Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt to live on dole for a week

    News Limited Network
    January 02, 2013 1:19PM


GREENS deputy leader Adam Bandt has challenged Families Minister Jenny Macklin to join him in spending a week living on the $35-a-day dole.     :)   

Mr Bandt issued the challenge in response to Ms Macklin's claim that she could live on the Newstart allowance, which has drawn outrage from welfare groups.

The Greens MP said living on the dole wasn't living, it was barely surviving.     :(    

Ms Macklin, a Cabinet member earning $903 a day, pushed 84,000 single mums off the parenting payment and on to the dole yesterday as part of a budget cut designed to save $738 million over four years. The move will cost a single mum who works part-time up to $233 a week.

When asked: "Could you live off the dole?", Ms Macklin told reporters at the Mercy Hospital in Melbourne: "I could".

Macklin dole gaffe edit 'a mistake'
A SENIOR Federal Government minister's controversial claim that she could live on the $38-a-day dole has been edited out of an official transcript.


Jenny Macklin's comments on the Newstart allowance have caused outrage.

Mr Bandt said the minister had clearly not listened to what welfare groups had been telling her.

He said for the minister to say it is possible to live on that amount was "an outrageous statement".    

"Once you take into account your rent your bills, your food, there's not much change left over from $35 a day," he told reporters in Melbourne.

"There has been inquiry after inquiry, report after report saying this is an income that's below the poverty line, it's not really an income at all.     :(


Greens deputy leader Adam Bandt says living on the dole is not living, it's barely surviving.

"I think the minister needs a first-hand experience of living off the dole and perhaps she will change her mind," he said.

The Greens say the allowance should be increased by $50 a week to help people on the allowance meet some of the most pressing expenses.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]   

"One of the things that is immediately clear is that is you need planning and budgeting to make it work," Mr Bandt said.

Mr Bandt said he had the luxury of being able to return to his well-paid job and nothing he could do would fully put himself in the shoes of someone who lives on $35  a day.

But he wanted to do it to draw attention to the difficulties faced by those living on the Newstart allowance.

"The real issue is whether the dole is adequate in this country," he said.

Terese Edwards, chief executive of the National Council of Single Mothers and Their Children, said Ms Macklin's comments had been greeted with "great dismay and distress" by single mums around the country.

"It has resonated as salt in the wound for these mums who are facing such an uphill battle," she said.

Ms Edwards said she went to her local supermarket in Adelaide on Wednesday morning to check prices and found $35 a day would be impossible to make ends meet.     :(

She said if rent cost a single mum $28 a day, plus school bus tickets for two children, cereal for breakfast, cheese sandwiches for lunch, sausages and vegetables for tea, it came to nearly $54.

That was without fruit, toiletries or cleaning products, not to mention electricity, healthcare, clothes and the rest, Ms Edwards said.

"I think it would be wonderful for many politicians on all sides of government to walk a mile in the shoes of a single parent, who will be forced from already a modest amount to a completely inadequate amount."

Ms Edwards said poverty could lead to a sad and lonely life for children with even small treats like DVDs and popcorn unaffordable.     :(

"They're the kids that aren't going on the school camps, they're the ones that don't have the right uniform, they have the out-of-date books.

"They are marked in the school yard as the poor kids," she said.

The sensitivity of Ms Macklin's dole remark became clear when a ministerial transcript issued just hours after yesterday's media conference described as "inaudible" the reporter's question and the crucial first part of Ms Macklin's reply.

Last night, her office claimed its recording had been affected by a revving car.

Three parliamentary inquiries, the OECD, the Business Council of Australia, former Treasury Secretary Ken Henry and even Employment Minister Bill Shorten admit the dole is inadequate.     :-?

A spokeswoman for Ms Macklin yesterday accepted full responsibility for the transcript omission.

Cassandra Goldie from the Australian Council of Social Service (ACOSS) said Ms Macklin would struggle to live on $35 a day.

"The minister's claim is extraordinary and it flies in the face of all of the other evidence,'' she told ABC Radio today.

Ms Goldie said the decreased payments put families already under financial stress further below the poverty line.     :(

"The evidence is clear - they are living below the poverty line and we as a country can afford to address

I don't like him or the Greens, but good on him.

Macklin deserves to lose her job.

Absolute joke! Is he going to go out and try to find somewhere to rent? Is he going to support one or more more children on the payment?
Is he really going to go without all his life support - car, mobile, laptop?
Absolute joke!

Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]   

wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Should be a fortnight, not a week...

wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Why, because of this?

As I said, nice gesture and all, but what will it even achieve, we all know that Macklin is an idiot and that people can't live on this.

And as hadrian said, is going the whole hog?

The Australian Greens support a $50 a week increase for the people that are surviving in poverty on the Newstart ( No Start ).  Labor- ??????.   Liberal - ??????.     :( 

Living on the dole for a week is dead easy for anyone because it was always only intended for a short term stop gap and not a long term career choice.
We really need Abbotts hard line approach to the dole and disability pensioners to sort things out.

john_g wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 12:54pm:

I don't like him or the Greens, but good on him. Macklin deserves to lose her job.

Why?  All she said was she could live on the $35 a day.

She didn't openly lie about the carbon tax or organise union slush funds or the like and that doesn't get you the sack.......you're being a bit harsh.... :D

john_g wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 1:54pm:

wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Why, because of this? As I said, nice gesture and all, but what will it even achieve, we all know that Macklin is an idiot and that people can't live on this. And as hadrian said, is going the whole hog?

