# Stimulus package



## MrBurns (6 May 2009)

Do you realise there are people out there spending up big time and although I'm not one of them I get stuck with part of the bill ? - this is BS.......



> Cash splash lifts sales
> 
> Update The Government's cash splash is paying off with consumers driving retail sales higher than expected in March. Department stores were the big winners.
> 
> ...


----------



## Temjin (6 May 2009)

Yep, and they will all announce the recession is over! 

But actually, I have been spending more recently, but it was not related to the stimulus package anyway. There are so many great, heavily discounted deals out there thanks to the recession!


----------



## glads262 (6 May 2009)

The herds aren't really spending the stimulus.

2.7 billion was handed out in March.

2.2% growth in retail sales shows that about $400m extra was spent from Feb.

What about the other 2.3 billion?? 

Most people are saving it, or paying it off their credit cards/mortgage.


----------



## prawn_86 (6 May 2009)

Temjin said:


> But actually, I have been spending more recently, but it was not related to the stimulus package anyway. There are so many great, heavily discounted deals out there thanks to the recession!




I agree. Just wait to the end of financial year sales come around too will be huge discounts!


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> I agree. Just wait to the end of financial year sales come around too will be huge discounts!




I think you're right there prawn, the sales this year will be the biggest of all time in all probability, it's their last chance to lift their annual figures and they will GO FOR IT !


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2009)

Rudd has in effect put money on our credit cards (those who didnt recieve the hand out ) and given it away.
Why are only low income earners getting this anyway ? low income earners should be encouraged to save not spend, why not give it to the rich too, they would be more inclined to spend it because the dont have to save.


----------



## Knobby22 (6 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Rudd has in effect put money on our credit cards (those who didnt recieve the hand out ) and given it away.
> Why are only low income earners getting this anyway ? low income earners should be encouraged to save not spend, why not give it to the rich too, they would be more inclined to spend it because the dont have to save.




Everyone knows you will only put it in your money room and swim in it, Mr Burns.


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2009)

Knobby22 said:


> Everyone knows you will only put it in your money room and swim in it, Mr Burns.




I use $10 notes as toilet paper but I dont staple them together any more that just doesnt work......


----------



## Mr J (6 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Rudd has in effect put money on our credit cards (those who didnt recieve the hand out ) and given it away.
> Why are only low income earners getting this anyway ? low income earners should be encouraged to save not spend, why not give it to the rich too, they would be more inclined to spend it because the dont have to save.




Because Mr Rudd would like to appear to be doing something constructive, while also directly buying votes.


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2009)

Mr J said:


> Because Mr Rudd would like to appear to be doing something constructive, while also directly buying votes.




Gosh gollly gee he wouldnt do someth'n like that now would he ??????????


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 May 2009)

Temjin said:


> But actually, I have been spending more recently, but it was not related to the stimulus package anyway. There are so many great, heavily discounted deals out there thanks to the recession!



Agreed there.

I've got the paperwork here right now for the free solar panels I'll be putting on the house and will post it tomorrow. The government rebates cover 100% of the cost so it's literally free - they've even supplied postage stamps to return the forms.

And I've just been offered a $300 (per person twin share) 5 night trip to the Gold Coast. That includes airfares (from Tas) and accommodation. I haven't looked into it but it does seem to be a legit offer that's ridiculously cheap.


----------



## Soft Dough (6 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed there.
> 
> I've got the paperwork here right now for the free solar panels I'll be putting on the house and will post it tomorrow. The government rebates cover 100% of the cost so it's literally free - they've even supplied postage stamps to return the forms.
> 
> And I've just been offered a $300 (per person twin share) 5 night trip to the Gold Coast. That includes airfares (from Tas) and accommodation. I haven't looked into it but it does seem to be a legit offer that's ridiculously cheap.




Well you do need to go to queensland to see what the sun looks like before installing solar panels.... think of it like a research project.


----------



## Mr J (6 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Gosh gollly gee he wouldnt do someth'n like that now would he ??????????




You asked the question, I supplied the obvious answer :.


----------



## traderforlife (6 May 2009)

I agree with Mr Burns. I do not understand why we are getting $900 to waste. I could have asked for mine to go to the broken hospital bed my girl friend had to stay in emergency at RPA on the weekend or the IV drip with broken wheels that I had to carry around when she needed to go to the toilet. Maby they should have spent it on basic services and infrastructure instead of buying votes for when the tough times come. The money is not going to be there for the infrastructure projects they are proposing in the term of this government. Why stimulate the corporate greed that caused the problem in the first place?


----------



## Soft Dough (6 May 2009)

traderforlife said:


> I agree with Mr Burns. I do not understand why we are getting $900 to waste. I could have asked for mine to go to the broken hospital bed my girl friend had to stay in emergency at RPA on the weekend or the IV drip with broken wheels that I had to carry around when she needed to go to the toilet. Maby they should have spent it on basic services and infrastructure instead of buying votes for when the tough times come. The money is not going to be there for the infrastructure projects they are proposing in the term of this government. Why stimulate the corporate greed that caused the problem in the first place?




because the general public, the average voter has a me me me attitude.

Have you not noticed that we live in a welfare society, where people's wants and needs are provided to them by government handouts?

I agree, the problem needs to be solved by moderating consumption, both at a retail and housing level, but our government will try to spend its way out of a problem which overspending caused.  All in the attempt to avoid the R word, and to protect Kevin Rudd's ego.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2009)

traderforlife said:


> I agree with Mr Burns. I do not understand why we are getting $900 to waste. I could have asked for mine to go to the broken hospital bed my girl friend had to stay in emergency at RPA on the weekend or the IV drip with broken wheels that I had to carry around when she needed to go to the toilet. Maby they should have spent it on basic services and infrastructure instead of buying votes for when the tough times come. The money is not going to be there for the infrastructure projects they are proposing in the term of this government. Why stimulate the corporate greed that caused the problem in the first place?



Agreed 100%.   I'd have been quite happy for the deficit to be increased to the level it is soon to reach if the money had been spent on essential services.
But it infuriates me that it's being handed out to many whose thinking will go no further than that it means Mr Rudd is a Great Bloke and they will therefore vote for him.

