# Second stimulus package discussion



## gfresh (3 February 2009)

> A nation-building package to support jobs and growth while the global financial crisis continues to hit the economy will be released by the Federal Government today.
> 
> Earlier this morning the Government confirmed the package, expected to be in the billions of dollars, would include free ceiling insulation for more than 2.5 million homes.
> 
> ...




http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/03/2480653.htm

A curious one... I can see the general idea, but is it really going to be that effective in practice? 

How many older homes can simply be slapped with insulation and it be effective without a proper energy-efficient design? 

Wouldn't anything newer already have suitable insulation? 

What about older houses with asbestos roofing which is common in some states? surely that throws a major spanner in things..

Will it really create jobs out of thin air? Who is qualified to install the stuff? 

How's this going to work in multi-level apartment blocks? 

Will landlords be stuffed helping out their tenants simply for the sake of it?

Seems pretty hair-brained scheme to me..


----------



## johenmo (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*

It'll work.  Kev said so.


----------



## aleckara (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*

It needs a lot more thought I agree. But the general idea is one I agree with. Rather than spending on plasma TV's we are at least buying locally infrastructure that extends the life of the physical wealth we have in a deflationary environment.

Asbestos housing is always a concern. Too many houses were built with the stuff. I can tell you know fibro houses are probably the main reason why we don't have enough power for all the air conditioners in areas. I know that in Western Sydney they are trying to promote solar panels www.blacktownsolarcity.com to offset the extra air con that all the fibro houses need especially when it gets to 40C.


----------



## white_goodman (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*

so so stupid, my dads a roofer and these type jobs are reserved for builders who arent much crop...

the margin on just doing insulation is not enough for people to go hire employees...now if everyone got roofing and guttering it might be something but that would be too expensive... seems pretty hair brained to me....

why not just provide stimulus in the form of reduced SME and medium sized business tax?


----------



## nikemi (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*



johenmo said:


> It'll work.  Kev said so.




Yeah,

It will work for Kevin, to score some points with the voters that are getting cheesed of about him not living up to his climate change election promises, as for the economy, as far as i am aware the insulation industry is not the one primarily suffering.


----------



## cuttlefish (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*

I don't understand the detail, but on the surface it seems like the sort of demented highbrow theoretical stuff you'd expect from a labour government and from someone like Rudd.

I'd far prefer to see funding for education,  or for innovation/R&D, or for infrastructure that would facilitate growth (e.g. transport upgrades, port upgrades,  health/services upgrades).   This won't stimulate growth in any meaningful way that I can see.   I'm sure there's far better things to spend a billion dollars on.


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*

I'm just eagerly awaiting Rudd's announcement. The basics of the package have already been announced, but I just want to know if I get anything this time! I'll be fuming if I don't :angry:

Who wants to protest with me if I miss out? :


----------



## cuttlefish (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*



Nyden said:


> but I just want to know if I get anything this time! I'll be fuming if I don't :angry:




Well just make sure you don't give off too many carbon emissions with all that fuming!


----------



## sam76 (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*

Why can't the nation build a massive water pipe from up north to down south?


----------



## cuttlefish (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*



sam76 said:


> Why can't the nation build a massive water pipe from up north to down south?




Back in the 80's I seem to recall some politicians touting a scheme to re-direct our rivers to run inland   (part of the Qld national party I'm sure  ).  (though who knows maybe there's something in it - there's a fair volume of fresh water dumped into the see out of the northern part of Australia during a full wet season - perhaps it is possible to redirect some of it elsewhere).

Water supply/retention and soil erosion/salination are definitely big issues that reduce the productivity of our farmable land and also impact industry and individuals  - so spending on schemes to tackle this seems like a sensible area to direct money to me.


----------



## gfresh (3 February 2009)

*So... 2nd stimulus package announced*



> Govt unveils $42b stimulus
> 
> February 3, 2009 - 1:10PM
> 
> ...




Government has announced it's 2nd stimulus package. 

http://business.theage.com.au/business/govt-unveils-42b-stimulus-20090203-7w6v.html

Some of seems to be in the right direction towards schools, some public housing and other infrastructure. 

Don't really approve of the cash handouts (what did they do last time?), although looks like I collect $950.. I guess that will appease some of the "but why don't I get anything" out there, but for me I'd rather it went towards something more productive.


----------



## CAB SAV (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*

Be more efficient to ban building houses without eaves. That Tuscan look is not practicle in OZ.


----------



## prawn_86 (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*



Nyden said:


> I'm just eagerly awaiting Rudd's announcement. The basics of the package have already been announced, but I just want to know if I get anything this time! I'll be fuming if I don't :angry:
> 
> Who wants to protest with me if I miss out? :




Im with you Nyden!

I tried to watch but i just cant stand watching politicians sprout crap.

Slightly off topic, but Krudd just admitted we no longer have a free maket:

(paraphrasing) "we can either let the free market play out, or we can act" So what type of market do we have, aside from an inefficient one?


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*



prawn_86 said:


> Im with you Nyden!
> 
> I tried to watch but i just cant stand watching politicians sprout crap.
> 
> ...




Well, I listened to it - but I must have faded out? I didn't even hear him mention the $950! Straight after it though, I saw it written across the bottom of the screen, indicating that it was low income earners. Does this mean actual individual people, or only bloody families 

http://au.biz.yahoo.com/090203/31/24dnc.html



> A cash payment of $950 will also be given to single-income families, farmers facing hardship, parents with children heading back to school and students and unemployed people returning to study.




Perhaps this means I finally get something! Into the bank it goes


----------



## prawn_86 (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... 2nd stimulus package announced*



gfresh said:


> Don't really approve of the cash handouts (what did they do last time?), although looks like I collect $950.. I guess that will appease some of the "but why don't I get anything" out there, but for me I'd rather it went towards something more productive.




Hmm i couldnt tell from that article if students get the handout. We earn under 100k so i would assume so?


----------



## prawn_86 (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*

**Mod note - 2 threads merged into one so we can keep all 2nd stimulus package discussions here**


----------



## professor_frink (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... 2nd stimulus package announced*

once again I miss out

Damn you kruddy I want some free money!!!!!!


----------



## prawn_86 (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... 2nd stimulus package announced*



prawn_86 said:


> Hmm i couldnt tell from that article if students get the handout. We earn under 100k so i would assume so?






> The Government will also provide a one-off $950 training and learning bonus for eligible students and people outside of the workforce returning to study to help with the costs of education and training.



Whats an eligible student? One on youth allowance?


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... 2nd stimulus package announced*



prawn_86 said:


> Whats an eligible student? One on youth allowance?




Are the cash payments, and bonuses seperate from eachother?  That would be fantastic, for me at least. 

I'm getting ahead of myself here, I can just see them coming out saying it's only for dependant students ... real clever, just like last time. Give payments to students who have less expenditure!


----------



## Beej (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*



cuttlefish said:


> Back in the 80's I seem to recall some politicians touting a scheme to re-direct our rivers to run inland   (part of the Qld national party I'm sure  ).




Well this exact thing has been done before in the 50s! Heard of a little thing called the Snowy Mountains Scheme???? 

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## mattlaw (3 February 2009)

Major points in $42 billion mini-budget:

* $14.7 billion to be invested in school infrastructure and maintenance and bringing forward funding for trade training centres;

* $6.6 billion to increase the national stock of public and community housing by about 20,000 new homes;

* $3.9 billion to provide free insulation to 2.7 million homes and solar hot water rebates;

* $890 million to fix regional roads and blackspots, to install railway boom gates and for regional and local government infrastructure;

* $2.7 billion small and general business tax break to provide deductions for some equipment purchases before the end of June 2009;

* $12.7 billion for immediate one-off payments to working Australians, families with school-age children, farmers, single income families and for those undergoing training.


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

Yipee!! 

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2009/media_release_0778.cfm

$1900 is coming my way 

Students receiving youth allowance get $950, and individuals that paid tax from 07-08 (with anything left over) get an upfront refund on that of an additional $950.


----------



## drsmith (3 February 2009)

Was that the kitchen sink that just got launched into orbit from the treasury bunker?


----------



## Julia (3 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Yipee!!
> 
> http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2009/media_release_0778.cfm
> 
> ...



