# The Wasteful Liberals



## IFocus (11 January 2013)

Some thing everyone already knows but the spin machines work over time to paper over



Hey, big spender: Howard the king of the loose purse strings



> AUSTRALIA'S most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found.






Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...rse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html#ixzz2HbyDKpN4


----------



## orr (11 January 2013)

59 Abrahams M1 tanks... They'll come in handy for something.

Gifts of multi million$$ Rugby league stadiums that are used as intended but a few times a year, whilst in their immediate precincts pensioners can't get up or down from foot path to road on a mobility chair for lack of a layback.

Wasted lives on a debauched anti drug crusade.

Billions in public money to unsustainable car manufacturing with no R&D covenants

Ahh the aspirational glory days... Soon to return?


----------



## Bushman (11 January 2013)

The small print

'The Rudd government's stimulus spending during the financial crisis doesn't rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy.' 

Just sayin'


----------



## AAA (11 January 2013)

At least they spent money they had.


----------



## sails (11 January 2013)

So, if the liberals are wasteful in your opinion, IF, where does that leave labor?

They inherited about 20 billion in cash only 5 years ago and are now about *$260 billion in debt* with annual interest running around *$12 billion*.

And what about the waste in pink batts, over priced school halls and tuckshops, billions being spent on boat arrivals which the PM is unable or won't fix.  There is a long list of labor waste.

It seems you are simply trolling with this thread header, IF.  Labor's waste is far more horrific than any waste I have ever seen under the libs.  

Definition of internet trolling:



> *In Internet slang, a troll (pron.: /ˈtroʊl/, /ˈtrɒl/) is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response...*




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_(Internet)


----------



## tech/a (11 January 2013)

Adelaide State labor 

$2 billion on a Desal plant.
Now Mothballed---we dont use it.

Liberal---waste???

All governments bleed $$s.


----------



## sails (11 January 2013)

Clearly, IF is trying to make labor's waste not look so bad...

How's this for waste?  *19 *schools measuring 3m x 8m (barely bigger than a cubby house) and costing between $550,000 and $600,000 each.  What a rip off and horrendous waste from LABOR.

And yet the government is risking kids being put into more poverty simply to save around $170 million per year over 4 years and yet threw many times more than that at these miniature and rather useless buildings.  



> BARELY bigger than a cubby house, canteens built under the federal government's schools stimulus scheme are costing taxpayers $25,000 a square metre.
> 
> In NSW, *19* of the school tuckshops measuring *3m x 8m *will cost between $550,000 and $600,000 each.




Read more: $550,000 canteen too small for a pie warmer 



And this $600,000 dolls house for a canteen?





Read more: $600,000 school tuckshops are 'unusable'


----------



## Bushman (11 January 2013)

tech/a said:


> Adelaide State labor
> 
> $2 billion on a Desal plant.
> Now Mothballed---we dont use it.
> ...




We have one of those in Vic now thanks to Labor. Not to forget our great Myki system ... 

Almost wish that we had adopted the NSW Labor system where all the political effort was spent on allegedly enriching the Obeid family.


----------



## IFocus (11 January 2013)

tech/a said:


> Adelaide State labor
> 
> $2 billion on a Desal plant.
> Now Mothballed---we dont use it.
> ...




State Labor built the 1st one here in WA Libs built the 2nd one and expanded and we still don't have enough water?


----------



## IFocus (11 January 2013)

Bushman said:


> The small print
> 
> 'The Rudd government's stimulus spending during the financial crisis doesn't rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy.'
> 
> Just sayin'




Mining shed 19% of its work force during the GFC how do you think it would have gone if retail and construction did the same?


----------



## IFocus (11 January 2013)

Howard in the last election campaign was throwing money around like a drunken sailor, indeed he was wasteful


----------



## Calliope (11 January 2013)

You are certainly trolling. As you were when you said that to call Gillard a liar was a lie. You make a practice of making statements, you know are not true, simply as provocation.


----------



## macca (11 January 2013)

I would agree that the libs splashed the cash in the later years. 

After paying down the huge debt incurred by Labor I think they were entitled to spend a bit to appease their supporters who had gone without while the debt was repaid.

The amazing waste of Labor since taking power is totally opposite, badly overdone and poorly aimed stimulation which has saddled the next generation with our debt so that Labor can look good.

Don't they like their own kids ?


----------



## Intrinsic Value (11 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> You are certainly trolling. As you were when you said that to call Gillard a liar was a lie. You make a practice of making statements, you know are not true, simply as provocation.




All governments waste money but according to the IMF the Howard Govt was the worst.

We are still saddled with his middle class welfare hand outs that are unsustainable. So I am not sure who the troll is here?

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/howard-rejects-imfs-big-spender-tag-20130111-2ck3z.html


----------



## IFocus (11 January 2013)

Calliope said:


> You are certainly trolling. As you were when you said that to call Gillard a liar was a lie. You make a practice of making statements, you know are not true, simply as provocation.




Gillard broke a promise or undertaking that is not a lie if it is then Howard was the biggest liar ever remember non core promises?

There are many here who are concerned with some of the English mistakes made by other posters who don't seen to understand this simple point.  

Of course if the correct English was applied to Gillard then that would make Abbott the liar wouldn't it?................deafening silence.


----------



## McLovin (11 January 2013)

Find me a government that doesn't waste money.

They all do it. Labor spent billions on insulation and overpriced sheds, the Libs weaned middle class families on to welfare.

Different animal, same ****.

The way some people carry on about Labor you'd think the Libs were running some sort of laissez-faire economy, the reality is that they more or less were the same. I think you're kidding yourself if you think the Libs would have done much different through the last five years.


----------



## sptrawler (11 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Some thing everyone already knows but the spin machines work over time to paper over
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes I had a chuckle at that graph primary surplus steady(blue), debt, reducing(red). 
Then the nice kick up at the end when Labor get in.
Wasn't it the IMF that told the government to splurge and named Swan treasurer of the year.
It just shows if you keep looking you can find a statistic to support the most whacky garbage.LOL


----------



## IFocus (11 January 2013)

macca said:


> I would agree that the libs splashed the cash in the later years.
> 
> After paying down the huge debt incurred by Labor I think they were entitled to spend a bit to appease their supporters who had gone without while the debt was repaid.
> 
> ...




The stimulus was $40bil the other debt is the shortfall in revenue growth. 

Spending growth under Howard was more that 3% (I stand corrected on the correct number but it was high)
Revenue growth was through the roof plus the biggest asset sales in the countries history (hope you didn't buy T2).

Under Swan outside of stimulus spending, growth has been held at 2% or less all most unprecedented.

If the government of the day were to reduce spending arrrla Hockey / Abbott claims then enter mini fiscal cliff.

Rudd let through the last tax breaks (mistake) further reducing revenue.

