I think we should stop going on like this .

We voted these freaks into Gov. or I didn't but you did.

It's probably some kind of "Grand Stunt".

So lets just stand back a bit ....just for one Day !

Who knows they might be going to resign .

Wouldn't that be a hoot !

The premise of this article is sound but the reality is when you spend tax dollars you have to take it from something else - or go into further debt. But you are right, it is not conducive to play the blame game or play off different interest groups so publicly. I would imagine, but I could be wrong, that most Australians support the move to increase pensions.

The thing is at least this governmet is recognising the plight of pensioners something that Howard never did while he continued to feed the monster of consumerism, corporate welfare and ramped up the fear machine of counter-terrorism.

I wonder how much better off the pensioners will be, I imgaine we will be able to discuss more on this issue post-Budget. Will the disabled, carers and married pensioners also receive a rise?

Eva Cox advocates an increase in the single pension rate of $30 per week because single pensioners who are in the private rental market in major cities and towns are in dire straits. Women predominate in the ranks of single pensioner renters - they were in low paid jobs all their lives or who have been renting since their divorce.

I agree it's cruel to pit one section of social security recipients against another section when we blithely still provide upper class welfare like first home owner grants and untaxed superannuation pension payments even if the superannuation pension is 10 times the aged pension.

I don't know why the government is on this growth at all costs mantra. Why does the government increase subsidises to our inefficient domestic house construction industry and decease funding to health care and education. Remember that tertiary education is Australia's third largest export earner. Is it because construction employs fit young men and health and education employ women who aren't militant?

It has been argued that children cost a society more to raise than pensioners. Children cost money to feed, house clothe and educate until they are able to work. In Australia we pay teachers to educate our young. Superannuants [and pensioners] have saved for their old age, they only require intensive medical treatment for their last 2 years of life, they will have an average stay of 4 months in an aged care facility they don't need the state to provide schools, teachers etc and they can pay for their own sporting facilities. As people age they might need a cleaner and the visiting nurse to drop by when they suffer bouts of illness, mum stays home when a child is sick.

Put it another way. When Australia had a population of 7 million people mum stayed home and raised 3-5 kids and dad earned enough to support the family. When the population was 12 million mum worked part time. Today population is 21 million mum and dad work full time to rent in Sydney and can't afford time off work to have kids.

This article infantilises retirees by portraying them as too weak to withstand normal political discourse. According to the author if the Treasurer discusses the reasoning behind choosing between competing demands on the government's finances then retirees are likely to descend into a pit of anxiety.

"The culture of jealousy and resentment" certainly exists but it has nothing to do with anything the Treasurer has said or not said. While that culture is unattractive it is an inescapable part of a competitive capitalist society where there is a free media to present all that petty backbiting. Many retirees are, of course, not free from that themselves and the media most prone to that culture of complaint, such as Alan Jones on 2GB, is also the media that has a high proportion of retiree listeners.

Even the author can't resist focusing on the tiny percentage of cash payments that went astray showing that she too is part of that culture.

Retirees are capable of making themselves heard in the political debate and they do. The idea that there should be a muzzle applied upon anything pertaining to their interests ignores the overall social context of which retirees are a part and foolishly attempts to restrain political debate. Retirees are participants in those debates and ought not be treated as children requiring special protection.

As a part self funded retiree at 70 years of age may i say, during my working life i earned a good salary, paid 47cents in every dollar tax which went towards supporting society at that time.
As is normal in married life we built a house paying %18 interest, true food was cheaper then as was petrol.
Towards the end of my working life superannuation contributions became very expensive but it gave a life long assurance of support.
OK marriages fail but i was the one to have to start again, the agreement being my wife retain the house fair enough.
So half my super went into establising a home for myself, i recieve a supplement from Centrelink, after all i payed high taxes during my working life.
i have adopted an old Indian tradition these days and its this.
Its better to walk a mile in another man's moccasin before judging him

Goodness Billie, you did rather well to cram your rather leftie world view with so many wild, unsubstantiated prejudices into five paragraphs! Reading your post was some trip through the strange caverns of your mind. To suggest for example, that an increase in single pensions is only justified because most age pensioners are women is strange logic indeed.

Plainly to your way of thinking it is OK for aged men or heterosexual couples to be below the bread line because men are advantaged in society, right? What old-hat feminist bunkum!

This article is timely because by now it should be abundantly clear to pensioners and self-funded retirees that neither 'side' of politics can be expected to show concern for them regardless of the promises made during elections. Mind you, both sides of politics have been demonstrating the same lesson for decades but the old still vote for the major parties, so the Coalition and Labor are sure they will get away with it.

Some day soon the penny will drop with older Australians that the only way forward for is to become squeaky wheels and vote with their feet. Hopefully the Boomer generation which has been the subject of vicious intergenerational jealousy has not completely forgotten the lessons they learned in the Seventies - to stand up for themselves against State tyranny or be ground underfoot.

The best start would be to not vote for Labor, the Coalition or the ratbag Greens in the Senate. However it is time for older Australians to seek their own representation in the Senate. That would go well with a demand for smaller government and less interference of government in people's lives and personal affairs.