Does anyone know if this includes tax paid within a SMSF?


----------



## drsmith (3 February 2009)

Qualification for the lump sum tas bonus will be based on 2007/08 income with qualification calculated by the tax office based on tax records submitted for that year.

The RBA has cut interest rates by 1% to 3.25%. The accompanying statement suggests that it may have been more had it not been for today's fiscal stimulus.


----------



## Prospector (3 February 2009)

Could someone who is cleverer than me please answer the following:

If we were actually in a recession (and not just trying to avoid one) would the schemes that Rudd is putting up be the best way to go?

The experts say we are in for a recession yet Rudd's spending is based on avoiding it.  So would/should things be done differently if the recession is actually out of our control


----------



## cuttlefish (3 February 2009)

I can't believe they are spending $4 billion to put in insulation.  They've lost the plot.  Might be time to buy Yen ...


----------



## Prospector (3 February 2009)

And another question, if this package is designed to stimulate jobs, then why isnt business included in any of the benefits?  Giving money to tax payers wont save their jobs, but helping business will.


----------



## aleckara (3 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Yipee!!
> 
> http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2009/media_release_0778.cfm
> 
> ...




Sad for the students who still live at home and need a job to afford to study - and trust me there are a lot more of these than ones on Centrelink. Not all students can live near universities after all; there isn't enough accomodation for that.


----------



## Prospector (3 February 2009)

aleckara said:


> Sad for the students who still live at home and need a job to afford to study - and trust me there are a lot more of these than ones on Centrelink. Not all students can live near universities after all; there isn't enough accomodation for that.




Those students who are employed will get $950, assuming they paid tax last year.  Each one of us in our family will receive this payment.


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Those students who are employed will get $950, assuming they paid tax last year.  Each one of us in our family will receive this payment.




Hmm, not entirely true. As is my understanding - one would need to earn enough as to have actually paid enough tax to cover the refund. I'm guessing individuals will need to have earned 16-20k minimum? As, if these students received all their PAYG credits back already for that year, then there's not really much left to take a refund from. Some students could manage this, such as myself - but I know that a lot haven't made anywhere near that.

I could be wrong, though.


----------



## Trevor_S (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*



sam76 said:


> Why can't the nation build a massive water pipe from up north to down south?




Do you mean the Bradfield Scheme  ?

That aside, I think it would be easier to move the people North... rather then the water south. Look at the night mare involved in trying to set up ANY manufacturing here in Aus eg   The way I understand it, temperate climates are going to get hotter and drier and tropical climates will stay about the same temperature (increased cloud cover) and get wetter.  It's not only water, you guys aren't set up for the heat (in saying that we have some crappy building practices up here that just mirror southern design

What can I say, I am tired of the fu^(*^&^*&^%()ing rain !!! The Burdekin Dam is once again no doubt dropping about a Sydney Harbour load of water over the spillway EVERY day, and that's just one River up here.


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

gfresh said:


> No, all you have to do is be receiving youth allowance: bottom of the link above: http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2009/media_release_0778.cfm




We were discussing students who are not receiving YA. As in, students who only work for money.


----------



## white_goodman (3 February 2009)

ok can someone tell me if im eligble...

-im a full time student
- i have a casual cadetship earning roughly $500 gross a week
- i also have youth allowance at around $20 a fortnight 
- i paid tax in 07/08 and earnt only around 25k

does that mean $1900?


----------



## white_crane (3 February 2009)

Looks like I might get $950 this time.  Hooray!  I was ready to go out in protest with Nyden if I didn't get something this time.  lol

$4b for insulation - now that is forward thinking!  This krudd bloke knows what he's doing 


Off topic: anyone else notice the ad for a Porsche Boxster in the top right of The Age article?  Seems ironic.


----------



## Glen48 (3 February 2009)

If Rudd and Co want to save $$ on Energy they need to look at House designs and get rid of Black Roof's, Block walls and Houses that need A/C so the victims can survive.


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

white_goodman said:


> ok can someone tell me if im eligble...
> 
> -im a full time student
> - i have a casual cadetship earning roughly $500 gross a week
> ...




So long as you paid tax in excess to cover the refund, I'd say so. I could be wrong though!


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

white_crane said:


> Looks like I might get $950 this time.  Hooray!  I was ready to go out in protest with Nyden if I didn't get something this time.  lol
> 
> $4b for insulation - now that is forward thinking!  This krudd bloke knows what he's doing
> 
> ...




Let us do a jig, and be merry instead!


----------



## Prospector (3 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> So long as you paid tax in excess to cover the refund, I'd say so. I could be wrong though!




OK, what exactly does that mean?  That you have to have paid at least $950 tax last year?


----------



## white_goodman (3 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> So long as you paid tax in excess to cover the refund, I'd say so. I could be wrong though!




what do you mean tax in excess? i paid tax in 07/08 of around $1100...

also i think i might snap up my parents one as they pay themselves a wage under 100,000 from their own company...

looks like ive got some investment dollars


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> OK, what exactly does that mean?  That you have to have paid at least $950 tax last year?




That's what I *believe* to be the case, it's only my interpretation of what I've read, but I may very well be wrong. It doesn't actually mention the figures, but it would just seem odd to give someone back $950 if they only paid $5 in tax. As, why would they even mention tax otherwise? Surely someone who only earns 15k would be classified as a low-income earner, see my point?

Actually, since it's targeted at low income earners, perhaps even paying $5 in tax would leave one to be eligible - I just can't see it happening though, as surely the numbers of recipients would be too high.


----------



## Prospector (3 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> That's what I *believe* to be the case, it's only my interpretation of what I've read, but I may very well be wrong. It doesn't actually mention the figures, but it would just seem odd to give someone back $950 if they only paid $5 in tax. As, why would they even mention tax otherwise? Surely someone who only earns 15k would be classified as a low-income earner, see my point?
> 
> Actually, since it's targeted at low income earners, perhaps even paying $5 in tax would leave one to be eligible - I just can't see it happening though, as surely the numbers of recipients would be too high.




Yes, I understand that logic.  Which, as it is logical, is probably wrong!  Can you imagine the bureacrats sweating over their desks trying to get it right?


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

Looks like Rudd & CO are handing out the cash to low-mid income earners who will have no choice but to spend it. Not a perfect plan, I wonder what Turnbull & Co would do give directly to their banker buddies....


----------



## gfresh (3 February 2009)

My thoughts are that cash payments to low-income earners it largely ends up paying excessive credit card debt and overdue bills (or the Rudd Thursday on pokies). From anecdotal evidence, that is what most I know in that group said they spent the money on. 

Middle earners is an interesting one... Maybe some would just put it on the mortgage. I know with me it's well "now what do I do with that". I've already got my bills well covered and no debt, and have a weekly savings plan, so thinking I would spend it on something consumery. If others were thinking the same, could have a different effect on the economy to lower income earners... maybe


----------



## cuttlefish (3 February 2009)

Well I'm buying yen with any money they give me!  That'll help the economy heaps won't it


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

KRudd & Co have a lot of catching up to do if they want to match *George W Bush's* handouts to the banks. 

Scary stuff


----------



## pacestick (3 February 2009)

I would have thought that anyone who paid less than $950.00 tax would get the amount they paid back if they get more my son  will be happy


----------



## MrBurns (3 February 2009)

Curly, Larry and Moe mapping out your future. Sigh............


----------



## nunthewiser (3 February 2009)

WTF! . WHY is my dollars paying for YOUR handouts ? WHY am i paying for roof insulation ( of all things christ!)

geeeeez seems everyone gunna get there packages stimulated real nicely on MY buck

ps im not gettin nothing hence my dissapointment


----------



## prawn_86 (3 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Yipee!!
> 
> http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2009/media_release_0778.cfm
> 
> ...




Good to see students getting it this time 



aleckara said:


> Sad for the students who still live at home and need a job to afford to study - and trust me there are a lot more of these than ones on Centrelink. Not all students can live near universities after all; there isn't enough accomodation for that.




In theory their parents should be recieving the payment then, as the child would still be classed as dependant. Depends on the parents income then though



Nyden said:


> So long as you paid tax in excess to cover the refund, I'd say so. I could be wrong though!