GDP has continued to expand at 2% or greater costs grow accordingly.

When the Coalition get in nothing will change repeat nothing will change .......sorry the spin will change.


----------



## moXJO (11 January 2013)

Oh no libs gave us tax cuts how dare they
Anyway here is a breakdown of spending and what howard wasted it on.
http://www.percapita.org.au/_dbase_upl/After%20the%20Party_Final4.pdf


----------



## Intrinsic Value (11 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Find me a government that doesn't waste money.
> 
> They all do it. Labor spent billions on insulation and overpriced sheds, the Libs weaned middle class families on to welfare.
> 
> ...




Good point. In any case they use the same economic advisors so same result imho.


----------



## sails (11 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> ... I think you're kidding yourself if you think the Libs would have done much different through the last five years.




Libs running up $260 billion in debt with a $12 billion annual interest charge?  Sorry ML, but it is you that has to be kidding...lol

And would they have built so many tuckshops the size of cubby houses?  While they would have likely done something for the GFC to help stimulate the economy, I don't they would have gone for the overkill that labor did.

And our borders would likely still be secure - that alone would have saved $6 billion.

No, they are NOT alike - that is very fanciful thinking on your part!!  Is it an attempt to try and gloss over the horrific fiscal management of the last five years?


----------



## McLovin (11 January 2013)

sails said:


> Libs running up $260 billion in debt with a $12 billion annual interest charge?  Sorry ML, but it is you that has to be kidding...lol




Meh, the current government takes in less revenue as a % of GDP than the previous government. 



sails said:


> Is it an attempt to try and gloss over the horrific fiscal management of the last five years?




Do you automatically assume anyone who doesn't share your narrow view of the world is somehow trying to play for the other team?

Half the time it's not even worth commenting on these sort of threads because of moronic responses like this. 

I haven't tried to gloss over anything. You need to take your blinkers off once in a while and realise that just because someone doesn't think the Libs are the superheros of the universe means that they think the ALP is.


----------



## Julia (11 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> just because someone doesn't think the Libs are the superheros of the universe means that they think the ALP is.



This applies to both 'sides' from the rusted on disciples of both Liberal and Labor.
Sadly, all governments indulge in spin and wasteful spending to buy votes.
This behaviour has become the norm, it seems.
If only it were not a forlorn hope to wish that a government could act in the best interests of the population it was elected to serve.


----------



## MrBurns (11 January 2013)

tech/a said:


> Adelaide State labor
> 
> $2 billion on a Desal plant.
> Now Mothballed---we dont use it.
> ...




Thats small beer, here in Vic we have to pay $1Billion a year for 15 years or something like that for our desal plant which has never been switched on.

Oh sorry $20 billion over 30 years......

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ain-on-taxpayers/story-fn59niix-1226013811990


----------



## drsmith (12 January 2013)

Fiscal management by the latter years of the Howard Government was poor, but in comparison, Labor since has been shocking.

The main difference is that The Coalition prefers to hand it back to the taxpayer whereas Labor prefers to waste it directly themselves.

The latter is worse in my view.


----------



## sails (12 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Fiscal management by the latter years of the Howard Government was poor, but in comparison, Labor since has been shocking.
> 
> The main difference is that The Coalition prefers to hand it back to the taxpayer whereas Labor prefers to waste it directly themselves.
> 
> The latter is worse in my view.




And I don't get all the bleating about middle class welfare.  Instead of giving across the board tax cuts to the middle class, I understand the "welfare" the left go on about is effectively lowering the tax rate a bit for those with children while keeping it at a higher level for those without the expense of children.

Some couples without children and where both have high paying jobs clearly don't have the expenses of raising a family.  

However, it seems to be a convenient thing for the left to bleat on about middle class welfare.  If I am wrong, I am sure I will be told in no uncertain terms...


----------



## McLovin (12 January 2013)

Julia]This applies to both 'sides' from the rusted on disciples of both Liberal and Labor.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely said:


> And I don't get all the bleating about middle class welfare.  Instead of giving across the board tax cuts to the middle class, I understand the "welfare" the left go on about is effectively lowering the tax rate a bit for those with children while keeping it at a higher level for those without the expense of children.
> 
> Some couples without children and where both have high paying jobs clearly don't have the expenses of raising a family.




Why is it encumbent on me to pay for someone else's choices in life? Or inverted, why should someone have children and expect the taxpayer to pay for it?

"Lowering the tax rate a bit" is quite an understatement.


----------



## sails (12 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Why is it encumbent on me to pay for someone else's choices in life? Or inverted, why should someone have children and expect the taxpayer to pay for it?




That's not what I said...!!  AND I don't think the little bit of family tax or whatever they get would go anywhere near raising a child.  The parents would still be shouldering most of the expense.  It seems you have no idea of what really happens!

So you would rather that any middle class tax cuts go across the board rather than find a means to keep tax higher for those who can more easily afford it and, instead of giving a tax cut, they give some back to middle class with families who would not have as much disposable income as the DINKs?

I thought our tax system was based on income.  Those with little income get more government support - perhaps you don't like that either. There is a big difference in disposable income between middle class DINKs and those with children possibility where only one parent works anyway.

I don't see it as a hand out, it seems it is a means of allowing tax cuts to families rather than to middle income DINKs who probably have it pretty good.  I know such a couple who are still quite young and they already live in several properties.  Good on them and that's their choice, but why should they get the same tax cuts as those raising families, paying for education (helping with skilled workers in the future) and creating the next generation of Aussies?

I don't think you get my point at all!  I shouldn't have to keep spelling it out...


----------



## drsmith (12 January 2013)

The fundamental problem with the increases in so-called middle class welfare is that the primary reason it was doshed out was to buy swinging voters.

Efficiency in tax transfer and the longer term ramifications were a very distant second.


----------



## sails (12 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> The fundamental problem with the increases in so-called middle class welfare is that the primary reason it was doshed out was to buy swinging voters.
> 
> Efficiency in tax transfer and the longer term ramifications were a very distant second.





so labor are unlikely to change it?  They've had five years (and a couple of years with a friendly senate) to correct anything they didn't like under Howard.  Although that's a bit scary when you think of the mess they have made of border control and other things such as pink batts and BER.

I


----------



## McLovin (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> That's not what I said...!!  AND I don't think the little bit of family tax or whatever they get would go anywhere near raising a child.  The parents would still be shouldering most of the expense.  It seems you have no idea of what really happens!




It's not supposed to raise a child. If you want kids, you pay for them, not me.

Median income is ~$67k. Tax on that would be $13,300. FTB A for two kids would be $4,100. That's 30% less tax than a couple on the same income with no children. 



			
				sails said:
			
		

> So you would rather that any middle class tax cuts go across the board rather than find a means to keep tax higher for those who can more easily afford it




Yes. Someone who has decided not to have children and with the extra money plan to retire earlier or go traveling or just sit at home and play X Box is punished by the tax system. Whether they can afford to pay tax or can't is irrelevant, the tax system should be fair.



