O.T. Bring it On... The New Qantas Emirates thread

[blacktip-reefy]

Testing-1-2-3
Testing.........testing.............testing..

Rudd firming to lose his own seat.
Hawke says Australia must become a Nuclear waste dump.
Tommy couldnt tackle.

LOL

 

[spider]

Let me start by saying this.....

"are there any working journos out there"...

 

[blacktip-reefy]

Testing-1-2-3
Testing.........testing.............testing..

 

[Quigs]

Our Kevvie will be alright Comrade Reefy. You're just seeing that inside pass from the scrum again.

So two weeks to go and a bit of a bounce. Not headline making stuff for the Rupes Meejah but, well, .......... Hmmmmm

 

[Quigs]

GREAT BIG NEW TAX... ONLY... YES ONLY the top 3000 COMPANIES WILL PAY FOR IT.

Sloganmans fully funded Paid Parental Leave

FACT CHECKER... FACT CHECKER .... FACT CHECKER....

Chris Bowen correct on investor impact of parental leave scheme

Treasurer Chris Bowen says the Coalition's proposed paid parental leave scheme will cost Australian investors $1.6 billion.

"Australia's mum and dad investors, self-funded retirees are facing a $1.6 billion a year slug to pay for Mr Abbott's expensive, unaffordable, unfair paid parental leave scheme," Mr Bowen said on August 23.


THE VERDICT

Mr Bowen is correct.

But the $1.6 billion in forgone franking credits will only hit investors in 2016-17, a year after the commencement of Mr Abbott's paid parental leave scheme.

source

 

[Surely]

Wow a company pays 1.5% less tax so there are less tax credits



Here's another fact to check

Our ruling

Tanya Plibersek says that when Tony Abbott was health minister, there was a shortage of GPs because he capped GP training places.

In fact, Abbott increased a cap initiated in 1995 under the previous Labor Government, and furthermore, implemented a host of reforms to attract more graduates to the profession. It would be 2008 before medical graduate demand for GP training places came close to reaching the cap.

In addition, Australia's historical GP shortage was not Abbott's doing. The opposite is true — he enacted policies to rectify the shortage which experts say have paid off over time.

We rate this statement False

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-...anya-plibersek/did-abbott-create-gp-shortage/

 

[Surely]

Here's another


Tanya Plibersek

Patients will save about $150 a year on medicines "thanks to the Rudd Labor Government's pharmaceutical pricing policy".

on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 in in a press release

Usually, claiming proprietorship of a policy infers one instigated it. One might follow another’s policy, one might adopt an adversary’s. But that doesn’t bestow ownership in a normal political sense.

That Tanya Plibersek, the health minister, should take credit for a mid-campaign cut in the cost of some pharmaceuticals because it was due to "the Rudd Labor government’s pharmaceutical pricing policy", therefore, is too cute by half.

The $12.51 cut per script from December 1 for the anti-cholesterol medicine Atorvastatin (Lipitor, by brand name), the $10.60 cheaper script for Venlafaxine (depression) and the $6.69 cheaper script for Olanzapine (mental health conditions) are due to government policy, to be sure.

But Plibersek goes too far in claiming "the price drops are a direct result of the Rudd Labor Government’s pharmaceutical pricing policy that helps to ensure that taxpayers and patients get value for money".

The lower costs are the result of changes to the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme, which requires drug manufacturers and pharmacists to notify government of price changes once medicines come off patent.

The PBS subsidies, paid by taxpayers, decline progressively until the prices of medicines reflect their market value.

While patients get some direct benefit from declining prices, the policy's main thrust is to achieve savings to the public purse.

And who instigated the policy?

Tony Abbott, as health minister in 2006.

In a media release of November 16 2006, Abbott said: "These changes will save more than $580 million over the next four years, growing to $3 billion over the next 10 years."

The price drops are a direct result of Abbott’s policy, not "a direct result of the Rudd Labor government’s pharmaceutical pricing policy".

On coming to office, Labor changed Abbott's policy so that the PBS subsidies are cut more sharply at the point of the medicines coming off patent.

But the three medicines that are the subject of Plibersek's announcement have been off patent for some time and Labor's amendment to the scheme therefore has no effect on the price cuts she trumpeted.

