I doan believe it

Fuel Watch/Food Watch, both Rudd-Swan ideas, have hit the wall, dudded and useless to Rudd's 'working families'.
Who advises Rudd on these phantasies to which he gives reality status as answers to economic stress? Tragically, the man believes his own delusions. Has he admitted Food Watch/Fuel Watch are bad ideas and failures with no practical benefit to anyone? No. Has he apologised to the Australian public that he's wasted millions of dollars of their money on his stupid and fanciful ideas? No. Should we be suprised that he's already showing up as incompetent, and no more than a man obsessed with centre stage presentations? Again, no.

Rudd has not held a parliamentary portfolio. This means he has no idea or experience how to manage a specific portfolio entrusted to him from either the Party leader, Premier or PM. Issues such as organising intelligent, informed and experienced personnel, establishing laiason with appropriate depts, research faculties, and institutions, or managing the portfolio through reviews, public criticism, and much more to make it a success and of benefit to the state or nation. Rudd has no experience in the field.

This is the man who casts his delusional shadow over Australia presenting himself as our leader-PM.

Rudd and his wife are millionaires, so they'll never know economic hardships. Which working family can afford a $5million coastal bungalow? Perhaps with Rudd's continuing absences from Australia, he's lost touch with the local supermarket and the nitty gritty of economic life for Australians. But then, given he has staff for every need, why should he be bothered with daily details like grocery prices and fuel costs? His dream is that we go green and drive hybrid Toyota Camrys. But then, at possibly at well over $40,000 per car, only he and his wife will afford them. But wait, there's more...the tax payer will buy the cars for them, and a fleet of hybrid Camrys for the parliamentarians.

Rudd, a voice for 'working families?' I don't believe it for a minute. Rudd a millionaire with a $5million coastal bungalow. That's the truth to believe.

In Rudd's Australia, there are only working families. What has happened to other Australians: pensioners, single parents, widows/widowers, single workers, defacto partnerships, and the unemployed and homeless? They are never mentioned in Rudd's media games, interviews or policies. They pay taxes, pay the same prices for groceries, fuel, energy services, and for all other goods needed for their lives. But in Rudd's world they don't exist. No pensioner will forget Rudd and Swan's blatant disregard for pensioner needs in the recent Federal Budget. Nor will hard working Mum's forget the kick-in-the-guts with reduced or eliminated child care rebates. The same can be said for apprentices with the abolition of their $1000 rebate for equipment and study costs.

One thing is for sure: Rudd will continue to abdicate his responsibilities as PM, and plan for many more overseas trips, all of them opportunities for grandstanding his ridiculous ideas and visions. He will not be committed to any issue confronting the lives of Australians, except where he can be centre stage. I hope Peter Costello takes on the leadership of the Federal Opposition, and nails this fraud to the garage door, preferably the garage door of his $5million coastal bungalow.

FirstPrev12(page 2/2)
21 comments

RE the concerns about the Age Pension, later today we will send an enews with a fast link to your local MPs email - we are continuing to send messages to the government about the low rate of the pension - but we need our subscribers to do the same thing - one voice alon will not change anything. We are happy to agitate on this issue, but suggest all those who feel strongly should also contact their local members to add further pressure

regards



Kaye



That is all very well, as long as you don't fall for the [b]single person on a pension only needs a rise and bring the whole pension thing into a dispute between pensioners who either have never married, live alone by choice, or are widowed and those still having a spouse, you are playing the game of governments divide and rule.[/b]



Married rate is $228.40 per week and married age pensioners are people too who have worked and paid in their taxes too - so have paid the levy still on the income tax put there to provide our pensions as this was the way it was when we grew up and went out to work.



The main reason for a rise is the huge increase in the price of food due to Oil speculation - and two people - I can assure you eat twice as much as one - as well as doubling up on everyday needs like clothing, laundry and toilet articles.



[b] We are ALL feeling the pinch[/b]



Married couples are also already discriminated against by the fact that we have to share the Pharmaceutical Allowance - we get $1.45 a week each instead of if single $2.90 a week and that needs to go up quick smart for ALL of us.



The scripts go up every January 1st and also the number before reaching the safety net.



Haven't checked the rent allowances to see if they have gone up but I think probably not so they need to be brought into line particularly since the government has increased the intake of migrants to 300,000 this year which of course will increase the demand for housing which is already in short supply therefore rents up again. Public housing rents should be 20 or 25% of the total income but I hear complaints that this is not so, and that as soon as the pensioner gets a dollar extra up goes the rent by that or more.



Concessions for heating and power need to be increased or put into place for pensioners.



Rebates on council rates are all over the place - WA has the best I understand at 50% but Tasmania is capped by its Labor State Government at $315 and rates have almost doubled particularly on strata titled homes over the last few years.



Together we win - divided we fall is always true particularly when dealing with governments and bureaucracies.