I cant quite figure the tax thing out either. I paid about 2k in taxes last FY but got a refund of $200 so where does that leave me? 



cuttlefish said:


> Well I'm buying yen with any money they give me!  That'll help the economy heaps won't it




Im spending half of my money overseas on a holiday we have already booked, so that should stimulate the Thai economy  And the rest will be going straight into my bank or stocks. Im doing my bit for spending...


----------



## MrBurns (3 February 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> WTF! . WHY is my dollars paying for YOUR handouts ? WHY am i paying for roof insulation ( of all things christ!)
> 
> geeeeez seems everyone gunna get there packages stimulated real nicely on MY buck
> 
> ps im not gettin nothing hence my dissapointment




Dont worry when the tax increases are announced to pay for it all you'll be first on the list


----------



## prawn_86 (3 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Dont worry when the tax increases are announced to pay for it all you'll be first on the list




Why raise taxes when you can dig the country deeper into debt. Its what all the cool kids are doing.

We will see tax cuts before a tax rise here imo


----------



## nunthewiser (3 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Dont worry when the tax increases are announced to pay for it all you'll be first on the list




ARRRRRRRRRRGGHHHHHH 

bugga you lot im shifting things , declaring banktrupcy , goin on the dole and gunna join the nicely "stimulated " ppl out there 

hell i might even go rent a joint and get that paid for too


----------



## MrBurns (3 February 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> ARRRRRRRRRRGGHHHHHH
> 
> bugga you lot im shifting things , declaring banktrupcy , goin on the dole and gunna join the nicely "stimulated " ppl out there
> 
> hell i might even go rent a joint and get that paid for too




Robots will be happy to help you out


----------



## nunthewiser (3 February 2009)

Its just not fair .. having to stimulate oneself just nowhere as much fun as someone else doing it for you


----------



## MrBurns (3 February 2009)

Well so far if you've got a shopping center to refinance or if you install insulation you're covered, the rest of us can pay for that and if we get upset and write on a wall we can have 3 months free rent and board.
Apart from that there's nothing else to look forward to for a while.


----------



## MrBurns (3 February 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> Its just not fair .. having to stimulate oneself just nowhere as much fun as someone else doing it for you




I'd prefer that than have Rudd do it


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Robots will be happy to help you out




ROFL

Imagine if we had Robots myopic vision offered by the Aussie Property Bubble Party, Im sure the banks would lobby him with heaps of CASH


----------



## MrBurns (3 February 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> ROFL
> 
> Imagine if we had Robots myopic vision offered by the Aussie Property Bubble Party, Im sure the banks would lobby him with heaps of CASH




Robots for PM, all cool today thank you.


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> Its just not fair .. having to stimulate oneself just nowhere as much fun as someone else doing it for you




ROFL. Dont upset  the owner/operators on the thread nun.


----------



## crtsd (3 February 2009)

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2009/media_release_0778.cfm

How will this "SUPPORT" my employees if I can no longer afford to keep them as staff?

OK, here's a bit of background... My company is a consultant in the engineering construction/mining industry. In the past 3 months we have seen a decline in quotes by about 60%. The work we have ongoing is slowly finishing and with nothing much coming through the door things are not looking good. 

http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2009/media_release_0782.cfm

Further the government is adding insult to injury with it's pathetic small business stimulus providing tax breaks for new computers and backhoes.  Who in their right mind is going to go out and buy anything in this economic environment? Most employers in my industry i have talked to are all in the same boat, some say they are slow, others say they are desperate. One thing for sure is that no-one is looking at growing in the short term.

At the end of the day my employees get some cash but will probably lose their jobs because nothing the government has done today is going to help me get more work through the front door or reduce my running costs which are only going to get higher (thanks to environment policies).

just my


----------



## nunthewiser (3 February 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> ROFL. Dont upset  the owner/operators on the thread nun.




 apparently im part paying for prawns spending money on his trip overseas so hopefully he can grace me an odd joke while i sit here seething that i didnt get bugga all back from this package


----------



## nunthewiser (3 February 2009)

actually i got no probs with the students getting a break with a cupla extra bucks ... after all they the future of this country ........ buggared if i wanna insulate there houses tho


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> apparently im part paying for prawns spending money on his trip overseas so hopefully he can grace me an odd joke while i sit here seething that i didnt get bugga all back from this package




In the same boat here, Nun. But Im happy they are spending money on schools, at least (I HOPE!) it might nurture some more educated and open-minds for the future of our country.


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> I cant quite figure the tax thing out either. I paid about 2k in taxes last FY but got a refund of $200 so where does that leave me?





Well, I believe you're entitled then. I would assume all individuals who paid enough tax as to cover the bonus will receive it. Of course, providing you don't earn in excess of 100k.


----------



## numbercruncher (3 February 2009)

Looks like im going to have to form a roof insulation company ....

Maybe even get some Gov sponsored workers ...

Arnt recessions great ?


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

You were right Prospector, because it was logical - it was wrong 

http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/00178930.htm&page=3&H3

Apparently if your liability was anything above nill last year ... you're entitled. Which is pretty bloody scary when you think about it! Pay $1 tax, and get 950 back, what an investment!

http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/bonus_payments_feb2009.htm#training

More information on the Student payments, and other payments as well.


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

numbercruncher said:


> Looks like im going to have to form a roof insulation company ....
> 
> Maybe even get some Gov sponsored workers ...
> 
> Arnt recessions great ?




Should also be plenty of work for removalists, auctioneers, process servers and others once people lose jobs/homes etc..


----------



## Prospector (3 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> You were right Prospector, because it was logical - it was wrong
> http://www.ato.gov.au/corporate/content.asp?doc=/content/00178930.htm&page=3&H3



:


Someone needs to tell Mr Rudd that small businesses are not spending anything   so his wonderful way of helping small businesses is totally meaningless.

_The Small Business and General Business Tax Break will mean;
 A small business that buys and installs a $2,000 computer before the end of June 2009 can claim an additional $600 deduction in its 2008-09 tax return. 
A business that buys and takes possession of a $60,000 backhoe by the end of June 2009 can claim an additional $18,000 deduction in its 2008-09 tax return._
Oh wait, dont most small businesses in the city need a backhoe?  yeah, yeah, will put that on my list.


----------



## pan (3 February 2009)

So i'm starting uni, not getting youth allowance... 

I get nothing???


----------



## aleckara (3 February 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> actually i got no probs with the students getting a break with a cupla extra bucks ... after all they the future of this country ........ buggared if i wanna insulate there houses tho




Ironically I don't have a problem with insulating houses. It may save a bit of electricity and more importantly just might stop a few big blackouts or two. While I think there is probably better ways to spend the money I think it is a good start.

Question of course I'm asking is how inflationary do you think this stimulus package will be. I'm personally going to save my $950 I'm receiving.

The students working who receive youth allowance as well must be laughing. For these people $1900 is a lot of money.


----------



## Happy (3 February 2009)

I would think that as well as throw around money we could save some like reduce fat cat salaries, reduce immigration, stop seasonal workers coming and replace them with long term unemployed, reduce allowances for travel, have a look if 90y old former PM still needs a secretary and office.

Also definitely ask why prices of food don’t come down a bit since it went up because of fuel cost, hope Choice magazine will do better job with Grocery Watch Internet site.

Possibly why not suggest to employees to share work, like 4 days week instead of sacking 20% of workforce, but if Co can get rid of dead wood probably reduction of workforce better option.


----------



## prawn_86 (3 February 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> apparently im part paying for prawns spending money on his trip overseas so hopefully he can grace me an odd joke while i sit here seething that i didnt get bugga all back from this package




I'll try nun 



pan said:


> So i'm starting uni, not getting youth allowance...
> 
> I get nothing???




Your parents will get the money if your a dependent and they get FTB A. You will also get one lot of $950 if you earnt anything last year.



Prospector said:


> _The Small Business and General Business Tax Break will mean;
> A small business that buys and installs a $2,000 computer before the end of June 2009 can claim an additional $600 deduction in its 2008-09 tax return.
> A business that buys and takes possession of a $60,000 backhoe by the end of June 2009 can claim an additional $18,000 deduction in its 2008-09 tax return._
> Oh wait, dont most small businesses in the city need a backhoe?  yeah, yeah, will put that on my list.