Rudd is the ultimate pragmatist.  I despise him absolutely.


----------



## MrBurns (6 May 2009)

Julia said:


> I despise him absolutely.




I don't think I've ever despised any leader of ours but this is the exception, the mere fact he is applauding people for going out and blowing money given to them for nothing, the only reason being to go and blow it, is just 100% wrong, this is despicable.


----------



## Julia (30 May 2009)

Good to know that 16,000 payments of the $900 were made to deceased estates.


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Good to know that 16,000 payments of the $900 were made to deceased estates.




Yah that sucks.

I also heard a lot of Family Trust's with annual income flows in excess of 1/2 a million bucks claimed 5 or 6 payments for income-splitting beneficiaries. That sucks too! 

Things are never quite as they seem!


----------



## Beej (30 May 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I don't think I've ever despised any leader of ours




Now you know how half the country felt about Howard - particularly over the past 5 years...... You either loved him or despised him, there was no middle ground. And by the way, Howard gave one off cash payments out as well on several occasions...

Re the stimulus payments, yea it kind of sucks. I got nothing and I pay/have paid a crap load of tax over the years. But it's not worth getting too worked up about because:

1) It's just a tax rebate - low income earners pay heaps less tax as a % of their income compared to higher income earners anyway, so just think of it as a temporary tax cut for those that got the rebate. I mean we don't go around seething/venting constantly about paying 40/45% marginal tax rates when you earn enough cash to do so do we? (Maybe you do Mr Burns! LOL). Personally I don't see the point in getting too worked up about such things. Also I don't recall too many high income earners offering to hand back the massive tax cuts received under Howard and also from this latest Rudd/Swan budget..... I can say that in my case I get more than $900 stimulus cash payment extra EVERY year from now on due to this years tax cuts.

2) About $22B has been spent in cash stimulus; it's not the primary cause of this years ~$30B deficit, or next FYs $58B deficit, or the general run up of commonwealth debt over the next 4 years. The debt is primarily caused by structural decline in general tax revenue, so we either get the debt, or we all get slugged with significantly higher taxes and cut backs in government benefits/services right now. The problem is this would kill the economy when it is already down.

3) Whether people spend it or save it who cares? It's provides economic benefit either way.

If none of this makes any sense have a read of Ross Gittins from SMH here for a good overview of what's actually going on: http://business.smh.com.au/business/stimulus-strategy-sorted-down-to-a-t-20090529-bq7g.html

From that article:



> Clearly, you have to strike a compromise between timeliness and worthiness. *Too few of the people blathering on about the stimulus spending understand that need for compromise and the clever way Rudd and Wayne Swan tackled it*.
> 
> Their stimulus spending has gone through three stages: first, the cash bonuses announced in October last year and in February this year; second, the small "shovel-ready" capital works (on primary schools, road black spots, rail crossings, roof insulation and public housing) announced in February; and, third, the larger and longer-term infrastructure projects (on road, rail, ports and broadband) announced in the budget.
> 
> ...




Cheers,

Beej


----------



## jono1887 (30 May 2009)

what happens to those cheques written out to the deceased?? those cheques cant actually get cashed right? so whats everyone complaining about?


----------



## Beej (30 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> what happens to those cheques written out to the deceased?? those cheques cant actually get cashed right? so whats everyone complaining about?




Or they get passed on to the estate in which case someone still get's it anyway. So in either case it's a bit of a beat up. Dead people get sent pension cheques and other government payments all the time.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## jono1887 (30 May 2009)

Beej said:


> Or they get passed on to the estate in which case someone still get's it anyway. So in either case it's a bit of a beat up. Dead people get sent pension cheques and other government payments all the time.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Beej




Cant the govt just cancel those cheques or get the ATO to get them back... they seem to do a good enough job recovering funds from tax frauds, i dont see how recovering these funds would be anymore difficult


----------



## Largesse (30 May 2009)

Why does everyone care about a few stray stimulus cheques so much when we are paying thousands of council workers 50k p.a to stand around and watch 'Barry' dig a trench?

Massive beat up by the media if you ask me.
16000 cheques at 900 buck isn't even $15m...


----------



## Pappon (30 May 2009)

Time will show how bad the labor goverment is *AGAIN* at managing a country interest rates will be out of control *AGAIN* unemployment will be out of control *AGAIN* and the debt level will......Oh wait that's already happened *AGAIN*


----------



## jono1887 (30 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> Time will show how bad the labor goverment is *AGAIN* at managing a country interest rates will be out of control *AGAIN* unemployment will be out of control *AGAIN* and the debt level will......Oh wait that's already happened *AGAIN*




Interest Rates - Govt has no control over them what so ever  what are you blaming the labor govt for?? (RBA is independent to the govt... and what else would you expect them to do in a GFC? keep them high and prevent any credit flows in the economy?)

Unemployment - We're in a GFC if you haven't noticed... unemployment is skyrocketing in every damn nation in the developed world!! how is that labors fault?? 

Debt - OK, i admit this is actually something that labor govt has control over.. BUT what else do you expect them to do in a period of such economic contraction, sit back and watch the carnage??

Im pretty sure even it the Liberals were in power now in the midst of a GFC, they'd be borrowing large amounts of money to stimulate the economy...

I think you need to have a greater understanding of the economy before you go about blaming the govt for everything!!


----------



## Sir Burr (30 May 2009)

Beej said:


> Or they get passed on to the estate in which case someone still get's it anyway. So in either case it's a bit of a beat up. Dead people get sent pension cheques and other government payments all the time.




Yes, this happened to us.

I received the cheque in the mail, took it to the solicitor to find out what to do with it. He advised to send it back and I called the Stimulus package hotline shown on the letter.

The hotline said to *hand it to the executors* (me) to disperse it. They did not want it back.

I went back to the solicitor and told him to bank it into their trust account and it was dispersed.


----------



## Smurf1976 (30 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Interest Rates - Govt has no control over them what so ever  what are you blaming the labor govt for?? (RBA is independent to the govt... and what else would you expect them to do in a GFC? keep them high and prevent any credit flows in the economy?)
> 
> Unemployment - We're in a GFC if you haven't noticed... unemployment is skyrocketing in every damn nation in the developed world!! how is that labors fault??
> 
> ...