They are due to the progressive shaving of PBS subsidies as outlined in the Abbott policy.

We tried to talk to Plibersek's office about this matter, but they didn't get back to us.

Our ruling

PolitiFact often finds itself deploying the concept of blame/credit to political statements: the tactic by which one side seeks to take the credit for good things and assign blame to opponents for the bad.

We don’t criticise Labor for adopting the Abbott policy, just for claiming credit for it.

As such we rate this claim as Mostly False

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-...keep-taking-ElephantJuice-thanking-us-for-it/

 

[Surely]

Oops



Our ruling

In four rounds of funding, announced prior to Wednesday, Labor approved 375 trade centres. Of these, 263 are built and operational - 70 per cent of the total.

But that’s not what we’re counting here.

In 2007, Kevin Rudd promised trade training centres for each high school. The goal won’t be missed narrowly. To focus on completion rates for the relatively small number built to date is a lacklustre option indeed.

The government certainly changed its rhetoric from the initial Rudd promise, and has stuck to the amended version over several years.

Saying that all schools will have access to a trades training centre is probably far closer to what is achievable, though as the rollout is still in progress and going slowly, that reshaped promised is unlikely to be met.

As Pyne said: "For Kevin Rudd to deliver the remaining 2398 trade training centres by 2018, he would need to start opening at least one trade training centre a day."

And he’d need to win the September 7 election.

We rate this statement Mostly True.

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-...hool-will-live-without-trades-training-right/

 

[Quigs]

A GREAT BIG NEW TAX... 3000 top companies.

But it won't have a flow down effect will it Surely.

Woolworths and Coles will cop the increase caused by THE GREAT BIG NEW TAX.

Onya Gutless Sloganman.

 

[Surely]

Penny Wong

Labor website is "a snapshot of the cuts we know Tony Abbott plans to make should he be elected".

on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 in launching of the site, Abbott’s Cuts to Come, Melbourne

Not content with running the official Kevin Rudd website, the Labor Party has opened a second unofficial site devoted to Tony Abbott.

Entitled Abbott’s Cuts to Come, it features a menacing-looking shot of the opposition leader alongside the question: "What Will You Lose if He Wins?"

Launching the site Wednesday finance minister Penny Wong said it was "a snapshot of the cuts we know Tony Abbott plans to make".

"We are being generous and we are using their numbers," she said. "Australians will pay for Tony Abbott's signature scheme and his other unfunded promises through cuts to jobs, to services, to health, to education."

Rolling a cursor over photos of families, nurses, school children and workers on the site brings up claims of cuts that are sketchier than Wong suggests.

Politifact has previously found the claim to be false. Health spending climbed in each year Abbott was minister.

Also under the ‘Health’ heading it says: "Joe Hockey says 'no guarantees' on spending cuts".

Hockey offered such a guarantee on this week’s Q&A. He said "health and medical research is incredibly important and we have guaranteed that" (although it is unclear whether he guaranteed total health funding or merely funding for research).

Under the heading ‘School Kids’ it says: "Cutting billions from schools means that on average schools will have $2000 less per child".

It acknowledges that Abbott has promised to match Labor’s school funding commitment for the next four years, but says he has "refused to commit" beyond that.

Under the heading ‘Jobs’ it says: "Abbott will cut 12,000 jobs. That means families will lose their livelihood and local businesses will be hit."

It does not acknowledge that the 12,000 figure refers to the number of public servants Tony Abbott plans to lose through natural attrition over two years. The families of public servants who leave their jobs voluntarily are unlikely to "lose their livelihood".

A video on the site shows lights being turned out on pictures of workers in hard hats and fluoro jackets as a voice says: "Twelve thousand people will lose their jobs".

Hard hats are not typical of the clothing worn by public servants, and the video does not make clear that the 12,000 people who would "lose their jobs" are all public servants, all of whom would leave through natural attrition.

Under the heading: ‘Those Depending on Penalty Rates’ it says Abbott "supports cutting penalty rates and overtime".

The claim pre-dates a commitment by Abbott in Wednesday night’s leaders debate to protect both penalty rates and overtime.

The website is on safe ground on just three claims. Abbott would defer superannuation increases, abandon the low income superannuation contribution and end the Schoolkids Bonus. Each is Coalition policy.