Ray



You have raised many really useful points - we agree that both the single and couple's pensions need to be increased, and that there is no point in any competition which would just undermine this objective. It is worth noting, however, the recent research:

[url]www.aboutseniors.com.au/index.php/site03/kayes_blog/3349/[/url]

which shows the single pension to be a LOWER percentage of couples pension in Australia (60%) than in most other OECD nations (63%). Do you have a suggested percentage of singles, or would you keep it where it is now?



cheers



Kaye





[b]do not let them make it an issue the basic rate of pension must rise and I think by $100 a week so we should demand $200 a week so they can win by reducing it.[/b]





Do you really believe that if you ask for $200 they will give you $100 to save face? Why not ask for $1000 and settle for $500. I think $30 a week will be a more realistic figure.

Ray



You have raised many really useful points - we agree that both the single and couple's pensions need to be increased, and that there is no point in any competition which would just undermine this objective. It is worth noting, however, the recent research:

[url]www.aboutseniors.com.au/index.php/site03/kayes_blog/3349/[/url]

which shows the single pension to be a LOWER percentage of couples pension in Australia (60%) than in most other OECD nations (63%). Do you have a suggested percentage of singles, or would you keep it where it is now?



cheers



Kaye



Err - if anyone had bothered to do the mathematics - but then since I left school many decades ago what do I know - but I made it 67% of the two married rates added together to form $913. $546.80 X 67% = $913.16. Married rate for a single person living with their spouse is $228.40 a week or $456.80 a fortnight.



BTW I do weekly because so many have no grasp of the fortnightly concept and tend to think it is a week since they would never survive themselves on such a paltry sum. I have even seen the two weekly rate put up on the TV screen as a weekly rate more than once.



Double the rate is actually $1,093.36 and $913 the total added together of the married rate for two persons who reside in one residence is actually 19.75% less.







John Howard did promise pensioners 25% of the male average wage.





[b]do not let them make it an issue the basic rate of pension must rise and I think by $100 a week so we should demand $200 a week so they can win by reducing it.[/b]





Do you really believe that if you ask for $200 they will give you $100 to save face? Why not ask for $1000 and settle for $500. I think $30 a week will be a more realistic figure.



Now now be reasonable - I have been president of a non affiliated professional association/union and you always ask for more than you need. Double usually is the standard.



$30 a week is not enough.



I do know that my grocery bill is double what it was only a couple of years back as I being a retired accountant keep all my receipts for that purpose to check the rise in prices.



It is the cost of food as well as petrol and gas and electricity which has risen sharply - more so since the last election due to rising oil prices. Which incidentally are down today to $111 a barrel but have your prices come down anywhere - NO>



So $30 will not cover the rise in all these prices - our electricity has gone up by 35% and our gas has gone up by 15% and petrol currently is $164.9 UL.



Now my pension has not gone up by anything like those amounts in the last 8 years let alone this year or in Sept when we can expect another couple of dollars if lucky.

Val,

I didn't say $30 a week was enough. I said $30 a week was a realistic figure the Government will give to us. I don't know what sort of pressure you applied in business to force people to give you the amount you wanted, but what pressure will you apply to force the Government to give $100 a week rise, asking for $200 won't do it. The fact is we are reliant on what the Government thinks it can afford.

Val,

I didn't say $30 a week was enough. I said $30 a week was a realistic figure the Government will give to us. I don't know what sort of pressure you applied in business to force people to give you the amount you wanted, but what pressure will you apply to force the Government to give $100 a week rise, asking for $200 won't do it. [b]The fact is we are reliant on what the Government thinks it can afford[/b].



Actually in one way you are right - as this government unlike the previous one is not open to old age as we are past being 'working families' for Rudd and if Beasley had not fallen by the wayside - we re not "middle class" his way of addressing his people. Rudd thinks he cant afford to pay more to age pensioner s and probably subscribes to the idea that they should have saved more for their old age too like the myth that has been put out since they introduced superannuation far too late for those currently on and reaching pension age not to take some pension in order to survive.





Unlike the Liberal/National/FamilyFirst/Greens who all give us the recognition we deserve - that we have worked and paid our taxes and added to the country that Australia is today.



Still does not mean that they should get away with it - we are many and by sheer people power if we stick to it and don't fall down taking what they say we get but demand a decent rise this time - after all they pay themselves well on our taxes do they not?



Hop over to Centrelink and have a study of what gets paid to others on welfare when to my mind seeing as it was taken off us in our income tax - which I paid as a single person - the age pension is a right.



Also when Howard gave the self funded retiree's not only the same concessions as Old Age Pensioners - he justified this by saying that they had not drawn down on their pension because they had too much income.



IOW - a right :)

FirstPrev12(page 2/2)
21 comments



To make a comment, please register or login

Preview your comment