Regardless of how well they have or haven't done in managing this, they could have done a lot better by investing in productive infrastructure rather than new TV's.

At worst, the investment in infrastructure ends up building us some rail lines, roads, power, water and other useful things that, at worst, might take a few years before they're actually needed. Meanwhile most of the money stays here and employs Australians - and these projects create plenty of jobs that a wide range of people can do.

Contrast that to spending on imported consumer goods with the only benefit locally being a one-off boost for selected retailers and it's easy to see that the path chosen was populist one rather than part of a proper strategic plan for anything other than getting re-elected.


----------



## Largesse (30 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Regardless of how well they have or haven't done in managing this, they could have done a lot better by investing in productive infrastructure rather than new TV's.
> 
> At worst, the investment in infrastructure ends up building us some rail lines, roads, power, water and other useful things that, at worst, might take a few years before they're actually needed. Meanwhile most of the money stays here and employs Australians - and these projects create plenty of jobs that a wide range of people can do.
> 
> Contrast that to spending on imported consumer goods with the only benefit locally being a one-off boost for selected retailers and it's easy to see that the path chosen was populist one rather than part of a proper strategic plan *for anything other than getting re-elected*.





which thankfully won't happen


----------



## GumbyLearner (30 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Regardless of how well they have or haven't done in managing this, they could have done a lot better by investing in productive infrastructure rather than new TV's.
> 
> At worst, the investment in infrastructure ends up building us some rail lines, roads, power, water and other useful things that, at worst, might take a few years before they're actually needed. Meanwhile most of the money stays here and employs Australians - and these projects create plenty of jobs that a wide range of people can do.
> 
> Contrast that to spending on imported consumer goods with the only benefit locally being a one-off boost for selected retailers and it's easy to see that the path chosen was populist one rather than part of a proper strategic plan for anything other than getting re-elected.




I agree Smurf. What a waste! Filling in the potholes would have a much better
effect for the country. 

You wonder why these politicians invent things like a "future" fund.
Howard did some things to improve infrastructure but certainly not enough to
expand port capacity.

Looks like Rudd is doing the same.


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 May 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Contrast that to spending on imported consumer goods with the only benefit locally being a one-off boost for selected retailers and it's easy to see that the path chosen was *populist* one rather than part of a proper strategic plan for anything other than getting re-elected.




It does seem like he doesn`t know what to do sometimes. Has anyone thought the position of P.M. might overwhelm him.


----------



## Soft Dough (30 May 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> It does seem like he doesn`t know what to do sometimes. Has anyone thought the position of P.M. might overwhelm him.




He has struggled since his last political advisor left parliament.... I wonder how much John Howard would charge him for consultancy..


----------



## Julia (30 May 2009)

Largesse said:


> Why does everyone care about a few stray stimulus cheques so much when we are paying thousands of council workers 50k p.a to stand around and watch 'Barry' dig a trench?
> 
> Massive beat up by the media if you ask me.
> 16000 cheques at 900 buck isn't even $15m...



Largesse, it's about the stupidity of it happening, not the money itself, though I'd have preferred to see $15M go to something worthwhile.





Smurf1976 said:


> Regardless of how well they have or haven't done in managing this, they could have done a lot better by investing in productive infrastructure rather than new TV's.
> 
> At worst, the investment in infrastructure ends up building us some rail lines, roads, power, water and other useful things that, at worst, might take a few years before they're actually needed. Meanwhile most of the money stays here and employs Australians - and these projects create plenty of jobs that a wide range of people can do.
> 
> Contrast that to spending on imported consumer goods with the only benefit locally being a one-off boost for selected retailers and it's easy to see that the path chosen was populist one rather than part of a proper strategic plan for anything other than getting re-elected.



Exactly.   It was far more about buying votes and keeping Labor on top in the polls than any sensible financial plan.



jono1887 said:


> Unemployment - We're in a GFC if you haven't noticed... unemployment is skyrocketing in every damn nation in the developed world!! how is that labors fault??



If the ETS goes ahead look for unemployment to rise exponentially as business profitability is eroded.





> Debt - OK, i admit this is actually something that labor govt has control over.. BUT what else do you expect them to do in a period of such economic contraction, sit back and watch the carnage??



Do you think they are attempting to stimulate the economy with these dumb cash handouts which will provide a small tick upwards in the quarterly figures in terms of retail sales, or could they just be looking after their voter base?
You seem like a Labor fan in which case you will only see what you want to.

There is one view that it would be sensible to let the unviable businesses fail, e.g. how much of taxpayer funds have repeatedly been channelled into propping up the unprofitable car industry?




> Im pretty sure even it the Liberals were in power now in the midst of a GFC, they'd be borrowing large amounts of money to stimulate the economy...
> 
> I think you need to have a greater understanding of the economy before you go about blaming the govt for everything!!



Well, the Libs wouldn't have been *borrowing money* to give to people to buy plasmas, go to the pub etc.
Yes they would be borrowing, but would have spent on worthwhile infrastructure to offer Australia a long term benefit.  What long term benefit occurs for the country from all the dollars that have gone on rubbish?





jono1887 said:


> what happens to those cheques written out to the deceased?? those cheques cant actually get cashed right? so whats everyone complaining about?



Maybe just find out what does happen before you start being so derisive about criticism, jono.
The estate of the deceased will process and bank these cheques.
How is that stimulating the economy, huh?


----------



## Julia (30 May 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> It does seem like he doesn`t know what to do sometimes. Has anyone thought the position of P.M. might overwhelm him.



Absolutely not in his own eyes.  On the contrary he loves every minute of it.
If ever there was an example of someone who believes his own bull****, it's the Ruddmeister.


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 May 2009)

Largesse said:


> Why does everyone care about a few stray stimulus cheques so much when we are paying thousands of council workers 50k p.a to stand around and watch 'Barry' dig a trench?
> 
> Massive beat up by the media if you ask me.
> 16000 cheques at 900 buck isn't even $15m...




After working in many places, I can say council workers are the average "no stress" workers. In the larger industrial workplaces the work "pace" is much, much more relaxed. Workplace Health & Safety is a major, repeat major contributor to slowdown in productivity.


