then would we be more likely to have a Labor or Liberal government? I know what the people I've worked at on elections believe. Is it a reflection of who actually cares?
MrsMiggins
01-05-2006, 23:07
I look at every party's policies very carefully & figure that someone has to be in government. I feel it is my responsibility to help vote in my best-case scenario & help keep out my worst-case scenario.
I guess my view is that if I feel very strongly either for or against a certain policy, then I am voting either for or against that.
No political party is going to be able to please all the people all the time & in fact, no political party is going to be able to please just one person all of the time. I vote for my most important policies to me at any one time.
I look at every party's policies very carefully & figure that someone has to be in government. I feel it is my responsibility to help vote in my best-case scenario & help keep out my worst-case scenario.
I guess my view is that if I feel very strongly either for or against a certain policy, then I am voting either for or against that.
No political party is going to be able to please all the people all the time & in fact, no political party is going to be able to please just one person all of the time. I vote for my most important policies to me at any one time.
Just wanted to say I love your post fiona:yelclap:
(Quote by Mamaduke).
I find it disrespectful to address the Prime Minister of our nation as Little Johnny. Whilst I do not support the Labor party, I believe the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to my respect for holding an important position. I accord him that respect. Not only are they each leaders of their respective parties, they are the elected representatives of their electorate and this entitles them to my respect as they act for those individuals who elected them in good faith.
Mamaduke Well said on the above quote. In my opinion, no matter what your political persuasion, I believe both leaders deserve respect, purely for holding an important position.
Mamaduke
01-05-2006, 23:41
(Quote by Mamaduke).
I find it disrespectful to address the Prime Minister of our nation as Little Johnny. Whilst I do not support the Labor party, I believe the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to my respect for holding an important position. I accord him that respect. Not only are they each leaders of their respective parties, they are the elected representatives of their electorate and this entitles them to my respect as they act for those individuals who elected them in good faith.
Mamaduke Well said on the above quote. In my opinion, no matter what your political persuasion, I believe both leaders deserve respect, purely for holding an important position.
It was well written wasn't it!!!:D
It was written by MammaMia, just in case you thought it was me!
On a personal note, I don't care much for Kym Beazley but I would never stoop so low as to attack his size, appearance etc (or whoever the leader may be next week;) )...it doesn't strike me as a very clever or intelligent comment to make, and therefore, I don't end up taking any of the following comment seriously.
Mamaduke
01-05-2006, 23:43
By the way...I love it how this thread has been just plodding along nicely!
Bravo ladies:yelclap: !!
To think I was watching Boston Legal when all this was going on...just love that Danny Crane - he's a scream!
reAllytee
01-05-2006, 23:54
Gees this is a game thread isnt it ????
Im not even going to go there but i have to say Fiona & so many others have made some great statements which deserve a great big :yelclap:
(Quote by Mamaduke).
I find it disrespectful to address the Prime Minister of our nation as Little Johnny. Whilst I do not support the Labor party, I believe the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to my respect for holding an important position. I accord him that respect. Not only are they each leaders of their respective parties, they are the elected representatives of their electorate and this entitles them to my respect as they act for those individuals who elected them in good faith.
Mamaduke Well said on the above quote. In my opinion, no matter what your political persuasion, I believe both leaders deserve respect, purely for holding an important position.
Sorry MammaMia, I meant the praise for your comment, but got mixed up with Mammaduke!:laughing: Mammaduke thanks for pointing out my mix-up:D
Better the devil you know :yes: .........
than the devil you don't :no:
reAllytee
02-05-2006, 00:36
I think thats most peoples thoughts JenNT !
Welcome back btw :D
Touche' Allyoo:hugs:
:gloomy: :no: :D Jen
Admit it Jen - you missed the smilies and you've just popped up so you can try them all out.
The problems only come in when some of us admit our ages and admit to what we remember. (No - I'm not referring to the DOOL memories I posted about the other day from 30 years ago!)
Fairyfloss
02-05-2006, 02:19
Better the devil you know :yes: .........
than the devil you don't :no:
I am with you on that, but i think, I think will stop my comments there,
I work for fedral government, so I am just thankfull, John Howard pays me enough to cover my bills.:thumbsup: no windging about the big boss now:laughing: .
Ange&Seth
02-05-2006, 05:02
His new IR rules have made my life hell...
Me too!
I really can't comment though, I don't understand how you're meant to vote so I don't. I walk in, get my name marked off and then walk back out again. I know I should exercise my right, but I have no idea who i should vote for, and the way I see it, no matter who's in power, someone's gonna be unhappy with their ideas.
I'm just really scared that if i go in to vote and just start ticking or crossing boxes, what happens if my ONE vote is the one vote that happens to get someone REALLY awful into power?
If someone could tell me which politician is planning to help families out more than Howard currently is, THEN I'd definitely go in and vote.
I'm just totally clueless when it comes to politics, and DP won't even tell me who I should vote for coz it's supposed to be 'my' choice! What the..................:ecomcity: :ecomcity: :ecomcity:
I'm going now :o
I find it disrespectful to address the Prime Minister of our nation as Little Johnny. Whilst I do not support the Labor party, I believe the Leader of the Opposition is entitled to my respect for holding an important position. I accord him that respect. Not only are they each leaders of their respective parties, they are the elected representatives of their electorate and this entitles them to my respect as they act for those individuals who elected them in good faith.
.
I agree, MammaMia. Regardless of whether you support John Howard or not, he is still the Prime Minister of our country & deserves respect, as does Kim Beazley. You dont have to agree with his ways, but name calling is a personal attack & considering none of us know him personally, we dont have the right to do that.
MumsieMel
02-05-2006, 07:31
IMO at the end of the day all governments are after the same thing. :thumbsdown:
They can never please everyone and rarely try to! :no:
Pippi Longstocking
02-05-2006, 07:46
I diagree entirely with J Ho deserving my respect. I respect those that have earned it. I don't respect people who do not respect me. And believe me, J Ho does not respect lower class SAH mums! He does not respect poor people in general, he does not respect people with disabilities, he does not respect indigenous people...I absolutely do not respect J Ho and I can't pretend otherwise. It is silly to demand respect - most of us have kids here right? Do we earn their respect or do we demand it? Personally, I work to ensure that my kids respect me by respecting them.
I really can't comment though, I don't understand how you're meant to vote so I don't. I walk in, get my name marked off and then walk back out again. I know I should exercise my right, but I have no idea who i should vote for, and the way I see it, no matter who's in power, someone's gonna be unhappy with their ideas.
I used to be exactly the same. Until I decided that I didn't like the way things were but didn't have the capacity to understand them enough to be actively involved in changing them. Voting is an important right and we owe it to ourselves to educate ourselves enough to be able to make a difference with our vote. That is the problem I have with a lot of Aussies - we as a nation are far too apathetic. We are much happier sitting on our butts whinging then we would be actually doing all that we could to implement change...
MammaMia
02-05-2006, 07:56
I diagree entirely with J Ho deserving my respect. I respect those that have earned it. I don't respect people who do not respect me. And believe me, J Ho does not respect lower class SAH mums! He does not respect poor people in general, he does not respect people with disabilities, he does not respect indigenous people...I absolutely do not respect J Ho and I can't pretend otherwise. It is silly to demand respect - most of us have kids here right? Do we earn their respect or do we demand it? Personally, I work to ensure that my kids respect me by respecting them.
I used to be exactly the same. Until I decided that I didn't like the way things were but didn't have the capacity to understand them enough to be actively involved in changing them. Voting is an important right and we owe it to ourselves to educate ourselves enough to be able to make a difference with our vote. That is the problem I have with a lot of Aussies - we as a nation are far too apathetic. We are much happier sitting on our butts whinging then we would be actually doing all that we could to implement change...
There is a distinction between respecting the position and agreeing with how the job is being done or the policies of the party. I find it curious that if one of us was to employ a person, belittle him by calling him Little Johnny or Fat Kim in the workplace, scream at him, chant at him, call him a fool, a yes man.... we would no doubt see ourselves on some current affairs show and be told (correctly) that we were subjecting him to workplace bullying.
In effect, the Prime Minister is in the employ of the people - appointed by a majority board vote. He is entitled to respect in that position because we as a nation are entitled to respect: if we respect the highest appointment in our government, we are ultimately respecting ourselves. Why, simply because he is in office, is he subjected to personal name calling or derogatory terms?
It should only become personal when the man does something personally dishonourable that in turn dishonours the nation.... embezzles our money, approves contracts for his own personal benefit.
I agree he should remain accountable and the actions of his government be held accountable through informed debate.
If you don't agree with the job being done, use your vote effectively and get involved in the process of getting candidates into office. You have issues, so use your strength of opinion to the benefit of those you believe in and the party you support.
Pippi Longstocking
02-05-2006, 08:04
If you don't agree with the job being done, use your vote effectively and get involved in the process of getting candidates into office. You have issues, so use your strength of opinion to the benefit of those you believe in and the party you support.
I concur. :yes: It's on my "when I change the world" list of things to do :D .
But I do think that sometimes people feel that chanting etc are the only way they can get their voices heard. I do agree that it is not the best way to go about it however.
I think that the name calling, screaming and chanting are all indications that people aren't happy with the job that is being done.
And for what it's worth, I don't refer to him as Little Johnny, although I think that nicknames such as that are the very epitome of Australianism. I much prefer J Ho :D
Question: to all the people that dont think John Howard is doing a good job, who would you rather see in his place. Who do you think will be able to please all Australians? Do you think it should be Kim Beazley or someone else?
Pippi Longstocking
02-05-2006, 08:13
VOTE 1 ****** :D
It is a valid question. I don't much like Beazley either. I liked Latham but that might be because I am an angry yobbo too :o :p
I would prefer Beazley over J Ho but there is definitely room for improvement there.
VOTE 1 ****** :D
lol - i was wondering who would be first to nomiante themselves - we have a winner! :D
littlepickle
02-05-2006, 08:24
I think governments are all pretty much the same and agree - better the devil you know!
I have avoided this thread but I think Mark Latham would have been a disaster. Loose cannon comes to mind. I also didn't like Medicare Gold.
Sorry - me again. A leader for the ALP? Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd would get my vote, and could well win back a lot of swinging voters.
I've said it many many times before. The reason I oppose the Howard government is that I believe there are many things in life significantly more important than how much tax I pay. DH and I may well be better off under a Liberal government, but that doesn't matter.
What does matter is a government that treats people with compassion. A government that is prepared to apologise to our indigenous Australians, a government that has a more compassionate approach to refugees fleeing persecution, a government that recognises workers rights, a government that is able to realise that we didn't need to go to war in Iraq, and indeed we shouldn't have, given the mess that is Iraq at the moment, a government who wants to maintain our wonderful old growth forrests, a government that will consider a republic as a reasonable option for Australia, a government that does not feel they can decide on women's reproductive rights (referring here to access to IVF for same sex couples).
And no, I'm not saying that the ALP will do all these things, but I think they are significantly closer than the coalition. That's why I vote Green, but my preferences go to the ALP.
And the "better the devil you know" argument is very worrying. This kind of complacency in our electoral system causes me much anxiety. We are lucky to have one of the best electoral systems in the world (preferential voting, compulsory voting - both rare in other countries), let's not take it for granted.
Pippi Longstocking
02-05-2006, 08:43
Oh, change my vote!
:smiliedance: :smiliedance: VOTE 1 BRON!!!:smiliedance: :smiliedance:
You just said all that I believe far more articulately than I have managed to bumble out thus far.
I agree Bron, a change of Labor leadership would certainly change my opinion. We're big Kevin Rudd fans here :)
Hi,
I am firmly in the anti-Howard camp. But I agree with Mamaduke etc, we should respect his office, even if we find his policies abhorent.
I find Howard's handling of the Iraq war very worrying in many ways. His actions there have not made the world or Australia a safter place, and nor is it helping ordinary Iraqis who now are living in a state of civil war. The head of the Federal police made a comment about how the Iraq war has made us a bigger terrorist target after the Madrid bombing, but Howard made him retract this statement as it was politically embarressing for him - this is another worrying problem with the Howard goverment - it doesn't like criticism and is very secretive - and government ministers no longer take responsibility for the way their departments practice their policies (no minister has been reprimanded for the Vivian Solon or Cornelia Rau cases - in fact the Minister involved was made the Attorney General - a very important and politically powerful position)
Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the war - they were opposed to Hussein as he did not have a fundamentalist Islamic state, which is AQ's aim. The present situation in Iraq is just causing more formerly moderate Muslems to become radicalised. With Hussein gone and a power vacuum in that country, it is now a haven for terrorists who want to install a fundamentalist Muslem state.
I am not an apologist for Hussein, but to say we went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons is not very likely in my opinion - there are many countries which have appalling human rights reputations and they are firm allies in this so called "War on Terror" (google Uzbekistan and human rights and see what you find - Pakistan is equally as dodgey, as is Egypt). Indeed Hussein was our ally even when he was gassing the Kurds - it was ignored because he was also fighting the Iranians who were the US's major enemy at that time. It's way more likely that we are in Iraq because it has the second biggest oil reserves on the planet, and it would be a very nice spot for the US to have a military presence in the Middle East - especially when their presence in Saudi Arabia is becoming more and more problematic. Also the pretext for war wasn't to help Iraqi's it was the so called weapons of mass distruction that the US had "proof" of.
