I have this afternoon received a fearmongering email from the Libs, with the paternalistic title: 'You'll keep paying more under Labor'...

Apparently, there's also a TV Ad to indoctrinate voters with this negative propaganda message...



Quote:

Dear [Subscriber] Australian families can’t afford more Labor. Labor’s waste and mismanagement has left less money to spend on schools, hospitals and roads. Their debt binge is putting upward pressure on interest rates, meaning more of the family budget is being taken up by mortgage payments. Electricity and gas prices are going up. Spending time with family and meeting work demands is getting harder – and because Labor has lost control of our population it will get worse with more overcrowding, inadequate public transport and jammed roads. Labor is only in it for themselves. Look at the way Labor’s hidden power brokers removed Kevin Rudd and installed Julia Gillard as Prime Minister. Look at the cynical no-action policies they have announced in recent days. And look at the way Julia Gillard put on a scripted show with no detailed plans in last night’s debate. Only the Coalition will take real action now to help families. We have made a commitment to deliver sustainable population levels so that our infrastructure, services and environment can catch up. We will stand up for protection of our borders by strengthening security screening at Australian ports and airports. We will help families meet the costs of their children’s education and ease pressure on family budgets by improving and expanding the existing Education Tax Rebate. We will make child care more affordable for families and help ensure the quality of care. We will take real action to keep Australians safe in their homes and communities by re-establishing the National Community Crime Prevention Programme. While Julia Gillard is just trying to get through the election, Tony Abbott and the Coalition are setting out clear and deliverable commitments to help Australian families. Click here to read more about our commitments to help Australian families. Click here to watch our latest television advertisement. Click here to make a contribution that will help the Coalition fight for families.   Liberal HQ LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA Authorised by Brian Loughnane for the Liberal Party of Australia Cnr Blackall & Macquarie Streets, Barton ACT 2600

Good thing, that the Lib powermongers lack the insight to appreciate that voters are turned off by their divisive and backward thinking negativity...

Equitist wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 3:05pm:

Good thing, that the Lib powermongers lack the insight to appreciate that voters are turned off by their divisive and backward thinking negativity...

Aint that the truth, I'am soooooooooooooo over Abbott and how negative he is, his whole campaign is about bagging labor rather than telling us how he can do it better, he thinks he can just slide under the radar and Labor will lose. Here's a tip Tony, it wont work, if you want to be PM you have to earn it, and I suspect Abbott is too lazy to do the hard yards that it takes to succeed.
I cant wait until the Libs dump this turd and replace him with Turnbull so as we the voters have a real choice for who to preference.

Is there anything in that email that is factually incorrect???


NO

labor are economic vandals and your happy for them to completely wreck our economy, borrowing 100 million a day, sees us paying 6 million dollars a day in interest

That is 2.2 billion dollars a year in interest alone.

yeah we can afford that.

You complain that libs spent not much well when they had to pay off a monstrous debt along with crap loads of interest, and they'll have to do it again.

How many doctors nurses hosptials police schools and teachers roads and rail points could be built with the money we have blown and have to pay back in interest.

Rudd says are debt will top 200 billion by 2013, thats 12 billion in interest a year???

FFS labor is has set us on the path to a banana republic, bought out by China in 10 year stime.

And you want to vote them in again because Abbott might have said something slightly sexist??


You labor lot certainly are wet behind the ears. You'll elect a governemnt with proven disastorous policies with no economic credibillity and allow the country to go down the toilet.

unfknbeleivable

skippy. wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 3:11pm:

I cant wait until the Libs dump this turd and replace him with Turnbull so as we the voters have a real choice for who to preference.

You are dreaming skippy.  Turnbull wont be leader.  Turnbull was abysmal as leader last time.  The ALP want Turnbull so they can have their ETS.

libs bagging labor???

OK whaty has labor done that warrants an applause??


And everytime I hear a labor polly all they spew out is work choices this work choices that.

This is the pot calling the kettle black.

Equitist wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 3:05pm:

Good thing, that the Lib powermongers lack the insight to appreciate that voters are turned off by their divisive and backward thinking negativity...

Apparently you didnt read the latest polls with showed a major return TO the coalition. Or you failed to realise that on primary votes, labor is being MASSACRED. only the Green preferences are keeping them in the hunt.

try again!

It must be galling to realise that everything in that letter was factually accurate! not that that would worry a leftie!

Verge wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 3:17pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:11pm: I cant wait until the Libs dump this turd and replace him with Turnbull so as we the voters have a real choice for who to preference. You are dreaming skippy.  Turnbull wont be leader.  Turnbull was abysmal as leader last time.  The ALP want Turnbull so they can have their ETS.

No I'm sure Labor dont wont Turnbull as leader, he would win an election.
On the other hand moderate voters who preference the major parties would like a moderate leader for the Libs.
Turnbull was not that bad a leader, it is just the right wing neo con extremists who now run the Liberal party wanted a patsy who would do their bidding, up stands Abbott.If the liberal party are to ever wonder out of the wilderness they need a moderate leader who appeals to the swinging moderate voter, I dont expect you rusted on Libs to undertand that, you are defending Abbott, nuff said.

skippy. wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 3:33pm:

Verge wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:17pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:11pm: I cant wait until the Libs dump this turd and replace him with Turnbull so as we the voters have a real choice for who to preference. You are dreaming skippy.  Turnbull wont be leader.  Turnbull was abysmal as leader last time.  The ALP want Turnbull so they can have their ETS. No I'm sure Labor dont wont Turnbull as leader, he would win an election. On the other hand moderate voters who preference the major parties would like a moderate leader for the Libs. Turnbull was not that bad a leader, it is just the right wing neo con extremists who now run the Liberal party wanted a patsy who would do their bidding, up stands Abbott.If the liberal party are to ever wonder out of the wilderness they need a moderate leader who appeals to the swinging moderate voter, I dont expect you rusted on Libs to undertand that, you are defending Abbott, nuff said.

Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls! Abbott has brought them close to victory. If there are so many people wanting Turnball as leader then where were they com polling time? or is it that only LABOR voters wanted him as liberal leader as he was less of a challenge??

Equitist wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 3:03pm:

I have this afternoon received a fearmongering email from the Libs, with the paternalistic title: 'You'll keep paying more under Labor'... Apparently, there's also a TV Ad to indoctrinate voters with this negative propaganda message... Quote: Dear [Subscriber] Australian families can’t afford more Labor. Labor’s waste and mismanagement has left less money to spend on schools, hospitals and roads. Their debt binge is putting upward pressure on interest rates, meaning more of the family budget is being taken up by mortgage payments. Electricity and gas prices are going up. Spending time with family and meeting work demands is getting harder – and because Labor has lost control of our population it will get worse with more overcrowding, inadequate public transport and jammed roads. Labor is only in it for themselves. Look at the way Labor’s hidden power brokers removed Kevin Rudd and installed Julia Gillard as Prime Minister. Look at the cynical no-action policies they have announced in recent days. And look at the way Julia Gillard put on a scripted show with no detailed plans in last night’s debate. Only the Coalition will take real action now to help families. We have made a commitment to deliver sustainable population levels so that our infrastructure, services and environment can catch up. We will stand up for protection of our borders by strengthening security screening at Australian ports and airports. We will help families meet the costs of their children’s education and ease pressure on family budgets by improving and expanding the existing Education Tax Rebate. We will make child care more affordable for families and help ensure the quality of care. We will take real action to keep Australians safe in their homes and communities by re-establishing the National Community Crime Prevention Programme. While Julia Gillard is just trying to get through the election, Tony Abbott and the Coalition are setting out clear and deliverable commitments to help Australian families. Click here to read more about our commitments to help Australian families. Click here to watch our latest television advertisement. Click here to make a contribution that will help the Coalition fight for families.   Liberal HQ LIBERAL PARTY OF AUSTRALIA Authorised by Brian Loughnane for the Liberal Party of Australia Cnr Blackall & Macquarie Streets, Barton ACT 2600

'PROPOGANDA' implies that the message is untrue - which clearly this is not.

try again!

and I just watched an add from the unions bagging the libs on you quessed it???  work choices'

too funny

All labor has done is bag Abbott and talk about work choices at every turn.

labor offer nothing but debt and incompetence but you labor lot ar ecool with that.

Quote:

Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls

Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell.

skippy. wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 3:54pm:

Quote: Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell.

so what you are inessence saying is that YOU cannot read polls??

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 4:05pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:54pm: Quote: Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell. so what you are inessence saying is that YOU cannot read polls??

Oh I read them and you weep sweet thing, Abbotts going to get his ass kicked, I'll speak to you on the 22 Aug, and repost this thread, when you see how buggered the Libs are then maybe you'll realise I'm right, but dont worry, I wont miss out on telling you, I TOLD YOU SO, I'm a pretty generous bloke like that.

skippy. wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 3:54pm:

Quote: Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell.

Christ you're a WANKER Skippy. How about you tell us WHEN the Greens will be competitive? LOL.

:D

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 3:37pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:33pm: Verge wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:17pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:11pm: I cant wait until the Libs dump this turd and replace him with Turnbull so as we the voters have a real choice for who to preference. You are dreaming skippy.  Turnbull wont be leader.  Turnbull was abysmal as leader last time.  The ALP want Turnbull so they can have their ETS. No I'm sure Labor dont wont Turnbull as leader, he would win an election. On the other hand moderate voters who preference the major parties would like a moderate leader for the Libs. Turnbull was not that bad a leader, it is just the right wing neo con extremists who now run the Liberal party wanted a patsy who would do their bidding, up stands Abbott.If the liberal party are to ever wonder out of the wilderness they need a moderate leader who appeals to the swinging moderate voter, I dont expect you rusted on Libs to undertand that, you are defending Abbott, nuff said. Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls! Abbott has brought them close to victory. If there are so many people wanting Turnball as leader then where were they com polling time? or is it that only LABOR voters wanted him as liberal leader as he was less of a challenge??

It would be VERY interesting if Turnbull was leading now to see the polls.
Remember when he was leader Labor still had everyone fooled thinking they were actually going to do something with Climate change, and has been pointed to many times it was when that was shelved that voters turned their back.
Turnbull would win in a landslide, only the rusted Labor supporters would vote against him just as only the rusted on Liberals will vote for Abbott, and the Greens would be back to their normal 6% or less support as well.

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 4:21pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:54pm: Quote: Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell. Christ you're a WANKER Skippy. How about you tell us WHEN the Greens will be competitive? LOL. :D

I know you hate being told how wrong your precious party got it when they chose Abbott over Turnbull, but suck it up, its your own fault.
Dont worry iamwhatever, I'll be looking for you too come aug 22, to see if you are ready to concede that for the libs to ever win government again they need to dump the extreme far right neo cons that now run the party.

skippy. wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 4:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 4:05pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:54pm: Quote: Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell. so what you are inessence saying is that YOU cannot read polls?? Oh I read them and you weep sweet thing, Abbotts going to get his ass kicked, I'll speak to you on the 22 Aug, and repost this thread, when you see how buggered the Libs are then maybe you'll realise I'm right, but dont worry, I wont miss out on telling you, I TOLD YOU SO, I'm a pretty generous bloke like that.

