Yes true this year will bring change my team sidelined but I think/hope they evolve past the power brokers/not face less but two faced Disease.
Thread about Aboriginal youth and justice fits here too.
Once informed, once folk have seen a house newly built then wrecked in the same year.
And understand we, only us, pay for it, they may see the way our taxes are spent is our business, and in my view our duty to watch.

A bit of a clarification may be necessary.

".. there needs to be decent schooling, tertiary and trades education, and a safety net for those who cannot fend for themselves".

Absolutely, but for conservatives this applies only to those who can afford to pay for them.
We have produced two-tiered health, education and legal systems in this country based on the ability of the individual to pay for each and the funding of the public areas is generally cut in order to subsidise private interests.

Also, the provision of public infrastructure should be funded by the public for the benefit of the public - not for just for a a select few who seek to make it a source for personal profit.

The government sold off Sydney Airport but who will be paying for a new one? The public. Private sources cannot do it.

Private ownership does not guarantee better performance but management does. I remember listening to the preamble to the Telstra sale legislation in the Senate where it said "this Government recognises that private interests are always more efficient than public ones". If this statement had not been removed it would have meant that it would be illegal for a private company to be less efficient than a public one and was a statement of ideology rather than a fact.

Most people cannot separate the concept of socialism from communism but when private interests fail, they still expect to be bailed out by public ones.

rache,

We are not of the privileged few, but my blood boils when I see <those who cannot fend for themselves>, using their expensive toys - x-box, ipads, playstations, top of the line mobile phones etc., and taking overseas holidays or stacking grocery carts with junk food instead of wholesome food.

Many of these enjoy the privilege of state housing, and free repairs when they damage said housing. These people who are so poorly off also drive nice cars, stress emergency room facilities in hospitals to avoid paying a G.P., fees, and have concession cards to cover a whole range of services available to these 'poor people'.

We do not take holidays, but use the equivalent amount of money to maintain top private health cover, and we're just getting used to using a secondhand computer - the first we've owned.

So what criteria exactly should be used to define who needs a safety net?

worldwatcher,

Fair enough but if you want to generalise further, what makes MY blood boil is the sight of the wives of apparently struggling professional people dropping their kids off a private schools from their SUVs while claiming all sorts of welfare, just because they can structure their family incomes in such a way to gain all those undeserved benefits and avoid paying taxes.

Then there are the pensioners who line up at their local clubs on pension days waiting for their chance at the poker machines or handing over their sometimes significant weekly Lotto System games and then call talk-back radio to complain about how badly off they are.

Meanwhile the dumb PAYE employee continues to subsidise both ends of this spectrum in the futile hope that there will be something left for them in the bucket when their own time comes.

People should assume some degree of responsibility for their own situations but not at the expense of creating a dog-eat-dog society.

If you look at the current Legatum 2012 Prosperity Index you will see we rank as the 4th best country in the world out of 142 countries for personal wealth and wellbeing.

The first 3 countries are Norway, Denmark and Sweden - all considered to be examples of socialist democracies.

Yet we never stop complaining.

rache I feel my views are closer to you.
I want to say however to some extent World watchers views are true.
Once and not all that long ago,both sides of politics rarely fought battles over Social Security.
While opposed to the bloke, in different times, Bob Menzies is worth researching.
His stated views on welfar and IR would if restated today see him branded Socialist.
My thoughts on this issue, I believe, are in defense of the Socialism that exists hand in hand with our Capitalist system.
IF we, from both sides of the debate,can not leave our biases in the bucket at the door, find ways to kill the waste we will confront real troubles.
America cares little if at all for its folk in need, it has the lunatic gun laws, its returned soldiers live on the street.
We are better than that, but even now some see every SS client as a bludger.

Rache,

The top 25% of earners pay about 70% of taxes while getting about 1% of social benefits from the government. The bottom 50% pay about 10% of taxes while getting 90% of the benefits. So Rache, the next time you complain about the crumbs involved in "middle class welfare" don't forget they pay the taxes for the much bigger hand out you are getting.

Taxing the middle class and giving nothing back has been shown to damage the sense of communal responsibility reducing the incentive the disincentive to reduce tax payment by structuring income. Juliar is giving the middle finger to the actual taxpayers because they don't vote labor.