Fiona T earlier said something that bothered me about preferences when we vote - I'm not sure if people are aware, but you don't have to follow the "how to vote" cards - I give my preferences in the order I want.
Sharvs, I agree, the ALP are a complete mess and have done our country a complete disservice by their disappointing performace in opposition. If I had to choose a Coalition person to the alternate PM, I'd go Costello (I despise Abbott), and if I could choose an ALP person, I'd go Kevin Rudd just because I like what I've seen so far - I don't know enough about Julia Gillard. I myself voted Green in the last election, and am even considering joining that party when my bub is a bit bigger and I have more free time. I also write to ministers about my concerns and try to keep up with real current affairs (definitely not TT or CA).
Bron - I too find the "better the devil you know" argument a worrying one - especially when in my opinion, Howard has been a dreadful PM who has repeatedly mislead the Australian public, who has politicised the public service beyond belief, and is more than happy to push through policies that have no mandate simply because he has the power to do so.
I think Howard is an extremely smart media operator who has been very successful in using fear as an effective tool to keep his grip on power - whether it is the fear of terror after 9/11 or boat people, or the false suggestion that the ALP in government would lead to higher interest rates. Fear is a very good motivator and he is very good at using it to suit his cause. People just want to hang onto what they've got - we live in uncertain times politically and economically we are rightfully afraid of terrorism and of losing jobs (this is the one area people really have reacted to because they can see a direct relation to his policies and how it affects them personally - it's difficult to spin how IR changes are good when you or your spouse know how it works in real life).
As a nation we are very cynical about pollies and many people find the political process too distant from them to feel like they can have an impact. And the pollies have an interest in keeping us feeling this way - they can get away with alot more if we all continue to say - they are all ratbags, I can't do anything.
I just wanted to add slomething to the comment about not bcaking up your statements..
I have an opinion but I dont know enough about poiltics toback it up like some of you do.
It doesnt mean my opinion is not valid though.
I am learning about politics all the time and the best way to learn is to have conversations like this. If you are only aloowed in if you can back it up thenI wont ever get anywhere!
I dotn like John Howard..and my backups are not going to be well worded ..or academic..they are just my humble opinions.
I dont like him because of how he effects my family and my worklife.
I dont agree with his stance on the Iraq war.
I dont agree with how he treats Refugess.
I dont like his policies..I dont like him.
I dotn know who can do it better either all I know is I dont like him.
Niamh - you just have backed up your statements.:thumbsup: You've said you don't like how he affects your family and worklife, and you don't agree with his stance on the war etc. These are all valid points.
We don't need to share our intimate details here so if it has affected you adversely, then that's all we need to know. My gripe is more with people who think they are hard done by, and immediately believe media hype and say it must be the government's fault. I believe in some instances people are mislead by media statements and it's not really anything to do with this government's policies, sometimes it's hard to distinguish between the truth and misleading comments. In a lot of incidents (like the children overboard, detention centre issues and a few others), I feel like I don't have enough information which is truthful so I just don't comment on them.
MrsMiggins
02-05-2006, 12:05
Fiona T earlier said something that bothered me about preferences when we vote - I'm not sure if people are aware, but you don't have to follow the "how to vote" cards - I give my preferences in the order I want.
I actually don't even take the How To Vote cards. I have always looked into things enough on my own without a party telling me how they want you to vote after you've put them #1.
Preferences though is how politics works.
Basically the independants & smaller parties (ie: not Labour/Coalition) know they do not have the numbers for they themselves to get into government. So what happens when they receive votes is that these numbers then make up "preferences" to bolster the 2 main parties' votes. At least that is my basic understanding of it. Maybe one of the other posters who knows all the intricate workings of the electoral system may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, or perhaps explain it a little better.
I actually don't even take the How To Vote cards. I have always looked into things enough on my own without a party telling me how they want you to vote after you've put them #1.
Preferences though is how politics works.
Basically the independants & smaller parties (ie: not Labour/Coalition) know they do not have the numbers for they themselves to get into government. So what happens when they receive votes is that these numbers then make up "preferences" to bolster the 2 main parties' votes. At least that is my basic understanding of it. Maybe one of the other posters who knows all the intricate workings of the electoral system may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, or perhaps explain it a little better.
True, and I think this is where some people get confused as to why one particular party is or isnt in power. They think 'well noone i know voted for them' but there are probably lots of people out there who dont realise how the preferences work and what a big impact they can have on deciding who gets in.
I actually don't even take the How To Vote cards. I have always looked into things enough on my own without a party telling me how they want you to vote after you've put them #1.
Preferences though is how politics works.
Basically the independants & smaller parties (ie: not Labour/Coalition) know they do not have the numbers for they themselves to get into government. So what happens when they receive votes is that these numbers then make up "preferences" to bolster the 2 main parties' votes. At least that is my basic understanding of it. Maybe one of the other posters who knows all the intricate workings of the electoral system may be able to correct me if I'm wrong, or perhaps explain it a little better.
Hi Fiona T, thanks for clearing that up for me, I misunderstood what you were saying.
With regard to preferences, my understanding is that the various political parties work out deals with other parties with regard to how preferences are put down on how to vote cards prior to the election - this is particularly important in marginal seats because preferences can be very important to final result - political parties assume most voters will follow the how to vote cards handed out by their party of first choice. They put out how to vote cards so voters who want to vote for a particular party will give their preferences in a particular order. However, if you vote and put the preferences the way you want them, then they can't change it. If all voters voted purely on their own without using how to vote cards, these preference deals would become meaningless.
Eg, the Family First party agreed to put the Coalition as the second choice on it's how to vote cards because the Coalition said it would do Family Impact Studies, to ensure future policies wouldn't negatively impact on families of course once the Coalition got into power using FF's preferences, they renegged on the deal.
Once they get into power certain parties will work together more closely than others - but that is a different thing.
Sorry that I haven't been more articulate but that was the best I could do at the moment.
Aquamarine
02-05-2006, 14:34
Hi,
I am firmly in the anti-Howard camp. But I agree with Mamaduke etc, we should respect his office, even if we find his policies abhorent.
I find Howard's handling of the Iraq war very worrying in many ways. His actions there have not made the world or Australia a safter place, and nor is it helping ordinary Iraqis who now are living in a state of civil war. The head of the Federal police made a comment about how the Iraq war has made us a bigger terrorist target after the Madrid bombing, but Howard made him retract this statement as it was politically embarressing for him - this is another worrying problem with the Howard goverment - it doesn't like criticism and is very secretive - and government ministers no longer take responsibility for the way their departments practice their policies (no minister has been reprimanded for the Vivian Solon or Cornelia Rau cases - in fact the Minister involved was made the Attorney General - a very important and politically powerful position)
Al Qaeda wasn't in Iraq before the war - they were opposed to Hussein as he did not have a fundamentalist Islamic state, which is AQ's aim. The present situation in Iraq is just causing more formerly moderate Muslems to become radicalised. With Hussein gone and a power vacuum in that country, it is now a haven for terrorists who want to install a fundamentalist Muslem state.
I am not an apologist for Hussein, but to say we went to Iraq for humanitarian reasons is not very likely in my opinion - there are many countries which have appalling human rights reputations and they are firm allies in this so called "War on Terror" (google Uzbekistan and human rights and see what you find - Pakistan is equally as dodgey, as is Egypt). Indeed Hussein was our ally even when he was gassing the Kurds - it was ignored because he was also fighting the Iranians who were the US's major enemy at that time. It's way more likely that we are in Iraq because it has the second biggest oil reserves on the planet, and it would be a very nice spot for the US to have a military presence in the Middle East - especially when their presence in Saudi Arabia is becoming more and more problematic. Also the pretext for war wasn't to help Iraqi's it was the so called weapons of mass distruction that the US had "proof" of.
Fiona T earlier said something that bothered me about preferences when we vote - I'm not sure if people are aware, but you don't have to follow the "how to vote" cards - I give my preferences in the order I want.
Sharvs, I agree, the ALP are a complete mess and have done our country a complete disservice by their disappointing performace in opposition. If I had to choose a Coalition person to the alternate PM, I'd go Costello (I despise Abbott), and if I could choose an ALP person, I'd go Kevin Rudd just because I like what I've seen so far - I don't know enough about Julia Gillard. I myself voted Green in the last election, and am even considering joining that party when my bub is a bit bigger and I have more free time. I also write to ministers about my concerns and try to keep up with real current affairs (definitely not TT or CA).
Bron - I too find the "better the devil you know" argument a worrying one - especially when in my opinion, Howard has been a dreadful PM who has repeatedly mislead the Australian public, who has politicised the public service beyond belief, and is more than happy to push through policies that have no mandate simply because he has the power to do so.
I think Howard is an extremely smart media operator who has been very successful in using fear as an effective tool to keep his grip on power - whether it is the fear of terror after 9/11 or boat people, or the false suggestion that the ALP in government would lead to higher interest rates. Fear is a very good motivator and he is very good at using it to suit his cause. People just want to hang onto what they've got - we live in uncertain times politically and economically we are rightfully afraid of terrorism and of losing jobs (this is the one area people really have reacted to because they can see a direct relation to his policies and how it affects them personally - it's difficult to spin how IR changes are good when you or your spouse know how it works in real life).
As a nation we are very cynical about pollies and many people find the political process too distant from them to feel like they can have an impact. And the pollies have an interest in keeping us feeling this way - they can get away with alot more if we all continue to say - they are all ratbags, I can't do anything.
I haven't been able to get back online for a while.
I agree with so much you have said BJelly.
I too voted for the greens and I too would prefer Costello to Howard and Rudd to Beazley.
The points you have made are so true.
Especially the points about scaremongering.
I do respect everyones opinion on this subject though.
The only thing I disagree with is the part about respecting his office. I'm sorry, I don't think Howard has done enough to earn my respect. That is just my opinion though.
I read on an earlier post about talking the talk but not doing your thing to stand up and be heard. I totally agree, I am one of those people that write letters to pollies so my voice can be heard.
I marched in the anti war rally in Sydney and I often write letters for Amnesty International too. Amongst other things.
I think no matter what your political view, standing up and being heard is so important.:)
Sally (30)
DH (30)
DS (3)
DS (2)
Bub #3 due 09/09/2006
Hi 3spunkyboys - thanks for starting a great thread - I agree with pretty much everything you've said.
I understand your position with regard to Howardeven tho I don't agree - after all he has done more than anyone to bring his office into disrepute.
I think the Howard government are fallible, like all people in positions of power, however, I do think they have done a lot to get this country back on financial track. Anyone remember 17% interest rates?? (Okay, now I'm showin' my age! ;) )
Love,
Nan. xx
Just one thing about this point:
...and is more than happy to push through policies that have no mandate simply because he has the power to do so.
John Howard has a mandate. The Australian ppl gave him control of the upper AND lower houses. My personal belief is that this is mainly because Labor provided such poor opposition, rather than the government's stellar performance. I would have voted for a monkey before I would have voted for a Mark Latham led Labor party...and I think very many people felt the same way. That's why the coalition has a mandate to do whatever they want.
It's often said the we get the government we deserve...
Cheers
Personally I think all politicians are much the same. They will tell you what you want to hear so you elect them then turn around and do the oposite once they're in power.
I think they are all as bad as each other.
MammaMia
02-05-2006, 15:49
Just one thing about this point:
John Howard has a mandate. The Australian ppl gave him control of the upper AND lower houses. My personal belief is that this is mainly because Labor provided such poor opposition, rather than the government's stellar performance. I would have voted for a monkey before I would have voted for a Mark Latham led Labor party...and I think very many people felt the same way. That's why the coalition has a mandate to do whatever they want.
It's often said the we get the government we deserve...
Cheers
***applause from the OCSC who is now going to leave this thread alone for fear that she will begin to see a conspiracy in every corner***
Just one thing about this point:
John Howard has a mandate. The Australian ppl gave him control of the upper AND lower houses. My personal belief is that this is mainly because Labor provided such poor opposition, rather than the government's stellar performance. I would have voted for a monkey before I would have voted for a Mark Latham led Labor party...and I think very many people felt the same way. That's why the coalition has a mandate to do whatever they want.
It's often said the we get the government we deserve...
Cheers
Hi I totally disagree about the mandate thing - a mandate is given when you act on policies that you put before people before an election. Howard's IR changes were not put before the electorate for us to vote for or against - if he'd run on that policy, I don't think they'd have been voted in again (eg the unfair dismissal laws changes were going to apply to companies with 20 or fewer employees before the election, this changed to 100 or less employees after the election - quite a difference).
He said he'd act responsibly with the power given to him when the Coalition took over control of both houses of parliament, and instead he has radically changed how we are going to live for the forseeable future.
I can't argue with you about your final quote. Apparently we do deserve him, but I wish we deserved better.
ButterflyKisses
02-05-2006, 16:17
I think the Howard government are fallible, like all people in positions of power, however, I do think they have done a lot to get this country back on financial track. Anyone remember 17% interest rates?? (Okay, now I'm showin' my age! ;) )
Love,Nan. xxwell I'm showing my age as well (fair bit older than you Nan). Before DH & I got together he bought a block of land on the Central Coast (Green Point) and got his fingers burnt as interest rates in the 80's were 18% (when he had the land). He had to move back in with his parents, sell the block and lost over $50K in the process.