Given that Turball was polling at a 16% margin you can have your say if Abbott does WORSE. other that that my point remains valid, but I am sure you dont undestand that argument at all.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 4:49pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:37pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:33pm: Verge wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:17pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:11pm: I cant wait until the Libs dump this turd and replace him with Turnbull so as we the voters have a real choice for who to preference. You are dreaming skippy.  Turnbull wont be leader.  Turnbull was abysmal as leader last time.  The ALP want Turnbull so they can have their ETS. No I'm sure Labor dont wont Turnbull as leader, he would win an election. On the other hand moderate voters who preference the major parties would like a moderate leader for the Libs. Turnbull was not that bad a leader, it is just the right wing neo con extremists who now run the Liberal party wanted a patsy who would do their bidding, up stands Abbott.If the liberal party are to ever wonder out of the wilderness they need a moderate leader who appeals to the swinging moderate voter, I dont expect you rusted on Libs to undertand that, you are defending Abbott, nuff said. Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls! Abbott has brought them close to victory. If there are so many people wanting Turnball as leader then where were they com polling time? or is it that only LABOR voters wanted him as liberal leader as he was less of a challenge?? It would be VERY interesting if Turnbull was leading now to see the polls. Remember when he was leader Labor still had everyone fooled thinking they were actually going to do something with Climate change, and has been pointed to many times it was when that was shelved that voters turned their back. Turnbull would win in a landslide, only the rusted Labor supporters would vote against him just as only the rusted on Liberals will vote for Abbott, and the Greens would be back to their normal 6% or less support as well.

That's oen of those what-iff scenarios that leads itself to debate but no way of knowing any facts. Turnball disenchanted a lot of core liberal supporters because of his pro-ets position and if he had remained leader the ETS would have passed thus negating the need for Rdd to can it. turnball is undoubtedly a good leader but he needs to work out which party he wants to lead. He woudl however make a fabulous Liberal Treasurer which is where I think he wil end up anyhow and defacto heir apparent. but ONLY if he learns to listen to his party a little better.

skippy. wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 4:51pm:

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 4:21pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:54pm: Quote: Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell. Christ you're a WANKER Skippy. How about you tell us WHEN the Greens will be competitive? LOL. :D I know you hate being told how wrong your precious party got it when they chose Abbott over Turnbull, but suck it up, its your own fault. Dont worry iamwhatever, I'll be looking for you too come aug 22, to see if you are ready to concede that for the libs to ever win government again they need to dump the extreme far right neo cons that now run the party.

And if you read the PROFESSIONAL political analysts they are all saying that libs and labor are virtually identical in policy. in fact, can you even differentiate between the two on any genuine policy of substance?

Quote:

Turnbull would win in a landslide, only the rusted Labor supporters would vote against him just as only the rusted on Liberals will vote for Abbott, and the Greens would be back to their normal 6% or less support as well.

The enviroment will be a big issue for the rest of our lives, the GREENS vote will continue to increase, but I agree its at 16%  because Labor have been spooked and the coalition dont even believe in climate change under the extreme far right wing neo cons.
The rest of your post is spot on.

skippy. wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 5:00pm:

Quote: Turnbull would win in a landslide, only the rusted Labor supporters would vote against him just as only the rusted on Liberals will vote for Abbott, and the Greens would be back to their normal 6% or less support as well.       The enviroment will be a big issue for the rest of our lives, the GREENS vote will continue to increase, but I agree its at 16%  because Labor have been spooked and the coalition dont even believe in climate change under the extreme far right wing neo cons. The rest of your post is spot on.

That is one of the worst political analyses I've ever read. IN fact it is close to 100% rubbish. It avoids an political history, any polls and anything else even close to a fact.

Pure drivel.

skippy. wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 4:51pm:

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 4:21pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:54pm: Quote: Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell. Christ you're a WANKER Skippy. How about you tell us WHEN the Greens will be competitive? LOL. :D I know you hate being told how wrong your precious party got it when they chose Abbott over Turnbull, but suck it up, its your own fault. Dont worry iamwhatever, I'll be looking for you too come aug 22, to see if you are ready to concede that for the libs to ever win government again they need to dump the extreme far right neo cons that now run the party.

Actually sunshine, I don't want or think Abbott can win, however i'll still be voting for the local LIB candidate as they are the best option. As for Turnbull, he would NEVER have won and he NEVER will in the future, AND Abbott is STILL a better option to Turnbull.

:)

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 5:05pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 4:51pm: iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 4:21pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:54pm: Quote: Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell. Christ you're a WANKER Skippy. How about you tell us WHEN the Greens will be competitive? LOL. :D I know you hate being told how wrong your precious party got it when they chose Abbott over Turnbull, but suck it up, its your own fault. Dont worry iamwhatever, I'll be looking for you too come aug 22, to see if you are ready to concede that for the libs to ever win government again they need to dump the extreme far right neo cons that now run the party. Actually sunshine, I don't want or think Abbott can win, however i'll still be voting for the local LIB candidate as they are the best option. As for Turnbull, he would NEVER have won and he NEVER will in the future, AND Abbott is STILL a better option to Turnbull. :)

It is notable that not a single professional analyst has ever made that ludicrous statement that Turnball would fare better. The polls massively declare otherwise. I am constantly amazed at the political naivete of some labor supporters!