Our ruling

Wong said the website was "a snapshot of the cuts we know Tony Abbott plans to make should he be elected".

The website is not a snapshot of the cuts Labor and Wong "know" Tony Abbott plans to make. Most of the claimed cuts are suppositions, some of them wrong.

We find the statement Mostly False.

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-...costs-and-con-jobs-another-day-election-2013/


As we can see the alp are mainly a pack of bald faced liars.


But who can blame them for making up stuff about somebody else, its not like they want to run on their own record.

 

[Quigs]

FACT CHECKER... FACT CHECKER....

This ones not mostly false , false, okay, correct, mostly correct .... this one is simply classed as

BRILLIANT

Did Labor really save us from the GFC? We ask an expert

A central issue in the upcoming federal election is the economic credibility of the Labor and Liberal parties. This, in no small measure, rests on the claim that the Labor Party "saved" the Australian economy during the financial crisis that began in 2008.


Did they?


There has been a lot of discussion about this, including some from thoughtful, well-informed commentators such as Warwick McKibbin (an ANU professor and former Reserve Bank board member) and Tony Makin (a professor at Griffith University). But rather than discuss what other folks discussed, let’s get straight to the issue.


The Labor Government spent about $95 billion, in four waves, to try and stimulate the economy. They did so against a backdrop of a worldwide economic meltdown that originated in the United States. We really only know two things for sure: there was stimulus spending of about $95 billion, and the Australian economy emerged from the crisis relatively unscathed.


Did they get the best bang for the buck? Of course not. Builders were late completing construction projects, States partially substituted federal funds for their own spending, 60 percent of individuals saved the money they received rather than spending it, and pink batts are, well, silly. But that’s not the point.


What exactly is stimulus spending meant to do? The crude answer is that, in the face of a financial crisis, government expenditure helps replace falling private spending, thus keeping so-called "aggregate demand" from falling.


But more importantly, it affects people’s expectations. The real danger in such a crisis is that I expect you to stop buying what I produce so I don’t produce, which leads me not to have the income to buy what you produce, so you don’t produce. This quickly leads to a kind of expectations death spiral. My fear reinforces your fear.


Stimulus spending helps break and reverse this downward spiral. But to do so it needs to be big, bold and most of all, credible. You can’t change people’s beliefs if they don’t think that you will follow through. Labor’s stimulus involved overwhelming fiscal force: it was very large and very credible.


The Coalition seems to want to discuss the whole issue as if it were a home renovation. "Honey, do we really need granite countertops in the kitchen—those are expensive, you know?" It’s exactly that line of thinking that leads people to believe that a stimulus won’t be credible.


It is hard to overstate just how scary the economic environment in the US was in 2008
I was on the faculty at the University of Chicago at the time, and I saw it first hand. The world was terrifyingly close to a repeat of the Great Depression. Goldman Sachs stock once dropped nearly 50 percent in a single morning. Goldman Sachs!


And they were on the good side of credit default swaps and subprime mortgages. Around that time I spoke with a friend who was then an economic advisor in the Obama administration, and asked for his thoughts. He said, in all seriousness, "Go get cash and bottled water. ATMs might not be working two days from now."


It was that bad.


So, was the Rudd Government brilliant, lucky, or reckless?
My reading is: brilliant. For sure, they had a lot of other factors supporting the economy that many other countries did not have: a central bank with the decisiveness, and room, to slash interest rates; a major trading partner (i.e. China) enacting a massive stimulus of their own; and a very flexible exchange rate.


They also arguably "played it safe" by following advice from Treasury and the International Monetary Fund.


But two things merit the term "brilliant". One: the resolve to use overwhelming fiscal force, particularly in the face of political opposition; and two: the sophistication to understand the importance of shoring-up the banking system through deposit guarantees (announced in October, 2008).


Together these gave Australians confidence that we would weather the crisis. That confidence prevented the kind of expectations death spiral from which the US is still battling to recover.


Franklin Roosevelt was right. In times like 2008 "the only thing we have to fear, is fear itself". Oh, and a government that doesn’t realize that stimulus only works if it’s big, bold and credible.


Richard Holden is Professor of Economics at the University of New South Wales, Australian School of Business.

