Joe Hockey, asset or liability?

[madmug]

everyone lies except the coalition...even Hockey is lying about lying. ahh. how the hell did we vote for these morons. Too many treeswingers switched on to News Ltd rubbish.

We voted for the morons on both sides of politics because we have to. Its the law!
Lying about Lying is a political art form. The sad thing is that the Coalition didnt need to lie & create this financial disaster stuff. They have just boxed themselves in to their really limited position. We are either in a disaster or not. It cant be a disaster here but not a disaster when speaking overseas.
We cant have a disaster but waste $billions on middle class child bearing.
We cant attack welfare recipients without tackling the tax concessions of the better offs.
We cant continue to change society without changing the way Government operate too. The system of Government is over a century old. It needs to evolve too, but the pollies like it for their own benefit, not the nations benefit.
Self interest is alive & well in the nations Capital!

 

[mottrain]

The first line is incredibly wrong so stopped reading.

 

[slicedndiced]

The first line is incredibly wrong so stopped reading.

Compulsory voting has been abolished??

Yeah baby, it's about time!

 

[mottrain]

Compulsory voting has been abolished??

Yeah baby, it's about time!

He said we are forced to vote for them which would be wrong. We are forced to turn up to vote but we are not forced to vote for one side as he has claimed. We can vote informally which can be by trashing the ballot paper, marking it in a way which doesn't suffice the requirements under voting law or simply place blank ballots into the box. This then does not apportion our vote to a particular party or individual. Therefore the first line is wrong completely.

 

[Maggie5]

Just not confident arguing her case that's all. Bit of a pity. The question as to whether, in her earlier post about her grandkids school, she was talking about parents problems from a rich 1 percenter private school or a low Catholic school was relevant in assessing the worth of the anecdotes.
When you're on an anonymous forum and someone posts personal anecdotes all you can do is ask questions.
I have noticed that if Maggie is comfortable with assertions she has made in post then she is comfortable arguing her case. If she not she issues some lame personal abuse and runs away.

Your mind does not seem to differentiate from wanting more information about the poster than the actual situation she is referring to. I don't see it necessary to post on a public forum where or the type of school my grand-children attend. Especially to a person who thinks it is amusing to cite a story about how she received money in a paper bag by a political party. Very dishonest.
And quite frankly I don't need to justify myself to you, who do you think you are?
If you don't want to engage in an adult way and ask questions without what seems to me by attacking my credibility, then just don't respond.
Your grand-standing really bores me.

 

[mottrain]

Your mind does not seem to differentiate from wanting more information about the poster than the actual situation she is referring to. I don't see it necessary to post on a public forum where or the type of school my grand-children attend. Especially to a person who thinks it is amusing to cite a story about how she received money in a paper bag by a political party. Very dishonest.
And quite frankly I don't need to justify myself to you, who do you think you are?
If you don't want to engage in an adult way and ask questions without what seems to me by attacking my credibility, then just don't respond.
Your grand-standing really bores me.

What was unreasonable about that question? It is relevant considering what you have commented on completely.

 

[slicedndiced]

He said we are forced to vote for them which would be wrong. We are forced to turn up to vote but we are not forced to vote for one side as he has claimed. We can vote informally which can be by trashing the ballot paper, marking it in a way which doesn't suffice the requirements under voting law or simply place blank ballots into the box. This then does not apportion our vote to a particular party or individual. Therefore the first line is wrong completely.

Ummm...that is all utterly fascinating and thank you so much for the free lesson on informal voting.

However, I feel sure that madmug was referring to people who actually lodge a correctly filled in ballot paper and not resort to drawing phallic images on them.

 

[madmug]

He said we are forced to vote for them which would be wrong. We are forced to turn up to vote but we are not forced to vote for one side as he has claimed. We can vote informally which can be by trashing the ballot paper, marking it in a way which doesn't suffice the requirements under voting law or simply place blank ballots into the box. This then does not apportion our vote to a particular party or individual. Therefore the first line is wrong completely.

READ the bloody thing properly! I was answering a previous post. I NEVER said we are forced to vote for one side! No need to go off on an irrelevant tangent.
Geez Its hard enough on here without Captain Confusion here. Stuff the informals. We are required to vote, Most pick a party, whether they really know what or why they are voting for individuals on the ballot paper.
It shouldnt be this hard.

 

[Maggie5]

What was unreasonable about that question? It is relevant considering what you have commented on completely.