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 4:59pm:

skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 4:51pm: iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 4:21pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:54pm: Quote: Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell. Christ you're a WANKER Skippy. How about you tell us WHEN the Greens will be competitive? LOL. :D I know you hate being told how wrong your precious party got it when they chose Abbott over Turnbull, but suck it up, its your own fault. Dont worry iamwhatever, I'll be looking for you too come aug 22, to see if you are ready to concede that for the libs to ever win government again they need to dump the extreme far right neo cons that now run the party. And if you read the PROFESSIONAL political analysts they are all saying that libs and labor are virtually identical in policy. in fact, can you even differentiate between the two on any genuine policy of substance?

Good you have been reading my posts, Liberal and Labor are both right wing parties, but the Libs are now run by extreme right wing neo cons, Labor I consider to be right of centre, and they let the loony right spook them into bad policy, like the hysterical campaign by the Libs on boat people.

I vote GREENS I will preference Labor because as economic managers they have done well.
Interest rates are lower than they ever were under Howard.
Labor at least believe in climate change, Abbott does not.
Abbott will re introduce work choices,I trust him less than I did Howard.
Abbott would be a total joke on the world stage.
The list goes on, there are many reasons, but, and this is where you haven't read my posts in total, if the Libs got a moderate leader, not controlled by the loonie christian right, I might consider preferencing them.
There are many voters like me, if the Libs want our preferences, give us someone worth voting for.

I vote GREENS I will preference Labor because as economic managers they have done well.
Interest rates are lower than they ever were under Howard.
Labor at least believe in climate change, Abbott does not.
Abbott will re introduce work choices,I trust him less than I did Howard.
Abbott would be a total joke on the world stage.
The list goes on, there are many reasons, but, and this is where you haven't read my posts in total, if the Libs got a moderate leader, not controlled by the loonie christian right, I might consider preferencing them.
There are many voters like me, if the Libs want our preferences, give us someone worth voting for.

********************

The above mentioned reasons are why YOU are considered a JOKE on here Skippy.

Do YOU understand WHY interest rates are lower?

Do YOU approve of BILLIONS wasted on poorly managed and poorly executed programs?

Do YOU honestly think the bogan Gillard or the poof Brown would be better representatives of this country?

YOU Green supporters are absolute JOKES.

:D

skippy. wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 5:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 4:59pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 4:51pm: iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 4:21pm: skippy. wrote on Jul 26th, 2010 at 3:54pm: Quote: Do none of you labor idiots ( redundant term!) know how to read polls? Turnball was getting killed in the polls Hey sweetcheeks,you're the idiot, Abbott only consolidated the rusted on tards, they would vote for him anyway, as you prove, Turnbull could bring the swinging moderate voters to the Libs, but bugger you, they deserve to rot in hell. Christ you're a WANKER Skippy. How about you tell us WHEN the Greens will be competitive? LOL. :D I know you hate being told how wrong your precious party got it when they chose Abbott over Turnbull, but suck it up, its your own fault. Dont worry iamwhatever, I'll be looking for you too come aug 22, to see if you are ready to concede that for the libs to ever win government again they need to dump the extreme far right neo cons that now run the party. And if you read the PROFESSIONAL political analysts they are all saying that libs and labor are virtually identical in policy. in fact, can you even differentiate between the two on any genuine policy of substance? Good you have been reading my posts, Liberal and Labor are both right wing parties, but the Libs are now run by extreme right wing neo cons, Labor I consider to be right of centre, and they let the loony right spook them into bad policy, like the hysterical campaign by the Libs on boat people. I vote GREENS I will preference Labor because as economic managers they have done well. Interest rates are lower than they ever were under Howard. Labor at least believe in climate change, Abbott does not. Abbott will re introduce work choices,I trust him less than I did Howard. Abbott would be a total joke on the world stage. The list goes on, there are many reasons, but, and this is where you haven't read my posts in total, if the Libs got a moderate leader, not controlled by the loonie christian right, I might consider preferencing them. There are many voters like me, if the Libs want our preferences, give us someone worth voting for.

Trouble is that you would only vote Liberal if it smelled, looked and tasted like the Labor party. Why would we want to do that? If power is the goal then yes thats a good idea - just ask Rudd/Gillard. But if good policy and a belief in ones integrity are more important then you stand for what you belive in. In the last election Rudd turned the Labor party into Liberal-lite with virtually no difference in policy. At least the libs have some backbone on policy!

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 26^th, 2010 at 5:18pm:

I vote GREENS I will preference Labor because as economic managers they have done well. Interest rates are lower than they ever were under Howard. Labor at least believe in climate change, Abbott does not. Abbott will re introduce work choices,I trust him less than I did Howard. Abbott would be a total joke on the world stage. The list goes on, there are many reasons, but, and this is where you haven't read my posts in total, if the Libs got a moderate leader, not controlled by the loonie christian right, I might consider preferencing them. There are many voters like me, if the Libs want our preferences, give us someone worth voting for. ******************** The above mentioned reasons are why YOU are considered a JOKE on here Skippy. Do YOU understand WHY interest rates are lower? Do YOU approve of BILLIONS wasted on poorly managed and poorly executed programs? Do YOU honestly think the bogan Gillard or the poof Brown would be better representatives of this country? YOU Green supporters are absolute JOKES. :D

It took the worst global recession since WW2 to drive interest rates low when a labor govt was in power. the rest of the time - when domestic issues drive rates - labor has a very poor record.

Now this is when some chronically uneducated bogan comes on and talks about Howards 22% interest rates - despite never having happened. It is unbeleiveable the things labor supporters say. it is as if the notions of integrity and truth have never found root in their feeble minds.

