CONTINUED--
These are only a few of the demands that the political parties have and there are more.

If we change the culture the government effectiveness will change.

If we as a people looked out for each other and if ALL of us worked to provide the needs and wants of our neighbour, then we could lower our taxes profoundly.

If we ALL as a people stopped wanting the things that ultimately harm us, our family or our society then a whole lot of laws and law enforcement would be avoided.

If we ALL took from nature what we needed and left the rest then environmental concerns would ease.

If ALL employees turned up to work ready to work hard and work honestly and;

If ALL employers were honest, didn't exploit their workers and looked to provide suitable business for the community's needs then there is a lot less red tape and distrust in the world.

See the pattern? We as a people can provide a lot more to government than what we do. All we are willing to do at the moment is throw money in the direction of a government and say "It is not in my interests to invest my time and energy to benefitting society, I want you to take this tax money and do it all for me". I smell a problem.

So to conclude my views, Should we the people have more say? No, we have say enough, I believe we should all have more do. We should do more to benefit society instead of making selfish priorities our focus

RG, while I agree with much of what you say, wasting OUR TAXES on the likes of illegal imigants or un winnable wars is more what this thread is about.

Let's face it, with global turbulence as it is, we stand a better chance of being dragged into that mess, than we do of rising above it, esspecially if our mining does head south, as some predict, as mining, or more so the MRRT forms an essential part of our go forward.

And remember, we have witnessed first hand, a surplus of some 20 billion, be turned into something like a 200 billion debt (and counting)

Where do you think we might be if the next five years are more of the same!

As for not wanting to support our needy, you forget one very important point.

Very few would object to the GENUINE NEEDY being supported, but when that support money is simply WASTED and the kids go hungry, one has to question the logic behind governments insistence to maintain a welfare system that supports and allows for such waste.

There is a simple solution, but neither government, or the do-gooders will support it.

I can only assume it's because they (government) know that a huge percentage of that wasted welfare is returned in the form of taxes. It's sought of an each way bet.

One also questions the logic behind allowing many of our own to literally starve, while OUR TAXES get wasted on these non local issues.

You know things are crook when a person, who has worked most of their lives, looses their job, seeks support, this is after having paid tax all their lives, is then told to sell your house, as you have too much to qualify for support.

This is why I feel we need more say.

Nice theory, but it's never going to be the way the system will work, by having more say you will have 20 million different opinions, and get no where. No one ordered boat people, nor was there any agenda of encouraging them. Boat people are pushing them-self in front of other people that are waiting to be invited here. No boat people will not stop immigration.
If you read the treasury blurb, national debt will peak in 2012 before declining in following years, as stated some 3 years ago.
Even if AU was financed totally by super or futures funds, that is still national debt, because the people that own the super want interest on their money.
So if you can't put up any ideas of a perfect society, it's just talk.

Butch,
The only way I can see for us to get more say is to introduce Citizen Initated Referenda, CIR, where as if x number of people sign a petition the government must hold a referenda on the issue at next election.

This makes the pollies think before introducing new legislation. Would we now have a carbon tax or masses of illegals entering, or would we have sent troops to Iraq?

I think this would work but as it takes some power from the pollies i doubt we will ever see CIR operating here.

This discussion is ignoring the differences between state and federal funding.

The Federal Government issues a sovereign currency and thus can always purchase anything available for purchase with Australian dollars.

The Federal Government could increase all pensions if it could be satisfied that the balances created by computer key strokes in pensioners' bank account were only spent on goods and services provided wholly from within Australia.

State governments do not have the same luxury. They can only spend money that they can collect from citizens and businesses, as either taxes or loans, or which are provided by grants from the issuer of the sovereign currency.

The present federal opposition spokesmen on economic matters either do not understand these points or they are deliberately misleading the Australian people.

Any currency issuing (sovereign) government can afford to run a budget deficit that at is least, on average, in proportion to the rate of growth of the economy.

The problem is that in economic downturns the budget must move towards deficit as a result of automatic increases in expenditures on benefits, particularly unemployment benefits, and tax collections diminish entirely as a result of the downturn and the only way out is to further increase the deficit immediately.

That is what the Australian government did in when the GFC hit. Only when an economy is overheating should the currency issue move towards a budget surplus.

Any budget surplus curtails economic activity.

579...say you will have 20 million different opinions, and get no where.

That's why a referendum may work.

No one ordered boat people, nor was there any agenda of encouraging them.

Ah, but even you must admit, that if not for labor's 'open door policy' the numbers may have increased, but certainly not exploded as they have.

Not only have they had a huge hand in causing the problem, they have moved way too slow toward a solution, even then, they won't outrightly say, Australia is a no-go zone for illegals arriving on boats. At best, they say you face the prospect of being taken to either N.............

It's just laughable to think how poorly this has been handled, as the best they could do was to try and lay blame elsewhere.