Above your thinking grade, I think.

 

[mottrain]

Above your thinking grade, I think.

The irony you whinge when GuruJane supposedly makes personal statements towards you and again you do the same. Hypocrite and tends to tell me that there is a worry you will be exposed by answering the question she posed.

 

[slicedndiced]

The irony you whinge when GuruJane supposedly makes personal statements towards you and again you do the same. Hypocrite and tends to tell me that there is a worry you will be exposed by answering the question she posed.

Considering that yesterday, one of your first posts after a ban was to openly label my children bigots, (so classy), I fully understand why Maggie5 wishes to maintain her privacy.

 

[Maggie5]

The irony you whinge when GuruJane supposedly makes personal statements towards you and again you do the same. Hypocrite and tends to tell me that there is a worry you will be exposed by answering the question she posed.

Not sure you know what whinge means. Sorry if you are offended, but my discussion is not with you and not sure why you and others need to know private details.
By the way you do have a couple of options, instead of attacking:
Report me
Ignore me
Either way, you don't matter.

 

[GuruJane]

Maggie, using details about your grandkids private school in order to make a political points means that a question about the socio-economic status of the private school is entirely relevant.
If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine, but it means your earlier post loses credibility and raises the further possibility that you were making stuff up.

Can I suggest that in future you don't used personal anecdotes for political purposes if you don't want to be questioned on them.

 

[Maggie5]

Maggie, using details about your grandkids private school in order to make a political points means that a question about the socio-economic status of the private school is entirely relevant.
If you don't want to answer the question, that's fine, but it means your earlier post loses credibility and raises the further possibility that you were making stuff up.

Can I suggest that in future you don't used personal anecdotes for political purposes if you don't want to be questioned on them.

Firstly, I disagree with your first point, secondly if it loses credibility in yours eyes, that too is also fine as I don't really value your opinion highly based on your posting methods.
Lastly, as I have stated previously, you do not need to engage in my posts. You see I didn't see the relevance in your question - I was showing the socio-economic background of the family in question. When you asked whether the schools were "low fee Catholic or high fee private" is also irrelevant. The schools are more expensive than a state school. What difference does few thousand dollars matter? You seem obsessed with minor points and not the thrust of the post.

Further, I asked you a question re the 'paper bags' and you have not responded but unlike you, I am not badgering you. You don't want to answer, fine.

This is where we differ. Perhaps it is best that you ignore my posts.

 

[GuruJane]

Firstly, I disagree with your first point, secondly if it loses credibility in yours eyes, that too is also fine as I don't really value your opinion highly based on your posting methods.
Lastly, as I have stated previously, you do not need to engage in my posts. You see I didn't see the relevance in your question - I was showing the socio-economic background of the family in question. When you asked whether the schools were "low fee Catholic or high fee private" is also irrelevant. The schools are more expensive than a state school. What difference does few thousand dollars matter? You seem obsessed with minor points and not the thrust of the post.

Further, I asked you a question re the 'paper bags' and you have not responded but unlike you, I am not badgering you. You don't want to answer, fine.

This is where we differ. Perhaps it is best that you ignore my posts.

Maggie, you used a personal anecdote for political purposes and was asked a relevant question which you ran away from. It's not the first time.
What about your personal anecdote about having to traipse down to Centrelink to get your Medicare rebates when they have been available to you for years paid by Medicare directly into your bank account?

On the paper bag story - would take too long to explain. It was more than 45 years ago. I mentioned it in reply to Noddy who knows my background and who I worked for. There was no corruption involved as far as I'm aware but who knows? My association and history with the Labor party goes back a very, very, very long away.
Wouldn't dream of ignoring your posts, Maggie. Think of what I would be missing

 

[Maggie5]

Maggie, you used a personal anecdote for political purposes and was asked a relevant question which you ran away from. It's not the first time.
What about your personal anecdote about having to traipse down to Centrelink to get your Medicare rebates when they have been available to you for years paid by Medicare directly into your bank account?

On the paper bag story - would take too long to explain. It was more than 45 years ago. I mentioned it in reply to Noddy who knows my background and who I worked for. There was no corruption involved as far as I'm aware but who knows? My association and history with the Labor party goes back a very, very, very long away.
Wouldn't dream of ignoring your posts, Maggie. Think of what I would be missing

See that is what I mean, go digging to score points. I have since found that out and only happened because had to claim rebate from specialist. Not an expert in Centrelink matters at that time.
You surely are better than this GJ. Not sure why you need to do this.
Just let the content of your posts be the focus instead of the poster.