I doubt that she said she could live on it for the rest of her life because the dole was never intended for that.
Honestly...does anyone here actually have a job because its beginning to sound like very few of you do.

Give credit where credit is due.  Well done Mr Bandt.  How about you Ms Macklin, will you accept the challenge and join Mr Bandt for a week?.     :-?   

adelcrow wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 2:07pm:

Living on the dole for a week is dead easy for anyone because it was always only intended for a short term stop gap and not a long term career choice. We really need Abbotts hard line approach to the dole and disability pensioners to sort things out.

No, it's exactly what we DON'T want.

If for no other reason that it is not justified. Quite the contrary.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 2:11pm:

john_g wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:54pm: wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Why, because of this? As I said, nice gesture and all, but what will it even achieve, we all know that Macklin is an idiot and that people can't live on this. And as hadrian said, is going the whole hog? I doubt that she said she could live on it for the rest of her life because the dole was never intended for that. Honestly...does anyone here actually have a job because its beginning to sound like very few of you do.

You need to get your head past this BS that they're all career dole-recips who have never and/or will never work.

This is THE BIG LIE as pushed by conservatives and sections of the MSM for many years. Trouble is, is ISN'T TRUE
in an overwhelming majority of cases.

They're not, nor are they all unskilled, untrained unteachable bogans. You have a totally false idea of who the
unemployed are, or what it is like for them.

Otherwise you wouldn't be calling for 'solutions' that created the issue in the first place and have aggravated it ever since.

Competing to come up with the worst slurs on the unemployed or coming up with
the most Draconian regime for them reflects credit on none who engage in it.

Kat wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 2:26pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:11pm: john_g wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:54pm: wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Why, because of this? As I said, nice gesture and all, but what will it even achieve, we all know that Macklin is an idiot and that people can't live on this. And as hadrian said, is going the whole hog? I doubt that she said she could live on it for the rest of her life because the dole was never intended for that. Honestly...does anyone here actually have a job because its beginning to sound like very few of you do. You need to get your head past this BS that they're all career dole-recips who have never and/or will never work. This is THE BIG LIE as pushed by conservatives and sections of the MSM for many years. Trouble is, is ISN'T TRUE. They're not, nor are they all unskilled, untrained unteachable bogans. You have a totally false idea of who the unemployed are, or what it is like for them. Otherwise you wouldn't be calling for 'solutions' that created the issue in the first place and have aggravated it ever since.

Ok..just how long do you think taxpayers should be expected to prop up those that dont want to work?
I have no problem with anyone accessing benefits for up to 6 months but after that its obvious that they just dont want to work.

adam should be able to get enough protein from swallowing semen.

as well as toothpaste though, he will be up for the cost of lube

This is a totally different argument from the parenting payment situation. There you have quite frequently women who have been dumped by partners and find it difficult to cope.
Here you have people, other than a small minority, who could find work and should not be encouraged to stay on welfare by making it more generous. We are not Spain or Greece, although there is a higher than 5% unemployment rate among the under 25 group. There is work out there.
I agree with adelcrow.

hadrian_now wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 2:44pm:

This is a totally different argument from the parenting payment situation. There you have quite frequently women who have been dumped by partners and find it difficult to cope. Here you have people, other than a small minority, who could find work and should not be encouraged to stay on welfare by making it more generous. We are not Spain or Greece, although there is a higher than 5% unemployment rate among the under 25 group. There is work out there. I agree with adelcrow.

It's NOT 'encouraging them to stay on welfare' at all.

It's ALL about giving them some dignity and enough to survive and LOOK for work.

And sorry, but no, there is NOT a lot of work 'out there'.

And it's not ' a different argument' either, the unemployed are NO less deserving, despite
what some may think.

Kat wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 3:48pm:

hadrian_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:44pm: This is a totally different argument from the parenting payment situation. There you have quite frequently women who have been dumped by partners and find it difficult to cope. Here you have people, other than a small minority, who could find work and should not be encouraged to stay on welfare by making it more generous. We are not Spain or Greece, although there is a higher than 5% unemployment rate among the under 25 group. There is work out there. I agree with adelcrow. It's NOT 'encouraging them to stay on welfare' at all. It's ALL about giving them some dignity and enough to survive and LOOK for work. And sorry, but no, there is NOT a lot of work 'out there'. And it's not ' a different argument' either, the unemployed are NO less deserving, despite what some may think.

While people are willing to do nothing rather than pick fruit and veg or work in a packing shed or meatworks they should receive nothing from the government.
None of that work is pleasant but its honest work and we are bringing migrants into this country to do it.
We have migrant workers who are single parents leaving their kids in another country while they travel here to do unskilled and semi skilled labour while many of our own single parents and unemployed wont even jump on a bus and travel out of their own friggin suburbs for work.

Adam Bandt will get plenty of chance on the dole after the next election.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 4:08pm:

Adam Bandt will get plenty of chance on the dole after the next election.

I think you'll find he had a very well paid career in the private sector before he entered parliament ..unlike Tony Abbott or Julia Gillard

gold_medal wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 4:08pm:

Adam Bandt will get plenty of chance on the dole after the next election.

