Sok, Abbott will win in September and will turn us into a surplus by next year easy.

-PB

The problem with selling government assets to turn a surplus is that you can't sell the same asset twice.

Oops.

which budget does it come out of now then????

that's right ask Bob Carr about that

Most gas isnt fracked...im talking offshore ...north west oz...

Foreign Aid?...

The aid of foreigners?...

Can't see what's so hard to understand here?

-PB

don't get dis hearted, you will figure it out ;)

Keep side stepping so much and you will eventually be awesome at line dancing.

-PB

I can't believe that batfink is basing an argument on semantics when he ritualistically swats aside the finer details for any other issue that he is arguing against.

is it that hard for you and ballbags to grasp....look it up you knuckleheads....

Foreign aid is voluntary transfer of resources (be it food or equipment or money) from one country to another......last time i checked there was only one Australia......

once more for the dummies.......

Foreign aid is voluntary transfer of resources (be it food or equipment or money) from one country to another......last time i checked there was only one Australia......

I like how you tried to call me out for being condescending before :lol:

In seriousness though, you *can* validly claim that money spent processing asylum seekers is classified as humanitarian aid to foreigners. It certainly isn't national aid, unless you want to class asylum seekers as Australian (:P). One of those doesn't-strictly-fit-the-dictionary-definition-but-fits-nowhere-else-better situations.

And yes, it is at best ironic (at worst sneaky) that some of the money spent aiding foreigners is recycled through into our economy through it being spent on services provided by our citizens. As mentioned, however, the amount spent on asylum seekers is capped so any increase to foreign aid is not directed back towards Australia in this case.

I'm not making any arguments for the issue one side or the other.

According to what specific definition?



This this and this.

-PB

splitting hairs....check yourself....Foreign aid is distributed to other countries not your own......you guys can crap on with all the shit you want to......i don't feel any obligation or need to educate or prove the bleeding obvious......FFS stop splitting hairs and mass Debating over idiosyncrasies ........

processing asylum seekers is an immigration issue not a foreign aid issue......

Welcome to politics, where the jurisdictions are made up and the rules don't matter

come off it.......your well aware of the lies and deceit of this government...

if your not you are either delusional or Naive

or an OEF, greens hipster

Deceit is a strong word. What deceit has gone on?

Please something other than the very boring and easily explained "there will be no carbon tax under a government I lead".

Julia Gillard promised to tuck batfink in every night and read him a bedtime story. All she does is throw a sheet over him and shout the Herald Sun Classifieds at him from the kitchen.

:lol: Clearly you haven't heard of 'whose line is it anyway?'.

Also I adore how you think that purely due to my willingness to call you out on your fallacies that I am either delusional, naive or a green. I would wager that I have a substantially greater depth of understanding of political theory than you, I mean your comments may belie a rich vein of astute political awareness but that does seem unlikely.

I don't align myself with parties, I research thoroughly and cast my vote on what I feel the nation needs rather than on emotion or spin.

LOL...self praise is no recommendation.....LOL....keep living the dream......research thoroughly?????what by listening to 702ABC, reading the Telegraph and watching the 7.30 report???? LOL

](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

when you have time to get the fucken obvious tattooed to your forehead then i will explain...until then go read up on it......

the very first you should look into is the coup on RUDD, or have you conveniently forgotten that????????

This.

-PB

Again, resorting to assumptions to characterise someone who disagrees with you. There is no such thing as an unbiased source of information, especially with regards to politics. The best way to equip yourself with actual knowledge is to canvas both non-tabloid media and party press releases. If you need further information actually talk to a politician (I know, perish the thought.) If you gather enough data you can form information and make a value judgement. So sure, consume the media you mentioned, but balance it with other points of view from other sources. That way, when someone questions you on your political values, you are able to provide valid reasoning for why you reach that conclusion rather than hyperbole and straw-man arguing.

Naa that's a bullshit waste of time, Allan Jones knows his shizzz.

Want your budget review? just read Ross Gittin's article from today. Very even handed from him.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/federal-budget/cornered-labor-chooses-brave-way-out-20130514-2jklb.html

Edited by Eastern Glory: 15/5/2013 11:52:32 PM

I just wish to add to this mighty and impressive quote pyramid

=d> \:d/ =d> \:d/ =d> \:d/ =d> \:d/

and then vote greens and waste my vote on a bunch of feminist watermelons

Try berating/debating their policies rather than generalizing/stereotyping their voters.