I actually need a new computer, but my business wont earn enough this year to need a $600 deduction. Can these be carried across years?



aleckara said:


> The students working who receive youth allowance as well must be laughing. For these people $1900 is a lot of money.




Its a nice chunk of cash, but personally i wont be spending it in the way Krudd wants


----------



## moXJO (3 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> :
> 
> 
> Someone needs to tell Mr Rudd that small businesses are not spending anything   so his wonderful way of helping small businesses is totally meaningless.
> ...




Don't forget workplace reforms, and emissions trading to really give business an extra boost of confidence  That was unfortunately timed to help unemployment grow a bit more.


----------



## robots (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... 2nd stimulus package announced*



professor_frink said:


> once again I miss out
> 
> Damn you kruddy I want some free money!!!!!!




hello,

no good for me either frink, 

thankyou
robots


----------



## numbercruncher (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... 2nd stimulus package announced*



robots said:


> hello,
> 
> no good for me either frink,
> 
> ...





Thatll learn yahs for having an _income_
over 100k .....


:


----------



## nomore4s (3 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Dont worry when the tax increases are announced to pay for it all you'll be first on the list




rotflmao, not so funny when I realised I'm in the same boat.



nunthewiser said:


> Its just not fair .. having to stimulate oneself just nowhere as much fun as someone else doing it for you




You really are a dirty nun:



Nyden said:


> Well, I believe you're entitled then. I would assume all individuals who paid enough tax as to cover the bonus will receive it. Of course, providing you don't earn in excess of 100k.




If he earned in excess of $100k but only paid $2k in tax he probably wouldn't care about the $950 :, also I'd want the name of his accountant


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... insulation handout*



johenmo said:


> It'll work.  Kev said so.




Just like the last one did.

And the next one too.

And the one after that.

And the....


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... 2nd stimulus package announced*



gfresh said:


> Government has announced it's 2nd stimulus package.
> 
> http://business.theage.com.au/business/govt-unveils-42b-stimulus-20090203-7w6v.html
> 
> ...




Hey, I've got a great capitalistic idea!! If all those who get the cash hang on to it for a few weeks rather than spend it, the Gummint will get totally desperate, panic and then offer more in Bailout Pack 3!! Then repeat same for Bailout Pack 4... etc   It would be economic blackmail of the Gummint's own creation on a grand scale. LOL.

Great idea, get rich quick. Helps Oz to save, plus get all those taxes back, huh?

Capitalism rulez. Greed is good.


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

*Re: So... 2nd stimulus package announced*



Aussiejeff said:


> Hey, I've got a great capitalistic idea!! If all those who get the cash hang on to it for a few weeks rather than spend it, the Gummint will get totally desperate, panic and then offer more in Bailout Pack 3!! Then repeat same for Bailout Pack 4... etc   It would be economic blackmail of the Gummint's own creation on a grand scale. LOL.
> 
> Great idea, get rich quick. Helps Oz to save, plus get all those taxes back, huh?
> 
> Capitalism rulez. Greed is good.




By spending money on education, at least this might help prepare future generations with the assistance of knowledge to repay the debts of the previous generations.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 February 2009)

Instead of cash, the handouts should be in a voucher/coupon form redeemable at Coles, Woolworths, Harvey Norman etcetera so the money can only go to businesses who will employ more staff.The money could be directly channeled.
This would have a much more positive affect than giving cash to bludgers who spend it on alcohol, drugs and cigarettes.


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Instead of cash, the handouts should be in a voucher/coupon form redeemable at Coles, Woolworths, Harvey Norman etcetera so the money can only go to businesses who employ staff.The money could be directly channeled.
> This would have a much more positive affect than giving cash to bludgers who spend it on alcohol, drugs and cigarettes.




Maybe they will recover a lot of the stimulus with the new alcopops tax. Lots of morons will continue to buy those expensive pre-mixed spirits in a can.


----------



## nunthewiser (3 February 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> Maybe they will recover a lot of the stimulus with the new alcopops tax. Lots of morons will continue to buy those expensive pre-mixed spirits in a can.




LOL im one of those "morons" 

5 cougars thanks


----------



## prawn_86 (3 February 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> LOL im one of those "morons"
> 
> 5 cougars thanks




Why not buy a bottle and some coke nun?


----------



## nunthewiser (3 February 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Why not buy a bottle and some coke nun?




bit hard when you filling the esky to go fishing .plus if i have a bottle i tend to drink more as in pour them stronger by each glass  . actually prefer the taste of a jim beam and cola in a can prefered to my own pouring . yes it costs more but im happy with the conveniance and the lack of drinkin a whole bottle when i only want a 6 pack


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 February 2009)

Another thing is I`m not receiving one cent and am indirectly contributing to the handouts via the taxes I pay.Don`t worry Australian lazy bludgers, the workers will help you out.


----------



## prawn_86 (3 February 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Another thing is I`m not receiving one cent and am indirectly contributing to the handouts via the taxes I pay.Don`t worry Australian lazy bludgers, the workers will help you out.




Well then your obviously earning too much and Krudd is telling you to stop earning so you can become one of the masses again and vote for him like they all did last time...


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Another thing is I`m not receiving one cent and am indirectly contributing to the handouts via the taxes I pay.Don`t worry Australian lazy bludgers, the workers will help you out.




Unfortunately your right. Transfer payments have become the saviour of all!
Even those who like a bottle of Dom or Bundy depending on your income or taste. Im a reformed rum-pig myself!


----------



## Trevor_S (3 February 2009)

crtsd said:


> How will this "SUPPORT" my employees if I can no longer afford to keep them as staff?




I guess being in the line of work you are in your business will suffer in the latest "downturn" unless you can turn your hand to the infrastructure spending Gov't are going to do with civil engineering projects. 

My business is retail  (hospitality, which has always been cut throat, so I am used to running things on a shoestring and being frugal to make a buck) aside from this friggin' rain, business has grown, December and Nov were both up from the year before and the year before that.  People are still spending in my business, which is why I guess I got out of mining in the early '90's and went into hospitality... but.. I sold half my business last year (I owned 4 outlets), I have had enough of the continuing red tape and constant crap from Government, they have ground me into the dust, the coming change to unfair dismissal legislation is another example of inane legislation.  The business is still making money so I am not complaining to much mind you BUT it's just no longer rewarding spending so much time satisfying everyone from the ATO through to the ABS.



crtsd said:


> new computers and backhoes.  Who in their right mind is going to go out and buy anything in this economic environment?




I am about to spend $150,000 on renovating one of my stores.  No backhoe needed though !



GumbyLearner said:


> In the same boat here, Nun. But Im happy they are spending money on schools, at least (I HOPE!) it might nurture some more educated and open-minds for the future of our country.




I'm not. It seems a tad wasteful and somewhat ill conceived to give money to all schools as a blanket.   Some brand new school needs $200,000 and some older dilapidated school needs the same ?



Prospector said:


> Someone needs to tell Mr Rudd that small businesses are not spending anything   so his wonderful way of helping small businesses is totally meaningless.




As I stated above, I am about to do $150,000 renovation in my business, this flows through to my sign guy, my local tiler, my builder, my cabinet maker etc etc so some of us are.

Nothing for me AGAIN ... sigh aside from minor allowances to depreciation for my business and nothing for me personally. I don't need a backhoe though .. what the hell was that in there for 




pan said:


> So i'm starting uni, not getting youth allowance...
> 
> I get nothing???




again, nothing last time either... welcome to my world.... and I am paying a crap load of tax.


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> I guess being in the line of work you are in your business will suffer in the latest "downturn" unless you can turn your hand to the infrastructure spending Gov't are going to do with civil engineering projects.
> 
> My business is retail  (hospitality, which has always been cut throat, so I am used to running things on a shoestring and being frugal to make a buck) aside from this friggin' rain, business has grown, December and Nov were both up from the year before and the year before that.  People are still spending in my business, which is why I guess I got out of mining in the early '90's and went into hospitality... but.. I sold half my business last year (I owned 4 outlets), I have had enough of the continuing red tape and constant crap from Government, they have ground me into the dust, the coming change to unfair dismissal legislation is another example of inane legislation.  The business is still making money so I am not complaining to much mind you BUT it's just no longer rewarding spending so much time satisfying everyone from the ATO through to the ABS.
> 
> ...