I should also add that the way the Libs are going in Victoria that Adam is the last person who should be worried about his seat..Victorians have been smashed since the Libs took over and began beating them around the heads in some sick sort of revenge attack for voting Labor for so many years.
I doubt Victorians want Abbott doing that to them as well  ;D

adelcrow wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 4:15pm:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 4:08pm: Adam Bandt will get plenty of chance on the dole after the next election. I should also add that the way the Libs are going in Victoria that Adam is the last person who should be worried about his seat..Victorians have been smashed since the Libs took over and began beating them around the heads in some sick sort of revenge attack for voting Labor for so many years. I doubt Victorians want Abbott doing that to them as well  ;D

bandt only won the seat last time in lib preference - and he aint getting them now. and the greens vote is lower now than in 2010. he will be defeated by labor quite easily.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 4:28pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 4:15pm: gold_medal wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 4:08pm: Adam Bandt will get plenty of chance on the dole after the next election. I should also add that the way the Libs are going in Victoria that Adam is the last person who should be worried about his seat..Victorians have been smashed since the Libs took over and began beating them around the heads in some sick sort of revenge attack for voting Labor for so many years. I doubt Victorians want Abbott doing that to them as well  ;D bandt only won the seat last time in lib preference - and he aint getting them now. and the greens vote is lower now than in 2010. he will be defeated by labor quite easily.

I see your point Longy..only party fat cats who sit in safe hand picked seats and expect a taxpayer funded job for life should run for parliament  ;D

The worst MPs are labor party middle class social climbers like Jenny Macklin....

aquascoot wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 2:41pm:

adam should be able to get enough protein from swallowing semen. as well as toothpaste though, he will be up for the cost of lube

All class aquascoot. Is it just cowards who sink to their lowest form when they hide behind a mask.

In NSW it is generally against the law to vilify people because of their:

race, colour, nationality, descent, ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin;
homosexuality (lesbian or gay);
HIV or AIDS status; or
transgender status.

This includes vilification because someone is thought to be lesbian, gay or transgender even if they are not, or thought to have HIV or AIDS, even if they don’t.

NSW anti-discrimination law defines vilification as a public act that could incite or encourage hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule towards people because of the above characteristics.

The vilification law only covers acts that are in public. It does not cover acts that are not public, for example abuse over a back fence that no-one else can hear.

Public acts could include the following:
remarks in a newspaper, journal or other publications;
remarks on radio or television;
material on the internet, including social networking sites such as Facebook and micro-blogging services such as Twitter;
graffiti;
putting up posters or stickers;
verbal abuse;
making speeches or statements;
making gestures; or
wearing badges or clothes with slogans on them.

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 5:56pm:

aquascoot wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:41pm: adam should be able to get enough protein from swallowing semen. as well as toothpaste though, he will be up for the cost of lube All class aquascoot. Is it just cowards who sink to their lowest form when they hide behind a mask. In NSW it is generally against the law to vilify people because of their: race, colour, nationality, descent, ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin; homosexuality (lesbian or gay); HIV or AIDS status; or transgender status. This includes vilification because someone is thought to be lesbian, gay or transgender even if they are not, or thought to have HIV or AIDS, even if they don’t. NSW anti-discrimination law defines vilification as a public act that could incite or encourage hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule towards people because of the above characteristics. The vilification law only covers acts that are in public. It does not cover acts that are not public, for example abuse over a back fence that no-one else can hear. Public acts could include the following: remarks in a newspaper, journal or other publications; remarks on radio or television; material on the internet, including social networking sites such as Facebook and micro-blogging services such as Twitter; graffiti; putting up posters or stickers; verbal abuse; making speeches or statements; making gestures; or wearing badges or clothes with slogans on them.

we must maintain some consistency.
either nothing is allowed or it is all allowed.
i heard a joke on the radio yesterday with the  suggestion that a caller liked to have intercourse with sheep because he had a kiwi accent.

now if we are allowing allegations of besiality to pass off as a joke, i cant see why we cannot joke about all and sundry.

(or has jules passed her dreaded "though shalt not offend anyone legislation")

by including adam in our rugged sense of aussie humor we honour him as one of our mates

I laugh derisively at this one-week stunt.

aquascoot wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:01pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 5:56pm: aquascoot wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:41pm: adam should be able to get enough protein from swallowing semen. as well as toothpaste though, he will be up for the cost of lube All class aquascoot. Is it just cowards who sink to their lowest form when they hide behind a mask. In NSW it is generally against the law to vilify people because of their: race, colour, nationality, descent, ethnic, ethno-religious or national origin; homosexuality (lesbian or gay); HIV or AIDS status; or transgender status. This includes vilification because someone is thought to be lesbian, gay or transgender even if they are not, or thought to have HIV or AIDS, even if they don’t. NSW anti-discrimination law defines vilification as a public act that could incite or encourage hatred, serious contempt or severe ridicule towards people because of the above characteristics. The vilification law only covers acts that are in public. It does not cover acts that are not public, for example abuse over a back fence that no-one else can hear. Public acts could include the following: remarks in a newspaper, journal or other publications; remarks on radio or television; material on the internet, including social networking sites such as Facebook and micro-blogging services such as Twitter; graffiti; putting up posters or stickers; verbal abuse; making speeches or statements; making gestures; or wearing badges or clothes with slogans on them. we must maintain some consistency. either nothing is allowed or it is all allowed. i heard a joke on the radio yesterday with the  suggestion that a caller liked to have intercourse with sheep because he had a kiwi accent. now if we are allowing allegations of besiality to pass off as a joke, i cant see why we cannot joke about all and sundry. (or has jules passed her dreaded "though shalt not offend anyone legislation") by including adam in our rugged sense of aussie humor we honour him as one of our mates

Pfft. As if that was your intention. Your intention was to demean him because of his sexuality. It's not even funny, it's embarrassing that you think that is an example of rugged Aussie humour. I've got a number of gay mates, and plenty of jokes are made about their sexuality. They're often funny and no one has a problem. What is a problem is deliberately demeaning a person in public because of their sexuality. It's just good manners and respect. Something we should expect in a public forum.

... wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:16pm:

I laugh derisively at this one-week stunt.

It's got us talking about the issue. I don't have a problem with it.

The government doesn't seem to mind wasting billions on refugees and overseas aid. Surely they could find $50 a week for our own people.

hadrian_now wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Absolute joke! Is he going to go out and try to find somewhere to rent? Is he going to support one or more more children on the payment? Is he really going to go without all his life support - car, mobile, laptop? Absolute joke!

He'a trying to be a hero. If he does it for a year he might deserve some respect.

MOTR pulls out the "I am offended" angle. Yet he/she wouldn't, and doesn't, blink an eye if derogatory remarks are made about whites, males, Australians, Europeans, Americans; but gays get special attention.

Big Dave wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:40pm:

hadrian_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Absolute joke! Is he going to go out and try to find somewhere to rent? Is he going to support one or more more children on the payment? Is he really going to go without all his life support - car, mobile, laptop? Absolute joke! He'a trying to be a hero. If he does it for a year he might deserve some respect.

He isn't doing for respect. He's doing it to make the point that the dole needs to be raised.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:42pm:

MOTR pulls out the "I am offended" angle. Yet he/she wouldn't, and doesn't, blink an eye if derogatory remarks are made about whites, males, Australians, Europeans, Americans; but gays get special attention.

How would you know, misty.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 2:33pm:

Kat wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:26pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:11pm: john_g wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:54pm: wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Why, because of this? As I said, nice gesture and all, but what will it even achieve, we all know that Macklin is an idiot and that people can't live on this. And as hadrian said, is going the whole hog? I doubt that she said she could live on it for the rest of her life because the dole was never intended for that. Honestly...does anyone here actually have a job because its beginning to sound like very few of you do. You need to get your head past this BS that they're all career dole-recips who have never and/or will never work. This is THE BIG LIE as pushed by conservatives and sections of the MSM for many years. Trouble is, is ISN'T TRUE. They're not, nor are they all unskilled, untrained unteachable bogans. You have a totally false idea of who the unemployed are, or what it is like for them. Otherwise you wouldn't be calling for 'solutions' that created the issue in the first place and have aggravated it ever since. Ok..just how long do you think taxpayers should be expected to prop up those that dont want to work? I have no problem with anyone accessing benefits for up to 6 months but after that its obvious that they just dont want to work.

Are there jobs for those 84,000 parents? Will there be in 6 months?

SOB

Something I never really considered until a young bloke at work made a comment about moving a single parent onto new start.....

"That's f@cked.....Now the parent will have to support the child with even less money"

As a father of 3 I can see where he is coming from.....The ALP has nothing to be proud of with this policy that will no doubt create even more social problems in the future!!!

I also must mention that Abbott's plan to remove people from the dole who live in high employment areas is the most destructive policy I have ever heard of.....People might be unable to get a job but they still need to eat and live!!!

>:( >:( >:(

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:45pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:33pm: Kat wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:26pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:11pm: john_g wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:54pm: wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Why, because of this? As I said, nice gesture and all, but what will it even achieve, we all know that Macklin is an idiot and that people can't live on this. And as hadrian said, is going the whole hog? I doubt that she said she could live on it for the rest of her life because the dole was never intended for that. Honestly...does anyone here actually have a job because its beginning to sound like very few of you do. You need to get your head past this BS that they're all career dole-recips who have never and/or will never work. This is THE BIG LIE as pushed by conservatives and sections of the MSM for many years. Trouble is, is ISN'T TRUE. They're not, nor are they all unskilled, untrained unteachable bogans. You have a totally false idea of who the unemployed are, or what it is like for them. Otherwise you wouldn't be calling for 'solutions' that created the issue in the first place and have aggravated it ever since. Ok..just how long do you think taxpayers should be expected to prop up those that dont want to work? I have no problem with anyone accessing benefits for up to 6 months but after that its obvious that they just dont want to work. Are there jobs for those 84,000 parents? Will there be in 6 months? SOB

  Considering  that many of these people are mentally ill and unemployable. Throwing vulnerable people in the deep end and seeing if they sink or swim is not going to help anybody.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 4:03pm:

Kat wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 3:48pm: hadrian_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:44pm: This is a totally different argument from the parenting payment situation. There you have quite frequently women who have been dumped by partners and find it difficult to cope. Here you have people, other than a small minority, who could find work and should not be encouraged to stay on welfare by making it more generous. We are not Spain or Greece, although there is a higher than 5% unemployment rate among the under 25 group. There is work out there. I agree with adelcrow. It's NOT 'encouraging them to stay on welfare' at all. It's ALL about giving them some dignity and enough to survive and LOOK for work. And sorry, but no, there is NOT a lot of work 'out there'. And it's not ' a different argument' either, the unemployed are NO less deserving, despite what some may think. While people are willing to do nothing rather than pick fruit and veg or work in a packing shed or meatworks they should receive nothing from the government. None of that work is pleasant but its honest work and we are bringing migrants into this country to do it. We have migrant workers who are single parents leaving their kids in another country while they travel here to do unskilled and semi skilled labour while many of our own single parents and unemployed wont even jump on a bus and travel out of their own friggin suburbs for work.

Can you prove that we are bringing in ppl from other countries to do the lowest paid (not enough to live on and prolly less than the dole) seasonal work?

Oh and another thing - you arent allowed to travel on the dole apparently or they cut you off.