----------



## Wysiwyg (30 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Absolutely not in his own eyes.  On the contrary he loves every minute of it.
> If ever there was an example of someone who believes his own bull****, it's the Ruddmeister.




I think they call that ... fake it `til you make it.

After all, it is a no experience position.


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Interest Rates
> Unemployment
> Debt - OK, i admit
> I blaming the govt for everything!!




Haha Chalk one up for Pappon


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Unemployment - We're in a GFC if you haven't noticed... unemployment is skyrocketing in every damn nation in the developed world!! how is that labors fault??
> 
> Quote from Julia "If the ETS goes ahead look for unemployment to rise exponentially as business profitability is eroded.' That will be labors implementation oh overlooked that LARGE issue didn't we, you great economist you  top work genius!! Full marks for your economics MAJOR your studying
> I think you need to have a greater understanding of the economy before you go about blaming the govt for everything!!




By the way if your such a great economist you'd understand that speeding up infrastructure projects is a better way to stimulate economies during a recession rather than cash handouts. 

Oh do the RBA really decide the interest rates REALLY??? Do they nah, c'mon do they REALLY??????


----------



## Beej (31 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> By the way if your such a great economist you'd understand that speeding up infrastructure projects is a better way to stimulate economies during a recession rather than cash handouts.




If you were such a great economist you might understand that major infrastructure projects can take up to 2 years to get going from the decision to spend some money on something, due to the need for project definition, tender process, then actual ramp up, design/construction etc. And the thing with trying to fiscally stimulate an economy in a downturn is you are meant to hit the stimulus FAST initially - the earlier in the downturn cycle the better, hence the cash payments.

Anyway as pointed out by Ross Gittins in the article I posted on the first page of this thread( http://business.smh.com.au/business/stimulus-strategy-sorted-down-to-a-t-20090529-bq7g.html?page=-1 ), there are 3 prongs to the government stimulus. The first was the 2 rounds of cash payments ($22B), the second was "shovel ready" capital works projects that could get underway quickly (new school buildings, non major roadworks, home insulation etc) - this is about another $23B odd. The third round ARE the major infrastructure projects you are on about - rail, road, ports, datacomms etc - the spending there is about another $21B+. 

So each prong of stimulus is roughly one third of the total spend of $67B, and designed to occur immediately at first and then run for the next 4 years due to the longer term infrastructure projects.

So if you are going to criticise a governments actions at least understand properly what they actually are!



> Oh do the RBA really decide the interest rates REALLY??? Do they nah, c'mon do they REALLY??????




Oh and on this - yes the independent RBA does decide monetary policy settings (interest rates). If you think otherwise the conspiracy thread is thataway -------> !

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## jono1887 (31 May 2009)

Beej said:


> If you were such a great economist you might understand that major infrastructure projects can take up to 2 years to get going from the decision to spend some money on something, due to the need for project definition, tender process, then actual ramp up, design/construction etc. And the thing with trying to fiscally stimulate an economy in a downturn is you are meant to hit the stimulus FAST initially - the earlier in the downturn cycle the better, hence the cash payments.
> 
> Anyway as pointed out by Ross Gittins in the article I posted on the first page of this thread( http://business.smh.com.au/business/stimulus-strategy-sorted-down-to-a-t-20090529-bq7g.html?page=-1 ), there are 3 prongs to the government stimulus. The first was the 2 rounds of cash payments ($22B), the second was "shovel ready" capital works projects that could get underway quickly (new school buildings, non major roadworks, home insulation etc) - this is about another $23B odd. The third round ARE the major infrastructure projects you are on about - rail, road, ports, datacomms etc - the spending there is about another $21B+.
> 
> ...




Thank you Beej.... finally, someone who is able to make an *educated* response in this forum!


----------



## Largesse (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Thank you Beej.... finally, someone who is able to make an *educated* response in this forum!




Thats a big call mate.... 
I see plenty of educated responses on various topics every day on this forum.

Sure you don't want to retract that?


----------



## jono1887 (31 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Absolutely not in his own eyes.  On the contrary he loves every minute of it.
> If ever there was an example of someone who believes his own bull****, it's the Ruddmeister.




Apparently Ross Gittens seems to believe this apparent 'bull' and for those of you have been following his articles for many years would know that he has swung toward the right previously yet he is mostly an objective economics writer...
http://business.smh.com.au/business/stimulus-strategy-sorted-down-to-a-t-20090529-bq7g.html?page=-1




Julia said:


> Do you think they are attempting to stimulate the economy with these dumb cash handouts which will provide a small tick upwards in the quarterly figures in terms of retail sales, or could they just be looking after their voter base?
> You seem like a Labor fan in which case you will only see what you want to.
> 
> There is one view that it would be sensible to let the unviable businesses fail, e.g. how much of taxpayer funds have repeatedly been channelled into propping up the unprofitable car industry?
> ...




These Dumb cash bonuses happen to be one of the only ways to instantly stimulate the economy. The moment those cheques enter your mailbox... i can bet that for most of the population, that stimulation would have entered into the economy instantly. Here is some basic year 12 economics for you... the use of these cash bonuses have 2 effects on the economy

- Increased Sentiment
- Multiplied Effect Flows

We all know of the almost instant boost in consumer sentiment from the cash hand outs. Together with the basic multiplier effect as the cash flows within the economy, the initial ~$20b would have probably had a total effect of ~$80bn running into the economy is the MPC was about 75% which is probably a decent approximation. So by the initial cash handout, Rudd was able to stimulate the economy by 80bn and not 20 in a matter of weeks.

Worthwhile infrastructure?? the Liberals had 12 years of economic prosperity yet still failed to bring about these infrastructure projects... what makes you think they would be able to run them out over night just because theres a recession??



GumbyLearner said:


> I agree Smurf. What a waste! Filling in the potholes would have a much better
> effect for the country.
> 
> You wonder why these politicians invent things like a "future" fund.
> ...




If you had bothered to read the article - http://business.smh.com.au/business/stimulus-strategy-sorted-down-to-a-t-20090529-bq7g.html?page=-1 
or even learn about the actual stimulus package, you would know that 1/3 of the stimulus is actually going towards those kind of things "Their stimulus spending has gone through three stages: first, the cash bonuses announced in October last year and in February this year;* second, the small "shovel-ready" capital works (on primary schools, road black spots, rail crossings, roof insulation and public housing)* announced in February; and, third, the larger and longer-term infrastructure projects (on road, rail, ports and broadband) announced in the budget."



