A right wing extremist forum.
Why don't you peddle your inhumane,selfish,greedy Ideas on a political forum,rather than a silver forum.
It's like this (to me anyway): Howard era government paid down the debt. The top tax bracket kicked in far earlier than it does today and back then I was in it, despite having a modest income compared to today. It felt really wrong that I had to pay down the debt racked up by Labor governments before. Several government owned assets were privatised to boot. The end result was amazing - Australia had no government debt. At that time, the tax brackets were raised. It was already known that superannuation was not funded (the treasurer at the time, Costello, was conscientious enough to be open about this on the public record). It was a very responsible thing to look at properly funding it.
I felt this to be the essence of responsible government policy - for the public to NOT be on the hook to private and secret loans made to it by international finance.
Unfortunately, after Labor got in, the policy changed to deficit spending. We have an enormous debt now, with landmines deliberately placed by the Labor government to ensure that undoing their decisions would be more costly and thus a deterrent.
Rational border policy was overturned and illegal immigrants via organised smuggling rackets took advantage in lock step with our tax payer funded media.
This cost many billions and was completely unsustainable, BY DESIGN.
You have to ask yourself, what sort of government, which lives as a public service to the citizenry would deliberately endebt its populace, to the point that in its treasury report (Swan, the "greatest ever treasurer"), would wholly ink out the names of the entities to whom the debt was owed by each and every tax payer of this country.
What kind of government seeks to destroy the border? And make the tax payer pay for everything that means?
To me it is unconscionable, if the elected government is representative of its citizens, that it would choose such hostile policies.
If you followed closely - Gillard's government tried to ram through the senate a bill, tabled as Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination, which would have made it a criminal offence for a person to merely OFFEND another person based on their political differences AND by law give the prosecution free legal counsel, whilst the onus would be on the defendant to prove they didn't offend them (and they would have to pay their own legal bill!)
I cannot imagine anyone thinking this is anything other than what it is, unless fooling themselves about the intention or equally malicious.
Bill Shorten has stated openly that superannuation is *a national asset*
Maybe you missed it. Maybe not. If you did, think about what it means.
I am totally in favour of a sustainable welfare and healthcare net but what we are seeing are strong efforts by the left to cause so much debt and force our vulnerable people, now and in the future, to a lower quality of life than they would enjoy otherwise.
Ask yourself - to whose benefit is this?
Labor is not at all what genuine social interest is about. It is more about extreme cronyism with finance.
Oh and after the last liberal government, undermined by a devout leftist at its helm, there is no competition and this too was deliberate.
You will now get what many of you people who think left=moral really means. Sadly, it means a poorer quality of life and a fractured society.
Divide and rule by another name (class-conflict), in other words.