SOB

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:48pm:

Something I never really considered until a young bloke at work made a comment about moving a single parent onto new start..... "That's f@cked.....Now the parent will have to support the child with even less money" As a father of 3 I can see where he is coming from.....The ALP has nothing to be proud of with this policy that will no doubt create even more social problems in the future!!! I also must mention that Abbott's plan to remove people from the dole who live in high employment areas is the most destructive policy I have ever heard of.....People might be unable to get a job but they still need to eat and live!!! >:( >:( >:(

It's a one size fits all policy that will most certainly wreck damage. If we want to get people working we need to work out imaginative ways to reduce the high effective marginal tax rate, without moving families closer to absolute poverty.

Big Dave wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:40pm:

hadrian_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Absolute joke! Is he going to go out and try to find somewhere to rent? Is he going to support one or more more children on the payment? Is he really going to go without all his life support - car, mobile, laptop? Absolute joke! He'a trying to be a hero. If he does it for a year he might deserve some respect.

Abbott wouldnt last a day..he complained that he couldnt even survive on a back benchers salary  ;D

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:45pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:42pm: MOTR pulls out the "I am offended" angle. Yet he/she wouldn't, and doesn't, blink an eye if derogatory remarks are made about whites, males, Australians, Europeans, Americans; but gays get special attention. How would you know, misty.

I am also not sure why gays would find it offensive, don't they swallow cum and use lube?

Big Dave wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:49pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:33pm: Kat wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:26pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:11pm: john_g wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:54pm: wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Why, because of this? As I said, nice gesture and all, but what will it even achieve, we all know that Macklin is an idiot and that people can't live on this. And as hadrian said, is going the whole hog? I doubt that she said she could live on it for the rest of her life because the dole was never intended for that. Honestly...does anyone here actually have a job because its beginning to sound like very few of you do. You need to get your head past this BS that they're all career dole-recips who have never and/or will never work. This is THE BIG LIE as pushed by conservatives and sections of the MSM for many years. Trouble is, is ISN'T TRUE. They're not, nor are they all unskilled, untrained unteachable bogans. You have a totally false idea of who the unemployed are, or what it is like for them. Otherwise you wouldn't be calling for 'solutions' that created the issue in the first place and have aggravated it ever since. Ok..just how long do you think taxpayers should be expected to prop up those that dont want to work? I have no problem with anyone accessing benefits for up to 6 months but after that its obvious that they just dont want to work. Are there jobs for those 84,000 parents? Will there be in 6 months? SOB   Considering  that many of these people are mentally ill and unemployable. Throwing vulnerable people in the deep end and seeing if they sink or swim is not going to help anybody.

Mentally ill and unemployable? Single parents? I would think that ppl that are so mentally ill as to be unemployable would be on a pension or disability and wouldn't have kids in their care. Care to back up your assertion?

SOB

adelcrow wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:54pm:

Big Dave wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:40pm: hadrian_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Absolute joke! Is he going to go out and try to find somewhere to rent? Is he going to support one or more more children on the payment? Is he really going to go without all his life support - car, mobile, laptop? Absolute joke! He'a trying to be a hero. If he does it for a year he might deserve some respect. Abbott wouldnt last a day..he complained that he couldnt even survive on a back benchers salary  ;D

  It's scary how out of touch our leaders are? Both Labor and Liberal. They are both the same people now and live in the same suburbs. 

Big Dave wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:58pm:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:54pm: Big Dave wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:40pm: hadrian_now wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Absolute joke! Is he going to go out and try to find somewhere to rent? Is he going to support one or more more children on the payment? Is he really going to go without all his life support - car, mobile, laptop? Absolute joke! He'a trying to be a hero. If he does it for a year he might deserve some respect. Abbott wouldnt last a day..he complained that he couldnt even survive on a back benchers salary  ;D   It's scary how out of touch our leaders are? Both Labor and Liberal. They are both the same people now and live in the same suburbs.

What can we expect from career politicians?
We have got political leaders that any other generation would have laughed off the stage.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:57pm:

Big Dave wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:49pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:45pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:33pm: Kat wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:26pm: adelcrow wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 2:11pm: john_g wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:54pm: wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Why, because of this? As I said, nice gesture and all, but what will it even achieve, we all know that Macklin is an idiot and that people can't live on this. And as hadrian said, is going the whole hog? I doubt that she said she could live on it for the rest of her life because the dole was never intended for that. Honestly...does anyone here actually have a job because its beginning to sound like very few of you do. You need to get your head past this BS that they're all career dole-recips who have never and/or will never work. This is THE BIG LIE as pushed by conservatives and sections of the MSM for many years. Trouble is, is ISN'T TRUE. They're not, nor are they all unskilled, untrained unteachable bogans. You have a totally false idea of who the unemployed are, or what it is like for them. Otherwise you wouldn't be calling for 'solutions' that created the issue in the first place and have aggravated it ever since. Ok..just how long do you think taxpayers should be expected to prop up those that dont want to work? I have no problem with anyone accessing benefits for up to 6 months but after that its obvious that they just dont want to work. Are there jobs for those 84,000 parents? Will there be in 6 months? SOB   Considering  that many of these people are mentally ill and unemployable. Throwing vulnerable people in the deep end and seeing if they sink or swim is not going to help anybody. Mentally ill and unemployable? Single parents? I would think that ppl that are so mentally ill as to be unemployable would be on a pension or disability and wouldn't have kids in their care. Care to back up your assertion? SOB

  You have to have some heavy mental illness to get a pension. Depression and anxiety won't. My sister in law works for a section of centrelink that deals with these illnesses. It's very common and disabling for many people.