There isnt much for people in the middle by the looks of things. Great if your a low-income earner/pensioner/student/drought stricken farmer or on the other hand a BANKER!


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 February 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> I can't believe they are spending $4 billion to put in insulation.  They've lost the plot.  Might be time to buy Yen ...



At least it produces an ongoing return on investment, and not a bad one at that, which is more than can be said for most of the other ideas they've come up with so far.

Insulate now and that will still be producing a return as long as the house is occupied. 

Also it reduces costs for business since government (taxpayers) have effectively picked up part of the cost of compliance with the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme (CPRS), costs that would otherwise be met around 80% by business.

Hand out money for a new plasma now and the whole lot will have gone to the tip within 20 years, many of them well before that. I'll take my $300 and pay it straight into the mortgage - a help to me but it's doing nothing to help the economy. Buying imported junk with it wouldn't do a lot of good either beyond helping out a few retailers for a couple of weeks.

Overall, I'd say it's one of the better ideas. Insulating roofs isn't rocket science - it's work that basically anyone who becomes unemployed (and if we're heading for recession then there will be plenty of unemployed) can be employed to do no matter what their background. And it's using a product manufactured in Australia by Australian owned companies from Australian materials. Basically every cent goes back into the Australian economy in some way and then we get ongoing reduction in costs for decades to come.

I already have insulation in the roof by the way so won't benefit from the scheme. I could claim $1600 towards solar hot water however.


----------



## IFocus (3 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Could someone who is cleverer than me please answer the following:
> 
> If we were actually in a recession (and not just trying to avoid one) would the schemes that Rudd is putting up be the best way to go?
> 
> The experts say we are in for a recession yet Rudd's spending is based on avoiding it.  So would/should things be done differently if the recession is actually out of our control




No claims of being clever

The obvious is that the problems in the US and Europe are getting worse not better no bottom in sight. What the various Governments are doing is stuff that's behind the curve.

What I mean is they are trying to slow it down but the broken bits are simply to big for governments to fix they are reacting to the crisis not acting before.

The other minor detail is what the governments are currently doing is all theory particularly in the US and UK.

The Rudd Government no doubt on advice from treasury, RBA and others are acting in front of the curve, their actions on the banks, trying to put a floor under housing prices, the 1st stimulus package etc. Also they are trying to shore up confidence.

This 2nd round is about still acting in front of the curve but will not stop the coming crunch unfortunately simply put nothing will the numbers overseas are simply to big (remember when a $bil was a lot of money) but hopefully will buy some time and soften the blow.

The real red flag is the speed the RBA are dropping interest rates, never been done before they are very concerned and that's a worry.

Politics aside I though Keating had a reasonable take 

http://www.abc.net.au/reslib/200902/r335492_1519593.asx


----------



## Nyden (3 February 2009)

Smurf1976 said:


> Overall, I'd say it's one of the better ideas. Insulating roofs isn't rocket science - it's work that basically anyone who becomes unemployed (and if we're heading for recession then there will be plenty of unemployed) can be employed to do no matter what their background. And it's using a product manufactured in Australia by Australian owned companies from Australian materials. Basically every cent goes back into the Australian economy in some way and then we get ongoing reduction in costs for decades to come.




I agree. It's a very practical idea, and it will end up saving homes money in the long run, as well as adding to personal comfort.


----------



## benn (3 February 2009)

wonder what the go is if you are a share trader with a normal job as well and with your shares going kaput the losses offset the income from your normal job therefore you got all your tax back.

i do hope i should get $950 as well. ill let the ATO sort that one out.


----------



## M34N (3 February 2009)

benn said:


> wonder what the go is if you are a share trader with a normal job as well and with your shares going kaput the losses offset the income from your normal job therefore you got all your tax back.
> 
> i do hope i should get $950 as well. ill let the ATO sort that one out.




According to this media release from the PM himself;



> A lump-sum payment of up to $950 will be made to eligible taxpayers from April 2009. The bonus will be available to Australian resident taxpayers who paid tax in the 2007-08 financial year after taking into account available tax offsets and credits.




I am still unsure if this means you had to have paid the Government back some tax from 07-08, or if they mean you have to have paid some form of income tax (ie. had a job with income that was taxed). So if you got money back from the Government/ATO in 07-08 you get nothing?


----------



## BradK (3 February 2009)

*Water pipeline*



sam76 said:


> Why can't the nation build a massive water pipe from up north to down south?




Good point... I am very much with you

Also, let us redirect SOME of our super onto our homeloans seeing that these clowns dont know how to handle it properly. 

Brad


----------



## So_Cynical (3 February 2009)

I'm just happy im getting something...hopefully 950 bucks.

However im still going to follow my informal voting policy.

Would of been nice if they just spent 3 or 4 billion on something 
new, that we actually need...even wind farms or a couple of 
biomass burning plants....anything?

Even some of those big property's on the darling that guzzle water, 
1 or 200 jobs planting them out to natives would of only cost 20 or 
30 mill.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 February 2009)

Trevor_S said:


> I guess being in the line of work you are in your business will suffer in the latest "downturn" unless you can turn your hand to the infrastructure spending Gov't are going to do with civil engineering projects.
> 
> ...
> 
> ...



I think you've answered your own question there. Buy backhoes now, quote on building the civil works as part of stiumuls package 3. More backhoes, more unemployed to operate them = the quotes should be lower. That's my best guess anyway. 

Then wait for the "First Excavator Owners Grant" (FEOG) and then the "Pick and Shovel Purchase Grant" (PSPG). After that comes the "Tip Truck Shared Equity Scheme" (TTSES). 

With that lot we should be well equiped to dig trenches. Lots of trenches. Trenches all over the country. And in doing so we'll finally build a decent broadband network, hopefully with some water pipes thrown in to fix that problem as well.

It might not be as far fetched and ridiculous as it sounds. It wouldn't be the first time someone tried to fight a depression by building power stations which really isn't hugely different in a "big picture" sense to rolling out a broadband or water network. Actually, with the recent blackouts in Vic and SA, we might as well build power plants too. 

An internet, water and power led recovery coming your way soon...


----------



## Glen48 (3 February 2009)

Wonder if I should buy one of them US of A printing machines so I can sell shredded USD for insulation?


----------



## brettc4 (3 February 2009)

I hate trying to work out these things, one little word can trip you up and has done in the past.

For the $950 for low/middle earners less that $100,000, is that for an individual or family.

Individual my wife and I earn less than $100,000, but a little bit more when combined.  Will we be eligible for 2 * $950, or nothing like usual?

Thanks,
Brett


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

IFocus said:


> No claims of being clever
> 
> The obvious is that the problems in the US and Europe are getting worse not better no bottom in sight. What the various Governments are doing is stuff that's behind the curve.
> 
> ...




Keating had a much better business brain than Little Johnny or Mr K Rudd imo!


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

*Re: Water pipeline*



BradK said:


> Good point... I am very much with you
> 
> Also, let us redirect SOME of our super onto our homeloans seeing that these clowns dont know how to handle it properly.
> 
> Brad




Great call! But unfortunately no matter what flavour of political party is in government they wont listen to you. Maybe monotone Bernie Fraser has the answers. "We're the super of the future" ROFL..yeah right thanks Bernie!


----------



## beerwm (3 February 2009)

Perspective: Rudd Government

5% emissions reduction target by 2020

$42,000,000,000 on plasma TVs, and insulation.

I think they have bought enough votes with our money for the next election.


----------



## inrodwetrust (3 February 2009)

So have I got this right?

I earnt less than $100k in 07-08 & paid tax.....Ka'ching $950

but this year if I'm making a loss ... so I claim unemployment benefits.... ka'ching!

then I do a course ... say how to drive a back-hoe ....ka'ching

I buy a backhoe ... ka'ching!

I buy a computer .... ka'ching! ...what for ? f@#* if I know!

I shack up with the farmer's single mum's daughter next door ... ka'ching... for the schoolkid..ka'ching..(no guarantees on this one!)

become a farmer ... ka'ching!


anything I missed?