 

[Quigs]

Hey Sureles you are missing posting a few of the Fact Checkers there.

Lift your game

 

[Surely]

A GREAT BIG NEW TAX... 3000 top companies.

But it won't have a flow down effect will it Surely.

Woolworths and Coles will cop the increase caused by THE GREAT BIG NEW TAX.

Onya Gutless Sloganman.

That's right quigs you are going to have to stump up a bit to ensure everyone has access to the same taxpayer provided maternity leave that public servants get.

However seeing as Coles and woolies won't be paying a carbon tax they'll probably just bank the saving rather than pass it on, more than compensating for franking credits.

 

[Surely]

Hey Sureles you are missing posting a few of the Fact Checkers there.

Lift your game

Confidence lol confidence, there's heaps of confidence in our economy alright :lol:

 

[Surely]

You missed this one too quigs



Public hospital funding under the Coalition
Mr Abbott was health minister from October 7, 2003 to December 3, 2007.

Before he took on the role, the Howard government provided funding of $32 billion for Australian public hospitals.

The funding was for the five years to June 2003 under Commonwealth legislation and an Australian National Healthcare Agreement with the states and territories.

When he [Tony Abbott] was health minister he cut $1 billion from the public hospitals budget of Australia.
Kevin Rudd
In 2002, the states and territories negotiated with the Commonwealth over their contributions to health care funding for the impending 2003-08 Australian National Healthcare Agreement.

The Commonwealth proposed lifting its contribution to $42 billion.

The states argued this sum was $1 billion lower than they were expecting, based on earlier estimates for future spending published in Commonwealth budget papers.

According to the 2003-04 Department of Health and Ageing's portfolio budget statement the cut was justified because public hospitals were treating a greater proportion of out-patients and because Commonwealth incentives to increase use of private hospitals were working.

The states lost the argument and the $1 billion cut and the $42 billion funding went ahead.

The health minister who oversaw these funding changes was Kay Paterson.

After Mr Abbott took over the portfolio, he began managing the already agreed $42 billion provided in the new five-year Australian National Healthcare Agreement.

The annual Commonwealth funding for public hospitals before he became health minister was $8.7 billion in 2002-3 and when he left was $10.7 billion.

The verdict
Mr Abbott was not responsible for the $1 billion reduction in public hospital funding between 2003 and 2008.

When he took over the health portfolio, he implemented a five-year funding agreement set by his predecessor.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-23/rudd-wrong-on-abbotts-1b-hospital-funding-cut/4906242

 

[Quigs]

That's right quigs you are going to have to stump up a bit to ensure everyone has access to the same taxpayer provided maternity leave that public servants get.

However seeing as Coles and woolies won't be paying a carbon tax they'll probably just bank the saving rather than pass it on, more than compensating for franking credits.

hmmmm so let me get this right. If the Gutless Sloganman gets into office there will be no python squeeze thingy so there wont be a Carbon Tax thingy.

So the big end of town - the top 500 businesses wont be paying the python squeeze thing.

But with Direct Action everyone will be paying .... hmmm right. There is a fact checker on that one somewhere. I might look for it

So now the top 3000 businesses and all the self funding retirees etc will be paying for the GREAT BIG NEW TAX.

I think I am getting what you are trying to tell me now.

Just for the record how big do you reckon Sloganmans Big black hole is going to be. Saul says 30 Billion. I'll punt on 45 billion.

Its going to take a lot of cutbacks dont you think.

 

[Surely]

Note than 500 companies pay carbon tax old boy.

Everyone pays it.

 

[Quigs]

Here Sureles... check out this one about the Hospitals.

"The current Federal Government ... cut $1.5 billion from public hospitals."

Tony Abbott on Wednesday, August 21, 2013 in the second leaders debate at the Broncos Leagues Club in Brisbane

Did Labor cut $1.5 billion from public hospitals?

http://www.politifact.com.au/truth-...tt/did-labor-cut-15-billion-public-hospitals/

Gutless sloganman ... False baby.... false.

 

[Quigs]

Note than 500 companies pay carbon tax old boy.

Everyone pays it.

 

[Surely]

So you don't have a carbon tax component in your power bill, and rates, any any service you use that pays for power ?

I directly pay about 7k and I'm not one of the 500


More labor party hack lies old boy.