Quote:

The above mentioned reasons are why YOU are considered a JOKE on here Skippy.

Thanks Iamacat, but you take the medal, you're considered a joke on every forum, that you're not banned from that is.

Quote:

Trouble is that you would only vote Liberal if it smelled, looked and tasted like the Labor party. Why would we want to do that

The Libs today are nothing like the Libs under Menzies Holt Gorton or Fraser, the lying little rodent took the party so ::) far to the right , tards like you think this is the norm, but thanks for showing us all how ill informed you are.
You nearly give Iamabigirlsblouse a run for her money. ::)

skippy. wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 8:13am:

Quote: The above mentioned reasons are why YOU are considered a JOKE on here Skippy. Thanks Iamacat, but you take the medal, you're considered a joke on every forum, that you're not banned from that is.

I only get banned because fairies like YOU can't handle a little abuse so you hit the mummy button. How would you cope if we had a debate in a pub, who would you run to then you little punce?

:D

**** TIME OUT, CHILDREN ****


(Hint, hint....)

Equitist wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 10:06am:

**** TIME OUT, CHILDREN **** (Hint, hint....)

No F_ck him Nem, the bloke is an annoying little punce who'd get his head ripped off in a pub debate.

>:(

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 10:13am:

Equitist wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 10:06am: **** TIME OUT, CHILDREN **** (Hint, hint....) No F_ck him Nem, the bloke is an annoying little punce who'd get his head ripped off in a pub debate. >:(

LOL, temper temper sweetie. :-?

After seeing the waste of the BER scheme, its not hard to see how people do pay more under labor.

$1,005,000 for a school hall that is 14x12, you have to be kidding me.

I dont oppose the BER, I oppose the waste.  They could have had 3 buildings for that.

Verge wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 10:38am:

After seeing the waste of the BER scheme, its not hard to see how people do pay more under labor. $1,005,000 for a school hall that is 14x12, you have to be kidding me. I dont oppose the BER, I oppose the waste.  They could have had 3 buildings for that.

I think that is most peoples opinion too. the BER is a good program but everythign costs 3 times as much as it should and some things are built that simply have no justification.

If one wants to talk about Govt waste, then they should really look at the massive policy failures that the Libs badly let us down with - not just in nominal values but also in terms of costs-benefits and opportunity costs...

Their reverse-means-tested Superannuation Tax Concession scams alone totally dwarf the BER in terms of fiscal madness...

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tax-concessions-fiscal-madness-academic/2006/07/07/1152240493841.html


Quote:

Tax concessions fiscal madness: academic Adele Horin July 8, 2006 THE Federal Government's huge tax concessions for superannuation mainly benefit high-income men and will soon cost as much as the total expenditure on the age pension, an economist says. Rhonda Sharp, a professor at the Hawke Research Institute at the University of South Australia, told the feminist economics conference at the University of Sydney that Australia's retirement incomes policy was biased against women because it was linked to lifetime earnings in the workforce and associated tax concessions. "We are funding high-income men at an increasing cost to the public purse," Professor Sharp said. The new tax concessions would exacerbate gender inequalities, contrary to the Treasurer, Peter Costello's earlier statement that he wanted to "create the most female-friendly environment in the world". Female baby boomers will spend 35 per cent less time in paid employment than their male counterparts because of family responsibilities, and will earn on average less than men, she said. A Federal Government report this week showed women in the forseeable future will accrue half the superannuation of men. Professor Sharp said the push towards private provision of retirement income was based on fears of the ageing population. It was argued that as baby boomers retired, the cost of the age pension to the Government would be unsupportable. "The self-funded retiree is being held up as saving the Government a fortune," she said. However, tax concessions for super represented a large and growing amount of forgone revenue. Treasury's own estimates showed that before the 2006 budget the cost of superannuation tax concessions would be $19.3 billion, compared to $24.6 billion spent on the age pension. "The cost of the tax concessions for superannuation could be expected to overtake the total cost of the government age pension within a few years," Professor Sharp said. Yet only 25 per cent of the pensionable-aged population, according to Treasury, was forecast to be self-funded retirees by 2050 - "It's fiscal madness." Professor Sharp said New Zealand's universal superannuation scheme was women-friendly, providing 65 per cent of average weekly earnings to a retired couple, with the payment made separately to the spouses. It was not related to paid employment, and extra contributions were not given preferential tax treatment.

That was in 2006 - where the annual waste was approaching $20B and their subsequent 'Biggest Changes to Superannuation Ever' made matters far worse...

They were not the smartest, not the fairest, nor most cost-effective - just the smacking 'Biggest' - and those wasteful fools claimed to be good economic mangers - pffft!

If the Labs hadn't subsequently put caps on the benefits to high income earners, we would have much bigger Federal deficit and debt for right whingers to confect outrage over! smacking hypocrites!