> I thought our tax system was based on income.




It should be. Two people doing the same job getting the same pay should pay the same amount in tax. 





			
				drsmith said:
			
		

> The fundamental problem with the increases in so-called middle class welfare is that the primary reason it was doshed out was to buy swinging voters.
> 
> Efficiency in tax transfer and the longer term ramifications were a very distant second.




Exactly



			
				sails said:
			
		

> so labor are unlikely to change it? They've had five years (and a couple of years with a friendly senate) to correct anything they didn't like under Howard. Although that's a bit scary when you think of the mess they have made of border control and other things such as pink batts and BER.




Why would Labor change it? This is Labor policy 101; taking from Peter to pay Paul.


----------



## sails (12 January 2013)

McLovin - so you would also think that there should not be state schools either?  Why should your taxes pay for someone else's education?

And what about those on the dole - why should your tax be spent on them?

And what about the $6 billion spend on welfare for boat arrivals who have thousands of dollars to pay smugglers?


----------



## McLovin (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> McLovin - so you would also think that there should not be state schools either?  Why should your taxes pay for someone else's education?
> 
> And what about those on the dole - why should your tax be spent on them?




Yes, there should be state schools and the dole.


----------



## IFocus (12 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Fiscal management by the latter years of the Howard Government was poor, but in comparison, Labor since has been shocking.
> 
> The main difference is that *The Coalition prefers to hand it back to the taxpayer* whereas Labor prefers to waste it directly themselves.
> 
> The latter is worse in my view.






drsmith said:


> *The fundamental problem with the increases in so-called middle class welfare is that the primary reason it was doshed out was to buy swinging voters.*
> 
> Efficiency in tax transfer and the longer term ramifications were a very distant second.




Yes Howard was big on buying votes wasn't he?


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> Libs running up $260 billion in debt with a $12 billion annual interest charge?  Sorry ML, but it is you that has to be kidding...lol



The Libs sold off an awful lot of public assets (as Labor has also done).

Selling assets is much the same as borrowing money from a "big picture" perspective. It's sacrificing the future either way and both major parties are guilty in a big way.

Anyone in SA like to show me where the money is now from the privatisation of ETSA? The assets are gone and the state is once again practically broke. That's the wonders of privatisation for you - anyone with a shred of intelligence would have just kept the assets in public hands, thus retaining something of actual value rather than selling, blowing the cash and ending up with nothing left. 

The other states are on the same track too, I only mention SA because they're further down it than most of the rest. Victoria will be next.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> However, it seems to be a convenient thing for the left to bleat on about middle class welfare.  If I am wrong, I am sure I will be told in no uncertain terms...



It's the social engineering aspect many despise.

Encouraging those with limited finances to have children simply to grab the cash. How common it is is an arguable point, but it happens.

A woman I worked with not that long ago was not interested in working full time for a very simple reason. To work full time meant loss of benefits, such that's she'd effectively be working twice the hours for "free". That being so, sitting at home watching TV at the taxpayers' expense is the logical choice. Another example of the problems with welfare - the amount paid is so high that it's better than a paid job in some cases.


----------



## FlyingFox (12 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Find me a government that doesn't waste money.
> 
> They all do it. Labor spent billions on insulation and overpriced sheds, the Libs weaned middle class families on to welfare.
> 
> ...





+10.

No government today thinks past the next election. No one is willing to make the non-popular or difficult decisions.


----------



## drsmith (12 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Yes Howard was big on buying votes wasn't he?



What's that echo I hear from the 2007 election ?

Meee too ??

As I said, Labor is worse. They're trashing the shop for an extra 5-minutes behind the counter.


----------



## white_goodman (12 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Yes Howard was big on buying votes wasn't he?




this shows your world view, the govt owns all money and chooses to give it back when it chooses... letting people keep more of their own money isnt a tax subsidy.. only economic cretins who belief in govt money multiplier BS would think so. Plundering is plundering no matter what legal form it takes..

on your second highlight I would agree however


on a side note dont think politicians buying votes is a new phenomena started in 1996..

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."


----------



## sails (12 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's the social engineering aspect many despise.
> 
> Encouraging those with limited finances to have children simply to grab the cash. How common it is is an arguable point, but it happens.
> 
> A woman I worked with not that long ago was not interested in working full time for a very simple reason. To work full time meant loss of benefits, such that's she'd effectively be working twice the hours for "free". That being so, sitting at home watching TV at the taxpayers' expense is the logical choice. Another example of the problems with welfare - the amount paid is so high that it's better than a paid job in some cases.




Smurf, I am talking about the much complained about "middle class welfare" to those with families here, not those who can be on welfare simply by keep having children.

The middle class would pay a fair chunk of tax revenue, I would think, and so I don't see what's wrong with giving a bit back to those who need it more than those who don't have kids. These people are already paying tax so no-one else is paying them to get a bit back.


----------



## IFocus (12 January 2013)

white_goodman said:


> this shows your world view, the govt owns all money and chooses to give it back when it chooses...




Actually I think most of the time its treasury that decides where the money comes from and goes to politicians generally wouldn't have a clue more so on the current opposition front bench god help us when they get their fingers in the till.


----------



## FlyingFox (12 January 2013)

white_goodman said:


> this shows your world view, the govt owns all money and chooses to give it back when it chooses... letting people keep more of their own money isnt a tax subsidy.. only economic cretins who belief in govt money multiplier BS would think so. Plundering is plundering no matter what legal form it takes..




Isn't it the bond holder's that own all (well most of) the money :?



white_goodman said:


> "A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy."




Wow! Very insightful. Since you put in quotes, I am assuming you are quoting someone. How is that quote attributed to?


----------



## FlyingFox (12 January 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Isn't it the bond holder's that own all (well most of) the money :?
> 
> 
> 
> Wow! Very insightful. Since you put in quotes, I am assuming you are quoting someone. How is that quote attributed to?




Meant to say who is the quote attributed to?


----------



## sails (12 January 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Meant to say who is the quote attributed to?




FlyingFox - a quick copy and paste of the quote put into a google search and about 5 seconds later here is your answer:

http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler

and this:  http://www.markturner.net/2012/11/12/public-treasury-quote-is-bogus/

I hope the quote is not true - but it looks like Australia is heading down that path regardless of who actually may or may not have said it.


----------



## sptrawler (12 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Actually I think most of the time its treasury that decides where the money comes from and goes to politicians generally wouldn't have a clue more so on the current opposition front bench god help us when they get their fingers in the till.