Pappon said:


> By the way if your such a great economist you'd understand that speeding up infrastructure projects is a better way to stimulate economies during a recession rather than cash handouts.




Can you tell me how you would speed up the building of hospitals, roads, rail and ports in the matter of weeks... im sure construction starting within weeks would have extremely poor planning that would have greater long term consequences. These large scale infrastructure projects require months of planning before construction even starts.

Perhaps it is you guys that need the greater education before you start questioning my economics major... like i said in my previous post, get more education before you blame the govt for everything!


----------



## jono1887 (31 May 2009)

Largesse said:


> Thats a big call mate....
> I see plenty of educated responses on various topics every day on this forum.
> 
> Sure you don't want to retract that?




Ok, perhaps in this thread.... i retract my previous statement


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> Perhaps it is you guys that need the greater education before you start questioning my economics major... like i said in my previous post, get more education before you blame the govt for everything!




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2551275.htm

Below in red is a quote from a *QUALIFIED* economist argue with that someone who KNOWS MORE THAN YOU  

The Federal Government has spent just under $21 billion on cash handouts as part of its two economic stimulus packages.

But the IMF's chief economist, Olivier Blanchard, has told ABC1's 7:30 Report that speeding up infrastructure projects is a better way to stimulate economies during a recession.

:


----------



## Largesse (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:
			
		

> Perhaps it is you guys that need the greater education before you start questioning my economics major... like i said in my previous post, get more education before you blame the govt for everything!




hilarious.


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

Beej said:


> If you were such a great economist you might understand that major infrastructure projects can take up to 2 years to get going from the decision to spend some money on something, due to the need for project definition, tender process, then actual ramp up, design/construction etc. And the thing with trying to fiscally stimulate an economy in a downturn is you are meant to hit the stimulus FAST initially - the earlier in the downturn cycle the better, hence the cash payments.
> 
> one key work you overlooked *speeding *up infastructure projects
> 
> ...




Have a look at the mess the NSW state was in PRIOR to the economic meltdown do you honestly still believe they are qualified to run this nation you guys are fools who sell themselves to the devil. 
The only people i know that vote for labor are dole bludgers who don't want to work and get this country going. 

The labor government has now changed salary sacrificing laws so that any salary sacrificing into super will now be included as income tax? 
How can you do that to  HARD WORKING people that are doing the right thing to try to create themselves a life that when they retire they do not depend on the on the government. HARD WORKING PEOPLE ALWAYS come under the hammer with labor. 

*Labor creates a life for people with no incentive to work hard.*

Liberals had unemployment at record lows labor had unemployment in the 90s reccession at 10-11% plus a 96 billion debt level. I had to see both of your financial situations Jono and Beej if you think debts and high unemployment levels are the way to go, you guys are kidding yourselves. 

YOU Beej you were around when interest rates were 18% in the 90s how someone can go through that and not learn is beyond me you really (i'm sorry for the insult there is really no other better word) are a fool


----------



## jono1887 (31 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/04/23/2551275.htm
> 
> Below in red is a quote from a *QUALIFIED* economist argue with that someone who KNOWS MORE THAN YOU
> 
> ...




notice the article also states - "Typically with these type of measures, is that it takes so long to actually get them going that by the time you put them in place, the recession is gone,"

but Rudd has still placed 2/3 of his stimulus package into those measures... but by giving out the cash handouts, its an instant boost into the economy


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> notice the article also states - "Typically with these type of measures, is that it takes so long to actually get them going that by the time you put them in place, the recession is gone,"
> 
> but Rudd has still placed 2/3 of his stimulus package into those measures... but by giving out the cash handouts, its an instant boost into the economy




The article also states you overlooked a key word *speeding up*
Wasn't the majority of payments SAVED :bonk: yeh that will stimulate


----------



## jono1887 (31 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> The article also states you overlooked a key word *speeding up*
> Wasn't the majority of payments SAVED :bonk: yeh that will stimulate




I think by looking at the retail figures for the quarter after that last cash handout, its more than obvious that a large proportion was spent :


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I think by looking at the retail figures for the quarter after that last cash handout, its more than obvious that a large proportion was spent :




Post them up and provide a comparison for the last 2 years


----------



## Largesse (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I think by looking at the retail figures for the quarter after that last cash handout, its more than obvious that a large proportion was spent :




China and Japan will be so happy banking all our stimulus dollars


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I think by looking at the retail figures for the quarter after that last cash handout, its more than obvious that a large proportion was spent :




C'mon where are they are you currently searching around via google because you don't know what they were?


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I think by looking at the retail figures for the quarter after that last cash handout, its more than obvious that a large proportion was spent :




I thought you knew them off the top of your head i've been waiting 20 mins for these figures.


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I think by looking at the retail figures for the quarter after that last cash handout, its more than obvious that a large proportion was spent :




30 minutes where are the figures?


----------



## Julia (31 May 2009)

This is somewhat of a tangent to the above discussion, but relevant to the ethics of governments.

Remember the announcement in the Budget that contributions to Super would be limited to, I think, half the amount it's been to date?  And the Henry review is considering raising the preservation age to 67 in line with the increased pension eligibility age.   

An article in today's paper describes how a non- reported clause was inserted into the budget ensuring that MP's are immune from any such measures.
Their Super is a defined benefit scheme, meaning they get a guaranteed lifetime payment.  The taxpayer might not realise that we are contributing over 15% to the pollies' Super, in contrast to the 9% for the population at large.

And if the GFC continues to reduce value of shares etc, then that's just fine for politicians, doesn't affect them at all, because they've written up the legislation to ensure the loyal taxpayer just makes up the difference to their defined benefit level.

And they surely don't have to work till 67 to access these benefits.


----------



## Beej (31 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> Have a look at the mess the NSW state was in PRIOR to the economic meltdown do you honestly still believe they are qualified to run this nation you guys are fools who sell themselves to the devil.
> The only people i know that vote for labor are dole bludgers who don't want to work and get this country going.