----------



## BigAl (3 February 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Instead of cash, the handouts should be in a voucher/coupon form redeemable at Coles, Woolworths, Harvey Norman etcetera so the money can only go to businesses who will employ more staff.The money could be directly channeled.
> This would have a much more positive affect than giving cash to bludgers who spend it on alcohol, drugs and cigarettes.




Sounds great in theory.

In reality it sucks dogs balls, here's why:

I receive a $1,000 Coles Gift Card.  As an extra incentive to spend it (quickly) the govt has set the expiry date at 3 months from issue.

I'm  intent in battening down the hatches as the mother of all housing crashes is imminent (IMO) and want to put $1,000 onto the home loan.

How do I do it?

Do my regular weekly shopping at Coles and do not spend a Cent extra, over and above what my normal shopping bill would be.  Put all these 6 or 7 weeks of grocery shopping onto the Coles voucher.  My left-over money from my pay packet now (as I'm not spending on grocerys) is chanelled into the home loan, week by week, until I reach the magical... $1,000.

Stick that up your pipe Krudd.


----------



## nunthewiser (3 February 2009)

inrodwetrust said:


> So have I got this right?
> 
> I earnt less than $100k in 07-08 & paid tax.....Ka'ching $950
> 
> ...





LOL might as well get the farmers daughter up the duff with quadruplets and hammer the baby bonus while on the way to buying ya first home to get that other free gift 

gawd i luv a sunburnt country


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

inrodwetrust said:


> So have I got this right?
> 
> I earnt less than $100k in 07-08 & paid tax.....Ka'ching $950
> 
> ...




Learn to apply yourself like the chameleon
Plenty of businesses will become broke, they need people to sort out the problems!

When one door closes, another opens!


----------



## Glen48 (3 February 2009)

Dr. Steve Keen on SBS 03/02 claims it is all a drop in the bucket and a complete DUD


----------



## GumbyLearner (3 February 2009)

Glen48 said:


> Dr. Steve Keen on SBS 03/02 claims it is all a drop in the bucket and a complete DUD




Honest reference Glen48. He's probably right!


----------



## inrodwetrust (3 February 2009)

> LOL might as well get the farmers daughter up the duff with quadruplets and hammer the baby bonus while on the way to buying ya first home to get that other free gift




ka'ching!..ka'ching!..ka'ching!..ka'ching!  &

ka'ching!..ka'ching!....crickey ....ka'ching! * 10 




> Dr. Steve Keen on SBS 03/02 claims it is all a drop in the bucket and a complete DUD




Glen, if I heard right, earlier on this evening he said $2trillion of credit has to be wound back to zero, before it's all over... I don't why he thinks it has to wound back that much, or even if it can.

Dud.. may well right though.


----------



## Julia (3 February 2009)

inrodwetrust said:


> Glen, if I heard right, earlier on this evening he said $2trillion of credit has to be wound back to zero, before it's all over... I don't why he thinks it has to wound back that much, or even if it can.
> 
> Dud.. may well right though.



Presumably he's referring to the trillions tied up in the Credit Default Swaps which are still floating somewhere out there in some financial sub-hemisphere.


----------



## Glen48 (3 February 2009)

Keen on ABC this Morning claims we have 60 YRs of USA debt and 45 yrs of Oz to undo.
Japan is deeper in debt now than 20 yrs ago and still in deep brown stuff.
Keating last night claims we have 6-7 yrs to go.
I would like to past the hat around or run a raffle for Robots.
I guess we just watch USA and see what we have to look forward to their RE is going down faster now than last yr.


----------



## Glen48 (3 February 2009)

Keen on ABC this Morning claims we have 60 YRs of USA debt and 45 yrs of Oz to undo.
Japan is deeper in debt now than 20 yrs ago and still in deep brown stuff.
Keating last night claims we have 6-7 yrs to go.
I would like to past the hat around or run a raffle for Robots.
I guess we just watch USA and see what we have to look forward to their RE is going down faster now than last yr.


----------



## Julia (3 February 2009)

sam76 said:


> Why can't the nation build a massive water pipe from up north to down south?



This would make a lot more sense than giving more to people who (in the present climate of fear) will save it or pay off debt rather than spend it as Mr Rudd is anticipating.  A FNQ call centre operator yesterday said that at present the equivalent of six times the volume of Sydney Harbour is pouring out into the sea off, I think, Townsville every day.  Think what this could do for the water woes of Victoria and SA.



Prospector said:


> And another question, if this package is designed to stimulate jobs, then why isnt business included in any of the benefits?  Giving money to tax payers wont save their jobs, but helping business will.



Now you are just being very ungrateful Prospector.  Isn't there some sort of tiny tax break for small business?  And can't you go out and buy e.g. a backhoe?  
Seriously, I'd have thought that generous assistance to business would have in turn ensured more jobs into the future.



gfresh said:


> My thoughts are that cash payments to low-income earners it largely ends up paying excessive credit card debt and overdue bills (or the Rudd Thursday on pokies). From anecdotal evidence, that is what most I know in that group said they spent the money on.
> 
> Middle earners is an interesting one... Maybe some would just put it on the mortgage. I know with me it's well "now what do I do with that". I've already got my bills well covered and no debt, and have a weekly savings plan, so thinking I would spend it on something consumery. If others were thinking the same, could have a different effect on the economy to lower income earners... maybe



And the more Mr Rudd emphasises the dire outlook, the less likely people are to spend it on other than necessities.





nunthewiser said:


> WTF! . WHY is my dollars paying for YOUR handouts ? WHY am i paying for roof insulation ( of all things christ!)
> 
> geeeeez seems everyone gunna get there packages stimulated real nicely on MY buck
> 
> ps im not gettin nothing hence my dissapointment



Well now, we finally have something in common.  I don't get anything either, not because I'm earning a large amount but because the considerable amount of tax I've paid has been via a SMSF which apparently is not eligible for the bonus payment.




MrBurns said:


> Dont worry when the tax increases are announced to pay for it all you'll be first on the list



That is just so true.   This will indeed all have to be paid for by the faithful taxpayer eventually.


----------



## Boggo (4 February 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Instead of cash, the handouts should be in a voucher/coupon form redeemable at Coles, Woolworths, Harvey Norman etcetera so the money can only go to businesses who will employ more staff.The money could be directly channeled.
> This would have a much more positive affect than giving cash to bludgers who spend it on alcohol, drugs and cigarettes.




Buy up shares in gambling stocks kiddies, Victoria recorded a 25% increase in gambling revenue after the last payout, at least we know where our tax dollars are going


----------



## andrew08 (4 February 2009)

So my partner and i who don't have any children and earn under $80K should expect to see $950 each from this??


----------



## CoffeeKing (4 February 2009)

inrodwetrust said:


> ka'ching!..ka'ching!..ka'ching!..ka'ching!  &
> 
> ka'ching!..ka'ching!....crickey ....ka'ching! * 10




This sounds familiar all over the country ???


----------



## CoffeeKing (4 February 2009)

Suppose you could buy one of these and get some Gov't tenders seeing they have pots of money...

Or do this if you want
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=c9yfaTlRA7w&feature=PlayList&p=1A838BA3D16DE0B4&playnext=1&index=24


----------



## prawn_86 (4 February 2009)

andrew08 said:


> So my partner and i who don't have any children and earn under $80K should expect to see $950 each from this??




Yep thats right.

On another note, can any accountants out there tell me if tax deductions can be carried across years?

EG - I have an ABN for my travel forum, but its not earning anything, so if i bought a new computer with this incentive, could i roll over the tax deductibility?


----------



## sinner (4 February 2009)

From my (hopefully) Austrian perspective:

Australia and the UK both exited the Great Depression much quicker than the US because they were quicker off the bat to devalue their currency against gold. Or maybe they just didn't have the staying power the US had at the time (either way it was obvious devaluing the currency against gold helped immensely).

It is worth noting the US Fed has begun monetising the debt they began putting out in September/October, with 10bn USD of Treasuries and other securities purchased back so far.

Gold used to be the worlds main reserve currency, now it is USD. We have already devalued greatly against USD with no signs of an opposite movement any time soon due to continued interest rate cuts and lack of strong commodity markets. So what is left?

