The quote you've put in was from the SMH
The article you linked to was a comment on the original article - this was the quote from that:
For what it is worth, I mostly agree with the IMF’s conclusion. The Howard Government presided over the biggest private debt boom in Australia’s history and, in its later years, one of the biggest terms-of-trade booms. These two events meant that the Australian economy grew strongly and fostered strong growth in both employment and incomes. Importantly, it also flooded the Government with tens of billions of dollars worth of extra taxation revenue – via increased personal, company and capital gains taxes (as well as lower welfare spending) – which it spent on a range of questionable initiatives and middle class welfare.
So yes it's most certainly been said on here lots of times
I have seen those threads and know that those views are held by many, but not the same people in both threads? So the same poster saying keep the PHI but cut the BB? That's what I am saying.
I really hate the notion that high income earners are somehow inherently greedy, selfish people.
Not singling you out here Delirium - I mean on the Hub generally.
No I don't think the rich are inherently greedy just that there is a lot of double standards that's all
It's only a double standard if said by the same person. I agree with Kw123, I don't think I've seen (except for maybe one or two members - which really is a small percentage) members say both statements
There are lots of members that have contributed to the welfare threads saying my tax dollars are paying for low income people, cut the BB. Then those same people complain they aren't getting help from the govt. So yes they are the same people.
F, what's the point in starting threads when by your history you have no regard for empirical evidence? It doesn't matter what information is presented to you, if it doesn't agree with your view of the world you either ignore or dismiss it. If I could be bothered to drag myself all over the internet to find quality data that challenges or negates anything you have presented it wouldn't make the slightest bit of difference, so what is the point of starting the threads you start? What do you hope to achieve? Are you purely after a round of applause from like minded people?
I watched a documentary of SBS last night about Rupert Murdoch. Given Murdoch and his press does not support Gillard and supports Abbott then the election is pretty much a done deal. Gillard challenged the Murdoch press, Abbott used to be a feature writer for The Australian and is very much in favour with Murdoch. Murdoch has PMs elected, that is an absolute FACT.
Oh, and F, if you believe the Murdoch press is objective you might want to check out around the 43rd minute of the documentary when the Chief Editor (I believe that was his title) of The Australian says words to the effect of "The Australian is unashamedly right wing".
I'm firmly of the belief that the drop in popularity of the Gillard Government is largely due to the constant negative press that the Gillard government receives and the complete lack of challenge Abbot receives. Given Murdoch owns 70+% of the Australian Press Murdoch is lining up Abbott to be the next PM. Let's face it, we don't live in a democracy, we live in a Murdochracy.
Pregnant for the first-time?
Not sure where to start? We can help!
Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!