Ive seen teenagers on permanent disability pensions for having ADHD and as far as Im concerned that is friggin criminal.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 6:55pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:45pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:42pm: MOTR pulls out the "I am offended" angle. Yet he/she wouldn't, and doesn't, blink an eye if derogatory remarks are made about whites, males, Australians, Europeans, Americans; but gays get special attention. How would you know, misty. I am also not sure why gays would find it offensive, don't they swallow cum and use lube?

I'm sure there are plenty of people who swallow cum and use lube, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be offended by it being used to define them in public. Sexualising a persons public persona is a form of bullying and vilification. It's not difficult to get, misty. Although, I've no doubt you do get it. You're just wanting to protect your right to bully and vilify.

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:55pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:45pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:42pm: MOTR pulls out the "I am offended" angle. Yet he/she wouldn't, and doesn't, blink an eye if derogatory remarks are made about whites, males, Australians, Europeans, Americans; but gays get special attention. How would you know, misty. I am also not sure why gays would find it offensive, don't they swallow cum and use lube? I'm sure there are plenty of people who swallow cum and use lube, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be offended by it being used to define them in public. Sexualising a persons public persona is a form of bullying and vilification. It's not difficult to get, misty. Although, I've no doubt you do get it. Your just wanting to protect your right to bully and vilify.

Adam is married so I doubt he is anymore gay than Chris Pyne
Oops..he has a partner..Claudia Perkins

I have not read one word above, other than the Title.  I too can live for one week on sweet bugger all...............Do it for a year Bandt, and pay all your Bills for that entire year from the Dole.

Bloody cheap smart arse disingenuous blow-hard!

Aussie wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:38pm:

I have not read one word above, other than the Title.  I too can live for one week on sweet bugger all...............Do it for a year Bandt, and pay all your Bills for that entire year from the Dole. Bloody cheap smart arse disingenuous blow-hard!

Errr.....I think he is highlighting how difficult it is to live on SFA actually.....Brandt wants to increase the dole!!!


::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 7:38pm: I have not read one word above, other than the Title.  I too can live for one week on sweet bugger all...............Do it for a year Bandt, and pay all your Bills for that entire year from the Dole. Bloody cheap smart arse disingenuous blow-hard! Errr.....I think he is highlighting how difficult it is to live on SFA actually.....Brandt wants to increase the dole!!! ::) ::) ::)

I guess he should have put on a fluro and a hard hat, or ironed a shirt or something.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 7:38pm: I have not read one word above, other than the Title.  I too can live for one week on sweet bugger all...............Do it for a year Bandt, and pay all your Bills for that entire year from the Dole. Bloody cheap smart arse disingenuous blow-hard! Errr.....I think he is highlighting how difficult it is to live on SFA actually.....Brandt wants to increase the dole!!! ::) ::) ::)

he is being gratuitous and you know it..

I have never had the "pleasure" of living on $35 a day.. but if I was I would be more than insulted if some bloody well off pollie wanted to impersonate me and my living conditions in one week...


Ivan Milat gets more than that spent on him..

dont get me started????..

when pollies pretend they would be suffering for the cause that makes me want to puke sorry.but it does..

do they for instance have 3 or 4 kids all over the age of 8 going to school and needing new shoes????..

have they had to go cap in hand to the school to explain why they cannot pay the school fees..... because if they dont do so then their children could be penalised for mum or dad being hard up..

no I am sure they havent and will never have too..

Adam needs to take a good look at his party and realize that they have just confessed to never costing their policies... so much for the $50 a week everyone would like to give them... where is it coming from????.. is Adam going to forego his allowances????? like forever?..

didnt see where he offered to do that I am afraid and something tells me he never will.


and dont forget the govt has just given Dads two weeks off on pay to bond with their latest addition...

again we have no idea where this is coming from either..

but is it slight of hand????????

is it strange that in the one week we have single parents having their allowances cut if they happen to have a child turning 8 and new dads getting the benefit of two weeks paid extra leave...just for bringing another child into the world.... something that has been going on forever..

talk about bewildering..

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 8:35pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 7:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 7:38pm: I have not read one word above, other than the Title.  I too can live for one week on sweet bugger all...............Do it for a year Bandt, and pay all your Bills for that entire year from the Dole. Bloody cheap smart arse disingenuous blow-hard! Errr.....I think he is highlighting how difficult it is to live on SFA actually.....Brandt wants to increase the dole!!! ::) ::) ::) I guess he should have put on a fluro and a hard hat, or ironed a shirt or something.

NO just a simple explanation of how he would pay for it might do the trick.

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:55pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:45pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:42pm: MOTR pulls out the "I am offended" angle. Yet he/she wouldn't, and doesn't, blink an eye if derogatory remarks are made about whites, males, Australians, Europeans, Americans; but gays get special attention. How would you know, misty. I am also not sure why gays would find it offensive, don't they swallow cum and use lube? I'm sure there are plenty of people who swallow cum and use lube, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be offended by it being used to define them in public. Sexualising a persons public persona is a form of bullying and vilification. It's not difficult to get, misty. Although, I've no doubt you do get it. You're just wanting to protect your right to bully and vilify.

Of course, though, your position completely collapses in on itself once conservatives are "bullied" and "vilified," as they deserve it, don't they?