Under Howard we have been able to buy a unit in Sydney, the interest rates dropped at least 6 times and our unit almost doubled in price and we paid it off in 7 years.
not to mention the baby bonus that is being paid to all us parents plus FBT etc. There was none of that given to my mum when we were kids. My mum was left a widow at 25 & had 5 little mouths plus hers to feed. She received a widows pension and the only treats we received as children were once a month when mum got her cheque she would buy a New Idea & a small cherry ripe for herself and a packet of fantales for us 5 kids to share. Can any of you out there say that you are that bad off under Howard's Government that those are the only treats that you and your kids get.
we are all so fortunate to live in Australia and really none of us have any real issues that we can honesty complain about. How many of us on BH are homeless, have no food, clothes, fresh water, we obviously all have electricity to be on our computers at the moment.
Yes there are people in Australia who are living from day to day and don't have 2 coins to rub together I don't know how to solve that problem. We all see on TV where when some people are given Government housing and they totally destroy it and ruin it for someone else who would be so grateful to just have a roof over their head. Yes the Government Depts could and should make it better for all those people waiting in line for somewhere decent to live. Too many people find it easier to blame the person at the top (Howard) of the Government then to put the blame where it really lies. It wouldn't matter which Government was in power you will always find some group, individuals, or whatever that will complain about something.
I think there is good in both the major parties but for me Howard is better than any other candidate on offer at the moment. Crumbs its not that long ago that Latham was chumping at the bit to be our Prime Minister and look what a lowdown, backstabbing scoundrel he turned out to be. Do you want the likes of him running this country? Would you sit in your living rooms with your chests all puffed up with pride watching him on TV representing our country when he would be visiting with other dignitaries from overseas. To me he was a major embarrassment and I'm glad he's out on his backside.
I will vote for Howard again until someone else comes along that I think can do a better job.:thumbsup:
RedPanda
02-05-2006, 16:52
Wow this thread is getting long! I missed one night and it's taken me ages to catch up!!!
I just wanted to clarify something. When we discuss "donkey voting" here, are we actually talking about informal voting? Donkey voting is when you just write 1-5 (or 6, or 7 - however many candidates there are) down the page without thinking (which is why pollies love getting the top spot on ballots!). Informal voting is when you write something (usually rude I guess) on the form and do not number any boxes.
I don't see the harm in informal voting, but donkey voting does annoy me. It's fine if you don't want to select a candidate, but I think it's wrong to cancel someone else's vote by thoughtlessly writing numbers down a page without looking at the names.
Julia Gillard seems ok, but I wish she would stop relying on her gender to promote herself. I don't like the presumption that she frequently makes in her interviews that Australian women want to see a female PM. I don't give a rats about what gender she is! I certainly think about more than the gender of the future leader when I cast my vote!
SamanthaJane
02-05-2006, 16:55
GRR:banghead: Howard government
I'd rather kim beazley anyday... mainly because they are about families!!!!
Mamaduke
02-05-2006, 17:07
I'd rather kim beazley anyday... mainly because they are about families!!!!
How so?:confused:
ButterflyKisses
02-05-2006, 17:12
GRR:banghead: Howard government
I'd rather kim beazley anyday... mainly because they are about families!!!!I gather you will be sending back your $3k baby bonus "return to sender" when you receive it from the Howard Govt and you also will not be applying for FBT....
RedPanda
02-05-2006, 17:17
By October, won't you have to return $4k?;)
I gather you will be sending back your $3k baby bonus "return to sender" when you receive it from the Howard Govt and you also will not be applying for FBT....
Nicely said, Butterfly - :smiliedance:
ButterflyKisses
02-05-2006, 17:30
By October, won't you have to return $4k?;)don't know anything about that one so I'll do a Pauline Hanson and say "please explain???".
princess niamh no disrespect was intended towards SamanthaJane's comment and I apologise to you SamanthaJane if you felt that. I was merely pointing out in a descriptive way that the Howard Govt is also for families.
I do not know alot about politics either but I do know that since me and my DH have become a family since DS was born that we have had alot of assistance from the Howard Government.
sopolicha
02-05-2006, 17:31
GRR:banghead: Howard government
I'd rather kim beazley anyday... mainly because they are about families!!!!
Maybe when you are old enough to vote.....................
RedPanda
02-05-2006, 17:35
Sorry - I probably should have put more context into what I was saying!!:o
I saw that Samantha's bub is due in Oct, and was wondering if the bonus went up in July? Not a fact - just a rumour I've heard. I was hoping someone would jump on and either confirm it or tell me I am dreaming!
ButterflyKisses
02-05-2006, 17:45
I am sooo confused..
Ok because she feels that under labour fmailys might be better off, she should give up anything good the howard government offers..
So If you like them sit back and enjoy the perks and dont complain about the negatives..
But if you dont like them then suffer and reject any help they offer you.
WOW....i didnt realise you had to like them to accept the BONUS...didnt see that on the formI never said that. I merely pointed out that the Howard Govt is also about families ie. baby bonus.
It's like a friend of mine her husband doesn't believe in government handouts ie. dole, government grant for first home owners, reduction in stamp duty etc however when I said to them "so when the baby bonus arrives are you going to send it back". Well the subject was changed very quickly and the $'s were spent before they received it. Of course no one looks a gift horse in the mouth but I don't sit and condemn a government that on the whole has been good for my family and frankly good for Australia.
Yes there are a hell of a lot of areas where they should pull their socks up but there's no use whinging about it since the majority of Australians voted them into power not once but 3 terms (or is it 4) in a row. Everyone will have their opportunity at the next election if they hate Howard's government so much.
ThomasMum
02-05-2006, 17:46
I wish though we don't have to pay too much tax heh (I know I know we use the tax for good cause I'm fine with that but still every dollar we earns 0.46c goes to tax how sad is that?), or we should have some sort of agreement for people who have never been on the dole like us and always work hard once they have bub/s the government should let us to at least to take a break until bub goes to school yeah?
At the moment I dont receive anything from the government because my husband earns too much, and since I like being independent I have to go to work (thankfully its only part time but still), and because of that people think that you are a cruel mother to let poor bub goes to childcare, and the list goes on...thanks to unfair systems...
At the moment, I havent come across to a perfect government yet....but I support our current one because I am being grateful lets face it hey who wants to live in the third world countries where there's no such welfare for the poor and needy??? :no:
TM
ButterflyKisses
02-05-2006, 17:52
that's right ThomasMum - Australia/Third World country (hmmmm weighs up) - yes I'd prefer Australia anyday. Like I said in my first post we are so lucky to live in Australia and really have nothing to complain about.
you're idea about people who have never been on the dole is a good idea :idea:
ButterflyKisses
02-05-2006, 17:54
Sorry - I probably should have put more context into what I was saying!!:o
I saw that Samantha's bub is due in Oct, and was wondering if the bonus went up in July? Not a fact - just a rumour I've heard. I was hoping someone would jump on and either confirm it or tell me I am dreaming!no I haven't heard anything about that but I'm sure if it's true that that extra $1K will greatly help families out
SamanthaJane
02-05-2006, 18:22
Okay really didnt think i was getting into an argument when i posted that short message.... firstly, i did not personally attack any members when i wrote that post, so i think i deserve the same respect.
Hazel- It it supposed to go up to $4,000 in July then $5,000 in July in 2008
Just because i can not vote does not mean i can not have a say. I honestly thought ur post was quite rude. I have been into politics since i was in grade 4 (I loved my grade 6 and grade 9 parliament house visits:D !) and have followed ALL the political arguments, national enquiries into different parties, followed every election and had numerous debates with my dad(who prefers john howard) about politcs... god i could go on with a list forever! Should i indeed mention that i enrolled to vote as soon as i turned 17?? After all my research i have always preffered alp and i am entitiled to that choice, just like any other australian no matter how old i am! So your comment was quite unfair. I know exactly what i'm talking about so please respect my views, just like i respect yours.
Just a note- I never said the Howard government was against family benefits. I think the baby bonus is a great idea. However, family is what i value the most, and i find that that the "beazley government" do a better job of helping us out. Thats just my opinion. I never once critisised Howard gov. of being against families. None of the governments are perfect, they all have their faults but its up to us as individuals (no matter HOW OLD we are) to choose which government is going to best suit our needs.
And no i will not return the $4000 baby bonus [Deleted by Moderator]
Mamaduke
02-05-2006, 18:38
and i find that that the "beazley government" do a better job of helping us out.
How do they do a better job of helping families out?
The last time Labor was in power this is what families had to contend with...
The Hawke-Keating economic failures impacted on the everyday lives of all Australians.
High interest rates: The current account deficit and foreign debt forced up interest rates to levels that were very high by international standards - testament to Australia's worsening international position under Labor. According to The Economist, under the ALP we had the second highest bank prime interest rate amongst the nations it surveys. Average Monthly Loan Repayments rose by nearly 50% over Labor's term. Many Australians saw the value of their most prized possession - the family home - fall in value. They were being squeezed by high interest rates and falling home prices.
Declining incomes: Real wages fell by over 1% over Labor's 13 years. Inequality of income and poverty worsened. Those on the lowest incomes saw their earnings fall the most. Middle Australia has also found it harder to make ends meet and save for the future. Only the wealthy did well.
Poverty and inequality: Unemployment and under-employment was the greatest cause of social misery in our community under Labor. It worsened poverty and inequality. It was the greatest obstacle to opportunity, security and full participation in Australian life.
How exactly is this 'helping us out'? If you're talking about specific 'policies' they have now, then I would like to know about them.
There once was a girl named Mamaduke
who thought John Howard should never get the boot,
she never listened when her wise friend Erin would say:
'you will see, he will doom us all one day'
but one day my bat phone will ring,
and confirmation of all my suspicions it will bring,
and Dukey will have to admit that I WAS RIGHT!!
(oops sorry, wrong thread:p ............)
Mamaduke
02-05-2006, 19:15
There once was a girl named Mamaduke
who thought John Howard should never get the boot,
she never listened when her wise friend Erin would say:
'you will see, he will doom us all one day'
but one day my bat phone will ring,
and confirmation of all my suspicions it will bring,
and Dukey will have to admit that I WAS RIGHT!!
(oops sorry, wrong thread:p ............)
ROFLMAO!!!:D
God love 'ya Erin...:hugs:
Keep dreamin';)
This is an intractable debate. The Howard supporters are never going to convince those of us who oppose the coalition, and vice versa.
Reading the responses, it again seems to come down to people's priorities. People who have posted that they support the Howard government have backed up their stance by referring to personal financial matters. People who have posted that they oppose the Howard government have backed up their stance by referring to matters of human rights and international relations. This is widely considered to be the difference between "right" wing and "left" wing people - right wing people vote for what is appropriate for them, left wing people vote for what they believe affects others. You could say one reason is personal and the other ideological if you want.
Both of these stances are fine, as long as people think about the reason they vote, I will respect them for that - just as long as they don't try to change my mind, I won't try to change theirs. My concern exists when people just blindly vote one way because "better the devil you know" or because they were told to, or because a television ad convinced them - and I feel this way no matter which way people vote.
Bron has raised some good points. You will always have left & right wing peole as she stated.
My question, is do many people really think much would change under another governement? Lets use Labor because it is the most likely. They say now they are opposed to all that the Libs are enforcing but would they be if they were in power? It is their job to disagree - hence the name "the opposition". We all know the majority of politicians make lots of promises but arent so good at following through - what makes you think anyone else is going to make a difference?
MrsMiggins
02-05-2006, 21:06
Exactly right Bron. That's why I said that no political party would be able to please all the people all the time. It's just not possible!
And hence why I vote for policies, not governments. I look at what are the most important things to me & my family in our current circumstances & vote for who will make my life easiest! That's not to say that I don't take into consideration things like human rights issues & environmental issues, as I believe it is important to consider such things for the sake of my childrens' futures.
And I also think that if a 17 year old (who may well have the right to enrol to vote) thinks it worthy of her time to take an interest in politics, then that is abso-bloody-lutely fantastic!! I wish more 17 year olds took such an interest in the future of this country! If all teenagers were so socially & politically aware, then perhaps there would be more young people voting, voting correctly & voting for issues that mattered to them.
In the last Federal election, the majority of "young voters" voted Liberal. Personally I would be surprised if this were not more to do with voting how their parents vote (as I originally did & my DH still does) and an ignorance regarding politics & the electoral process than any great love of the current government.
MrsMiggins
02-05-2006, 21:10
And sharvs, I think you also make a good point. Frankly at the moment I'd be willing to vote in any government who would be able to simplify things!!
One thing that just does my head in about the current Coalition government, is that they seem to have gone out of their way to make everything as complicated & difficult as they possibly can!
Our current situation means that we cannot get any real assistance from the Family Tax Benefits, Part A & Part B even though we are on a low income as it is next to impossible for us to even hazard a guess at our annual income!
As a family attempting to run a business, we are buried in paperwork every minute of every day.Things have never been so complicated!
Mamaduke
02-05-2006, 21:39
Our current situation means that we cannot get any real assistance from the Family Tax Benefits, Part A & Part B even though we are on a low income as it is next to impossible for us to even hazard a guess at our annual income!
We are in the same boat, as alot of DH's wage depends on overtime (which is very hard to estimate a year in advance), therefore DH estimates above what he expects, then if it comes under we're okay and if it starts to creep towards/beyond it he gives the Family Assistance office a call to make sure we're not being overpaid and change his annual income amount.
