Comments on: Fiscal flagellant or magic pudding? The Coalition won’t say

By: Kate

Kate — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 07:36:02 +0000

CML, how many single mothers do you know? You are content to slag off at single ‘mothers’. What do you know about the circumstances of many whom you deem ‘irresponsible enough to have children without sufficient means to support them’. Ever heard of relationship breakdown? Many single parents (yes, it is women who are mostly principal carers) do work or study but need the certainty of an income (parenting support) to ensure they can meet housing and other costs. Making single parents go on Newstart is inherently uncertain. Imagine being faced with the loss of benefits because you haven’t been able to submit the requisite number of applications for jobs you will never get. How then do you pay the rent let alone the school excursion fees or for the dentist? It is in the best interests of the children in such households that they are properly supported, through social security safety nets, to reduce the stress of parenting alone, and to ensure there is sufficient money to get by. It is in society’s best interests that such children thrive and avoid the cycle of intergenerational poverty . This policy removes crucial support. The whole mantra of ‘welfare dependency’ is straight out of the neoliberal phrase book.

By: Daly

Daly — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:32:47 +0000

The new Parliamentary Budget Office is there to cost all promises/policy made by federal politicans.
Perhaps the Libs/Nats will use it???? Or will they simply not detail any promises/policys and never be asked by the mainstream media?
The government’s is already costed in the budget papers which are available online for all to read.

By: CML

CML — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:17:41 +0000

Thanks Gavin. I did reply, but it was stopped for some reason which escapes me!

By: CML

CML — Fri, 08 Mar 2013 00:15:40 +0000

Thanks for that, Gavin. Surely not all fathers, or even a significant number, would be unemployed and therefore unable to assist financially. I do agree that single “parents” should receive assistance, just question that the other parent should be able to get off “Scot free”. That then leaves a lot of two parent families to pick up the tab for those irresponsible enough to have children without sufficient means to support them.
Just seems very unfair to me. Especially since these single “mothers” are demanding more, more, more. It seems to me that many of these women could find part time work if they tried. However, if they need further training, then I think the government should pay for that, and associated costs, rather than give them a larger pension. If we don’t consider these things, that means many “mothers” will expect to be on welfare forever. That is not good for them or their children.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 22:36:29 +0000

There are indeed laws to require both parents to contribute to the upbringing of their children, and indeed the Australian Tax Office deducts payments from the earning parent’s wage and pays child support to the caring parent. That was the change announced by prime minister Hawke in his ‘No child will live in poverty’ speech.

However, the father of the child is not always known or identified and if both parents are unemployed or have a low wage the caring parent still relies on income support.

By: Christopher Nagle

Christopher Nagle — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:51:58 +0000

The problem is that we were originally supposed to use public debt during the bad times to get out of trouble and then pay it back during the good ones. But what has happened has been that we have used public debt to boost spending in the good times as well as bad, which means that one day we end up being forced to repay when this pattern of behavior comes unstuck; when we no longer really have the money to pay up.

It is always so easy to borrow but not so attractive to repay. Repaying means going without something and there is always lots of opposition to that; pathetic cries for mercy and angry ones that have been done out of their rights….

By: Warren Joffe

Warren Joffe — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 07:05:51 +0000

To get follow up

By: Bill Hilliger

Bill Hilliger — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:56:35 +0000

The mainchancers and carpetbaggers are waiting in the wings for an Abbott and Hockey led government.

Today’s Age carried a good article on lazy Pete Costello to possibility of his interest in, and for and the reason of his dire findings, culminating in recommendations for the need to privatise and outsource QLD government property and functions. And yes, the prompting for those lazy Pete’s findings by same said mainchancers and carpetbaggers. Yo-ho-ho money to be minted there at the expense of QLD taxpayers.

Needless to say interest rates will be higher, unemployment will be higher, and all kinds of pensions and public service will be lower under a Abbott and Hockey led coalition government. Australians should be careful who they vote for. AS for the Rooty Hill lot; your pocker machine winnings will not compensate for the misery that Abbott promises you all. La, la, la.

By: Warren Joffe

Warren Joffe — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 06:48:59 +0000

I suspect you BK of being committed to the same fallacy which Rob Jolly entertained when Treasurer of Victoria and which, ultimately brought down the Cain-Kirner governments where there wasn’t anyone who knew better. He seemed to believe in “Keynesian” [not that Keynes would have approved them] policies in a provincial economy which doesn’t have its own currency, doesn’t control interest rates and has a very lumpy system of revenue raising. Greece has not alternative, while it remains within the Eurozone, to austerity which is aimed to achieve “internal devaluation”. Australian states also don’t really have much choice except fiscal prudence which means someone getting less pay or handouts and others, if they can’t simply transfer their activities to other states or other countries, being squeezed.