Agree with that 100%, Swan had about as much knowledge about the economy as my ar$e had about snipe shooting.lol
I, like you think treasury give the government an indicator of the amount of money in the kitty.
The government gives treasury its spending priorities and it is then run through the economic modelling computer.
The problem is, Labor just kept feeding in crap for the first three years, since then they have been trying to plug the hole.


----------



## FlyingFox (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> FlyingFox - a quick copy and paste of the quote put into a google search and about 5 seconds later here is your answer:
> 
> http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler
> 
> ...




thanks. 

I am afraid it might not just be Australia......


----------



## sydboy007 (12 January 2013)

macca said:


> I would agree that the libs splashed the cash in the later years.
> 
> After paying down the huge debt incurred by Labor I think they were entitled to spend a bit to appease their supporters who had gone without while the debt was repaid.
> 
> ...




Considering:

33% of the Labor debt was bequeathed to them by the Fraser Govt and treasurer Howard

75% of the ~ 96B in debt was paid via asset sales - considering the low interest rates paid by the Govt I would argue that selling an asset that pays a higher rate of return than your funding costs is not particularly smart.

Lest we forget, Howard decided to keep on spending in the face of the RBA basically saying stop.  Inflation was heading to 4% and yet still the middle class welfare bribes kept flowing.  I'd have had more respect for the Guy if some of the spending had been used for lasting infrastructure, or just plonked into our super accounts.

Howard was a consummate politician, but don't for one minute hold him up as some paragon of economic efficiency.

If the current Labor Govt had been averaging the same % of tax revenue to GDP as Howard had received the deficits would largely not have occurred.  The highest level of tax revenue under the current Govt has never reached the lowest level under Howard, yet for some reason his supporters always say he represents small Govt.


----------



## sptrawler (12 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Considering:
> 
> 33% of the Labor debt was bequeathed to them by the Fraser Govt and treasurer Howard
> 
> ...




I agree with you completely, Sydboy

CBA floated   1991

Government sells Australian Airlines to Qantas  1992

Qantas floated 1993

CSL floated 1994 

Keating and the Labor government lost power to the Howard government in 1996. Leaves Howard with $96B deficit.
Am I missing something in your post? I wasn't sure who you were indicating sold off the assetts.

The $96B was inherited by Howard after the Labor assett sale .


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 January 2013)

sails said:


> Smurf, I am talking about the much complained about "middle class welfare" to those with families here, not those who can be on welfare simply by keep having children.
> 
> The middle class would pay a fair chunk of tax revenue, I would think, and so I don't see what's wrong with giving a bit back to those who need it more than those who don't have kids. These people are already paying tax so no-one else is paying them to get a bit back.



It could be argued that single people, for example, need it even more since apart from food and clothing, their household costs aren't much lower than for a couple and yet they must survive on just one income rather than two.

Should we have a higher rate of tax for couples versus singles? It would seem to be at least as justified, if not more, than assisting those with children.

My opinion on the whole issue, having worked in the state public service in the past, is that economic policies are more a case of "group think" than who is in government at the time. Take a look at whatever is happening in the UK or the USA and you'll find that Australian governments, both federal and state, follow suit pretty quickly. Once someone starts running a deficit then they all do it. Once someone proclaims the virtue of surpluses then everyone at least tries to get there. 

The notion of privatising public utilities comes largely from the UK, and that of outsourcing government works is copied partly from the "ministry model" from New Zealand. And in the specific case of electricity, the notion that a "market" with "competition" would work is a direct flow on from what happened under the Wran goverment in NSW three decades ago. Once someone does it, everyone copies - that's how governments work, they don't do much original thinking at all.

Back in the late 1980's, Cain (Labor) bankrupted Victoria. Meanwhile Grey (Liberal) did essentially the same in Tasmania. It's the overall group think of the era that counts, not who is actually in government at the time. As it stands today, there's a "slash and burn" Liberal National Party government in Queensland - and we've got a Labor-Green government in Tasmania that's been doing broadly the same thing since 2010. Again it's the overall circumstances and thinking, not who is in government, that sets the overall direction. The government itself just tinkers with the means of delivery.


----------



## McLovin (12 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> It could be argued that single people, for example, need it even more since apart from food and clothing, their household costs aren't much lower than for a couple and yet they must survive on just one income rather than two.




Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children. 

It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.
> 
> It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.



Agreed in principle. But I was thinking largely of those without children - a working couple is far better off than a single can ever hope to be if all other things are equal.

If we're going to redistribute wealth (not that I think we should by the way) then my point is that families with children aren't the logical choice of where to hand the money as a first priority. It is, however, a good way to buy votes.


----------



## sptrawler (12 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.
> 
> It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.




I think a lot of this child welfare is to do with the problem of falling birth rate.
It was to encourage working couples to have children and still be able to pay the mortgage, then rejoin the workforce.
As with all systems there are people who will exploit it. 
Actually I would love to see a chart showing the number of children verses the parents income.lol that would be interesting.
But guess what, there was a baby boom.lol
So maybe the 457's won't go on forever.
Just hope the next generation come through quick enough, before the 'make us all plebs' take over.


----------



## Julia (12 January 2013)

Smurf1976 said:


> It's the social engineering aspect many despise.
> 
> Encouraging those with limited finances to have children simply to grab the cash. How common it is is an arguable point, but it happens.



It's not that uncommon if my anecdotal experience of twelve or more years assessing people applying for emergency relief is any guide.

The greater problem here imo is that welfare like the baby bonus encourages breeding by those motivated just by the money and the resulting likelihood of more generations on welfare.
I'd be happy to see tax benefits going to families whose children will make the most of their educational and work opportunities and therefore contribute to the system, rather than those who are a drain on the taxpayer for their entire lives.



> A woman I worked with not that long ago was not interested in working full time for a very simple reason. To work full time meant loss of benefits, such that's she'd effectively be working twice the hours for "free". That being so, sitting at home watching TV at the taxpayers' expense is the logical choice. Another example of the problems with welfare - the amount paid is so high that it's better than a paid job in some cases.



Sure.  A single mother with four or five kids, especially if in public housing which they often are, is in a very financially advantageous situation.  I'm damned if I see why it should be so.



FlyingFox said:


> +10.
> 
> No government today thinks past the next election. No one is willing to make the non-popular or difficult decisions.



Agree overall, but perhaps Howard bringing in the GST was going some way toward this.



sails said:


> Smurf, I am talking about the much complained about "middle class welfare" to those with families here, not those who can be on welfare simply by keep having children.
> 
> The middle class would pay a fair chunk of tax revenue, I would think, and so I don't see what's wrong with giving a bit back to those who need it more than those who don't have kids. These people are already paying tax so no-one else is paying them to get a bit back.



So what's the point?   If you want to buy votes of the middle class, just tax them a bit less in the first place, rather than take the tax then hand it back.  (Not that I'm in favour of that either.)




McLovin said:


> Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.
> 
> It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.