MrsMiggins
02-05-2006, 21:49
My DH has his own business & also works casually. It is virtually impossible to have anything other than a complete stab in the dark! So we have to try to just over-estimate, which means that even though we are struggling so badly some weeks that we can't even afford groceries, we get practically nothing in family assistance. Then some weeks, we are going great guns, so we try & get caught up on all our overdue bills, rent etc, but then at the end of the financial year, we could find that we have still under-estimated & we get nothing or worse, have to pay something back. Obviously we don't want to over-estimate too much as then we get nothing during the year & at some times (often for weeks at a stretch) we really need that little bit extra coming in.
Yes, we could probably work out our own personal finances a little better, but when you are more often than not struggling to get by, it's tough!
Mamaduke
02-05-2006, 21:53
Obviously we don't want to over-estimate too much as then we get nothing during the year
I know what you mean...we've currently cut ours off alltogether until the end of the financial year and even though I always thought "that's not alot of money for all of the work I do!" - I really must speak with my union rep!!!:rolleyes:
- you really do miss it when it's gone...come on tax time!!!!;)
Yes I do take into consideration things like probable movement of interest rates and taxes when I vote, but my main consideration is for what benefits us as a family.
To that end - I have failed to see how the past Labor governments or policies for the future ones would benefit my family better. My issues with child support, health care and education have led me to believe that my family is better off under the current government. I have posted my reasons behind this before, but am happy to do so again if anyone is particularly interested.
Okay - I know that some people will call me selfish for the comment that I vote for what will benefit my family best rather than voting for what will benefit our foreign aid or whatever. My reasoning is to do with the fact that in a lot of ways, I don't think that the global issues will change greatly with a different government and if I don't put my family first - no one else will. This doesn't mean I don't take global issues into consideration when voting, just wanted to point out that I am not driven by the dollar (but extra money does help us).
We talk about global issues being an issue - the environment, refugees, third world assistance etc. Has anyone actually looked at how we would function without mining, or if all refugees came in without screening and what the dollars actually do with regard to third world assistance. These questions are too big for this thread, and I'd better not start as I'll never be able to stop.
I have grave concerns if any of the minor parties (like the greens or family first) ever get the numbers to run the country. Some of their policies are downright frightening.
MrsMiggins
02-05-2006, 21:56
...and I'm going back to work next month full time :crying: :crying: :crying: , when we were planning on me staying home until at least September. Which means we'll have to re-estimate again. Or like you said, put a stop to it all together!
MrsMiggins
02-05-2006, 21:59
Pegasus, it is not selfish to put the needs & welfare of your family first! I would dearly love to sponsor a child, or contribute to a deserving charity, but when I struggle to afford basic necessities for my family some weeks, how can I justify helping others first? It's the same issue.
Your job as a mother is to look after your family first & foremost. (And I'm sure you do an excellent job of it!!)
Mamaduke
02-05-2006, 22:06
I have grave concerns if any of the minor parties (like the greens or family first) ever get the numbers to run the country. Some of their policies are downright frightening.
If the Greens get in:no: ...we're moving!!!
I shudder to think what would happen...
(don't get excited all of you bleeding hearted lefties...
I doubt it would happen in our lifetime):shame:
Pegasus, it is not selfish to put the needs & welfare of your family first! I would dearly love to sponsor a child, or contribute to a deserving charity, but when I struggle to afford basic necessities for my family some weeks, how can I justify helping others first? It's the same issue.
Your job as a mother is to look after your family first & foremost. (And I'm sure you do an excellent job of it!!)
I do agree fiona - just illustrating that although I don't usually post in the bleeding heart thread, I'm not a heartless person either. I think we picture stereotypes of who we think vote certain ways but would be very surprised in real life to find out what some people's backgrounds are...
I donate to charities when I can and have done a fair bit with underprivileged people through my work and related places (not my current work - unis aren't known for that!), but if by doing something I'm taking away from my family, then it's not healthy for them. I've gone through a fair few years of putting other people's kids first - it's my children's turn now.
I just love healthy debates.:smiliedance:
vanillabean
02-05-2006, 22:40
John Howard only cares about high class society and is not interested in working class families.
reAllytee
02-05-2006, 23:07
Peg are you sure your not really a long lost relative of mine lol !
Stop thinking like me ok !!!!! :p
Mamaduke
02-05-2006, 23:21
John Howard only cares about high class society and is not interested in working class families.
Here we go again...
reAllytee
02-05-2006, 23:44
Oh cmon now Mamaduke its true !
Ally stop stirring:chef:
Do I need to specify how my family is working class? No, I think I've done that before. Whatever, we're definitely not hard done by...
PS Maybe I'll post a piccie of myself or my sister and we'll see the family resemblence...
reAllytee
03-05-2006, 00:08
I never stir ........:rolleyes:
But neither do you hey Peg :p :laughing:
Funny about that - I say I don't believe in conspiracy theories but I never post photos of me or my family:rolleyes: ;)
Mamaduke
03-05-2006, 00:14
Oh cmon now Mamaduke its true !
John Howard only cares about high class society and is not interested in working class families.
Sounds like it's straight out of the book...
"Trades Unions - Let's scare the **** out of the workers (& while we're at it we'll make them think they need us more than they actually do)"
:rolleyes: What d'we want? Total union control...When d'we wan' it?...Now!:rolleyes:
reAllytee
03-05-2006, 00:31
Hahahahaha :laughing: :laughing:
Mamaduke - Your a legend !
Pegasus - Oh then how did i get these piccies of you & your family .... Oh thats right i stalked you :eek: ;)
Actually thotse photos were probably the ones on the jacket cover of the book I wrote that MD was referring to...
No, seriously everyone will see my photo when I get my ID card, afterall they'll be merging my driver's license, my medicare card, my tax file number, and lots of other stuff they've already got on file. After all - isn't the whole point of the ID cards to post all of our details on the internet (none of us ever post personal information on here ourselves anyway). Just wanted to say that there's nothing to be afraid of regarding the ID cards before people started worrying about this being another way the government is going to take away our civil liberties.
I'd better get to bed, my sarcasm is taking over tonight:rolleyes: Early start tomorrow to take DH to the train station so I can have the car.
reAllytee
03-05-2006, 01:04
Sarcasm ..... Where :p
Ok ok i shall stop being naughty & lets take the threa back to what its about :
Do you like the Howard Government ?
Mamaduke
03-05-2006, 01:28
YES!!
Thought I'd get one last one in there before going to bed myself...to dream of landslide election wins!!:D
Aquamarine
03-05-2006, 08:57
If the Greens get in:no: ...we're moving!!!
I shudder to think what would happen...
(don't get excited all of you bleeding hearted lefties...
I doubt it would happen in our lifetime):shame:
Finally I agree with somthing Mamaduke has said!
The Green's probably won't get in during our lifetime! But it is nice to dream.:fingerscrossed:
Oh, if by chance they do, where will you move to? USA?
MammaMia
03-05-2006, 09:10
The Greens will never control government...maybe just Tassie.;)
No, definitely not a fan of The Honourable John Howard. :no:
He is not on my level.
He has no idea what it is like to be on minimum wage
and raise a family
and also be expected to keep up
for the sake of the economy
buy a house, etc...
ThomasMum
03-05-2006, 09:26
that's right ThomasMum - Australia/Third World country (hmmmm weighs up) - yes I'd prefer Australia anyday. Like I said in my first post we are so lucky to live in Australia and really have nothing to complain about.
you're idea about people who have never been on the dole is a good idea :idea:
You've got that right my friend! :thumbsup:
OK nomore from me, life's good I have nothing else to add :) :smiliedance:
TM
cannot stand J Ho (can't remember who coined that but it's great!!) and his band of cronies.
I don't care how many tax cuts or maternity bonuses he throws at me, i will NEVER vote for him and am waiting for the day this country (and other countries) start realizing that economic wealth does not equal personal wealth or personal happiness. unfortunatley, too many people are tied up in this greed-happy society and are out for themselves and their own and stuff everyone else.
we can't really flourish as a functioning, loving society until we extend that love to EVERYONE.
i vote for the the good of society, not just myself and my family. cause we don't live in a vacum. we live in a community and if that community is fractured and f@#$#d up because of war and no job security and fear and hate and high cost of living and clampdown of freedoms and polluted air water and food, then my family is going to suffer.
so i for one, hope the greens get in. i hope that there polling keeps on going up at every election and that it starts to shake up this society and inspires people to create change.
i reckon that lefty thread should be re started right now!
sopolicha
03-05-2006, 09:58
No, definitely not a fan of The Honourable John Howard. :no:
He is not on my level.
He has no idea what it is like to be on minimum wage
and raise a family
and also be expected to keep up
for the sake of the economy
buy a house, etc...
The reality of the situation is that no politician truly understands what it means to live on a minimum wage. What is the solution? Increase the minimum wage? Then the businesses who employ the minimum wage earners suffer. The businesses are then forced to close or move overseas. The employees lose their jobs and the Government loses revenue that they would have collected from the business and the employees and then incurs payments to the unemployed. A lose lose situation.
No matter which party is governing on the day not one person is going to be completely happy with what they are doing to the country and how they are being treated.
Just a side note about the 'Australia Card'. Do you really think that it is that sinister as some people are making out?
.....Under Howard we have been able to buy a unit in Sydney, the interest rates dropped at least 6 times and our unit almost doubled in price and we paid it off in 7 years......
:yelclap: A fantastic achievement!
My point exactly! However, I'm starting to think I may be in the minority when I say that I believe we DO live in "the lucky country". I challenge anyone who doesn't like this government to try living in Zimbabwe or Sudan for a week or two. :eek:
Love,
Nan. xx
of course living in australia (or any other first world country) is better than living in a thrid world country. but that doesn't mean we have to become compliant and bask in our privielge.
first world countries have their wealth and ease because we can pilfer the resource and labour of the thrid world. gotta love that globilization.
because we DO have privilege, and we ARE living in comfort, is exactly why we shouldn't allow gov'ts like howard's and bush's take us further down the path of greed and uncaring. we have it a million times better and easier than those in places like sudan, so maybe it is time to start sharing the wealth and sharing the resources and not just be out for ourselves.
MamaSage
03-05-2006, 10:20
Just a side note about the 'Australia Card'. Do you really think that it is that sinister as some people are making out?
Yep. They are just trying to Big Brother it up a bit more. :thumbsdown: They have been trying to bring something like this i for ages but have had no legitimate reason to. Gotta be an ulterior motive.
(Geez, do I sound sus or what?)
sopolicha
03-05-2006, 10:26
What more information could they possibly put on it that they don't already have?
Centrelink, ATO, CSA and Medicare are all already linked.
If you receive some sort of payment from Centrelink it is being directly credited to your bank account. Centrelink can obtain all of your bank records if they have a reason, as can the Police.
I can't see what harm a card linking all the services can cause.
Aquamarine
03-05-2006, 11:17
cannot stand J Ho (can't remember who coined that but it's great!!) and his band of cronies.
I don't care how many tax cuts or maternity bonuses he throws at me, i will NEVER vote for him and am waiting for the day this country (and other countries) start realizing that economic wealth does not equal personal wealth or personal happiness. unfortunatley, too many people are tied up in this greed-happy society and are out for themselves and their own and stuff everyone else.
we can't really flourish as a functioning, loving society until we extend that love to EVERYONE.
i vote for the the good of society, not just myself and my family. cause we don't live in a vacum. we live in a community and if that community is fractured and f@#$#d up because of war and no job security and fear and hate and high cost of living and clampdown of freedoms and polluted air water and food, then my family is going to suffer.
so i for one, hope the greens get in. i hope that there polling keeps on going up at every election and that it starts to shake up this society and inspires people to create change.
i reckon that lefty thread should be re started right now!
Well said!
Especially the comment about how too many people are tied up in this greed-happy society and are out for themselves, and stuff eveyone else.
So true. :thumbsup:
I think that is the part that annoys me the most in the majority of today's society.
It's funny. Please don't take this harshly because its JMHO, but it seems like we complain about "people being in it for themselves", then when someone comes into power who takes the entire country to a good economic level, we complain that he isn't doing enough or individuals like us! Isn't that looking out for our own selves? :confused:
I'm not in the best position ever either, but I can appreciate how good the counrty is going in general.
Love,
Nan. xx
If the Greens get in:no: ...we're moving!!!
I shudder to think what would happen...
(don't get excited all of you bleeding hearted lefties...
I doubt it would happen in our lifetime):shame:
I agree that there are some Greens policies that I find worrying, someone correct me if im wrong but dont they want to legalise heroin?? There are policies I like and dislike in all the parties, but I just think that Mr Howard is not in it for Australia, he is in it for himself, my dislike is mostly for him, not for the Liberal party in general (even though im not to fussed on them either) I guess I would like to live in some sort of Utopian society, but I know that will never happen.
Although in Utopia you have to stand naked in from of your prospective marriage partner whilst they scrutinise you and decide if they could put up with bonking you for the rest of their lives, if I had had to do that I would have never gotten hitched.....
reAllytee
03-05-2006, 15:29
Oh Erin you just made me cry with laughter ! :laughing:
Oh dear ok deep breaths !
