The Daily Wire: Abbott versus Gillard: Who has told more lies? - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »

Abbott versus Gillard: Who has told more lies?

#21 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 08 April 2013 - 06:58 PM

Here's another Abbott lie.

Here is Abbott on the episode of Four Corners that went to air on 6 September, 2004.
Four Corners: Doctoring the Figures (September 6, 2004)

Quote

TICKY FULLERTON: Will this Government commit to keeping the Medicare-plus-safety-net as it is now in place after the election?
TONY ABBOTT: Yes.
TICKY FULLERTON: That's a cast-iron commitment?
TONY ABBOTT: Cast-iron commitment. Absolutely.
TICKY FULLERTON: 80 per cent of out-of-pocket expenses rebatable over $300, over $700?
TONY ABBOTT: That is an absolutely rock solid, iron-clad commitment.


When this safety net was set up, $440 million was budgeted for it. By the time Treasury costed Labor's policy to abolish it under the Charter of Budget Honesty during the 2004 election campaign, Treasury knew that the cost of this policy would be $1.3 billion. It is unbelievable that Abbott did not know of the cost blowout at the time he gave his "cast-iron commitment".

Tony Abbott was interviewed by Laurie Oakes on April 17 2005:

Quote

HELEN DALLEY: One of the Government's main vote-catchers in the Federal election was the Medicare safety net. The scheme that protects battling families and pensioners from spiralling doctors' bills.

During the campaign Health Minister Tony Abbott gave a cast-iron guarantee that the safety net would not be raised. But this week it was. Families will have to pay hundreds of dollars more on their health care each year because the cost of the scheme has blown out, just as Labor predicted.

That broken promise would seem to put the Health Minister in an untenable position. Mr Abbott is in our Sydney studio this morning to talk with political editor Laurie Oakes.

Good morning Laurie.

LAURIE OAKES: Good morning Helen. Mr Abbott, welcome to the programme.

HEALTH MINISTER TONY ABBOTT: Morning Laurie.

LAURIE OAKES: Could I read you a letter from yesterday's Australian? It said 'Actions of corporate dishonesty and custodial sentencing. Pity the same rules don't apply to politicians.' What's your response?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, I can understand why people feel unhappy about the Government's decision to raise the safety net thresholds. But we took a decision that in the end it was more important to be economically responsible, and more important to maintain the safety net in the long term than it was to avoid embarrassing the Health Minister.

LAURIE OAKES: So honesty comes a distant second in this?

TONY ABBOTT: Well, Laurie, when I made that statement, in the election campaign, I had not the slightest inkling that there would ever be any intention to change this. But obviously when circumstances change, governments do change their opinions, and that is actually the responsible course of action.

LAURIE OAKES: You say you had no inkling it was likely to change, but Treasury knew that there'd been a blow-out, didn't it?

TONY ABBOTT: Yes. We certainly were aware the costs were increasing, and there was no secrecy about this, Laurie. The, the pre-election financial outlook statement revealed that there had been a substantial increase in the cost of the safety net, and obviously since the election the Government has had the opportunity to consider this blow-out — to look not just at the current quadrennium, but to look at the long term — and has made the decision that the thresholds had to be lifted.

Very clearly, he knew the costs were blowing out: "We certainly were aware the costs were increasing, and there was no secrecy about this". Yet despite that, he still chose to give a "cast-iron commitment" to "keeping the Medicare-plus-safety-net as it is now in place after the election".
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#22 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 08 April 2013 - 07:27 PM

View PostBam, on 08 April 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

Here's another Abbott lie.

Here is Abbott on the episode of Four Corners that went to air on 6 September, 2004.
Four Corners: Doctoring the Figures (September 6, 2004)


When this safety net was set up, $440 million was budgeted for it. By the time Treasury costed Labor's policy to abolish it under the Charter of Budget Honesty during the 2004 election campaign, Treasury knew that the cost of this policy would be $1.3 billion. It is unbelievable that Abbott did not know of the cost blowout at the time he gave his "cast-iron commitment".

Tony Abbott was interviewed by Laurie Oakes on April 17 2005:

Very clearly, he knew the costs were blowing out: "We certainly were aware the costs were increasing, and there was no secrecy about this". Yet despite that, he still chose to give a "cast-iron commitment" to "keeping the Medicare-plus-safety-net as it is now in place after the election".


Yes, he absolutely knew. As did Howard.

Didn't stop them blowing $20m on advertising the safety net in the election run up though.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#23 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 08 April 2013 - 08:14 PM

View PostBam, on 08 April 2013 - 06:25 PM, said:

It's not semantics. These are not the same. Withdrawals from the lump sum after 60 and before retirement are not the same thing as a revenue stream earned from investing the lump sum after retirement.