-PB

hey ballbagz...............your pretty good at sidestepping questions.....

this is pretty accurate....;)



Julia Gillard's insidious legacy is union restoration
BY:ROSS FITZGERALD From: The Australian May 11, 2013 12:00AM

JULIA Gillard is desperately searching for a legacy to establish her place in history beyond the fact that she is the first woman to hold the prime ministership.

As matters stand, she is destined to be remembered as the Labor leader who knifed a popular but flawed leader in Kevin Rudd, lost Labor's majority at the 2010 election and then (if current polls are any indication) led Labor to its worst ever loss at the 2013 election.

The deterioration in the nation's finances under Gillard's watch and her failure to balance the budget during a period of record terms of trade will have long-term consequences.

Her failure on border protection and asylum-seeker policy will be regarded as the greatest policy failure for many decades, while a defining moment of her legacy will be the broken promise over the carbon tax and linking the carbon price to the EU carbon scheme.


One of Gillard's more insidious legacies will be her reversal of over 30 years of labour market reform and turning her back on Labor's previous embrace of a deregulated economy.

Under the Gillard government the union movement has enjoyed resurgence in power and influence way beyond the demands or needs of workplaces across Australia. This has occurred because the Prime Minister needs union support to stay in power.

When the Prime Minister addressed the AWU conference in February this year, assuring the audience that she was not the leader of a progressive or moderate or social democratic party but the Labor Party, what she was really saying is she views herself as the leader of the union party.

Gillard is allowing Australia to be dragged back to the industrial practices of earlier centuries in terms of the power of the unions, thus ignoring the urgent need for Australia's labour force to be competitive in a global economy.

Unions have been under pressure for decades, as globalisation and changes in society have made their role less relevant. Ironically, the greatest decline in union membership occurred under the Hawke and Keating Labor governments from 1983 to 1996, when union coverage declined from about 50 per cent of the workforce to about 25 per cent.

At present only 13 per cent of the private sector workforce has union membership.

Former ACTU boss Bob Hawke used a series of accords to limit union wage demands, motivated by the knowledge that a wages breakout would damage the economy and drive up unemployment.

Paul Keating brought in the concept of enterprise bargaining, which further restrained the ability of militant union leaders to make exorbitant demands.

In 1996, John Howard's government built on this legacy with the introduction of individual Australian Workplace Agreements, which enabled employers to bypass unions altogether and negotiate directly with employees on a one-to-one basis.

The successful union campaign of 2007 that helped propel Kevin Rudd into the Lodge also provided his government with a mandate to reform employment laws, with responsibility for the change being placed in Gillard's hands. AWAs were duly scrapped and workplaces heavily re-regulated, reversing many of the reforms of the Howard, Keating and Hawke governments. Fair Work Australia was created and stacked with former union officials.

Union bosses then played a key role in the removal of Rudd, with Paul Howes, the brash young head of the AWU, boasting on television in the middle of the ambush of the role he played in bringing down a first-term prime minister.

Through their factional proxies in the Labor caucus, despite consistently poor opinion polls, union leaders remain firmly behind Gillard and are responsible for blocking the return of Rudd to the Labor leadership.

The Prime Minister has repaid that support by backing legislation that unfairly tips the balance of workplace relations in favour of the unions and with fiscally reckless policy announcements, including the use of taxpayer funds to top up salaries of aged-care and childcare workers on the condition that they join a union.

Gillard has denied the link between increased pay and union membership, but the union leaders have let the cat out of the bag with brochures for workers detailing their need to join a union to access pay rises from the federal government.

There are serious implications from Gillard's strong support for militant union leaders - especially as militancy often leads to fewer employment opportunities for union members. In the past, mines, factories and other businesses have been bankrupted and closed due to the bloody-minded behaviour of some union bosses.



Increased union power can also entrench higher levels of unemployment, as employers are reluctant to take on more staff for fear of disruption to their business.

Unreasonable demands from unions also increase the cost of employing existing staff, thus restricting the ability of business to create further opportunities. This is where some union bosses reveal their apparent lack of interest in those who are unemployed.

Some unions can and do work constructively with employers to streamline workplace practices to boost productivity and increase profitability, thus creating an environment for increased employment.

The Prime Minister's track record indicates that she is firmly in the camp of the most militant and disruptive unions, and there is significant danger to the economy if she continues to bow to their demands as payback for supporting her leadership.

An end to this government cannot come soon enough for those wanting a modern, flexible workplace environment that focuses equally on the needs of employers and employees.