Dont worry i dont think most of us would be partnered up if we had the whole Utopian society ! I know i wouldnt be especially nowadays !
I would also like to point out that no politician is in it for anything other than themselves & those that are in it for more never make it anywhere thats because they are too "nice" you have to be ruthless or the likes to get anywhere in politics !
Soon as you are too nice or the likes they go for your throat & if its not the other pollies that do it its the media !
Blah i hate politics when it comes down to it because no matter what we will never be happy one way or the other we can only just hope for the best !
So when it comes down to it most of us voted John Howard in because we knew Mr Latham would get us nowhere i mean honestly we may not be happy with Howard for various reasons but im rather glad we didnt put our trust in Latham as i wonder where we would be now.
Anyways as i said i dont think either can do a better job & ive rambled on enough so yeah i shall leave before i repeat myself yet again :o
ThomasMum
03-05-2006, 15:30
Especially the comment about how too many people are tied up in this greed-happy society and are out for themselves, and stuff eveyone else.
So true. :thumbsup:
I think that is the part that annoys me the most in the majority of today's society.
Yikes! :no:
Not everyone are greedy and not everyone are full of themselves you know.
FYI, not only I work/paying tax (eventhough I don't have to) because the government doesn't give me any handout but I also doing some volunteer works and helping charity and have been fostering many kids through the World Vision for years, just because I wish that we wouldnt have to pay too much tax does not mean I dont care for others....
Just because I wish that people who have never been on the dole like us should have a special treatment doesn't mean that I don't care for others...
Oh never mind...
Come on people, be grateful, it's not easy to run the country...
Seriously....
TM
reAllytee
03-05-2006, 15:45
ThomasMum well said :yelclap:
Aquamarine
03-05-2006, 15:48
Yikes! :no:
Not everyone are greedy and not everyone are full of themselves you know.
FYI, not only I work/paying tax (eventhough I don't have to) because the government doesn't give me any handout but I also doing some volunteer works and helping charity and have been fostering many kids through the World Vision for years, just because I wish that we wouldnt have to pay too much tax does not mean I dont care for others....
Just because I wish that people who have never been on the dole like us should have a special treatment doesn't mean that I don't care for others...
Oh never mind...
Come on people, be grateful, it's not easy to run the country...
Seriously....
TM
I didn't say 'everybody'.
And I never said anyone was 'full of themselves' either.
I was just commenting on alot of people that I have come across lately.
I never said that you don't care for others either.
It seems people take things the wrong way.
Of course people want lower taxes etc that is a rational enough want but what gets me are the people who are only out for the dollar, stuff everyone else. There are people out there that are like that, I have indeed come across them myself!
Never once have I mentioned that anyone here is like that.
I merely mentioned that the majority of people I have come across lately have been like that. Maybe it is just the area I live in, who knows!
It seems I am made to look bad here! :(
Dont worry TM, lots of us know what a wonderful woman you are, you dont need to explain yourself :hugs:
Aquamarine
03-05-2006, 15:58
Dont worry TM, lots of us know what a wonderful woman you are, you dont need to explain yourself :hugs:
So I am not as wonderful? Thanks.
I am the one that had to explain myself. I never commented on TM.
So I am not as wonderful? Thanks.
I am the one that had to explain myself. I never commented on TM.
im sorry, im sure you are just as wonderful :hugs: i just havnt got to know you yet, looking forward to it though!
reAllytee
03-05-2006, 16:07
So I am not as wonderful? Thanks.
I am the one that had to explain myself. I never commented on TM.
Calm down coopsntilly was just commenting on TM's post no need to get so defensive.
No one is directly attacking you just as you werent directly attacking anyone here but its the fact that some times words can be taken a certain way & people can feel as though its towards them.
This is one topic that tends to get heated just as many others do here but thats because we are all passionate people with our own ideas & opinions & if thats not a great thing then i dont know what is !
The fact we can voice our opinions & engage in debates likes this sometimes with a little bit of fun or the likes shows what a great place it is !
Try to get more involved in some of the other threads so we can get to know you & im sure in time you will see no-one is attacking you & that everyone here is wonderful just as im sure you are :)
ThomasMum
03-05-2006, 16:13
Calm down coopsntilly was just commenting on TM's post no need to get so defensive.
No one is directly attacking you just as you werent directly attacking anyone here but its the fact that some times words can be taken a certain way & people can feel as though its towards them.
This is one topic that tends to get heated just as many others do here but thats because we are all passionate people with our own ideas & opinions & if thats not a great thing then i dont know what is !
The fact we can voice our opinions & engage in debates likes this sometimes with a little bit of fun or the likes shows what a great place it is !
Try to get more involved in some of the other threads so we can get to know you & im sure in time you will see no-one is attacking you & that everyone here is wonderful just as im sure you are :)
Love yer work to erin and Ally! :thumbsup:
Don't worry 3spunkyboys, I know it was nothing personal, be happy :)
Thanks princess_niamh, I wasn't being crabby, I just hate negativity is all...
**group hugs everyone**
TM
Aquamarine
03-05-2006, 16:14
im sorry, im sure you are just as wonderful :hugs: i just havnt got to know you yet, looking forward to it though!
This forum thing is a scary place to be.
I am finding it hard to make comments on here without seeming like I am being ganged up on.
I sound like I should run away and cry now....he he.:laughing:
All I can say is that I try to express my view on here and I have never tried to make personal attacks. It seem alot like people are either a little nasty or demand that you explain every comment to a T. Or, take things the wrong way therefore making personal accusations.
I don't know, I think I might give it in now as I would much prefer a face to face confrontation than this.
Then again, I am not that much of a scaredy cat, maybe I will stay.
But I promise, nothing from me is meant to be a personal attack!!!::no:
reAllytee
03-05-2006, 16:28
Being new to a forum can sometimes be a scary place i agree we have all been there at one time or another & even being here awhile it can still feel that way hehehe.
Honestly though try not to let anything get to you as i said before its often words on a screen with no emotion that get taken the wrong way when its not meant to be. I have also had this problem before just as i have taken things personally when i shouldnt have ( but thats cause we are tired emotional mama's trying our best ! ) ok im going round in circles here but basically dont stress no one is judging you here :hugs:
As i said before get involved in other threads join the games & fun stuff area & have a laugh & get to know everyone & you will be suprised how is a short time you will be wondering what this was all about :D
zafyrezmummy
03-05-2006, 17:27
I wish that people who have never been on the dole like us should have a special treatment ...
i have a question
How many people here have had to try to survive on the dole, pension, newstart, youth allowance etc?
I am very happy for all who are LUCKY enough to have always had a job
But in reality, jobs are not that easy to get alot of the time, and esp with new laws, are harder to keep.
and the other reality, being on centrelink does not make a person less worthy, it is in no way a reflection of character.
When you are on centrelink payments, the amount of paperwork you are forced to do is ridiculous, the work for the dole scheme, its nothing but slave labour. It is not a bludge as most people like to assume. And the meagre amount of money you may recieve is not enough to live
sure there are those who try to cheat the system, as there are plenty of workers who dont do their work, this is not an indication of what everyone is like tho.
More than half of Australians are on some sort of government payment (feel free to research this you'll be surprised) so as far as special treatment goes for those LUCKY enough to of not had to ask for help, i think that would create nothing more than an even bigger rift in society
oh, and back to topic, still stand by my opinion DO NOT LIKE THE HOWARD GOVERNMENT!:no: :no: :no:
Hope you're all having a lovely day!
~dimarie
...I wish that people who have never been on the dole like us should have a special treatment...
Why should you get special treatment exactly? Because you've been fortunate enough not to need the dole? What sort of special treatment do you think you should get? :confused:
Hey Rach, I think what TM meant was that earlier on in the thread she mentioned that she thought it would be a good idea if those who had never accessed government services before be able to use them for a period so that they could stay home with their children for a while when they are really little, correct me if Im wrong TM! :)
SamanthaJane
03-05-2006, 18:21
Why should you get special treatment exactly? Because you've been fortunate enough not to need the dole? What sort of special treatment do you think you should get? :confused:
I totally agree!
Receiving a payment by no means makes a person less worthy. So that is why there is not "special treatment" for those that do not receieve the payments.
MrsMiggins
03-05-2006, 20:43
I can see what everyone's saying here, but I'd like to point out my reality!
I paid taxes for years & then due to unforseen circumstances (and through no fault of my own), I was out of a job, unable to find work & living in a new area where I knew literally not a single person. I had to go on Centrelink benefits or I would literally not have survived. Then when I found a job - the best I could get under the circumstances - I took it. It was not even enough to pay my rent, let alone everything else. I had to stay on Centrelink & every day I had to justify to people why I was working and receiving the dole! (For those who are unaware, this is quite legal under the circumstances!)
I know it could happen to anyone. I didn't see it coming.
I had to stand in line at Centrelink to receive my benefits just the same as everyone else.
Frankly I am glad that those benefits were there. I think if anyone thinks they should get a break because they've never used Centrelink to get "The Dole", then they should just bear in mind that you never know when one day you or your's may come to rely on it.
What more information could they possibly put on it that they don't already have?
Centrelink, ATO, CSA and Medicare are all already linked.
If you receive some sort of payment from Centrelink it is being directly credited to your bank account. Centrelink can obtain all of your bank records if they have a reason, as can the Police.
I can't see what harm a card linking all the services can cause.
This was actually the point I was trying to make last night when I was having a silly conversation with Allyoo about photos. Link your driver's license to this stuff and that would add a photo, otherwise there is nothing which the government doesn't already have linked about us.
What I don't get is why people insist on these conspiracy theories (yes, I've read 1984), seriously - the government is not really interested in average joe's day to day dealings.
The government is not really against us - it would seem to be silly thing to do in a country where the people vote the government in. There should be no us and them mentality.
As I also said last night - most people post more personal stuff on the internet (in forums such as this) than the government would ever get out of the info on an Australia card.
As for TM's comment about people who haven't been on benefits, I can't speak for her, but there are a lot of inconsistencies. Such as my DH's ex, who can be on full benefits, and received full child care benefit while not working or studying so that my stepchildren were placed in child care while she has never worked. On the other hand, I had to return to work (due to the non-researched figures presented for maintenance by the previous Labor government) and have to pay for child care with minimal benefit, no assistance for transport, rent health care etc. Once you take the maintenance and tax out of my DH's income, he receives less than the person he's paying maintenance to in some years. This is where there is special treatment to others. The pendulum swung too far one way with the last Labor government and now Howard's government is trying to swing it back to the middle there is a lot of backlash. It's not because this government is all for the rich or that I am against assistance for people unable to work.
This is just my way of illustrating that this government is for equality in some areas, just some people can't see it, as it's changing a previous inequality.
first world countries have their wealth and ease because we can pilfer the resource and labour of the thrid world. gotta love that globilization.
Don't kid yourself...the wealth and ease that countries like Australia have would be hard pegged to be due to us pilfering resource and labour of the third world. Most people probably think Australia rides on the back of the sheep (an old saying), but not true anymore (this would link us a little to people making clothes - but nothing to do with sweatshops). Most of our wealth these days comes from mining.
The complexities of why certain countries are in the situation that they are classified as third world are huge, but more attributable to the actions of their own governments than anything to do with ours.
sopolicha
04-05-2006, 06:44
Thanks Peg, two clever posts, I wish I had more time to write like that.
Are really are a Clever Old Sea Cow.
ThomasMum
04-05-2006, 07:06
Hey Rach, I think what TM meant was that earlier on in the thread she mentioned that she thought it would be a good idea if those who had never accessed government services before be able to use them for a period so that they could stay home with their children for a while when they are really little, correct me if Im wrong TM! :)
Hey thanks for that Erin! Yep thats what I meant, read my previous posts to whoever asked and quoted me, the phrase of "special treatment" came out only after someone got upset so I had to say it out loud, but I do not need a special treatments from no-on, oh by the way Mrs Miggins to clarify your statement "that you never know when one day you or your's may come to rely on it", well when my husband lost his job from his London base company (Sept 11, NY client in WTC, client ceased to exist) we both at that time unemployed for months, guess what centrelink said to us, "we are unable to help you because you are rich enough to eat with your life savings", so we did, no help from them whatsoever!
Alright seriously, nomore from me I am not in the mood for any arguments/debates and I never will, I've got more important things to do such as getting ready for work! :laughing:
Go Howard! :cool:
LOL
Oh PS. I salute to your comments Pegasus. You are very good!! A fantastic reading/posts from you as always
TM
I'm sorry Thomas's Mum, but your point of view which is shared by many is part of the problem with this country - Howard panders to those who have done very well and are envious of the assistance given to those who are vulnerable and in genuine need.
You say you haven't had government assistance - well if you are middle class or higher than you can take advantage of government assistance that poor people can't eg subsidy for private health insurance, the first home owners grant (poor people cant afford to buy their own home), subsidies the fed government pays to private schools, a discount on HECs if you can pay up front the list goes on.