Equitist wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 10:59am:

If one wants to talk about Govt waste, then they should really look at the massive policy failures that the Libs badly let us down with - not just in nominal values but also in terms of costs-benefits and opportunity costs... Their reverse-means-tested Superannuation Tax Concession scams alone totally dwarf the BER in terms of fiscal madness... http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/tax-concessions-fiscal-madness-academic/2006/07/07/1152240493841.html Quote: Tax concessions fiscal madness: academic Adele Horin July 8, 2006 THE Federal Government's huge tax concessions for superannuation mainly benefit high-income men and will soon cost as much as the total expenditure on the age pension, an economist says. Rhonda Sharp, a professor at the Hawke Research Institute at the University of South Australia, told the feminist economics conference at the University of Sydney that Australia's retirement incomes policy was biased against women because it was linked to lifetime earnings in the workforce and associated tax concessions. "We are funding high-income men at an increasing cost to the public purse," Professor Sharp said. The new tax concessions would exacerbate gender inequalities, contrary to the Treasurer, Peter Costello's earlier statement that he wanted to "create the most female-friendly environment in the world". Female baby boomers will spend 35 per cent less time in paid employment than their male counterparts because of family responsibilities, and will earn on average less than men, she said. A Federal Government report this week showed women in the forseeable future will accrue half the superannuation of men. Professor Sharp said the push towards private provision of retirement income was based on fears of the ageing population. It was argued that as baby boomers retired, the cost of the age pension to the Government would be unsupportable. "The self-funded retiree is being held up as saving the Government a fortune," she said. However, tax concessions for super represented a large and growing amount of forgone revenue. Treasury's own estimates showed that before the 2006 budget the cost of superannuation tax concessions would be $19.3 billion, compared to $24.6 billion spent on the age pension. "The cost of the tax concessions for superannuation could be expected to overtake the total cost of the government age pension within a few years," Professor Sharp said. Yet only 25 per cent of the pensionable-aged population, according to Treasury, was forecast to be self-funded retirees by 2050 - "It's fiscal madness." Professor Sharp said New Zealand's universal superannuation scheme was women-friendly, providing 65 per cent of average weekly earnings to a retired couple, with the payment made separately to the spouses. It was not related to paid employment, and extra contributions were not given preferential tax treatment. That was in 2006 - where the annual waste was approaching $20B and their subsequent 'Biggest Changes to Superannuation Ever' made matters far worse... They were not the smartest, not the fairest, nor most cost-effective - just the smacking 'Biggest' - and those wasteful fools claimed to be good economic mangers - pffft! If the Labs hadn't subsequently put caps on the benefits to high income earners, we would have much bigger Federal deficit and debt for right whingers to confect outrage over! smacking hypocrites!

same crap, different day. and as usual, it is not a financial argument that you are making primarily but a ideological one. you have a massive problem even with the CONCEPT of superanuation because it rewards people for their own efforts. if someone makes no effort to save for their retirement the super changes give them no advantage. But in your uber-socialist world, 'effort' is not a pre-requisite for advantage. the super changes are good and having had some recent dealings with universities and professors I have discovered that their understanding of the real world is small.

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 10:02am:

skippy. wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 8:13am: Quote: The above mentioned reasons are why YOU are considered a JOKE on here Skippy. Thanks Iamacat, but you take the medal, you're considered a joke on every forum, that you're not banned from that is. I only get banned because fairies like YOU can't handle a little abuse so you hit the mummy button. How would you cope if we had a debate in a pub, who would you run to then you little punce? :D

Sir, we are all fiends here. You are good man. I too like the pub to have nice coca cola and meet new punce.

Perhaps we can meet to debate in the pub, puce. I would like this very much.

Quote:

having had some recent dealings with universities and professors I have discovered that their understanding of the real world is small

Most people who have had an education that does not extend past high school think that.

skippy. wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 11:16am:

Quote: having had some recent dealings with universities and professors I have discovered that their understanding of the real world is small Most people who have had an education that does not extend past high school think that.

obviously YOU dont know too many academia-cloistered professors.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 11:07am:

same crap, different day. and as usual, it is not a financial argument that you are making primarily but a ideological one. you have a massive problem even with the CONCEPT of superanuation because it rewards people for their own efforts. if someone makes no effort to save for their retirement the super changes give them no advantage. But in your uber-socialist world, 'effort' is not a pre-requisite for advantage. the super changes are good and having had some recent dealings with universities and professors I have discovered that their understanding of the real world is small.

Bollox, Bates - ye and me both know that I have previously stated why I support Superannuation in principle - but not to the extent that it becomes fiscally-reckless and effectively-exclusive pre-paid-pension WEALTHfare for the elite (who would never have been entitled to the aged pension and therefore were never going to be a drain on future national budgets) at the expense of the vast majority...

Keating's original altruistic plan was co-opted by Howard and Costello and totally bastardised under their cynical false flag waving of the Inter-Generational Report - which they knowingly-failed to address with their Superannuation changes, at great compounding nominal and opportunity costs to the nation...

There is no valid socio-economic justification for what Howard and Costello did with Superannuation - they set off a multi-billion dollar time bomb to produce the mother of all budget black holes - FACT!

Since then, they have been behaving like petty toddlers, bitching and moaning about relatively-minor policy failures of their far more fiscally responsible and altruistic successors...

Now, Bates, can you kindly stop projecting your own elitism and waving your own false flags, ta!?

Equitist wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 11:24am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 11:07am: same crap, different day. and as usual, it is not a financial argument that you are making primarily but a ideological one. you have a massive problem even with the CONCEPT of superanuation because it rewards people for their own efforts. if someone makes no effort to save for their retirement the super changes give them no advantage. But in your uber-socialist world, 'effort' is not a pre-requisite for advantage. the super changes are good and having had some recent dealings with universities and professors I have discovered that their understanding of the real world is small. Bollox, Bates - ye and me both know that I have previously stated why I support Superannuation in principle - but not to the extent that it becomes fiscally-reckless and effectively-exclusive pre-paid-pension WEALTHfare for the elite (who would never have been entitled to the aged pension and therefore were never going to be a drain on future national budgets) at the expense of the vast majority... Keating's original altruistic plan was co-opted by Howard and Costello and totally bastardised under their cynical false flag waving of the Inter-Generational Report - which they knowingly-failed to address with their Superannuation changes, at great compounding nominal and opportunity costs to the nation... There is no valid socio-economic justification for what Howard and Costello did with Superannuation - they set off a multi-billion dollar time bomb to produce the mother of all budget black holes - FACT! Since then, they have been behaving like petty toddlers, bitching and moaning about relatively-minor policy failures of their far more fiscally responsible and altruistic successors... Now, Bates, can you kindly stop projecting your own elitism and waving your own false flags, ta!?