+100.   Couldn't agree more.



Smurf1976 said:


> Agreed in principle. But I was thinking largely of those without children - a working couple is far better off than a single can ever hope to be if all other things are equal.



Correct.  Two incomes to pay the same non-discretionary household expenses.


----------



## FlyingFox (12 January 2013)

Not taking sides but the problem with many of these "promises" is that they are very hard to change. People get used to them. Also they cause biases in "the system" that are not obvious at the time but afterwards very hard to change.

Many examples ( and many will argue against them):

1) Negative gearing -> Ok it might keep rents down but causes the property market to be one where capital gain is cherished above all else. Causes affordability problems.
2) First home buyers grant -> Try to fix the above my giving money to people to get into debt and prop up property market. Many took advantage to buy and sell in an year.
3) Baby Bonus -> Some of the repercussions of this will not be obvious for another 10 years. Arguably a good idea. Very very bad execution.
4) GFC Stimulation package -> again arguably a good idea but very bad execution. 

Same goes for welfare, middle-class or otherwise. It's about incentive, why would you work when you will get the same/similar money on welfare? 

It's arguable that families with kids should get tax benefits. This helps keep the birth rate up but  if I decide to have one kid, why should I support someone who wants to have three kids? It's their choice, they should not be expecting a handout for it. 

There is an impact on productivity as well. People will simply refuse to be more productive (i.e earn more) because it is in their best interests to stay within certain tax-brackets, means tests etc etc. Heck my better half and I have discussed this on many occasions (not to go on welfare but whether certain investments/hours worked are worth it).


----------



## FlyingFox (12 January 2013)

Julia said:


> Agree overall, but perhaps Howard bringing in the GST was going some way toward this.




If I'm not mistaken, he did "sweeten" the deal significantly. Also I think many people still held that against him when he ultimately lost office.


----------



## drsmith (12 January 2013)

This thread is busy.

The Libs must be really wasteful.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Someone who is gainfully employed (and we're talking about middle class here, so not exactly poor) should not be getting welfare. If you can't afford children, don't have children.
> 
> It's an amazing mentality that some people assume someone else should pay for them. Nanny state eat your heart out.




oh +1

the number of people having kids and then expecting to maintain the kind of lifestyle they had before is just gob smacking.

Though the whole baby bonus of the Libs probably encouraged the mentality that the Govt will support me as i pop them out.

If you can afford smart phones and play boxes, TVs in every bedroom then why do MY taxes go to subsidising YOUR lifestyle??

But wait, it was Howard who did this, so somehow it mustn't have been wasteful spending.

Personally, I know a lot of international students who would make far better Aussie citizens than a lot of those born here and get it by default.  Far better to encourage students who have the drive and ambition to study in Australia, obtain a good mark to stay here.  A lot of them came here because they see the benefits of the Australian way of life. Why push them to go home when they could add so much economically and socially to Australia?


----------



## sails (13 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> oh +1
> 
> the number of people having kids and then expecting to maintain the kind of lifestyle they had before is just gob smacking.
> 
> ...




Labor have been in power now for 5 years and the last 18 months have had a friendly senate - they have had a pretty easy ride to get legislation through both houses.  

*Why haven't labor changed this?  *

All they have done is reduce the baby bonus from $5000 to $3000 after baby 1.  Still for unlimited children and I agree with you that it does encourage the "mentality that the Govt will support me as i pop them out". It seems labor has supported this seeming "waste".

And those popping the most out are probably those who are already on welfare and don't contribute tax anyway.  Not like the middle class who ARE paying tax and those with families get a little bit extra back.  Very different scenarios, imo.

And agree that we should be encouraging skilled people to this country rather than taking in boat loads of wealthy people (who have money to pay smugglers) and encouraging those who can least afford it to have multiple children.  In both cases it can lead to a life time drain on the welfare system for years ahead.


----------



## moXJO (13 January 2013)

Sydboy you always forget to mention Whitlam was before Fraser and that Keating set the ball rolling on selling assets.


----------



## IFocus (13 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> This thread is busy.
> 
> The Libs must be really wasteful.





Took a while but knew you would catch on eventually 

BTW WA election is looking far closer than I expected, I like Barney 1st Liberal ever to spend on infrastructure even the chair sniffer is OK when sober but where are the rest of the dimwits in the Liberal party?

Only I don't get the foreshore development?


----------



## sydboy007 (13 January 2013)

sails said:


> Labor have been in power now for 5 years and the last 18 months have had a friendly senate - they have had a pretty easy ride to get legislation through both houses.
> 
> *Why haven't labor changed this?  *
> 
> ...




Did you hear the hysteria from the LNP with the baby bonus changes?  The veiled "barren" PM who has no idea about how hard it is to raise a family.

Once you bring in a welfare payment, the vested interests will be screaming all the way to today tonight to try and stop it being removed / reduced.

Give me a political leader who will:

* examine the entire tax base of Australia and get rid of inefficient taxes like stamp duty and replace them with far less economically destructive taxes ie broaden the GST base

* who will make a blood oath / core promise that if they hold an inquiry that they will implement all it's recommendations OR spend the time to say why they will ignore most of them.

* will focus on the tax payers who experience the largest level of churn and work out how to just tax less and stop the churn.

* who will tell the voters that the Government is here to help ONLY when you have done all you can and really need it.  The idea of I pay my taxes and i deserve something back mentality needs to be eradicated.  Personal responsibility comes before a tax payer funded handout!


----------



## IFocus (13 January 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> If I'm not mistaken, he did "sweeten" the deal significantly. Also I think many people still held that against him when he ultimately lost office.





Howard had to narrow the base to get it over the line, today's and future governments are now stuck with a declining tax revenue base (as a % of GDP).

The chances of changing the GST base for now and pretty much forever = 0 IMHO

Throw in tax cuts to the middle class and all of a sudden Costello and Howard are geniuses.

As Keating said they were just a couple of mugs who got lucky.


----------



## moXJO (13 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Took a while but knew you would catch on eventually
> 
> BTW WA election is looking far closer than I expected, I like Barney 1st Liberal ever to spend on infrastructure even the chair sniffer is OK when sober but where are the rest of the dimwits in the Liberal party?



Nsw libs have been very slow out of the gate and have had to cut some deals I'm dead against. I suppose you could say they have been stable compared to the mess we have had prior. Not sure I warmed to Barry O that much


----------



## sydboy007 (13 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> Nsw libs have been very slow out of the gate and have had to cut some deals I'm dead against. I suppose you could say they have been stable compared to the mess we have had prior. Not sure I warmed to Barry O that much




Barry lost me with his ideas of CBD bus tunnels and his hypocrisy over electricity assets.  As for his deals with the shooters party, i shake my head at the utter madness of it all.