Pippi Longstocking
04-05-2006, 08:24
Exactly, BJelly. Also, a little know fact is that the majority of welfare money is spent on fiscal welfare - which is "the use of the taxation system to reduce the amount of taxes paid on certain approved goods and services." (Understanding the Welfare State, 2000 McMahon et al). While the term "welfare" is usually used to describe centrelink benefits and the like, it is actually inaccurate to do so. Companies are given all kinds of financial incentives - free land, lower taxes, free or reduced cost utilities - all to encourage them to build in Australia rather than offshore. So while people may claim to have received no welfare at all, it is often untrue.
tupper_lady
04-05-2006, 08:41
I think they go alright. I am not opposed to the war in iraq, I think they do a much better job then any other government especially the previous Labour one has done. For all the ppl that bag him someone actually does vote for him, well lots of ppl really otherwise he wouldnt be there.
tupper_lady
04-05-2006, 08:43
Maybe the government good lower petrol prices by cutting dole payments from those who dole bludge. Might encourage ppl to actually use welfare system as a stepping stone instead of a lifestyle.
Pippi Longstocking
04-05-2006, 08:54
Tupper_lady, on what are you basing your perceptions? How many people do you perceive to be utilising welfare payments as a lifestyle? Are you aware to the exact quality of life this "lifestyle" would offer? Did you know that the average centrelink benefit (the one worked out by the current Government, that is) places people below the Henderson Poverty Line?
tupper_lady
04-05-2006, 09:00
Yet I personally know many ppl receiving welfare payments who can afford to drink smoke and have other luxuries that I cannot and I work for my money.
Most see it as a lifestyle, they do little to either educate themselves further for employment or get a job. Why should my tax payer dollars be spent on ppl on welfare that arent trying to better their situation?
I'm not saying that everyone on welfare is the same, but I know a few people that also drink & smoke & go away all the time. One couple in particular, they are both on a pension - her on a newstart (she hasnt worked in 20 years) and him a disability. He fell out of a truck & hurt his leg 10 years ago & hasnt worked since. Everytime Centrelink comes to him with a job he can do, he suddenly has leg problems & needs to have another operation. Mind you he can mow the lawns, climb on the roof, go water skiing.
Like i said, i know not everyone is the same, its always the few that ruin it for everyone else.
I know alot of people that are on welfare payments, and none of them are living in poverty.
Pippi Longstocking
04-05-2006, 09:14
Subjective personal experiences do not undermine referenced data. I know of many many people struggling on benefits. In fact, I used to be one. I don't receive Government payments now but as a single mum and uni student, you can bet your @rse I was struggling. However, I don't think that my personal scenario is valid evidence in a debate. Anyone can come up with a particular example to back up their statements!
Agreed, but why did so many people say earlier in the post that they dont know a single person that voted for Howard therefore it was rigged? Both Tupper Lady & I did say of the people we know, we never said that it is was like that across the board.
My DF works, im on maternity leave and we too are struggling, all I was trying to say is that i know of some people that are on welfare payments that are better off than we are - i wasnt saying all people are.
reAllytee
04-05-2006, 09:27
I have a family member who is rorting the system quite happily all the while her partner works & earns double the amount that my partner does & its not fair.
I also know of many people i went to school with who have rorted the system or still are to this day.
Yet we struggle week to week but guess what we accessed the first home owners grant so does that make me rich ! Thats almost laughable !
Pippi Longstocking
04-05-2006, 09:34
I have a family member who is rorting the system quite happily all the while her partner works & earns double the amount that my partner does & its not fair.
I also know of many people i went to school with who have rorted the system or still are to this day.
Ok looky here! Another subjective personal experience! Did you actually read what I wrote? :rolleyes:
tupper_lady
04-05-2006, 09:37
Welfare shouldnt be forever!!!!!
No matter what type you receive (except disability) you should be working your way up to get off welfare. That is my point. What right does anyone have to be on welfare for like forever. You should be trying to better your situation by either studying or seeking employment. At the end of the day I think you would feel better knowing you earnt your income rather than had it handed to you on a silver platter.
PPl rely on welfare to easily without exploring all other options. Sorry but get a friggen job and earn some self respect and teach your children the value of working and the dollar, dont teach them to rely on getting it given to you.
Cheers! :thumbsup:
PPl rely on welfare to easily without exploring all other options. Sorry but get a friggen job and earn some self respect and teach your children the value of working and the dollar, dont teach them to rely on getting it given to you.
Here here!
Did you actually read what I wrote? :rolleyes:
Are you reading what anyone is writing?????
Where has anyone said that everyone is the same??
We are all talking about individual cases & no-one has said all people on welfare are tarnished with same brush.
Tupperlady,
You are right that there are definitely cases of the undeserving poor, but there are also the undeserving rich who also benefit hugely from government welfare and unmeanstested assistance - I mean isn't it obscene that the money ordinary people pay in tax can be used by millionaires to get the baby bonus or first home owners grant?
It is a tricky thing to get some people off welfare, but they in the end pay a price - they are giving their descendants a terrible legacy of welfare dependence and they are limiting their choices and chances for a better life.
At the end of the day, it is the politicians who decide who gets our tax dollars and I don't think you will get any argument from Howard supporters or haters that things could and should be done to make things fairer and stop people from accessing public funds that have no business getting them.
And it is a failure of government policy (from both sides of politics - this isn't a new problem) that the working poor are getting squeezed from both sides - they are doing the right thing, but are getting penalised bye the withdrawal of government assistance and not getting the full benefit of their hard work. Maybe this is one issue we can all agree that the Government needs to work harder to fix.
reAllytee
04-05-2006, 09:56
Ok looky here! Another subjective personal experience! Did you actually read what I wrote? :rolleyes:
DO you actually have to be so rude ?
Honestly this is ridiculous obviously some people dont count others experiences or personal opinions as vaild & it really tires me so i shall back away from this thread before it turns nasty !
Pippi Longstocking
04-05-2006, 10:05
Honestly this is ridiculous obviously some people dont count others experiences or personal opinions as vaild & it really tires me so i shall back away from this thread before it turns nasty !
It's not so much that other's experiences don't count Ally, it's that for every one of your experiences, I can come up with another of my own to counter argue. This is why I prefer to rely on statistical data rather than personal experience when making gross generalisations.
reAllytee
04-05-2006, 10:07
Yes because statistical data is never wrong :rolleyes:
Anyways as i said im tired of what comes out of these threads when people cant remain civil so enough from me.
Pippi Longstocking
04-05-2006, 10:17
yes ******..but not all people have statistical data and alot of us base our opinions on personal information.
But does that necessarily make them right? Do you see what I am saying?
And Ally, a differing opinion does not mean I am not being civil. The only reason these kind of discussions head downhill is because people start taking things personally. I am honestly not trying to be rude. I am trying to engage in mature debate.
You are right that there are definitely cases of the undeserving poor, but there are also the undeserving rich who also benefit hugely from government welfare and unmeanstested assistance - I mean isn't it obscene that the money ordinary people pay in tax can be used by millionaires to get the baby bonus or first home owners grant?
At the end of the day, it is the politicians who decide who gets our tax dollars and I don't think you will get any argument from Howard supporters or haters that things could and should be done to make things fairer and stop people from accessing public funds that have no business getting them.
Is it so unfair that everyone gets the first homeowners grant and the baby bonus? (By the way - we never got the 1st homeowner's grant due to purchasing 1st home in March 2000 - prior to the grant coming in July 2000 to combat the price of houses rising with the GST). Does the consideration of how much these people pay in taxes (income as well as Stamp duty which is far greater the more expensive the house) ever get looked at? People seem to say these sort of assistance packages shouldn't go to everybody - Why not? At the end of the day, the whole reason to introduce things like these two grants is to increase the amount of spending dollars to increase movement in the economy - helping a healthier economy.
With the old Baby bonus (which I receive with my son every year when we do our tax, I get approximately $500-$700 a year for 5 years along with the initial $890. This equates with more than the current baby bonus - due to the fact that I was earning more (and paying a lot more taxes when working full time than I do now when working part time). So in reality the change in the baby bonus has disadvantaged us. Again - this payment (the one off one is to increase disposeable income to help the economy grow - more spending = healthier economy. Yes, I'll be taking my $4000 when this baby is born, but because I've never been on any assistance why shouldn't I?
I think a more illustrative example of the 'underserving rich' which bjelly talked about rather than being the people who receive non means tested benefits is the people who can rort the tax system. These people were able to get away with a lot more before Howard brought in the GST - now isn't that a fan fare? I've kept asking why so many fathers I hear about are only paying minimum child support and have been told these are the men who don't declare their tax - another thing that the Howard government is bringing in - a method to make these men more accountable. If my hubby has to pay 27% of his gross salary (after a minimum allowance is taken out for my kids) then that's the way it should be for all.
Great post Pegasus. and thanks for starting to get this thread back on track :thumbsup:
It's okay coops - we can now all go and play on the BHL&P (if you'll let me), I see bjelly has bumped it up. ;)
Edited to add that I've just noticed she's also bumped the SBIT thread too.
What a fair lady:thumbsup:
MrsMiggins
04-05-2006, 11:26
Woah! Woah! Woah! back up a bit!! NOT everyone gets the first home owners grant!!!
My DH part-owned a property for one month 20 years ago and because of that we as a couple were not entitled to diddly-squat! And don't anyone start saying oh, but you get half, or you are entitled to a discount on stamp duty :ecomcity: Yes, we've been told every urban myth regarding what we are supposed to be entitled to & not one word of it was true! We are simply not entitled to anything!
Meanwhile, friends of ours who are on a squllion dollars a year between them (give or take a mil!) bought their first house in Sydney for $700,000-odd and paid for the deposit (which mind you, was half the cost of the house) with a combination of savings & huge cash gifts they received as wedding presents from their wealthy families & yes, they were also entitled to the first home-owners grant! (And backed that up with their nice little baby bonus!)
I cannot understand why such things are not fairly means-tested (And by "fairly" means-tested, I don't just mean looking at a person/couple's income but their complete financial picture)
MrsMiggins
04-05-2006, 11:34
OK, I'm going to add a little bit more here, as I've just gone back & read your post properly, pegasus!
(:shame: To MrsMiggins!)
I can see why you'd say that everyone should be entitled to the offerings made by the government. I guess my point is that if you can afford it & don't need it to get by (which IMO is why these things are introduced), then wouldn't it make things easier for those struggling to get by who are not entitled to a certain benefit, or who are only entitled to a smaller portion? Would it not ease some of the burden on our economy to aid those who do require assistance & let those who don't fend for themselves?
It's good to see this thread back on track (sort of :rolleyes: ). Please keep it civil or we will have to close.
As you were...
Hi Pegasus,
My problem with government money going to the rich is that we only have so much money and in my opinion the money should go to where there is a need for it - whether directly via the welfare system, or via services like medicare, funding old people's homes, schools, carers, public housing, roads - this could save lives and improve people's lives on a daily basis - to me that is far more important than stimulating spending in the economic sphere.
I find it offensive to my sense of fairness that Government money goes to people who have done very well from society already - wouldn't it be better spent going to need rather than greed?
I have no problem with those on higher incomes claiming as much as they can off the government. I work for a medical professional who pays $6000 a month in tax and also gets a $30k+ tax bill at the end of the financial year to boot. Given that she contributes more than $100k per year to the governmet I think it is only fair that she gets the single parent allowance (not means tested) and a disabilty pension for her daughter who has cerebral palsy (not tested) which adds up to about $6000 p/y which is put into a trust for her daughter. She not only contributes to the economy of the country, she also contributes to the community. Why shouldn't the government give her a little back? Given australia has one of the highest rates of tax with the lowest thresholds of the western world, I say if you can get a bit back, go for it!
My DH and I are on a combined income of $80k and we claim as much as we can (about $2000) a year which goes into a bank account for DD. We prefer to see it as the g'ment investing in our dd future (she will get the money when she's 18) rather than us claiming what we don't really need.
Hi Pegasus,
My problem with government money going to the rich is that we only have so much money and in my opinion the money should go to where there is a need for it - whether directly via the welfare system, or via services like medicare, funding old people's homes, schools, carers, public housing, roads - this could save lives and improve people's lives on a daily basis - to me that is far more important than stimulating spending in the economic sphere.
I find it offensive to my sense of fairness that Government money goes to people who have done very well from society already - wouldn't it be better spent going to need rather than greed?
Thanks for your clarification bjelly. I understand where you're coming from - I agree about more money being seen to be needed in some areas where it is not seen.
I worked for 10 years in the public health system where I was apalled at the amount of money put aside for aids and equipment for people with disabilities. If one person needed an electric wheelchair, it would wipe out a quarter of our total budget, where we also needed to use that money for splints, and various things (AFO's (ankle foot orthoses) for a child with CP would cost about $1000). So what happens is that the hospital with disability services would say we don't have enough money - (same thing with home modifications for wheelchair access etc) so the person would go to their member of parliament, a current affair etc, and lobby to get the money from a donations, or another sector. This is why I get a bit cynical about budgets. We can all look at places and say "such and such needs more money", but the way that a lot of things work is to create a seen political need. Everyone's own need will always be of the most importance. The problem is that the line has to be drawn somewhere, and it is all subjective as to which is the most important. Eg. in health, is money for surgeries more important, money for research into genetic conditions, money for aids and equipment, money for current treatments (ie number of hospital beds available). Bottom line is if there isn't waiting lists, or political push, then some people will lose their funding.
You could probably find some of my comments on the Medicare system elsewhere (see Step Back in Time - Life under Labor). Anyway, my thoughts are that this system isn't sustainable as it is. Jump back 20years and there was never a problem getting into a doctor or affording private health insurance.