Well that's a stale state government that has been in power for too long. Just like when Howard/Liberals stayed in too long at federal level, they became just as reckless/useless.



> The labor government has now changed salary sacrificing laws so that any salary sacrificing into super will now be included as income tax?




You really need to get your facts straight. What they have done is changed the maximum amount that can be salary sacrificed. For most people it's reduced from $50k to $25k - which is still quite lot. Salary sacrificing huge amounts into super and being taxed at only 15% is the greatest high income earner/executive tax reduction trick/rort out there! Not such a bad thing to limit that a bit more than Howard/Costello did.



> How can you do that to  HARD WORKING people that are doing the right thing to try to create themselves a life that when they retire they do not depend on the on the government. HARD WORKING PEOPLE ALWAYS come under the hammer with labor.
> 
> Labor creates a life for people with no incentive to work hard.




So basically this comment is just a biased political crap rant based on a false premise because you are WRONG in your understanding of what has been changed re super salary sacrifice contribution limits.

I find generalisations like the above to be an indication of a one eyed politically biased person who rarely objectively looks at the actual facts behind any issues.



> Liberals had unemployment at record lows labor had unemployment in the 90s reccession at 10-11% plus a 96 billion debt level. I had to see both of your financial situations Jono and Beej if you think debts and high unemployment levels are the way to go, you guys are kidding yourselves.




Nice straw man. For a start, Hawke/Keating were left with a HUGE budget deficit and national debt by - you guessed it - John W Howard who was the treasurer in the Fraser Liberal government that was in power until 1983. The following LABOR government brought the budget back into surplus and paid down large amounts of the debt. Unemployment was also at 10% and was brought down to about 6%. So reducing debt, creating budget surpluses from deficit and reducing unemployment are by no means the exclusive domain of the Liberal governments! What's more up until 1996 when Howard got in unemployment and the budget deficits were steadily shrinking already (under the Keating LABOR government) as the country recovered from the 1991/92 recession.



> YOU Beej you were around when interest rates were 18% in the 90s how someone can go through that and not learn is beyond me you really (i'm sorry for the insult there is really no other better word) are a fool




What should I have learnt exactly according to you? I think only a fool would exclusively blame the government of the day or even a particular political party for all the economic woes of the world. Clearly (as seen by the current GFC!) economics is just not that simple, unless you have a very simple mind....

Here's what I learnt: Due to the huge structural changes in the economy and the macro-economic reforms of the Hawke/Keating years, post the 90s recession Australia was able to move out of the previous high inflation environment of the 70s/80s that was responsible for the environment in which 18% interest rates were possible, into a new prolonged period of low inflation/low interest rates and high economic growth., where 18% interest rates were now a virtual impossibility.

Now to their credit Howard/Costello did well to capitalise on this and keep the reforms going (to a lesser extent though) through their time in power helping to deliver a golden period for Australia (with a lot of help from the Chinese driven commodities boom of course!). Just a pity they didn't really bank the proceeds of that and set us up even better for the current malaise. Instead we are left with a structural commonwealth budget problem because as Tony Abbot admitted a few weeks ago the whole Howard/Costello fiscal management philosophy was based around the idea of "Magic Pudding" economics!

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## jono1887 (31 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> 30 minutes where are the figures?




I'm sorry if i dont wait around on these forums for a reply... i do have other stuff to do... but here there are - 

"Consumers spent a record $19.3 billion in March when the government started rolling out billions of dollars in its second round of cash handouts.

This was a seasonally adjusted 2.2 per cent increase in spending compared to February, and much stronger than the 0.5 per cent increase forecast by economists"

"Australian Bureau of Statistics figures during the week put the jump in overall retail sales for December compared with a month earlier at 3.8 per cent. The strongest performers were household goods (up 9.9 per cent), department stores (up 8.3 per cent) and clothing and manchester (up 5.8 per cent)."

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1017438/Retail-rises-'thanks-to-stimulus-package'
http://business.theage.com.au/busin...package-sets-tills-ringing-20090206-800l.html

happy now?


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Remember the announcement in the Budget that contributions to Super would be limited to, I think, half the amount it's been to date?  And the Henry review is considering raising the preservation age to 67 in line with the increased pension eligibility age.





I have a friend who's wife is a stay at home mum they receive centrelink benefits ontop of his wage. Currently he salary sacrifices some of his pay into his his super and currently until 30 June means that his salary sacrificing into super is not classed as income tax.

As of the 1st of July this salary sacrificing he would have been doing is now classed at income tax which reduces their payments. My friend makes $35k per year and still gets the **** which is not fair at all, he's a hard worker and now because of how labor has changed the laws with salary sacrificing into super he's worse off oh and did i mention he earns 35k per year.

This is a low income worker trying his best to make ends meet and look out for his future, it's not right.

Governments IMO as instilled to do the best for the masses Labor never does this IMO


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I'm sorry if i dont wait around on these forums for a reply... i do have other stuff to do... but here there are -
> 
> "Consumers spent a record $19.3 billion in March when the government started rolling out billions of dollars in its second round of cash handouts.
> 
> ...




*No i said state a comparison for the last 2 years earlier* "Consumers spent a record $19.3 billion in March when the government started rolling out billions of dollars in its second round of cash handouts. the 'record' could have been up by only $1 from last year STATE a comparison to see the whole picture. Compare it with the same month for the last 2 years running. Also while i'm at it isn't December/christmas an obligatory time to spend for our loved ones of course retail sales will be up


----------



## Julia (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I
> 
> "Australian Bureau of Statistics figures during the week put the jump in overall retail sales for December compared with a month earlier at 3.8 per cent. The strongest performers were household goods (up 9.9 per cent), department stores (up 8.3 per cent) and clothing and manchester (up 5.8 per cent)."



How about a comparison with December in previous years (adjusted for inflation of course)?   Wouldn't the retail sales level have been higher in December than November anyway, due to people buying Christmas gifts?

And if there was in fact a 3.8% jump just for December, what's the long term benefit of that?  There's a one off splat in the figures and then nothing.

Yes, infrastructure projects do take longer but provide ongoing benefits.