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 9:04pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 7:14pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:55pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:45pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:42pm: MOTR pulls out the "I am offended" angle. Yet he/she wouldn't, and doesn't, blink an eye if derogatory remarks are made about whites, males, Australians, Europeans, Americans; but gays get special attention. How would you know, misty. I am also not sure why gays would find it offensive, don't they swallow cum and use lube? I'm sure there are plenty of people who swallow cum and use lube, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be offended by it being used to define them in public. Sexualising a persons public persona is a form of bullying and vilification. It's not difficult to get, misty. Although, I've no doubt you do get it. You're just wanting to protect your right to bully and vilify. Of course, though, your position completely collapses in on itself once conservatives are "bullied" and "vilified," as they deserve it, don't they?

Only if you feel the need to make up your own premises or define your own terms.

Macklin is a bogan and classless bitch.

Neither side of politics has ever done enough to ensure we have a valid system in place in relation to the dole, and to make sure that the public know this.

People, especially those with qualifications, who genuinely look for work time after time, and cannot find any, deserve the dole, and deserve a whole lot more than $35. That's hardly even existing, certainly not living. Some people get sacked/made redundant, and have children. How are they supposed to survive on these pathetic amounts?

For those on the dole who don't even look for work, they don't deserve a single penny.

matty wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Macklin is a bogan and classless bitch. Neither side of politics has ever done enough to ensure we have a valid system in place in relation to the dole, and to make sure that the public know this. People, especially those with qualifications, who genuinely look for work time after time, and cannot find any, deserve the dole, and deserve a whole lot more than $35. That's hardly even existing, certainly not living. Some people get sacked/made redundant, and have children. How are they supposed to survive on these pathetic amounts? For those on the dole who don't even look for work, they don't deserve a single penny.

Well i think its a requirement for the dole that you have to go to a certain number of interviews every week or something so i guess there are none that dont look for work.

BTW where do they get the interviews from?

SOB

cods wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 8:52pm:

MOTR wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 8:35pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 7:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 7:38pm: I have not read one word above, other than the Title.  I too can live for one week on sweet bugger all...............Do it for a year Bandt, and pay all your Bills for that entire year from the Dole. Bloody cheap smart arse disingenuous blow-hard! Errr.....I think he is highlighting how difficult it is to live on SFA actually.....Brandt wants to increase the dole!!! ::) ::) ::) I guess he should have put on a fluro and a hard hat, or ironed a shirt or something. NO just a simple explanation of how he would pay for it might do the trick.

It would probably start with a more effective mining tax. Perhaps a cut to corporate and middle class welfare and a higher tax on the super rich. I'm sure they might even consider death duties. Probably a low flat rate on very large requests, as suggested by Henry.


Quote:

The Henry review found a bequest tax would be a "relatively efficient means" means of taxing savings and "fit well with Australia's demographic circumstances over the coming decades" as the asset-rich baby boomer generation dies and bequeaths its wealth. "A bequest tax levied at a low flat rate, and designed to affect only large bequests, could be an efficient and equitable component of Australia's future tax system," the Henry review found.

Now don't go all apoplectic on me, cods. We are talking about keeping the deficit in check, or isn't the deficit that important.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/BandtMacklinAndrews.png
Adam Bandt, Jenny Macklin and Kevin Andrews.


Quote:

Living on $35 a day might be possible for Adam Bandt for a week — but how about a month? Australian Democrat Alex Bond issues a challenge. WHEN I SAW that The Greens Adam Bandt had challenged Families Minister Jenny Macklin to live on Newstart Allowance for a week, the first thought that popped in to my head was “publicity stunt”. Now, I’m not trying to knock the Member for Melbourne, because it’s an admirable thing to do to try and connect with people less fortunate — but one week just isn’t enough. So I took it upon myself, on behalf of the Australian Democrats, to live for the entire month of February on the equivalent of Newstart. An allowance of $245 per week, or $35 a day, is simply abhorrent. It is criminal that any Australian should have to live under these conditions. Minister Macklin, in a press conference, stated: “I could”, when answering the question “Could you do it?” http://youtu.be/bcA1miIZfig Well, I think not. Of course, the Minister or Mr Bandt could handle it for a week. This is why I’ve extended a challenge to the Minister, Mr Bandt and Shadow Minister (Kevin) Andrews to join me in living on Newstart Allowance for the whole month of February. I’m of the opinion that neither the Minister, Mr Bandt or the Shadow Minister will accept my challenge — because they simply couldn’t do it. In order to fully comprehend the difficulties faced by many Australians, these MPs should accept my challenge. The major parties need to start realising that playing politics with the realities faced by their constituents is completely unacceptable. http://youtu.be/qTeF-_ojc_8 No Australian citizen should have to live on $35 a day. It’s unfathomable. I've decided to do this so that my colleagues in the Australian Democrats, my friends and my family gain a better understanding of the difficulties faced by those worse off. It’s time for politicians right around Australia to put their big pay packets where their mouths are and join me on Newstart for the month of February. This challenge is extended to all MPs and Senators, across Australia, who are game enough to try living like their worst-off constituents. (Alex Bond is the National Policy Coordinator for the Australian Democrats. He is also the Communications Officer for their South Australian Division.)