As for the feds, it was what Swan and Gillard spent the borrowed money on which was so stupid and the fact that they didn’t get the timing even half sensible so that the stimulus would apply only while needed. The first stimulus package could have been better designed but, together with the propping up of the financial system, was well justified. The rest was largely waste compared with alternatives including cutting back as soon as possible.

By: CML

CML — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 05:57:08 +0000

Sorry - should read: Aren’t there laws…….

By: CML

CML — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 05:54:23 +0000

@ Kate - You may well be right about the economic philosophy which led Labor to reduce benefits to single parent families. What I don’t understand, and have never seen included in this whole scenario, is that children in the main have two parents, regardless of where the adult’s relationship is at.
Aren’t their laws in place to say that fathers must contribute, financially, to the upkeep of their offspring? Shouldn’t this money be factored into the single parent household income? If not, why not? Why is it okay to expect the taxpayer to support these families when it is actually the responsibility of BOTH parents to pay for their own children?
There are many families, not of the rich variety, who struggle to keep their heads above water, where the mother is forced to return to work before the child is 12 months old. Let alone these single parents complaining that they are expected to work when their youngest child is 8 years! Where is the equality in that situation? Maybe there is one, but I don’t see it.

By: Paddy Forsayeth

Paddy Forsayeth — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 04:05:57 +0000

Agree with you Kate. Sadly when pollies and people bring up the hotion of including societal benefits into the economic equation they are branded by the epithet “Socialist!” The economic progress in latin America (by no means perfect)putting society and the poor in the forefront of economic planning should allow us to look afresh at the economic practices we currently use. Newman in Qld is determined to smash Government. He will reduce Gov. to a mere token rump so the neoconc and corporations will have a free hand. Rue the day!

By: Holden Back

Holden Back — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:40:43 +0000

Gavin Moodie, you know that was the last time and on the empirical basis of a loss an election, they thought was theirs to lose, never again.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:28:10 +0000

I recall the Coalition’s Fightback! policy as being quite comprehensive.

By: Michael

Michael — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:26:39 +0000

“The reason we can’t tell is because the Coalition refuses to offer anything concrete about its fiscal strategy, and won’t until, probably, just days out from the election.”
Regrettable it was ever thus. Both sides since Federation.

By: Kate

Kate — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:17:09 +0000

The austerity crowd follow neoliberalism as their guiding philosophy. It matters not the social damage this blind adherence to ideology causes, nor that the unfettered capital flows preferred by neoliberals was the cause of the GFC. You would have thought there would be some humility on their behalf given this failure, but no, they are still in the ascendancy in the media and in political circles. Labor briefly embraced Keynesian stimulus to keep the economy ticking over and significantly to maintain employment but have now retreated. Their decision on single parent benefits is a classic example of neoliberal philosophy at work. At state level, it is no surprise we are in recession in Victoria. Short term economic management narrowly pitched at delivering meaningless surpluses has caused damage, although it will be the longer term adverse consequences of gutting education opportunities and support for the marginalised that will be most destructive. It makes more sense to invest in the community and in infrastructure for future productivity. I am sick of economists and politicians who give no weight to the social dimensions of policies. A functioning and cohesive society is not just about simplistic economics.

By: Holden Back

Holden Back — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:10:29 +0000

Deficits only ever matter to conservative parties when they’re in Opposition, as Reagan and Cheney proved in the US.

By: mikehilliard

mikehilliard — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 03:05:15 +0000

Thanks for scaring me to death Bernard! Are we about to get the recession we didn’t need to have?

On your comment regarding the election of the liberals resetting the economy, well that is exactly what the average punter thinks because that is the loudest message their being sold.

By: Gavin Moodie

Gavin Moodie — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 02:54:01 +0000

Perhaps one can determine the Coalition’s position by anticipating how its front bench would vote on austerity.

By: TheFamousEccles

TheFamousEccles — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 02:50:29 +0000

“Austeristas” - I’m going to steal that one. Thanks.

By: Recalcitrant.Rick

Recalcitrant.Rick — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 02:44:17 +0000

And interest rates will always be lower under a Liberal Government! (derisive snort) But probably true once Abbott and Hockey slash and burn us into a recession!

By: john willoughby

john willoughby — Thu, 07 Mar 2013 02:24:46 +0000

“I’m not a lying Ranga” appears to be the official policy of the LNP…
“In your guts you know he’s nuts” should be the counter..