The 'mother of all budget black holes'? based on what evidence? the fact that howard gave us zero debt, large surplus and put money aside in the future fund? interesting 'logic' you employ!

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 11:34am:

Equitist wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 11:24am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 11:07am: same crap, different day. and as usual, it is not a financial argument that you are making primarily but a ideological one. you have a massive problem even with the CONCEPT of superanuation because it rewards people for their own efforts. if someone makes no effort to save for their retirement the super changes give them no advantage. But in your uber-socialist world, 'effort' is not a pre-requisite for advantage. the super changes are good and having had some recent dealings with universities and professors I have discovered that their understanding of the real world is small. Bollox, Bates - ye and me both know that I have previously stated why I support Superannuation in principle - but not to the extent that it becomes fiscally-reckless and effectively-exclusive pre-paid-pension WEALTHfare for the elite (who would never have been entitled to the aged pension and therefore were never going to be a drain on future national budgets) at the expense of the vast majority... Keating's original altruistic plan was co-opted by Howard and Costello and totally bastardised under their cynical false flag waving of the Inter-Generational Report - which they knowingly-failed to address with their Superannuation changes, at great compounding nominal and opportunity costs to the nation... There is no valid socio-economic justification for what Howard and Costello did with Superannuation - they set off a multi-billion dollar time bomb to produce the mother of all budget black holes - FACT! Since then, they have been behaving like petty toddlers, bitching and moaning about relatively-minor policy failures of their far more fiscally responsible and altruistic successors... Now, Bates, can you kindly stop projecting your own elitism and waving your own false flags, ta!? The 'mother of all budget black holes'? based on what evidence? the fact that howard gave us zero debt, large surplus and put money aside in the future fund? interesting 'logic' you employ!

I suggest, Bates, that you review the evidence on the STRUCTURAL DEFICIT trend impact of Superannuation Tax Concessions on the FY06, FY07, FY08, FY09, FY10 - and subsequent projections...

If the Labs had  not intervened to cap Howard and Costello's increasingly-massive Superannuation benefits to the elite, then there would have been much larger Federal Budget Deficits and Debt for you right whingers to hypocritically whinge about now - FACT!

So, kindly archive your false flags in your own family album!

Ah.. the old Structural Deficit fantasy explanation. it is 'the deficit you have when you arent having a deficit'!

Karnal wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 11:11am:

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 10:02am: skippy. wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 8:13am: Quote: The above mentioned reasons are why YOU are considered a JOKE on here Skippy. Thanks Iamacat, but you take the medal, you're considered a joke on every forum, that you're not banned from that is. I only get banned because fairies like YOU can't handle a little abuse so you hit the mummy button. How would you cope if we had a debate in a pub, who would you run to then you little punce? :D Sir, we are all fiends here. You are good man. I too like the pub to have nice coca cola and meet new punce. Perhaps we can meet to debate in the pub, puce. I would like this very much.

Sure thing sunshine, if you're in Sydney that can be arranged. FYI, i'm NOT a colour.

;D

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 11:49am:

Ah.. the old Structural Deficit fantasy explanation. it is 'the deficit you have when you arent having a deficit'!

I would think it is more a case of the deficit you have when you have geared the economy to be reliant on continuing to boom in order to keep the books balanced.

Committed spending is greater than income as soon as the economy slows.

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 12:53pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 11:11am: iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 10:02am: skippy. wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 8:13am: Quote: The above mentioned reasons are why YOU are considered a JOKE on here Skippy. Thanks Iamacat, but you take the medal, you're considered a joke on every forum, that you're not banned from that is. I only get banned because fairies like YOU can't handle a little abuse so you hit the mummy button. How would you cope if we had a debate in a pub, who would you run to then you little punce? :D Sir, we are all fiends here. You are good man. I too like the pub to have nice coca cola and meet new punce. Perhaps we can meet to debate in the pub, puce. I would like this very much. Sure thing sunshine, if you're in Sydney that can be arranged. FYI, i'm NOT a colour. ;D

Thank you, sir. I am very sorry for my meaning you are coloured. Please excuse me purse.

Karnal wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 1:26pm:

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 12:53pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 11:11am: iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 10:02am: skippy. wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 8:13am: Quote: The above mentioned reasons are why YOU are considered a JOKE on here Skippy. Thanks Iamacat, but you take the medal, you're considered a joke on every forum, that you're not banned from that is. I only get banned because fairies like YOU can't handle a little abuse so you hit the mummy button. How would you cope if we had a debate in a pub, who would you run to then you little punce? :D Sir, we are all fiends here. You are good man. I too like the pub to have nice coca cola and meet new punce. Perhaps we can meet to debate in the pub, puce. I would like this very much. Sure thing sunshine, if you're in Sydney that can be arranged. FYI, i'm NOT a colour. ;D Thank you, sir. I am very sorry for my meaning you are coloured. Please excuse me purse.

Nor am i a handbag. LOL.