$950 for everyone is a vastly inflationary tactic, it is literally dropping money from the helicopter as Bernanke espoused. I will give some credit to the Treasury for not just printing the money, and at least backing it by Aus Govt debt which actually has a decent standing right now on the international debt markets.

Just from some napkin calculations, Rudd has spent about $100bn all up since things got rough: on bank liquidity injections, company bailouts, initiatives, etc. Not all of this money is inflationary, but a large portion (those dollars making their way into the hands of the common people) of it is. Especially considering 6 months ago we had a $20bn budget surplus and close to $1bn trade surplus.

So in the long run, while I would have preferred to see fiscal conservatism and tax breaks funded by Government budget cuts, I can see how the Treasury is operating over a longer term scope and maybe they can actually get us out of this? Sooner or later everyone will be devaluing anyway as this is the nature of a fiat currency. We might as well get it over and done with so when the next cycle rolls around (commods are always first out of the barn on a recovery) we are ready for it.

Tighten your belts kiddies. It's been time now for the last few months to significantly cut back your household expenditure and put the savings away. Keep a months worth of living expenses in hard cash somewhere like a safe deposit box or similar just in case. Kill your debts off and refinance anything you can't. Do not rely on the next XAO upswing to return you to safety. Things could continue for some time and deteriorate as they do. Best to concentrate on the simple things like guaranteeing food, shelter and water over the long run, worry about the yield on your investments later.


----------



## imagineer (4 February 2009)

pitty he didnt spend $100b on Gold since that is the only thing that has been going up and that would have helped the miners.
What woulod happen if Australia became the only currency rebacked by gold ????
just imagineering.
Buy silver
Neil


----------



## investorpaul (4 February 2009)

Im still not sure how to view this one, on one front I'm pleased because:
1. I get $950
2. I think it is of significant size to actually have an impact
3. The gov is actually doing something

On the other front I'm disappointed because:
1. Its 3 months too late.
2.It needs to be implemented well to be effective and I have doubts over that.
3. Although we need to go into deficit to fund it, I am concerned about the labour governments ability to pull us out of deficit once market conditions improve.


----------



## Largesse (4 February 2009)

youth allowance recieving student who earnt under 80k in FY0808

=


2 x $950???


yes?

prawn get in here and plz confirm


----------



## prawn_86 (4 February 2009)

Largesse said:


> prawn get in here and plz confirm




LOL, yes as far as we can tell so far. If it gets supported through the senate etc.

YA is paid through centrelink, so that will be in March, earnings one is paid through ATO so that will be in April


----------



## cuttlefish (4 February 2009)

I can't comprehend the whole thing at all.  The country has gone completely mad when we decide that roof insulation is the most productive thing we can spend $4 billion on.   And I will never understand how giving out cash handouts is going to help the situation.  The sensible people will save it - that won't add anything to productivity, the idiots will spend it on booze/gambling (I fall into the latter category ).  Neither of these activities will do anything whatsoever to stimulate any kind of productivity that I can see.

I'm glad that the opposition is planning to block it - its a complete farce imo.

Spending on education is worthwhile in my view and long overdue.  

It would also be good to see some spending on health, with strong encouragement for Australian businesses to provide innovative health and health services solutions - this is an area where we could develop smart products for export and we have at least some track record as a nation in innovative health solutions.

And general infrastructure is also not going to go astray.  Instead of just putting cash in pockets - get people doing a bit of extra work to build some infrastructure that will enhance productivity and efficiency.  This will provide extra work that will allow people to productively earn more cash which they can then spend on flat screen TV's, booze or home loan payments and at the same time create real efficiencies.

And if you're going to spend $4 billion in one hit on productive infrastructure - surely some kind of tendering/works program/application process is the best way to divvy it out - get councils, individuals, businesses to put forward ideas for productive use of the funds and push it out there that way.

You'll be able to buy more with a bag of cowrie shells than you will with roll of AUD banknotes at this rate.  The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.


----------



## cuttlefish (4 February 2009)

Rudd has no vision - this is an uninspiring hodge podge of hastily slapped together initiatives.   

But geez you'd be happy if you were a manufacturer of insulation batts wouldn't you!


----------



## Boggo (4 February 2009)

Crown Casino (CWN) seems to be expecting some increased revenue, share price moving along.


----------



## investorpaul (4 February 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> Rudd has no vision - this is an uninspiring hodge podge of hastily slapped together initiatives.
> 
> But geez you'd be happy if you were a manufacturer of insulation batts wouldn't you!




there is going to be alot of dodgie installers who ride this wave and then disappear


----------



## knocker (4 February 2009)

Judging by the calibre of responses here, everyone, bar me, is on the rock'n'roll.

All I can say to you dole bludgers is getting a life.


----------



## knocker (4 February 2009)

imagineer said:


> pitty he didnt spend $100b on Gold since that is the only thing that has been going up and that would have helped the miners.
> What woulod happen if Australia became the only currency rebacked by gold ????
> just imagineering.
> Buy silver
> Neil




Well indirectly he has via our esteemed premier up there in QLD, the name says it all lol


----------



## prawn_86 (4 February 2009)

knocker said:


> Judging by the calibre of responses here, everyone, bar me, is on the rock'n'roll.
> 
> All I can say to you dole bludgers is getting a life.




So is anyone earning under 100k a bludger in your books?


----------



## Aussiejeff (4 February 2009)

Wonder what changes the Libs will force KRudd & Co. to make to the package before they give the green light?


----------



## prawn_86 (4 February 2009)

The only thing i dont get with they way these handouts are strutured is the fact that, if we do spend it as Krudd wants us to, then essentially we are giving our taxes to company profits?

Consumption based economies dont makes sense to me


----------



## Prospector (4 February 2009)

knocker said:


> Judging by the calibre of responses here, everyone, bar me, is on the rock'n'roll.
> 
> All I can say to you dole bludgers is getting a life.




Well, if you say you have read this thread and think everyone here is a dole bludger, then I hope you invest any money you receive in a literacy course in English.  Your response is really scary.  I also hate the rock'n roll kind of writing, really trashy.  Maybe it explains everything really.


----------



## MrBurns (4 February 2009)

The market doesnt seem to like the package , perhaps it did for an hour or so then realised it's BS, perhaps he should put one out weekly ?


----------



## inrodwetrust (4 February 2009)

> Wonder what changes the Libs will force KRudd & Co. to make to the package before they give the green light?




Well I hope they keep the insulation option in, cause I'm in danger of getting my stop loss hit on CSR(100% owns Bradford insulation)....and loosing my $950 before I even get it!..  

Of all the rotten luck Mr Turnbull announces their blockage plans mins after I bought!  Why didn't he say it before the market opened! B#@^* y... neo-con-liberal-capaitalist should have known better!


----------



## Nyden (4 February 2009)

inrodwetrust said:


> Well I hope they keep the insulation option in, cause I'm in danger of getting my stop loss hit on CSR(100% owns Bradford insulation)....and loosing my $950 before I even get it!..
> 
> Of all the rotten luck Mr Turnbull announces their blockage plans mins after I bought!  Why didn't he say it before the market opened! B#@^* y... neo-con-liberal-capaitalist should have known better!




Why not just be happy with the 950; why try to profit from it as well? :

Well, I certainly hope this thing gets passed - only because I have an interest in it this time! In all honesty, do people earning 100k+ really need, or care about $950? We students could do anything with it, such as buying a new laptop!

 ... or save it all, as I intend to : Turnbull, you're standing in the way of my money, move aside, or else!


----------



## Mofra (4 February 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Consumption based economies dont makes sense to me



It's the inverse of Reaganomics - he's hoping for a trickle up effect. 

What I don't understand is - he hope to create 90,000 with the package, yet is spending $466,667 per job created with this new package.

Why not just create 90,000 backbenchers? The salary is just over a quarter of the cost, you'd support a 2nd or 3rd staffer each on allowances, prop up the airlines (travel) and retail property sector (they'd all need offices) and Canberra's population would swell, effectively relocating people from urban centres with struggling transport infrastructures (state capital cities) into the urban centre with the best transport infrastructure.