The sad fact is these days no one in politics is really in it to server the people.  They will fight tooth and nail against economically rational decisions just so they can improve their chances to get their flabby butts onto the treasury benches.

I long for the day when an a political leader acknowledges the merits of ideas generated by the other side of politics, and is willing to modify their own policy with these ideas to make theirs better.

We all despise the boss / team leader at work who wont accept or acknowledge a better idea.  Why do we reward politicians who do the same?


----------



## sails (13 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Did you hear the hysteria from the LNP with the baby bonus changes?  The veiled "barren" PM who has no idea about how hard it is to raise a family...




Oh come on, please spare us the  nonsense.  Labor not only went against the libs with carbon tax, but also polling at the time showed they went against the wishes of the majority.  Labor don't care what the libs OR the people want.

Sorry, that sort of excuse doesn't wash.  Gillard has effectively had control of both houses and she legislates mostly whatever she wants without the help of the libs.

Rubbish.


----------



## white_goodman (13 January 2013)

FlyingFox said:


> Wow! Very insightful. Since you put in quotes, I am assuming you are quoting someone. How is that quote attributed to?




its often attributed to Toqueville but its actually from Elmer Peterson a nobody, so its good in a sense that its been wrongly given to Toqueville


----------



## FlyingFox (13 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Did you hear the hysteria from the LNP with the baby bonus changes?  The veiled "barren" PM who has no idea about how hard it is to raise a family.
> 
> Once you bring in a welfare payment, the vested interests will be screaming all the way to today tonight to try and stop it being removed / reduced.
> 
> ...




Not going to happen because they know they will be out the door at the next election. Remember the majority of the voters are not like the people that are in this forum.


----------



## drsmith (13 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Took a while but knew you would catch on eventually
> 
> BTW WA election is looking far closer than I expected, I like Barney 1st Liberal ever to spend on infrastructure even the chair sniffer is OK when sober but where are the rest of the dimwits in the Liberal party?
> 
> Only I don't get the foreshore development?



You like Emperor Barnett ??

Either they must really be in trouble or you have become so depressed with the federal Labor scene that you are simply looking for escape.

There's no escape. Your beloved Federal Labor is going to get the pounding it deserves, even if they do beat themselves to a pulp beforehand over the leadership, again.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 January 2013)

sails said:


> Oh come on, please spare us the  nonsense.  Labor not only went against the libs with carbon tax, but also polling at the time showed they went against the wishes of the majority.  Labor don't care what the libs OR the people want.
> 
> Sorry, that sort of excuse doesn't wash.  Gillard has effectively had control of both houses and she legislates mostly whatever she wants without the help of the libs.
> 
> Rubbish.




My point was that making an economically rational decision was bashed by the party a lot of members in this forum hold up as being the most economically responsible.

Doesn't matter if Labor required their help to make the changes, the fact is they chose populism over good economics.  yes yes, both sides do it, but it DOESN'T make it right and I'm bloody sick of it.

TBH the only way I see a winding back of the nanny state is a good recession.  Seems that is the only way to push through with the reforms required.  Just a shame we will have to destroy so many lives to do it.  personally I'd prefer to see less populism and more rational debate over economic policy, but it ain't gonna happen in my life time.


----------



## drsmith (13 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> The only way I see a winding back of the nanny state is a good recession.  Seems that is the only way to push through with the reforms required.  Just a shame we will have to destroy so many lives to do it.



That's more the Labor way than it is the Coalitions.


----------



## sptrawler (13 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Howard had to narrow the base to get it over the line, today's and future governments are now stuck with a declining tax revenue base (as a % of GDP).
> 
> The chances of changing the GST base for now and pretty much forever = 0 IMHO
> 
> ...




So what does that make Gillard and Swan a couple of mugs who didn't get over the line.

By the way I think your right about the W.A election, labor look a lot smater with Ripper gone.


----------



## McLovin (13 January 2013)

sails said:


> Labor have been in power now for 5 years and the last 18 months have had a friendly senate - they have had a pretty easy ride to get legislation through both houses.
> 
> *Why haven't labor changed this?  *




Because, like I said, and you got your knickers in a knot over, the ALP and the Libs have much more in common than die-hards on either side would like to believe. Both parties love largesse. Once you give someone something you can't take it back. The ALP is not going to crucify itself in the mortgage belts of the capital cities by increasing the tax rate on families, neither will the Libs. It's easier to just let someone else pay.


----------



## IFocus (13 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> You like Emperor Barnett ??





I think he has been generally sensible certainly the stand-out State Premier in Australia presently and he has done it on his own, there is no one else in the lower house worth talking about other than the chair sniffer.



> Either they must really be in trouble or you have become so depressed with the federal Labor scene that you are simply looking for escape.




Rather the opposite actually quite up beat I still think the election is the Coalitions to lose and with Abbott there is ever chance that could happen.

If not then Abbott will not get the massive mandate and absolutely wont get the senate.



> There's no escape. Your beloved Federal Labor is going to get the pounding it deserves, even if they do beat themselves to a pulp beforehand over the leadership, again.




I don't think Labor will get pounded simply because Australia will not trust Abbott.


----------



## FlyingFox (13 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Because, like I said, and you got your knickers in a knot over, the ALP and the Libs have much more in common than die-hards on either side would like to believe. Both parties love largesse. Once you give someone something you can't take it back. The ALP is not going to crucify itself in the mortgage belts of the capital cities by increasing the tax rate on families, neither will the Libs. It's easier to just let someone else pay.




+1

It's not only that parties love largesse, the general population loves it too. And this is happening everywhere. Anywhere austerity was or tried to be introduced in Europe the government was kicked or will be kicked. Who is elected? The party that says no to austerity. And this happened/is happening to other parts of the economy. Very few were talking about sustainability prior to the GFC. Any investment vehicle was judged on the returns of the day without recourse to future impact. Now investors are saying we should prosecute CEO's etc (and this may happen but so many have already made their money).

It is easier for someone else to pay until there is no one else to pay. Many of our financial and welfare systems (Thankfully we have super here) have been built on the idea that the next gen will pay because there will always be a bigger tax base just like the stock and property markets will always rise and rise at increasing rate. Well things have been going up up up for a long time (prior to GFC anyway) at near exponential rates. But, complementing the quote by white_goodman,  I quote Edward Teller:

"The extinction of the human race will come from its inability to EMOTIONALLY comprehend the exponential function."


----------



## IFocus (13 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> So what does that make Gillard and Swan a couple of mugs who didn't get over the line.




Howard and Costello were around during very high world growth (hence Keating comment) Gillard and Swan have been face with a much slower world growth.




> By the way I think your right about the W.A election, labor look a lot smater with Ripper gone.




Politically smarter yes, still Ripper was a good treasurer think he pretty much controlled spending quite well over all.