As for the roads - roads are continuously being redone, with a lot of accidents being blamed on the roads, when somehow I think more blame could be attributed to things like driver fatigue etc.
Public housing is another area where I've had the privilege of doing a lot of home visits to people's houses where they live in public housing - I've seen a lot of these houses abused where more money goes to maintenance and fixing them. Again it's the few who abuse privileges that ruin it for others.
Where is the extra money supposed to go into schools? I've worked in schools where they hold off money in their budgets till the end of term and then look to purchase of more computers etc to use all of their budgets up. Again education is a system where if they don't use their money they lose it. So it always looks like there is no money.
The comment that you made regarding money going to the people who have done well from society not being fair is a misnomer. Anybody I know with any money has not inherited it - they have instead, worked their buts off for it and have more than paid their dues to society - claiming things that you are entitled to is nothing to do with greed.
As for spending money on needs rather than greed, a lot of that is in the interpretation. Everybody if asked would say they need more money, however, how people utilise it has been shown to be the difference. Take for instance, the child support research papers (link to be posted if anybody's interested, but I've talked enough already), they show that as people receive more money, they proportionally spend more if they are in a low income bracket, however, this money is spent, and not invested, so there isn't anything to show for it. Therefore, increasing welfare etc will not necessarily lead to people being "better off".
Actually in the interests of putting this thread back on track, I must point out that there needs to be distinction between state and federal funding issues.
Health, education and public housing have a great many of their policy and funding issues decided by state rather than federal governments.
A relevant link here would be to go back to a post that Mamaduke posted in the Step Back in Time Thread:
Current premiers (and their parties)...
Victoria Steve Bracks ALP
New South Wales Morris Iemma ALP
Queensland Peter Beattie ALP
Tasmania Paul Lennon ALP
South Australia Mike Rann ALP
Western Australia Alan Carpenter ALP
Northern Territory Clare Martin ALP
Australian Capital Territory Jon Stanhope ALP
So some issues which people blame on Howard and the Liberal Government, are nothing to do with them, but instead to do with your state Labor government.
:yelclap: That's right!
.....This is just my way of illustrating that this government is for equality in some areas, just some people can't see it, as it's changing a previous inequality.
I know it's a bit late, but this statement is brilliant. Well said!
Love,
Nan. xx
I would rather have Donald Duck than John Howard!!!
I second this, I don't care who gets in but I want that looser out!:thumbsdown:
Mamaduke
06-05-2006, 23:31
I don't care who gets in but I want that looser out!:thumbsdown:
If you're so passionate about getting 'that looser out' you should care who gets in! We might end up with another 'looser'...:rolleyes:
It'd be a step in the right direction, we'll deal with the next prat when we get that far.
I do not like the Howard government.
I did not support the war in Iraq, which does not mean I do not support the Australian troops. I don't beleive the Iraqi people are any better off than they were before the war.
I think that John Howard lied regarding the children overboard "scandal". I don't want the leader of my country to be a liar.
John Howard said interest rates would not rise under a liberal government and they would under a labor government, well they have risen under a liberal government.
I believe that we should be putting more money into public education and universities not taking money away.
I think that if the government did not know about the bribes for wheat, they should have, but I actually believe they did know and we are seeing more lies or other wise blithering incompetence.
I hat the fact me are becoming so Americainised and John Howard says 'How High" when George W says jump.
I don't think Kim Beazley has the support to oust the Howard government. Maybe labor shoul look to Julia Gillard or Kevin Rudd. We need a change.
It'd be a step in the right direction, we'll deal with the next prat when we get that far.
Sorry LMTB, but I just can't agree with you there.
Mark Latham is a thug and a bully. That was obvious from that classic moment when he met Howard outside a radio studio as they were giving interviews after each other. He barrelled up to Howard, stood over him, right up close when he shook his hand. That moment crystallised his personality for me.
As it turns out, I also think Latham might have only a loose grip on his sanity. What a disaster he might have been...Good on the Australian ppl for seeing Mark Latham for what he was.
Let's just hope that Labor can get their act together and can provide some sort of opposition. It is critical to our political system that we have an effective opposition and a REAL choice.
Cheers
After watching Laurie interview Mr. Costello this morning on Sunday, I am even more impressed with this government. :thumbsup:
I just found out that it has taken the Howard government 12 years of being in power to finally get rid of the 96 billion dollar national debt that labour left this country in. :eek: Any government that can get rid of that much debt can't be that bad and any governemt that creates that much debt is pretty crappy. It is all good and well to promise more money spent on health care and schools etc, but not if they can't afford it, which they obviously couldn't.
I realise that we still have a big internaitonal debt, but maybe now that we have finished paying off Labour's legacy we can concentrate on the international debt that we couldn't even consider looking at prior to this.
Love,
Nan. xx
P.S. Does anyone know of any member of the Labour party that could do a better job with the nation's money than Mr. Costello? Just interested to know.
Quite frankly every liberal lover here can talk till they are blue in the face, I still believe we'd be better off with garden hose in charge than John Howard.
LMTB, your letting the team down there, cant you come up with something a bit better than that??? ;)
Sorry Coops, I deliberatly avoid anything and everything political, I just don't like the man, I mean if the libs can come up with someone better I'm all for that, Liberal/Labour honestly they all blur together :o It's the man I don't like :mad:
I know what you mean, was just teasing ya. :)
I would like to see Natasha Stott Despoja (http://natashastottdespoja.democrats.org.au/)get the job, but hey I'm sure people don't like her either :laughing:
Mamaduke
07-05-2006, 14:21
I would like to see Natasha Stott Despoja (http://natashastottdespoja.democrats.org.au/)get the job, but hey I'm sure people don't like her either :laughing:
Why? Is it because she's a woman? I'm interested to know the reasons as to why you would think she would make a good Prime Minister.
I like Natasha, but have big problems with the Democrats and I think she's destined to wind up in the political wilderness...which is a shame.
I used to like the Democrats until Cheryl Kernot (sp?) left to join the Labor party. What a huge loss of credibility that was for her personally. How can you be "keeping the b*stards honest" (loved that catch cry *sigh*) when you turn around to jump into bed with them? (now, I'm talking politically - nothing about those Gareth Evan rumours :shame: ).
The Democrats have never recovered, there was that Andrew Bartlett problem too...how do political parties find these loosers to be their leaders?
Cheers
don't know, seen her speak and she seems more in touch with young Aussies than most, also more interested in pleasing Australians than pleasing those in other countries.
Mamaduke
07-05-2006, 15:15
don't know, seen her speak and she seems more in touch with young Aussies than most, also more interested in pleasing Australians than pleasing those in other countries.
Okay! Well that's good enough I 'spose...:rolleyes:
It's easy to 'please' Australians while you don't have to make any actual decisions which will effect actual Australians.
Hi again Pegasus,
I can see where you are coming from too, and there is more than enough blame to share around regarding mismanagement by both Labor and Liberals. Also with the rise of managerialism we see alot of red tape and excessive documentation preventing people from doing the jobs they should be doing all in the name of saving some pennies - this failure has been never more apparent than the horror that occurred at the Bundaberg Hospital where management and the regional director turned a blind eye to appalling problems - all under an ALP government. And the State Government is gotten a well deserved thumping in two recent by-elections.
But this episode also shows the difference between accountable government and the Howard style of government. The Minister involved stood down and was investigated by the CMC. There was a very open enquiry with wideranging terms of reference and powers which could get to the truth of the matter. And it was expanded to look at problems elsewhere in the Health department.
This is in marked contrast to Howard's style where Ministers aren't sacked or forced to resign, indeed, some like Philip Ruddock was given a huge promotion to become the Attorney General after his department made many terrible mistakes. Or the terms of reference of inquiries is kept limited so public servants and ministers don't have to answer important questions - as was seen in the Cornelia Rau and AWB scandals.
I can think of more Howard Ministerial scandals involving Reith - the phone card scandal ($50,000 spent on his phone card by his son), Woodridge (implicated in the biggest Medicare fraud case ever regarding MRI machines) and neither was forced to resign or was sacked - instead both these ministers got cushy jobs that had close links to their former ministeries - an invaluable asset to their new employers, but not very seemly behaviour for former ministers.
I agree it's not a sign of personal greed to take government assistance where it is legitimate, but in my opinion it is greedy to vote for policies that mean assistance is given to the rich when there are lots of people who have a real and urgent need for that money, that would save lives and improve their wellbeing - $3000 isn't much for a person who makes $10,000 a week, but it would be a lot for an aged pensioner in a nursing home - and it could do something to drastically improve their welfare, and even safe lives that are currently being lost due to understaffing and lack of facilities.
I agree there are beaucratic problems with getting the money where it is needed most - ie the consumer/client, and that needs to be addressed, but it is also a failure of government policy.
And Howard's policies have always been about cutting services and cutting income taxes but handing out goodies to asperational voters like middle class families. For eg we haven't seen the return of the funding for dental health that he slashed in his first term - it's pretty hard to get a job if you don't have good teeth, and it's not nice for anyone young or old to live with rotten teeth or painful cavities.
That's the sort of policy change I could support - not more money for people like me - people like me are doing well already, we don't need more government assistance (it's nice, but I don't really need it). And that's the problem with giving money to people without means testing - it's a problem with priorities and pandering to people's greed. By giving money to people with money, it's kind of like we are double dipping if we say I've been a success, I've been good, why doesn't the government give me some more money - I deserve it more than some dole bludger.
I'm sorry for :ecomcity: but I really can't overstate how wrong and self-serving I think Howard's priorities are. And how arrogant and unaccountable his government has become. (Keating had the same problem and he was rightfully booted out, I wish the same would happen to Howard, it is long overdue IMO)
MrsMiggins
07-05-2006, 20:53
After watching Laurie interview Mr. Costello this morning on Sunday, I am even more impressed with this government. :thumbsup:
I just found out that it has taken the Howard government 12 years of being in power to finally get rid of the 96 billion dollar national debt that labour left this country in. :eek: Any government that can get rid of that much debt can't be that bad and any governemt that creates that much debt is pretty crappy. It is all good and well to promise more money spent on health care and schools etc, but not if they can't afford it, which they obviously couldn't.
I realise that we still have a big internaitonal debt, but maybe now that we have finished paying off Labour's legacy we can concentrate on the international debt that we couldn't even consider looking at prior to this.
Love,
Nan. xx
P.S. Does anyone know of any member of the Labour party that could do a better job with the nation's money than Mr. Costello? Just interested to know.
With regard to the national debt issue, sure it is good that part of the money Australia owes is paid off, which means that more money can be invested in Australia - theoretically. But in the interview I saw (it wouldn't have been the same interview Nan, this one was a few weeks back when the debt was first "cleared") Peter Costello came off as chronically dodging the questions asked of him when the interviewer asked if this now meant that Australians could look forward to decent tax-cuts in the next budget. He flatly refused to say that this would happen (which in my book means that it more than likely won't!)
I can't see the benefit to a lot of Australians therefore in having a blank slate on the national debt thing.
Also, what good is it having this cleared debt when it has been to the detriment of lower & middle class Australian families? Will they now be better off each week? Sorry, I just can't see that happening.
I do realise that those in higher income brackets do pay higher tax rates (but then isn't this as it should be anyway?) however when tax cuts & tax breaks keep being doled out that benefit those who pay higher taxes, it only makes things more & more difficult for those who struggle to get by on a weekly basis.
rynosmum
07-05-2006, 21:11
Peter Costello came off as chronically dodging the questions asked of him when the interviewer asked if this now meant that Australians could look forward to decent tax-cuts in the next budget. He flatly refused to say that this would happen (which in my book means that it more than likely won't!)
Budget components are intellectual property for any government. If the current party gives away all of their promises prior to budget release, they run the risk of having the opposition either copy them or try to shoot them down prior to release to the public. Any strong government, regardless of who they are, would be incredibly lax in giving away their political secrets early.
I do realise that those in higher income brackets do pay higher tax rates (but then isn't this as it should be anyway?)
Very few people are handed a thriving income without working hard for it. So given that we are all born into this world with relatively similar opportunities in life, we then choose our own destiny to a large extent. If some people choose to continue higher education (or not) and achieve a career and work hard to achieve a high paypacket, why should they be disadvantaged against anyone else ? Why is it expected that these people should be penalised for their efforts ? Would it not make sense that all people are taxed in the exact same manner ? We all work hard - it's only fair that we are all taxed the same IMO.
Mrs Miggins, please don't take any personal offence to these, you were just the last post I could reference. I'm feeling a little like the true OCSC so this is about the topic in general.
I've heard that a UK tax return is TWO A4 PAGES.
Ours is the size of a monthly magazine and the tax act is a ridiculous size (in the thousands of pages, I believe).
I think we should have a bonfire and start again.
Sorry, that's a bit of a side track, please go on...
Cheers
MrsMiggins
07-05-2006, 21:28
Very few people are handed a thriving income without working hard for it. So given that we are all born into this world with relatively similar opportunities in life, we then choose our own destiny to a large extent. If some people choose to continue higher education (or not) and achieve a career and work hard to achieve a high paypacket, why should they be disadvantaged against anyone else ? Why is it expected that these people should be penalised for their efforts ? Would it not make sense that all people are taxed in the exact same manner ? We all work hard - it's only fair that we are all taxed the same IMO.