A person getting a revenue stream of $110,000 pa from his superannuation money (there is a minimum percentage that must be taken out each year depending on age) gets it because the fund is earning that amount of money. If it wasn't then the fund wouldn't last long. The revenue stream is based on earnings and it is earnings that are taxed. I think it is semantics to say the over 60's are now not being taxed on their super payments.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#24 User is offline   NotFrogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 10 April 2013 - 09:44 AM

http://cafewhispers....09/still-lying/

The remainder of this post has been removed due inappropriate language.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

This post has been edited by lenxyz: 11 April 2013 - 03:01 PM
Reason for edit: inappropriate language

0

#25 User is offline   NotFrogman 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 856
  • Joined: 24-July 12

Posted 10 April 2013 - 11:39 AM

http://blogs.crikey....oken-a-promise/

Turns out the coalition cant keep a promise. Who would have guessed that shocking piece of information? Whats that? Everyone who isnt a brain dead, rusted on liberal supporter. Ah.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#26 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 10 April 2013 - 12:48 PM

View PostBam, on 08 April 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

Swan didn't do a very good job of emulating Bolt because his basket seems to be a random sample rather than cherrypicked from a larger set.


Please, oh please tell me how you gauged the randomness of the set of ten items?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#27 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 10 April 2013 - 04:53 PM

View PostNotFrogman, on 10 April 2013 - 09:44 AM, said:


Actually, I have to admit that this is a barefaced, deliberate lie about the legal situation o f asylum seekers, it has been repeated countless times, always deliberately.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

This post has been edited by lenxyz: 11 April 2013 - 03:03 PM
Reason for edit: quote amended as original has been edited

0

#28 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 10 April 2013 - 05:04 PM

View Posticey, on 10 April 2013 - 12:48 PM, said:

Please, oh please tell me how you gauged the randomness of the set of ten items?



I thought he said "great big new tax on everything".

Thanks for letting me know he really said "a great big new tax on everything except for ten random items."


My bad.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#29 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 12 April 2013 - 06:09 PM

Boat people un-Christian? Wrong, Mr Abbott
More good reading on Abbott's serial mendacity about asylum seekers.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#30 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 16 April 2013 - 10:08 PM

Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#31 User is offline   lenxyz 

  • Advanced Member
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 374
  • Joined: 19-January 11

Posted 17 April 2013 - 10:54 AM

View PostHDMC, on 16 April 2013 - 10:08 PM, said:




This posting is not consistent with Bam’s ground rules which are:

Quote

To be accepted, every posted lie must be substantiated in the following manner:

1. Verbatim quotation with proper context. For example, if the statement is an answer to a question, the question and answer must both be posted in full.
2. If a lie is a part of a larger context, highlight the lie in bold.
3. A link to the source for the quotation, preferably a primary source or a secondary source that identifies a primary source.
4. A date must be provided. If a source also specifies an exact time (eg: Hansard) this should be provided as well.
5. Evidence to support the proposition that the statement is a lie. Such evidence must also include citations.



All we have is a short video from a site probably sponsored by ALP political apparatchiks. No evidence given except a quote from the Commissioner.

According to the Canberra times

Quote

“Australian Federal Police recruitment slowed to meet a $70 million budget cut”.

http://www.canberrat...l#ixzz2QgBNPDEE

Add to this the APS wide efficiency dividend and we have cuts around $100m. The Liberals claim the same was cut from the 2011/2012 budget, although I don’t have time to verify it.

The budget papers relating to the AFP show total appropriation in 2011/2012 as $1.82b. The 2012/2013 figure is shown as $1.69b. That is a reduction of $130 million.
You can check for yourself. It is on page 147 of the Agency budget papers.
http://www.ag.gov.au...12-13%20AFP.PDF

The question is why did the Commissioner say his agency funding had increases? The reason is easy to find and is why Bam set these ground rules. Abbott was obviously talking about recent cuts. The Commissioner referred to an increase over the last 5 years, which makes sense since the AFP resources had to be sharply increased when the government opened our borders five years ago.

Take this lie about Abbott telling a lie as well and truly debunked.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#32 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 17 April 2013 - 06:49 PM

View PostBam, on 01 April 2013 - 02:55 PM, said:

Date: December 2, 2009
Source: New Liberal leader Tony Abbott promises no new taxes, consideration of nuclear power (Herald Sun, published 3 December 2009)

Source: TRANSCRIPT OF JOINT DOORSTOP INTERVIEW (tonyabbott.com.au)

Then Tony Abbott breaks this commitment:

Date: 10 March 2010
Source: TRANSCRIPT OF THE HON. TONY ABBOTT MHR JOINT DOORSTOP INTERVIEW WITH ISOBEL REDMOND MP, LEADER OF THE OPPOSITION IN SOUTH AUSTRALIA PARLIAMENT HOUSE, CANBERRA (tonyabbott.com.au)

That's a new tax, after earlier promising no new taxes would be a part of Coalition policy.