----------



## sails (13 January 2013)

McLovin said:


> Because, like I said, and you got your knickers in a knot over, the ALP and the Libs have much more in common than die-hards on either side would like to believe. Both parties love largesse. Once you give someone something you can't take it back. The ALP is not going to crucify itself in the mortgage belts of the capital cities by increasing the tax rate on families, neither will the Libs. It's easier to just let someone else pay.




Well why oh why do you guys keep complaining about it when labor won't fix it?


----------



## McLovin (13 January 2013)

sails said:


> Well why oh why do you guys keep complaining about it when labor won't fix it?




There you go again trying to pigeon hole people. This thread is about the Liberal party. The only party I have ever voted for in my life. 

I explained why Labor won't fix it. Do you actually read what anyone writes or do you just reach straight for the reflexive hyperbole?

It's very strange that such a rah-rah Liberal is advocating a policy that if someone didn't know any better would assume was the work of the ALP or the Greens. Then again, that seems to be the MO of most middle class welfare recepients; "if someone else is getting my money it's 'socialism', if I'm getting it then it's fair and makes sense". Howard made them feel OK about not paying their fair share. Now they take it as a given; there's always someone else who will pay for them. Look how well that worked in Europe.

The Greens want to increase the tax rate on incomes over $1m to pay for single mothers. I assume this is a good idea in your opinion, afterall millionaires can afford to pay "a little bit more" to "help out those who need it more"?


----------



## sydboy007 (13 January 2013)

sails said:


> Well why oh why do you guys keep complaining about it when labor won't fix it?




Why doesn't your beloved LNP fix it?  Oh wait, they've helped to create the welfare monster just as much as Labor did.

Now both parties are backed into their respective corners, both knowing most of their election promises are unfundable, yet both will continue with the con job because it's in their interests.

Neither party is willing to cut back on middle class welfare because it's too easy to get people riled up over it.  You blatantly ignore the populism of Abbott and his cabinet over a minimal reduction in the baby bonus.  Did you agree with it's introduction?  Do you agree with it the LNP policy of continuing it at the full level, or do you support Labor reducing it as they have done?  Throw in Abbott's 2.5B a year parental leave policy and I just can't understand how they get away with wasting so much money.

Would the politician who said we can no longer afford middle class welfare, over staffing of Govt departments, generous super tax subsidies and all the rest without either widening the tax base, reducing deductions or cutting back on some of the spending ger kudos, or be rolled by populism?


----------



## Julia (13 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Now both parties are backed into their respective corners, both knowing most of their election promises are unfundable, yet both will continue with the con job because it's in their interests.



And most of the electorate know this.  Yet when a politician is elected on the basis of cutting out some of the waste and then actually does it, a la Campbell Newman in Qld, his popularity diminishes markedly.
There seems to be a disconnect between what the voters say they want and what they actually find acceptable in reality.



> Neither party is willing to cut back on middle class welfare because it's too easy to get people riled up over it.  You blatantly ignore the populism of Abbott and his cabinet over a minimal reduction in the baby bonus.



Agree that this was populism at its most blatant.  Both sides indulge in this sophistry all the time.



> Throw in Abbott's 2.5B a year parental leave policy and I just can't understand how they get away with wasting so much money.



Agree.   Vote buying again.  I suspect the maternity leave proposal, however, will lose the Libs more votes than it will gain them.


----------



## McLovin (13 January 2013)

Julia said:


> And most of the electorate know this.  Yet when a politician is elected on the basis of cutting out some of the waste and then actually does it, a la Campbell Newman in Qld, his popularity diminishes markedly.
> *There seems to be a disconnect between what the voters say they want and what they actually find acceptable in reality*.




Budget surpluses are great, as long as I still get my money.


----------



## sails (13 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Why doesn't your beloved LNP fix it?...




Firstly, they are not my beloved LNP, they just give an alternative to the most woeful government I have ever witnessed.

And, in case you hadn't noticed, labor have been the ones in power for FIVE years and almost TWO of those they have had a co-operative senate.  They could fix this if they wanted.  

I just don't understand why you guys keep moaning about what the libs did when labor isn't fixing the things which you are moaning about.  It  makes a mockery of your complaints!


----------



## drsmith (13 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> I think he has been generally sensible certainly the stand-out State Premier in Australia presently and he has done it on his own, there is no one else in the lower house worth talking about other than the chair sniffer.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course it's the Coalition's to lose. Labor can't win on merit and all the Abbott Abbott Abbott noise in the world won't change that.

As for WA, I think the Libs will win comfortably. Colin Barnett can come across a arrogant, but, as you say, has on the whole been sensible. He was impressive on Q&A late last year. As for their infrestructure projects, it will be interesting to see if they proceed with the controversial Roe Highway stage 8 and the potentially even more controversial floating Orrong Road.  The following image is from Adelaide's version, currently under construction. It's hard to imagine any government being brave enough to put that through a residential area.


----------



## McLovin (13 January 2013)

sails said:


> I just don't understand why you guys keep moaning about what the libs did when labor isn't fixing the things which you are moaning about.  It  makes a mockery of your complaints!




You've missed the point. Again.


----------



## drsmith (13 January 2013)

As for WA Labor, they like their federal Labor counterparts have allready sunk to making vast unfunded promises.


----------



## sptrawler (13 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> As for WA Labor, they like their federal Labor counterparts have allready sunk to making vast unfunded promises.




What do think about the floating l.n.g plant, Bob Brown and his moron mates screaming for it to be moved south.

Well it looks like they've achieved getting it moved offshore. 
Great lose, lose result. Now the great gormeless goose is off on another crusade, life wasn't meant to be easy.


----------



## drsmith (13 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> What do think about the floating l.n.g plant, Bob Brown and his moron mates screaming for it to be moved south.
> 
> Well it looks like they've achieved getting it moved offshore.
> Great lose, lose result. Now the great gormeless goose is off on another crusade, life wasn't meant to be easy.



James Price Point was covered extensively in the following episode of Q&A.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3620729.htm

It being moved offshore is what Colin Barnett was trying to avoid.


----------



## sydboy007 (13 January 2013)

sails said:


> Firstly, they are not my beloved LNP, they just give an alternative to the most woeful government I have ever witnessed.
> 
> And, in case you hadn't noticed, labor have been the ones in power for FIVE years and almost TWO of those they have had a co-operative senate.  They could fix this if they wanted.
> 
> I just don't understand why you guys keep moaning about what the libs did when labor isn't fixing the things which you are moaning about.  It  makes a mockery of your complaints!




Do you really think the greens and independents would support labor if they really cut, and by really I mean like $10B  cut middle class welfare?  I seriously doubt it.

If they try, the LNP will cry blue murder and promise the electorate just about anything to get into power.