I agree. I think that if you work hard, you do deserve a good income.
My point is though, that there is nothing wrong with paying a higher percentage of tax if you are on a higher income. What I object to is people who cannot afford it being made to pay higher & higher taxes & getting less for those taxes, while those who can easily afford it, are given tax breaks left right & centre at the disadvantage of those on a lower income who may be struggling.
I don't believe that those on a higher income paying higher income tax rates are being penalised. I was on a high income for a long while some time ago and I just saw it as part & parcel of earning the salary I did.
Mamaduke
07-05-2006, 21:34
But what if that higher salary is due to doing overtime?
DH does on average 30 hours a week overtime, 20 hours of those are taxed at 48.5 cents in the dollar!!!
Getting off your butt and working hard for long hours really pays off doesn't it????:rolleyes:
MrsMiggins
07-05-2006, 21:41
I do a lot of OT in my job too. Granted, it's not as much as your DH mamaduke.
I agree that does sound a little on the unfair side. My tax brain though goes to bed long before I do, so I can't think how it works at the moment, but do you find he gets some of that back come tax time? Depends on his overall FY earnings I guess.
Maybe you need to have a chat to your local MP?;)
Mamaduke
07-05-2006, 21:49
Maybe you need to have a chat to your local MP?;)
Don't worry...been there, done that! My federal member (Liberal) sent out a questionnaire not too long ago and asked if there was anything that we wanted to add (bet he's sorry he asked that!)
I did mention that it doesn't seem to be an incentive for people to work hard when you're getting hit with 48.5 cents tax, and that in our situation where DH does these sorts of hours so I can stay at home with the boys (sometimes I wonder who's getting the rough end of the stick with that deal!) it does sometimes feel like he's 'working for nothing' IYKWIM...so when people say I vote Liberal because I'm greedy and like lower taxes...think again!
rynosmum
07-05-2006, 21:53
Well I don't think that it is something that any of our governments will ever change because of the financial impact of doing so.
But I still must say that I disagree with differing tax rates - at least those that differ as amazingly as ours do.
People who work hard to build their own business, have the knowledge and dedication to develop a wonderful invention or simply work hard, doing overtime or conducting their day-to-day work and are told that they will give almost half of all they earn to the government because ' they can afford it'. Australia wants our kids to go to university, pay incredible HECS fees, then get a job to pay back their debt and then pay half of all they earn. Regardless of how we go about increasing Drs in our Health department with this in mind.
Where's the motivation ?
Oh - just quickly ('cos I've got lots of pages to read as I haven't been here all day and my head isn't in the right mode at the moment).
Just to add to the tax issue - when my DH makes extra bucks he pays 48.5c out of everyone of those dollars to tax, and 27c out of the extra dollars to his ex...we get 24.5c for us, for less time with our hubby (and dad). There's the incentive for my hubby to give up work and me to be our main bread winner. How does that make sense - the more work my hubby does, the more his ex gets, and the less we as a family gets...:detective:
Okay - I second what MD said about not voting Liberal to due to greed and tax cuts.
Just on the HECS thing, when I graduated uni (okay - it was 11years ago), but I was earning more as a casual shop assistant with Target ($18/hour) than I got as a qualified OT in the health department ($16/hour). As a result, I continued to work at Target for the next 2years to help pay off my HECS. That HECS was brought in by the previous Labor government....Hmmm, fair go for the working class????!!!
Mamaduke
07-05-2006, 22:04
There's a country in Europe (can't remember the name) they've put in place an incentive to boost their population...families with 3 children or more pay ZERO TAX!!! What a wonderful idea!
Or we could all just move to Monaco?!
Monaco...hmmm...are they all as good looking as the Grimaldis?:D
MrsMiggins
07-05-2006, 22:39
Sounds pretty good to me mamaduke!!
(Maybe that'll also help me convince DH to keep having "just one more baby"!!)
i dont know alot about politics but from what ive seen the liberal party is only interested in what they can do for the rich people in this country, whilst labour tries to make it better for the less well off people. why do people keep voting [text deleted by moderator] howard in if they whinge about him and what he has done (or hasnt done) for this country? i dont care if beazley isnt the best person to lead this country, anyone has got to be better than [text deleted by moderator]
my 2c. please dont shoot me. :D
I heard on the news tonight some of the teasers about the budget...
Apparently they want to bring in the big family incentive for families with 3 + children (think it might have been 4+ before). I looked at my hubby (while pregnant with number 2) and said - is $10 a fortnight extra an incentive for us to go for number 3. His look said it all - we've said we'll stop at 2...we'll see - I never say never.
The other thing was something to do with child care rebates for working mums:yelclap:
Mrs Miggins - maybe you and I can look at the TTC threads together when it's time for number 3 - funny - I always said no before - and no, this is really nothing to do with the money or politics, this thread, or the tax break MD mentioned. Just musing about whether we really will stop at 2....
It would be nice also if people would remember that everyone has a job and doesn't deserve to be abused when on their own time....If someone attends footy matches, goes out to dinner or whatever, they don't deserve cr@p to be hung on them. The rest of the similar comments don't deserve any reply as somehow I missed the moment that Australia became ****** up. I wouldn't live anywhere else (except maybe Monaco:) ).
Pippi Longstocking
08-05-2006, 06:31
So given that we are all born into this world with relatively similar opportunities in life, we then choose our own destiny to a large extent.
I don't know that I entirely agree with this. My parents were like, totally free-spirited hippies maaan and like totally didn't agree with conforming to societies norms and they believed that school would totally oppress our spirits maaan (will I stop with the hippy speak? :D ) so we weren't educated. Myself and my siblings have almost no formal schooling - we weren't offered the same opportunities as others. The only reason I managed to get accepted in to Uni was through sheer determination and stubborness (and a naturally high IQ *looks smug* :laughing: )There are people in rural Australia who don't have the same opportunities. There are people with disabilities who don't have the same opportunities. Some people have more opportunities than others. There are people whose families can afford to send them to university. There are people whose families own large companies - nepotism gets a lot of people a long way!
rynosmum
08-05-2006, 06:38
I don't know that I entirely agree with this. My parents were like, totally free-spirited hippies maaan and like totally didn't agree with conforming to societies norms and they believed that school would totally oppress our spirits maaan (will I stop with the hippy speak? :D ) so we weren't educated. Myself and my siblings have almost no formal schooling - we weren't offered the same opportunities as others. The only reason I managed to get accepted in to Uni was through sheer determination and stubborness (and a naturally high IQ *looks smug* :laughing: )There are people in rural Australia who don't have the same opportunities. There are people with disabilities who don't have the same opportunities. Some people have more opportunities than others. There are people whose families can afford to send them to university. There are people whose families own large companies - nepotism gets a lot of people a long way!
Agreed. When I wrote that, I wanted to write 'with exception' but didn't know how to do it without segregating. You've explained it well.
May I rewrite that then to read - "most people except the ones ****** refers to":D
But you know what, you worked hard to get to Uni (even with your incredibly high IQ:laughing: ), but you did it ! After all of the hard work you have gone through, do you think you should have a higher tax rate now if you succeed in your career through more sheer determination and hard work ?
Pippi Longstocking
08-05-2006, 06:52
fter all of the hard work you have gone through, do you think you should have a higher tax rate now if you succeed in your career through more sheer determination and hard work ?
You know what? It won't happen. I cannot finish my degree because I don't have enough support from the government to be able to afford it. I have been applying for work left right and centre because we are currently trying to house, feed and clothe 7 people on approx $400 a week! This is thanks to Mr Howard and his family friendly policies. I cannot get any Gov. assistance. Our business recently lost the major contract that was our primary source of income. However, the figure that the business was earning is locked in for two years so I cannot get any assistance until that time is up.
My husband got a job driving cabs to get us through until we can find another contract but the money is truly cr@p. Really really cr@p!
So even with my brilliantly high IQ (ok, I really am exagerating now! :p :D ), I am screwed. Nobody wants to employ a mummy of five with almost no work experience. I have a co ordinators level youth work certificate and half a social work degree and cannot get a job. Even if I could, I probably won't be able to afford childcare anyway. It's a sad state of affairs.
Sorry for cr@pping on, I think I got carried away! :o
ButterflyKisses
08-05-2006, 07:48
You know what? It won't happen. I cannot finish my degree because I don't have enough support from the government to be able to afford it. I have been applying for work left right and centre because we are currently trying to house, feed and clothe 7 people on approx $400 a week! This is thanks to Mr Howard and his family friendly policies. I cannot get any Gov. assistance. Our business recently lost the major contract that was our primary source of income. However, the figure that the business was earning is locked in for two years so I cannot get any assistance until that time is up.
My husband got a job driving cabs to get us through until we can find another contract but the money is truly cr@p. Really really cr@p!
So even with my brilliantly high IQ (ok, I really am exagerating now! ), I am screwed. Nobody wants to employ a mummy of five with almost no work experience. I have a co ordinators level youth work certificate and half a social work degree and cannot get a job. Even if I could, I probably won't be able to afford childcare anyway. It's a sad state of affairs.
Sorry for cr@pping on, I think I got carried away! :oHi ******, I'm sorry you and your family are going through a tough time at present must be very hard with all those little kids in the middle of it but unfortunately I don't think in your current situation even if ALP was in power that the outcome would be any different.
let's just hope whatever the budget is that there is something in there that benefits everyone :fingerscrossed:
:fingerscrossed: that your hubbie also gets a really great contract real soon.
I disagree that the ALP won't do anything to help tertiary students - it's been one of their main criticisms of the Howard Government that they have cut funding to unis in real terms; and the lack of support for research and development. The ALP is about real investment in the future ie supporting students in tertiary education, and encouraging research and development.
It seems insane to lower work conditions for workers in order to "increase productivity" like the Howard government has done, when doing things like giving apprentices income support like uni students get to get more home-grown skilled workers (not an ALP policy, but something I would like); or encouraging investment and innovation to do things smarter and faster would be so much more positive and would actually achieve the aim of increasing productivity.
Edited to add, we have a small business and lowering wages and conditions for our workers won't help us when we can't find good apprentices who will stick out 4 years of training when they earn very little money - they see mates on the dole doing better and many don't stick it out - this isn't just our personal problem, many of our business collegues are in the same predicament. So more support for apprentices would do a lot to benefit the individual worker and Australian industry - a real win-win situation. We are in a position where we can't expand because of the skilled worker shortage, and it's not helpful to try to employ someone from OS, which is what some larger companies in other industries, and even the health system are presently doing.
Edited again to add, I had a look at the ALP website, and they are proposing paying apprentices a $2000 completion bonus for finishing their apprenticeship - not exactly what I was suggesting, but definitely a step in the right direction.
Lowering work conditions and pay is about increasing profits, not increasing productivity - having a poorly paid, insecure workforce doesn't make them work faster and smarter, but encouraging people to learn in order to increase their skills, and thinking of new ways of doing things would. As a nation we need to stop being so lazy and depending on our natural resources for our national wealth, and get back into making things and adding value.
Laura, you've raised a very interesting point - one which I totally agree with you on (even if I am a Lib supporter!) There is a certain laziness out there in a lot of young people. I stress - NOT ALL, but some. Maybe this is due to young people these days exercising a lot of rights, but not taking on board the responsibilities that go with those rights. Who knows? That's a whole new debate!!
BTW, I just wanted to say how great I think it is that we have managed to keep this topic friendly. It isn't always easy to do this when topics are so close to a lot of personal issues for many of us and I think we are all doing a great job! :yelclap:
Love,
Nan. xx
Isn't there an argument that Hawke/Keating instigated the reforms that Howard/Costello have reaped the benefits of?
Thanks Nan,
I agree, it is great to see some healthy debate and civility all at the same time.
It's not always easy as these issues often affect people in a very personal way, and strike at core values and beliefs, but it doesn't help anyone if the thread gets locked because people can't get along.
I'm am not entirely against the Libs:kiss: - no party has the total answer and any government requires a vigilant citizenry to keep them as honest as possible. My problem with Howard is that he has a radically right wing agenda. Some of his fellow party members and collegues have a problem with the way he has steered the country and his harsh treatment of refugees (it's not just the ALP and us lefties that thinks he has gone too far), his appetite for war with or without good evidence for invasion - after all to commit a country to war is the most extreme act a nation-state can do against another nation-state and it shouldn't be done pre-emptively or without real evidence.
I just wonder how many more "Iraq's", or AWB, Cornelia Rau, Vivian Alvarez-Solon , children overboard type scandals it will take before the voting public wakes up and sees this government is extremely secretive, non-accountable and very arrogant.
Howard has been very lucky to have a commodities boom to inject money into our economy and keep us all feeling far better off than we deserve. He was lucky to have 9-11 and the war on terror as these things made people frightened of change - the better the devil you know type of thinking. And he has been very lucky that the ALP has shown a distinct lack of stamina as an opposition party at the Federal level.
He stays in power because of his personal popularity over Costello - when Costello as treasurer has given people all the goodies and economic stability they like, but he would have a much more moderate and humane social policy - but he can't get the numbers - that's the bit I'm struggling to understand, and why I am so disappointed in Libs and the voting public.
Hokey Pokey
08-05-2006, 13:50
Alot of things I just don't agree with but then if we were to change the government I'm sure there will always be things that I just don't like.
Australians really are a lucky nation and for that I am grateful!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.9 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.