 

[GuruJane]

Originally posted by Maggie:

I have since found that out and only happened because had to claim rebate from specialist. Not an expert in Centrelink matters at that time.

Then why didn't you correct this alarmist stuff posted on June 1? When you went to Centrelink, surely they told you then you could get your rebate online.

Does anyone really believe that Doctors are going to charge just the $7.00 co-payment? I highly doubt it. The will charge the full fee, then we will all have to go to Centrelink (can't find any Medicare shops in my area), queue up to get our refund. So hypothetically we could be paying over $50 to go to the doctors until we get the rebate. Everyone has lazy $100 around to go to doctors and maybe a blood test.
I can see the poor and pensioners doing this or maybe they will put off going to the doctors until they get so sick they end up in hospital.

and

Firstly, I said that there were non in my area as I have to go to Centrelink to process which is inconvenient, whereas when I went to Medicare office, would get my refunds on the spot.
Inept?? Have a chat with your doctor and ask them how they intend to deal with it.

Can only reiterate, don't use personal anecdotres to illustrate political points unless you are prepared to take questions.

 

[Maggie5]

Give it up, why do you have this desperate need to be so superior and get others to conform to your way of thinking? Really sad.
Please, please, ignore and do not respond to my posts.

 

[mottrain]

Not sure you know what whinge means. Sorry if you are offended, but my discussion is not with you and not sure why you and others need to know private details.
By the way you do have a couple of options, instead of attacking:
Report me
Ignore me
Either way, you don't matter.

I definitely know what whinge means. I have seen you whinge many many times through this thread. Seems deflecting does more to satisfy you than answering.

 

[Maggie5]

I definitely know what whinge means. I have seen you whinge many many times through this thread. Seems deflecting does more to satisfy you than answering.

Okay, is this discussion over now?

 

[GuruJane]

Why do you keep asking posters to ignore or report you?

 

[slicedndiced]

I definitely know what whinge means.

There is no doubt about that at all.

You personally redefined the term.

 

[Maggie5]

Why do you keep asking posters to ignore or report you?

BF is the first and only forum I am a member of. Prior to joining I read the rules and also looked up what the the correct etiquette was.
Two rules that stood out for me was 'flaming' which I may have broken on more than one occasion. (Which I am not proud of). The other one was regarding learn to let go.

• Learn to let go - don't keep harping on about the same thing, or harking back to previous arguments. It is rarely productive, and you always end up going round in circles.

I am sick of going around in circles.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

If nothing else, Hockey is good for a laugh.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...t-hits-the-poor-hardest-treasury-figures-show

“That story is wrong because it fails to take into account a range of things, like the fact that higher-income households pay half their income in tax, low-income households pay virtually no tax, so I think there is a lot of misinformation around,” Hockey told the Nine Network’s Today program on Monday.
What a surprise, earn more pay more tax. Duh.

"Every dollar that lower-income households receive comes from higher-income households'. All of it? Not from other revenue? Double duh.

Wow wow wow. That is an incredible amount of errors from someone who is a Treasurer. Treasurers are meant to know numbers. Only very, very high income people ($500K+) would theoretically pay 40% income tax, because they get all the same tax free thresholds and lower tax brackets that poor people get - the same. Yet he claims 'higher-income households pay half their income in tax".

Statistics show they tend to actually pay around 22% income tax, after accounting trickery.

Low-income households would obviously pay some income tax unless on less than $18K (for a household? Poverty-line stuff), and pay GST. Yet he claims they "pay virtually no tax". How an anyone with actual respect for numbers use a wishy-washy term like "virtually no tax" for that? How an anyone with actual respect for numbers ignore the other taxation revenue raises, as Maggie points out?

 

[madmug]

I see the FB is at it again. The inconsistency & arrogance in his/the Governments message is palpable. Poor people do have to drive cars so Fuel excise will affect them. Further more, if the Government are telling the unemployed that they may need to travel to get work, of course a rise in the price of fuel WILL affect them.
Large parts of this country actually have very little, if any Public Transport. This Government have touted their road building programs in Melbourne & Sydney BUT SFA for public transport ANYWHERE.
What world does this ignorant/arrogant pig inhabit?
He is a complete FW