So really, unless there's bipartisan support for this waste to be cut back on, it's not going to happen because both sides will see it as a golden opportunity to crucify the other.  As far as I'm concerned taking the populist route makes you just as bad as the one not taking any action

Can i ask what has Tony or his front bench said so far that makes you believe they will be any better than the current mob we have in power??  There's still a huge policy vacuum for both sides for the current election.


----------



## drsmith (13 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Can i ask what has Tony or his front bench said so far that makes you believe they will be any better than the current mob we have in power??



The performance of the current government is so poor that they don't have to say anything.


----------



## FlyingFox (13 January 2013)

This is starting to sound like a religious debate.


----------



## IFocus (13 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> As for WA Labor, they like their federal Labor counterparts have allready sunk to making vast unfunded promises.





The rail idea is well over due, killing the foreshore development would go some way to paying for the rail which would make more sense more roads wont change a whole lot but rail will.


----------



## drsmith (13 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> The rail idea is well over due, killing the foreshore development would go some way to paying for the rail which would make more sense more roads wont change a whole lot but rail will.



Is it now Labor policy to abandon any foreshore development and if so, to what extent could they undo existing contracts ?

They would have to cancel much more than that to pay for that level of rail development. as for being overdue, it looks a lot like overkill and would cost how much ?

They would also have to scrap road projects, goodness knows what else and raise taxes. They might even be silly enough to have a second crack at that premium property tax. 

This is what they had planned for the foreshore when they were last in office.


----------



## Julia (13 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Do you really think the greens and independents would support labor if they really cut, and by really I mean like $10B  cut middle class welfare?  I seriously doubt it.



Aren't you avoiding the point that Sails made?
If Labor genuinely tried cutting middle class welfare, both major parties could be judged by whether or not it was legislated.  ie if the Libs were genuine about wanting to reduce it, they would support the legislation.

However, I don't know why I'm even bothering to comment.  It's an artificial debate about something that won't happen because all politicians, with a very few exceptions, are gutless, self interested and amoral.


----------



## IFocus (13 January 2013)

drsmith said:


> Is it now Labor policy to abandon any foreshore development and if so, to what extent could they undo existing contracts ?
> 
> They would have to cancel much more than that to pay for that level of rail development. as for being overdue, it looks a lot like overkill and would cost how much ?
> 
> ...




It was my thinking not State Labors 

The Mandurah line was criticized as over kill by the Liberals how did that go?

As for promises remember Barnets pipe line?


----------



## sptrawler (13 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> It was my thinking not State Labors
> 
> The Mandurah line was criticized as over kill by the Liberals how did that go?
> 
> As for promises remember Barnets pipe line?




Actually the Mandurah line was going in under the libs, it was taking a different route, through Canning Vale. 
The Thornlie Station is were it has been terminated, however the tunnel onto the now Mandurah line is still there and will probably be used.
Labor decided to put it down the middle of the freeway, which robbed the freeway of expansion options. We are seeing the result of that now. Admittedly it is the more picturesque route, but it was DUMB.

As for the pipeline, it is the smartest piece of infrastructure that could be built and I'm sure James Point is a key component. 

Barnett is the only polly we have that has a brain, the rest are only interested in retirement benefits.
Allan Carpenter was similar, it's sad these politicians are so few and far between.


----------



## drsmith (14 January 2013)

Regarding the upcoming WA state election, it appears Colin Barnett and the Libs have little to worry about,

http://resources.news.com.au/files/2013/01/13/1226553/119052-130114-wa-newspoll.pdf

Meanwhile, what the mining tax continues to raise is on par with federal Labor's election prospects,

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...a-second-quarter/story-fnb56a2t-1226553169086

And the Greens,

We can't forget the Greens. They share the spoils of office with Labor.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...oaxers-to-greens/story-fn59niix-1226553110497


----------



## drsmith (14 January 2013)

sptrawler said:


> As for the pipeline, it is the smartest piece of infrastructure that could be built and I'm sure James Point is a key component.



I think IF was referring to his covered canal. That wasn't one of his better ideas and he lost an election because of it.


----------



## white_goodman (14 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> TBH the only way I see a winding back of the nanny state is a good recession.  Seems that is the only way to push through with the reforms required.  Just a shame we will have to destroy so many lives to do it.  personally I'd prefer to see less populism and more rational debate over economic policy, but it ain't gonna happen in my life time.




i think that is a correct prognosis, many of the social programs and expectations of govts are in a sense ratcheted


----------



## white_goodman (14 January 2013)

sydboy007 said:


> Can i ask what has Tony or his front bench said so far that makes you believe they will be any better than the current mob we have in power??  There's still a huge policy vacuum for both sides for the current election.




theres a policy vacuum and a vacuum on philosophical debates on the role and objectives of govt... its 24hr news cycle and 2 worded slogans... I hope people realise we are paying for these idiots (much higher to their counterparts overseas)

moving forward


----------



## McLovin (14 January 2013)

white_goodman said:


> theres a policy vacuum and a vacuum on philosophical debates on the role and objectives of govt... its 24hr news cycle and 2 worded slogans... I hope people realise we are paying for these idiots (much higher to their counterparts overseas)
> 
> moving forward




+1

Unfortunately, the attention span of the average voter doesn't extend much beyond what it will cost and what they will get.

It's more and more like America. No one wants to hear what they disagree with.


----------



## white_goodman (14 January 2013)

its more and more the dystopian nightmare that Bastiat outlined over 150years ago.. legal plunder by the bucketful

govt going from umpire to nanny of first-mid-last resort




> Self-preservation and self-development are common aspirations among all people. And if everyone enjoyed the unrestricted use of his faculties and the free disposition of the fruits of his labor, social progress would be ceaseless, uninterrupted, and unfailing.
> 
> But there is also another tendency that is common among people. When they can, they wish to live and prosper at the expense of others....
> 
> ...


----------



## moXJO (14 January 2013)

IFocus said:


> Some thing everyone already knows but the spin machines work over time to paper over
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Seems old Peter Martin the writer of the article was stretching facts and figures harder then Wayne Swann. I expect it out of the ABC but no wonder Fairfax is going broke.


----------



## Julia (14 January 2013)

moXJO said:


> Seems old Peter Martin the writer of the article was stretching facts and figures harder then Wayne Swann. I expect it out of the ABC but no wonder Fairfax is going broke.



Peter Martin changes employers frequently.  I think he was with the ABC at some stage.  More recently with SBS.  He is as far to the Left as it's possible to be and still have a job imo.


----------



## drsmith (14 January 2013)

Julia said:


> Peter Martin changes employers frequently.  I think he was with the ABC at some stage.  More recently with SBS.  He is as far to the Left as it's possible to be and still have a job imo.



Henry Ergas's take.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n-howards-record/story-fn7078da-1226553110377

This article is also available in full (no browsing gymnastics required) on Michael Smith's site.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...hn-howard-and-peter-costellos-profligacy.html


----------