Yo Longy et al

The following extracts from a 2009 Brotherhood of St Lawrence Report provide a fairly good illustration of the extraordinary nature and extent of counter-productive waste perpetrated by the last Lib Govt in relation to current and future budget challenges: -


http://www.bsl.org.au/pdfs/BrodyMcNess_Assets_for_all_2009.pdf



(Bear with me - due to the 1-pic-per-post limitation of this forum, I will need to post it in at least 4 separate posts)

---

2/?

---

3/?

---

4/?


Seriously, what was the point in doleing out of serial annual Federal Budgets sums in the order of $11,000 pa, over a 40 year working life, to someone earning over $200,000 pa when the current single rate of aged pension is only around 50% more than that!?

Whatever was the point, in Howard and Costello paying out 26 years worth of pre-paid pensions in a single hit into the private wealth accounts of the uber wealthy!?

What was the point, in them annually forking out 2 1/2 times the aged pension rate in annual pre-paid pensions into the private wealth accounts of high income/wealth individuals!?

Where is the saving!?

Where was the benefit!?

Where have been the long-term cost-benefits!?

Surely, it is obvious that our Federal Budget and National Coffers were systematically raided, by the Howardian Libs with the tacit support of the Labs - and at great expense to the majority of current and Aussies who missed out on their fiscally reckless largesse!?

Surely, there has to be a far better way, of ensuring that subsidies go where they benefit national budgets and citizens best overal - one that stacks up in NATIONAL costs-benefits at every stage of the process!?

---

No one said the super changes were perfect thy, however ALP's reduction in allowable contributions is not good for those on impending retirement.

Im interest to hear your thoughts on the reduction in the company tax rate Labor is proposing.  Rather than give the big players a tax deduction, I would find it far more productive to be giving super funds tax breaks.

iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 1:36pm:

Karnal wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 1:26pm: iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 12:53pm: Karnal wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 11:11am: iamtheman012 wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 10:02am: skippy. wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 8:13am: Quote: The above mentioned reasons are why YOU are considered a JOKE on here Skippy. Thanks Iamacat, but you take the medal, you're considered a joke on every forum, that you're not banned from that is. I only get banned because fairies like YOU can't handle a little abuse so you hit the mummy button. How would you cope if we had a debate in a pub, who would you run to then you little punce? :D Sir, we are all fiends here. You are good man. I too like the pub to have nice coca cola and meet new punce. Perhaps we can meet to debate in the pub, puce. I would like this very much. Sure thing sunshine, if you're in Sydney that can be arranged. FYI, i'm NOT a colour. ;D Thank you, sir. I am very sorry for my meaning you are coloured. Please excuse me purse. Nor am i a handbag. LOL.

No, sir. I am very sorry. You are good man. My spelling is very potly.

Dnarever wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 1:06pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 27th, 2010 at 11:49am: Ah.. the old Structural Deficit fantasy explanation. it is 'the deficit you have when you arent having a deficit'! I would think it is more a case of the deficit you have when you have geared the economy to be reliant on continuing to boom in order to keep the books balanced. Committed spending is greater than income as soon as the economy slows.

and yet we continually here about how Howard didnt do this or enough in that area etc etc etc - all of which require long term committment of federal money. you cant have it both ways! you could do what some countries have done when revenue goes down - increase taxes. there are always other options besides blaming the government that came before you.

Equitist wrote on Jul 27^th, 2010 at 1:40pm:

4/? Seriously, what was the point in doleing out of serial annual Federal Budgets sums in the order of $11,000 pa, over a 40 year working life, to someone earning over $200,000 pa when the current single rate of aged pension is only around 50% more than that!? Whatever was the point, in Howard and Costello paying out 26 years worth of pre-paid pensions in a single hit into the private wealth accounts of the uber wealthy!? What was the point, in them annually forking out 2 1/2 times the aged pension rate in annual pre-paid pensions into the private wealth accounts of high income/wealth individuals!? Where is the saving!? Where was the benefit!? Where have been the long-term cost-benefits!? Surely, it is obvious that our Federal Budget and National Coffers were systematically raided, by the Howardian Libs with the tacit support of the Labs - and at great expense to the majority of current and Aussies who missed out on their fiscally reckless largesse!? Surely, there has to be a far better way, of ensuring that subsidies go where they benefit national budgets and citizens best overal - one that stacks up in NATIONAL costs-benefits at every stage of the process!?

Its quite simple if you exclude your ideology, presumptions and biases. Those that earn more, save more. Those that earn more usually work(ed) harder. This is not news to those that live in the real world where everything is not even or ewal or fair. It is not the governments job to redistribute wealth to the extent that you demand. these high earners are alreayd paying a massive premium on their taxes well above those who you seek to defend. They are not getting any extra 'benefit'. they are simply getting a little of the burden lowered that is applied grossly to them. most of these people you condemn wil pay 20-100 times the income taxes alone of low income earners and receive no welfare payments.

I've only just jumped on the end of this thread so my apologies if I missed it.

But I saw you use the term 'long-term cost-benefits' in relation to pensions.

The coalition does not always determine spending according to 'long-term cost-benefits', though the party you support might.  

The coalition also considers social issues such as health, education and welfare.

||Surely, it is obvious that our Federal Budget and National Coffers were systematically raided, by the Howardian Libs with the tacit support of the Labs - and at great expense to the majority of current and Aussies who missed out on their fiscally reckless largesse!?||

gotta love this kind of rubbish. 'Raided the coffers'? Howard paid off the $96B debt, generated a large surplus, created the Future Fund and increased govt support for the poor and disadvantaged.

please, can he raid the coffers some more???