I love the way you suggest the cash splash had the benefit of "increased consumer sentiment" (or some similar expression).
Imo the translation of this is that your average Aussie said to themselves:
"Hey, ain't Mr Rudd a great bloke!   We'll go on telling the pollsters how much we like him, and we'll be voting for him again at the next election."

I guess that's definitely increased consumer sentiment and just what the government had in mind.


----------



## Largesse (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I'm sorry if i dont wait around on these forums for a reply... i do have other stuff to do... but here there are -
> 
> "Consumers spent a record $19.3 billion in March when the government started rolling out billions of dollars in its second round of cash handouts.
> 
> ...






are you happy with your response?

would your Economics Major Professor be happy with your response?

You failed to answer the question properly

You get 1/10.

F


----------



## gav (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> I'm sorry if i dont wait around on these forums for a reply... i do have other stuff to do... but here there are -
> 
> "Consumers spent a record $19.3 billion in March when the government started rolling out billions of dollars in its second round of cash handouts.
> 
> ...




That may be a huge jump from normal month to month sales, but it's a relatively small amount considering how much was handed out!

Also notice the strongest performers - household goods, department stores and clothing/manchester.  How many of these goods were Australian made?  The figure would be very low.  So where does that money go?  Overseas.  How does this help OUR economy?


----------



## Beej (31 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> I have a friend who's wife is a stay at home mum they receive centrelink benefits ontop of his wage. Currently he salary sacrifices some of his pay into his his super and currently until 30 June means that his salary sacrificing into super is not classed as income tax.
> 
> As of the 1st of July this salary sacrificing he would have been doing is now classed at income tax which reduces their payments. My friend makes $35k per year and still gets the **** which is not fair at all, he's a hard worker and now because of how labor has changed the laws with salary sacrificing into super he's worse off oh and did i mention he earns 35k per year.




Oh I see so what you are actually going on about is not the change to the AMOUNT of income that can be salary sacrificed into super, but the fact that whatever you do sacrifice is still deemed as "income" for the purposes of assessing eligibility to Centrelink and other means tested welfare benefits? 

Again, that is nothing but a tax rort and noone has any RIGHT to government money/welfare. If your friend is salary sacrificing into super in order to keep his taxable income down so he/his family can get welfare, well boo-bloody-hoo if he can no longer do that! As it is he is getting a discounted tax rate of only 15% on the super contributions, and in addition he/you expect the government to keep giving him even MORE money through welfare?

And you call yourself a Liberal supporter! This change is totally fair and stops people like your friend from rorting the welfare system unfairly.



gav said:


> That may be a huge jump from normal month to month sales, but it's a relatively small amount considering how much was handed out!
> 
> Also notice the strongest performers - household goods, department stores and clothing/manchester.  How many of these goods were Australian made?  The figure would be very low.  So where does that money go?  Overseas.  How does this help OUR economy?




Hey Gav - fair points and these are the main criticisms of cash stimulus.  But remember it may take many months for that stimulus cash to work it's way out of peoples pockets.... having said that it is a clear a large proportion of it will be saved for a rainy day, and/or spent on imported goods. 

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## jono1887 (31 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> *No i said state a comparison for the last 2 years earlier* "Consumers spent a record $19.3 billion in March when the government started rolling out billions of dollars in its second round of cash handouts. the 'record' could have been up by only $1 from last year STATE a comparison to see the whole picture. Compare it with the same month for the last 2 years running. Also while i'm at it isn't December/christmas an obligatory time to spend for our loved ones of course retail sales will be up




December 2007 - $18.1bn
December 2008 - $19.1bn

January 2008 - $18.1bn
January 2009 - $19.2bn

February 2008 - $18.1bn
February 2009 - $18.9bn

March 2008 - $18.1bn
March 2009 - $19.3bn

The cash hand outs boosted sales by 1bn in comparison to the previous year. But you have to remember back in 2007/8 no one had a care in the world and everyone was happy to spend. Being able to maintain and increase the spending by ~1bn consistently over 4 months in a period of impeding recession and a GFC was probably beneficial to the economy, rather than seeing retail spending contract...

*figures are from RBA - http://www.rba.gov.au/Statistics/AlphaListing/alpha_listing_r.html


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

Largesse said:


> are you happy with your response?
> 
> would your Economics Major Professor be happy with your response?
> 
> ...




ROFL!


----------



## jono1887 (31 May 2009)

Also note that spending in March was greater than in December for the last 2 years.... doesnt that tell you that alot there was a lot of spending, considering they surpassed Christmas levels??


----------



## jono1887 (31 May 2009)

Largesse said:


> are you happy with your response?
> 
> would your Economics Major Professor be happy with your response?
> 
> ...




If you havnt noticed, we're on a forum.... i wasnt aware that i was sitting an economics exam here


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

Beej said:


> that is nothing but a tax rort
> It's currently legal there's nothing wrong with what he's doing, under a labor government he's worst off and that's the argument that YOU should take from this LABOR is no good




Who does Labor help hey? They don't help business they don't help high income earners and from my example they don't help low income workers who WANTS to work harder for less, who do they help huh?

Labor only helps the prolong the RUDD RECCESION lol


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> December 2007 - $18.1bn
> December 2008 - $19.1bn
> 
> 
> ...




Exceptional an increase of $1 billion from how much was handed out over Christmas 10.4 billion *can anybody help me with my maths here:*
1 billion divided by 10.4 billion  = 0.096% so lets round that figure up for you lets say 10% so what happend to the 90% seems like a waste to me


----------



## jono1887 (31 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> Exceptional an increase of $1 billion from how much was handed out over Christmas 10.4 billion *can anybody help me with my maths here:*
> 1 billion divided by 10.4 billion  = 0.096% so lets round that figure up for you lets say 10% so what happend to the 90% seems like a waste to me




You have to realise that last 2007 = no recession, 2008 = recession
a significant decrease should have been anticipated, but was prevented by the cash handouts, that is something that cannot be seen in the figures.


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> You have to realise that last 2007 = no recession, 2008 = recession
> a significant decrease should have been anticipated, but was prevented by the cash handouts, that is something that cannot be seen in the figures.