Maybe you should learn the definition of 'lie'. breaking a promise, changing your mind or being factually wrong without realising it are not lies. Lies are the intentional and deliberate statement of something you know to be untrue at the time.

If you are indeed at Law School, you haven't learned much yet.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#33 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 17 April 2013 - 06:52 PM

View PostHDMC, on 03 April 2013 - 06:52 AM, said:

Lateline 30/09/2004





I class this as a lie. "Not that I can recall" is about as believable as Sinodinos "forgetting" 6 company directorships.


proving it is a lie would be difficult. it would require you to assume that Abbott had perfect recall of memory. Once again for the simple, 'forgetting' something does not make a statement a lie. Being wrong is not 'lying' either.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#34 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 17 April 2013 - 06:58 PM

View PostBam, on 08 April 2013 - 07:15 AM, said:

Today's Abbott lie is his assertion that the Gillard government is "illegitimate", with connotations of winning government by a coup, as if Gillard won government with the military invading the lawns of Parliament House with tanks and artillery.

This is a very obvious lie.

In the Australian Federal Parliament, the Government is the group of politicians that commands majority support on the floor of the House. Gillard does. Abbott does not. That Gillard requires the support of independents and some minor parties to do so hasn't happened Federally for many years, but it is not that unusual given that every state and territory in the country has had a minority government in the last 25 years. Every single one of them. And not a question was raised about the legitimacy of these minority governments.


oh that is pitiful even by the generally pitiful standard here. If he had said 'unconstitutional' then that would have been a lie or at least factually incorrect. The Gillard government IS illegitimate in that it has a majority nowhere. it is a subjective term that you should learn more about.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#35 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 17 April 2013 - 07:05 PM

So in summary, there has not been a SINGLE lie attributed to Abbott that has any semblance of proof. That is of course assuming you accept the meaning of 'lie' correctly which of course you labor supporters never do.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#36 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:32 AM

View Postlongweekend58, on 17 April 2013 - 06:58 PM, said:

oh that is pitiful even by the generally pitiful standard here. If he had said 'unconstitutional' then that would have been a lie or at least factually incorrect. The Gillard government IS illegitimate in that it has a majority nowhere. it is a subjective term that you should learn more about.


Primaries

ALP 4,711,363

LIB 3,777,383



2pp

ALP 6,216,445

LIB 6,185,918



50.12% ALP to 49.88% Coalition



All of which is meaningless anyway, as legitimacy is decided by the house.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#37 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:38 AM

View Postlongweekend58, on 17 April 2013 - 06:49 PM, said:

Maybe you should learn the definition of 'lie'. breaking a promise, changing your mind or being factually wrong without realising it are not lies. Lies are the intentional and deliberate statement of something you know to be untrue at the time.



Unless you're Julia Gillard I suppose? The coalition has made an art form of calling her a liar under just such circumstances.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#38 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:44 AM

View Postlongweekend58, on 17 April 2013 - 06:52 PM, said:

proving it is a lie would be difficult. it would require you to assume that Abbott had perfect recall of memory. Once again for the simple, 'forgetting' something does not make a statement a lie. Being wrong is not 'lying' either.


The legal system finds people guilty under these circumstances every day of the week - beyond reasonable doubt; on the balance of probabilities etc.

If Abbott's short term memory is indeed that deficient, he is unfit for office.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#39 User is offline   HDMC 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 1616
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNQ

Posted 18 April 2013 - 03:54 AM

View Postlongweekend58, on 17 April 2013 - 07:05 PM, said:

So in summary, there has not been a SINGLE lie attributed to Abbott that has any semblance of proof. That is of course assuming you accept the meaning of 'lie' correctly which of course you labor supporters never do.


Oh, I don't know.

How about "Misleading the ABC is not quite the same as misleading the parliament as a political crime."

Straight from the horse's arse mouth.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#40 User is offline   longweekend58 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 577
  • Joined: 04-April 12

Posted 18 April 2013 - 07:46 AM

View PostHDMC, on 18 April 2013 - 03:32 AM, said:

Primaries

ALP 4,711,363

LIB 3,777,383



2pp

ALP 6,216,445

LIB 6,185,918



50.12% ALP to 49.88% Coalition



All of which is meaningless anyway, as legitimacy is decided by the house.


nothing like a bit of selective reporting, right? forget the Nats and the LNP did you? all members of the coalition? that's another 1.5 million votes you conveniently forgot.

legitimacy is not something that Gillard holds.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 5 Pages +
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • Last »


Fast Reply