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/living-on-35-a-day-a-challenge/

MOTR wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 5:37am:

cods wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 8:52pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 8:35pm: philperth2010 wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 7:55pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 7:38pm: I have not read one word above, other than the Title.  I too can live for one week on sweet bugger all...............Do it for a year Bandt, and pay all your Bills for that entire year from the Dole. Bloody cheap smart arse disingenuous blow-hard! Errr.....I think he is highlighting how difficult it is to live on SFA actually.....Brandt wants to increase the dole!!! ::) ::) ::) I guess he should have put on a fluro and a hard hat, or ironed a shirt or something. NO just a simple explanation of how he would pay for it might do the trick. It would probably start with a more effective mining tax. Perhaps a cut to corporate and middle class welfare and a higher tax on the super rich. I'm sure they might even consider death duties. Probably a low flat rate on very large requests, as suggested by Henry. PROBABLY AND PERHAPS... ARE NOT EXACTLY WHAT I HAD IN MIND...and I doubt the electorate would either Quote: The Henry review found a bequest tax would be a "relatively efficient means" means of taxing savings and "fit well with Australia's demographic circumstances over the coming decades" as the asset-rich baby boomer generation dies and bequeaths its wealth. "A bequest tax levied at a low flat rate, and designed to affect only large bequests, could be an efficient and equitable component of Australia's future tax system," the Henry review found. as for death duties as we all know the greens are busting to get that one in..as we have said all along all the greens talk is more TAXES talk Now don't go all apoplectic on me, cods. We are talking about keeping the deficit in check, or isn't the deficit that important.

PARDON ME i THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT ADAM BANDT TRYING TO MAKE THOSE LIVING /EXISTING ON $35 A DAY FEEL BETTER.

by emulating them



the deficit isnt important to Swan why should it be to me?

you expect me to have the power to make a change to GW...

now if I  worry about the deficit it will make all the difference....hilarious..

I thought thats what we employed politicians to do..


funny how we find millions upon millions to get a seat on a toothless tiger..then fail to vote..???

yeah I do worry about waste..I havent heard you complain about that though.

cods wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 6:13am:

PARDON ME i THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT ADAM BANDT TRYING TO MAKE THOSE LIVING /EXISTING ON $35 A DAY FEEL BETTER. by emulating them

Nope. Its about proving that you cant live on that amount of money and that it needs to be rasied.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 6:22am:

cods wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 6:13am: PARDON ME i THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT ADAM BANDT TRYING TO MAKE THOSE LIVING /EXISTING ON $35 A DAY FEEL BETTER. by emulating them Nope. Its about proving that you cant live on that amount of money and that it needs to be rasied. SOB

read the title again darl.

wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 1:03pm:

Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

Yeah, right. Sure. He'll live in $35 a day while being driven about in a chaffeur-driven, taxpayer-funded government car and will then go home to his nice, plush home that is paid for by his salary of hundreds of thousands of dollars by taxpayers. What a farce!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 6:37am:

wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 1:03pm: Good on you Mr Bandt.  Its easy to see why the greens are the ones to vote for.     [smiley=thumbsup.gif]    Yeah, right. Sure. He'll live in $35 a day while being driven about in a chaffeur-driven, taxpayer-funded government car and will then go home to his nice, plush home that is paid for by his salary of hundreds of thousands of dollars by taxpayers. What a farce!

maybe he should live on a park bench and queue at the soup kitchens..

have you seen that show about a boss who pretends to be one of his workers and goes behind the scenes to see how his business is run? it is really interesting as the ones I have seen have all been eye openers for the bosses..

its the same with pollies.. they have the power but have not a clue what they are dealing with.

to talk about living on the dole for a week.. is an insult..whos kidding who?..I could live on it for a week... so could you AP..we could live on water for a week...

what does it prove??? bugger all.he talks about increasing the dole by $50 a week without any idea where it will come from..

like i have said before if he gave up his allowances and even his gold pass for the future it would all go to help to pay for an increase in the dole... but no he doesnt suggest that..

MOTR wrote on Jan 2^nd, 2013 at 7:14pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:55pm: MOTR wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:45pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Jan 2nd, 2013 at 6:42pm: MOTR pulls out the "I am offended" angle. Yet he/she wouldn't, and doesn't, blink an eye if derogatory remarks are made about whites, males, Australians, Europeans, Americans; but gays get special attention. How would you know, misty. I am also not sure why gays would find it offensive, don't they swallow cum and use lube? I'm sure there are plenty of people who swallow cum and use lube, it doesn't mean they wouldn't be offended by it being used to define them in public. Sexualising a persons public persona is a form of bullying and vilification. It's not difficult to get, misty. Although, I've no doubt you do get it. You're just wanting to protect your right to bully and vilify.

semen is 90 % albumin (egg white0 so he could make his missus a nice pavlova for free ;) ;)

i have a copy of phil adams jokes of 2005 at home. phil being an old ABC leftie.

its full of jokes about the pope, randy nuns, altar boys, the confessional,
blondes (not brunettes)
poles
jews
the irish, in the million paddy and mick jokes about stupid irish
scotts who wont open their wallets
the queen
princess anne looking like a horse
charles and camilla
paris hilton being a slut


funny though no jokes about aborigines, muslims, gay sex
9/11,


this is discrimination . surely these last 4 need some equal representation ;) ;) ;) ;)

go leftie logic

cods wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2013 at 6:30am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 6:22am: cods wrote on Jan 3rd, 2013 at 6:13am: PARDON ME i THOUGHT THIS WAS ABOUT ADAM BANDT TRYING TO MAKE THOSE LIVING /EXISTING ON $35 A DAY FEEL BETTER. by emulating them Nope. Its about proving that you cant live on that amount of money and that it needs to be rasied. SOB read the title again darl.

Adan Bandt To Live On Dole For A Week.  <-- there ya go pet

SOB

Adam Bandt has only come under my notice for a lack of wisdom with regards to calling for interventions in conflict zones...on the whole he is marking himself as one of the more decent MP's...time will tell.... :) :)