Fine i gave you 0.04% i will round it back down 0.096%  obviously you can't understand 0.096% is P-A-T-H-E-T-I-C. Prevented what don't you understand 0.096% was spent, which means 0.904% was NOT spent, oh my god 

"NO SOUP FOR YOU!"


----------



## Julia (31 May 2009)

Beej said:


> Again, that is nothing but a tax rort and noone has any RIGHT to government money/welfare. If your friend is salary sacrificing into super in order to keep his taxable income down so he/his family can get welfare, well boo-bloody-hoo if he can no longer do that! As it is he is getting a discounted tax rate of only 15% on the super contributions, and in addition he/you expect the government to keep giving him even MORE money through welfare?



I also agree with this change.   The welfare bill is extraordinary, partly because of too many opportunities to reduce taxable income.


----------



## Julia (31 May 2009)

jono1887 said:


> December 2007 - $18.1bn
> December 2008 - $19.1bn
> 
> January 2008 - $18.1bn
> ...



Are these figures inflation adjusted?


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

Julia said:


> Are these figures inflation adjusted?




Most probably not as it will instill a greater sense achievement for labor supporters :burn:

If you haven't got me by now let it be known i hate labor and there supporters.

I AM A NEO LIBERAL :vader: hehe


----------



## Largesse (31 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> Exceptional an increase of $1 billion from how much was handed out over Christmas 10.4 billion *can anybody help me with my maths here:*
> 1 billion divided by 10.4 billion  = 0.096% so lets round that figure up for you lets say 10% so what happend to the 90% seems like a waste to me




i know it's just a typo but 1000000000 / 10400000000 equals 0.096, which is 9.6% not 0.096%


----------



## Pappon (31 May 2009)

Largesse said:


> i know it's just a typo but 1000000000 / 10400000000 equals 0.096, which is 9.6% not 0.096%




Sorry matey your right i put it as a decimal and added a % your right 0.096 = 9.6%


----------



## legs (31 May 2009)

We recieved stimulus payment for a child that we were recieving Family Tax A for even thouhg we made a mistake and weren't entitled to it. We contacted them and they said we cant have it taken off us and will never.

WRONG SYSTEM


----------



## Beej (31 May 2009)

Pappon said:


> Who does Labor help hey? They don't help business they don't help high income earners and from my example they don't help low income workers who WANTS to work harder for less, who do they help huh?
> 
> Labor only helps the prolong the RUDD RECCESION lol




What crap.

Don't help business? Hello! The cash stimulus package is a BOON for heaps of Aussie businesses, small and large. As is the 50% tax rebate/allowance on business capital purchases thanks. How about the 30% company tax rate? I think that was initially a Labor government reform wasn't it??

Don't help high income earners? Well, I'm not sure they are supposed too, but I'm sure they are not complaining about the juicy tax cut they all get from July 1st this year. Also they were nice enough to keep measures like a non means tested 50% child care rebate in place (a move which actually surprised me under current circumstances), and that benefits a heap of high income people as well.

So Pappon, you clearly have no clue and base your views on irrational one-eyed political bias instead of actually analysing the facts of the situation. I guess that's the difference between a dyed in the wool Liberal supporter and a swinging voter.....

PS: My biggest criticisms of the current government are around the rush to put the emissions trading scheme legislation in place, the seeming lack of planning behind the cash stimulus and resulting stuff ups (but I understand why they did it that way). And finally the ill considered changes (that they are now backing down from) related to the tax treatment of employee share schemes - that was a really dumb one that if it goes ahead will result in less tax for the government instead of more as they will kill off all such schemes as they currently exist.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 June 2009)

Beej said:


> If you were such a great economist you might understand that major infrastructure projects can take up to 2 years to get going from the decision to spend some money on something, due to the need for project definition, tender process, then actual ramp up, design/construction etc.



If it wasn't for all the downsizing / outsourcing / privatisation of the past two decades then step 1 would already be done and step 2 simply wouldn't be needed at all. 

So change that "2 years" to "a few months" without all the nonsense. How long would it take us to plan and ramp up for a military war, bushfire / flood / earthquake response or any other sudden emergency?

The answer is a LOT less than 2 years simply because in an emergency, things get done. And the economic situation is an emergency, so cut the red tape, lawyers and so on COMPLETELY out of the process, thus leaving us with engineers and construction workers. You'd be amazed how quickly things happen in that situation.

How long does it take to plan, tender and so on a rail line? I don't really know but it looks like taking about 6 weeks from the idea to finished construction following the emergency situation at the moment in Tas. 

Lots of examples like that. Try demolishing a building and you'll spend months or even years arguing with councils, contractors and so on. Set it on fire and you'll have approval to remove the remains before the fire is even out.

How long does it take to build a power station? Depends on the type but normally the first 1 - 3 years are spent arguing about it, getting approvals and so on. But given a credible threat of the lights actually going out, even the Greens come on side to ram the project straight past all the red tape not in months, but in literally minutes. Things get done in emergencies. Always have and (hopefully) always will. 

For the record, I've spent my entire working life in and around infrastructure (electrical, transport) and seen plenty of things built. It's the red tape and arguing, not design and construction, that holds things up. As long as you've got competent people doing the design and construction then it's not at all impossible, or even unusual, to be doing physical construction before it's fully designed. As I said, it works as long as everyone is competent and not working under contract.


----------



## Calliope (13 June 2009)

*Schools infrastructure fund under fire*

Article from:  The Australian


> THE federal government's $14.7 billion school infrastructure program has been attacked as a "fake education revolution" that delivers funds without assessing whether they are being used to help students' learning.
> 
> Leading education analysts described the spending as a lost opportunity overseen by a minister too busy to focus properly on education, with its primary aim not education, but politics and the next election.




http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25628853-601,00.html

The problem is that they want to spend the money in a hurry. If they ploughed a few billion into teacher education, if would improve education standards far more than spending the money on infrastructure.


----------



## Julia (13 June 2009)

I agree absolutely.  Teacher training, at least in Qld, is very poor indeed.

So careless has been the government about how these funds have been dispersed, they've been received by several schools which are about to be demolished.  A bit like the $900 payments that went to deceased estates.

Such ill considered spending for the sake of it would be bad enough if it were coming from a substantial surplus, but when the funds are being borrowed it really horrifies me.


----------