Win/win/win I say


----------



## prawn_86 (4 February 2009)

Very interesting point Mofra. Also the people employing these supposed 90000 still have to pay them a salary, so its even more that its costing


----------



## Smurf1976 (4 February 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> But geez you'd be happy if you were a manufacturer of insulation batts wouldn't you!



That depends on how quickly it's implemented. In the meantime, business will have already fallen off a cliff - nobody's going to pay now for something they're about to get free.


----------



## gfresh (4 February 2009)

Turnbull has some balls standing against the package. To be honest though, I think he has some valid points. 

I don't think the near $10bn cash handouts part of the package are a good idea. While it may be nice, I think the money could be better put towards further infrastructure, or saved for later plans later on in the year. I think that is more likely to keep people in work, kick off further projects, or even cushion the recession slightly. 

Here is a slightly random thought - $10bn would be enough to directly pay the salary of 200,000 people at $50,000 a year for 12 months. 30% of that money would come directly back the government in income tax. 70-90% would probably be spent, and somewhere near 30% of that would go back to the government indirectly in company taxes. 

Cash payments are an individually greedy idea at the end of the day. We've seen them given out in the US last year.. they possibly gave some short-term reprieve, but several months on it's like they never existed.


----------



## MrBurns (4 February 2009)

gfresh said:


> Turnbull has some balls standing against the package. To be honest though, I think he has some valid points.
> 
> I don't think the near $10bn cash handouts part of the package are a good idea. While it may be nice, I think the money could be better put towards further infrastructure, or saved for later plans later on in the year. I think that is more likely to keep people in work, kick off further projects, or even cushion the recession slightly.
> 
> ...




I agree this is all aimed at confidence. The Govt simply havent got the money to bail us out of this, problem is their lame attempts will burden future generations with enormous debt, Rudd doesn't give a root , this is his moment in the sun.


----------



## gav (4 February 2009)

I'd prefer income tax cuts for lower & middle class, I think that would stimulate the economy a lot more than simply giving people $950.  As gfresh said, it only helps for the very short term and several months later we will see no benefits.


----------



## juw177 (4 February 2009)

Reckless borrowing and spending is what caused this problem. And what do we do? Spend more money we don't have.

Deficit spending is extremely short sighted. It assumes that someone will lend us huge amounts of money and that we can pay the interest on it. You would think that the current rise in US treasury yields market may be of some warning to Rudd?

We need to do the opposite, that is, *encourage savings and cut back public sector spending*. There is no other way to weather this out.


----------



## Dowdy (4 February 2009)

Some things are good like the infrastructure spending but the one-off hand outs are a waste and will make things worst.

Instead of the free insulation, he should of done free water tanks. Water is alot more precious then saving energy

This won't stop a recession. Will probably make it worst since he's trying to stop the market response for decades of excessive spending and debt


----------



## CoffeeKing (4 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I agree this is all aimed at confidence. The Govt simply havent got the money to bail us out of this, problem is their lame attempts will burden future generations with enormous debt, Rudd doesn't give a root , this is his moment in the sun.




Could this mean that when the Govt run out of money to hand everyone and
we are in the deepest of it, next election will the masses turn on the ALP "cause they got no more" 
and get the LIBS in hoping they might have a few squillion tucked away somewhere?


----------



## cuttlefish (4 February 2009)

The only result I can see after spending $4 billion on insulation is that all the businesses that were created as part of the exercise will fold afterwards, all of the people that were working putting in the insulation will be out of a job afterwards, and all that will be left are some well insulated homes.   

Nothing to pin any kind of future on, nothing to build on, nothing to utilise, no seeds of growth planted, its highly unlikely any innovations will have resulted from it, nobody reskilled or educated as a result of it.   

Just a lot of insulation bats in roofs.

Clearly the best thing to save the nation.

It is demented.

I hope that this part at least gets excised out. 

Geez build the railways up in the Northern territory to exploit the minerals out of there.  Or build a gas pipeline up to Asia.  Solve water and erosion problems.  Spend on a complete overhaul and consolidation of health administration in Australia and related health services which are back in the 19th century in a lot of instances - this will encourage all sorts of innovation - health is an area crying out for innovative ideas and any significant spending will result in all sorts of side benefits and will likely create lasting, internationally competitive businesses.  It will also help out all of the ageing Australians that will need those health services.

But no lets put the money into pokies, alcohol and insulation bats - in quantities unheard of.   

What a disgraceful waste of years of Australian productivity and savings - current and future.    Banana republic here we come. 

Someone wake me up ... or is it April 1st? ... or did the Chaser team somehow manage to take over the Australian media for a day?


----------



## juw177 (4 February 2009)

Dowdy said:


> Some things are good like the infrastructure spending




No. Infrastructure spending is only good if there is a demand for it and right now there is little. Every dollar the government spends is one less dollar for more essential social services later. We taxpayers will end up paying it all back plus interest.

Building bridges to nowhere will only make the recovery take longer.


----------



## gfresh (4 February 2009)

The insulation scheme reminds me of the water tank scheme they had up here. 

Worked great for a few businesses, made some in the industry very rich for some 12 months. They had to employ extra workers, etc to cope with demand.. so in theory it worked out fairly nicely when it lasted. But at the start of this year the QLD government canned the rebates, these businesses went bankrupt, laid off staff, and as they thought the times would never end, they never really had a contingency.


----------



## Nyden (4 February 2009)

juw177 said:


> No. Infrastructure spending is only good if there is a demand for it and right now there is little. Every dollar the government spends is one less dollar for more essential social services later on and that does not factor in interest on the deficit.
> 
> Building bridges to nowhere will only make the recovery take longer.




Well, although I don't think the handout is entirely a good thing - I most certainly want it, and I believe it will sincerely help a lot of people.

Students could certainly use it - to help with fees, books, computers, rent, you name it; students need it.

A thought has occurred, what about those that have jumped the gun and already spent it? Irresponsible, yes - but surely there are quite a few out there, who in the excitement of it all went out and bought that new TV ... only to find out that they might not get the money now 

I know I'm certainly peeved. I was all thrilled yesterday, and now I'm just somewhat distraught. Dangle a $1900 carrot in front of my face, and now Turnbull wants to take it away - one can only imagine these sorts of feelings are amplified across the voting public. The man has just commited political suicide, I'm afraid.

I think infrastructure spending is a fantastic thing, people were calling for this not too long ago! Now, all of a sudden people are arguing against it. It's irrelevant if the infrastructure will be used at this time, the point is that it will be ready for when the recovery begins - hopefully this will prevent another blooming 'boom/bust' scenario!

The reality is, what Australia does, or doesn't do - has nearly *nill* effect on the world economy. Australia is dependant on the world economy, it really is as simple as that. Creating (even temporary) jobs, and at least lessening the fall can only be a good thing, surely.

Finally, if we do nothing - we're stuffed anyway. If this thing drags out long enough, the AUD will be devalued to a point where none of this will matter for many, many years 

What can I say? It's unlikely that I'll ever turn down $1900. Darn, I really am annoyed. I got all excited for potentially nothing ... perhaps I can sue the federal government for mental anguish.


----------



## SenTineL (4 February 2009)

Turnbull is a jackass.

What has he offered as an alternative? Do nothing while every other country is doing similar things?


----------



## Nyden (4 February 2009)

SenTineL said:


> Turnbull is a jackass.
> 
> What has he offered as an alternative? Do nothing while every other country is doing similar things?




Oh, that reminded me!

On the ABC interview tonight, he mentioned how unlike Australia was to the US. To me, that sounded a little too much like the spin they were spouting a while back - about Australia being immune. I really think he's underestimating as to how bad it could get here.


----------



## Grumpy Old Man (4 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Oh, that reminded me!
> 
> On the ABC interview tonight, he mentioned how unlike Australia was to the US. To me, that sounded a little too much like the spin they were spouting a while back - about Australia being immune. I really think he's underestimating as to how bad it could get here.




I dont think he was saying that.  More that we might need to do something else in 6 months time and if we spend all the money now - where do we go next?  Borrow another trillion $???

And how do we pay it back?

Personally, I earn and pay tax and would like to understand a few of the details.  Given that I am working and paying tax, I dont have time.  So I am glad Turnbull is sticking his knackers on the line to do it for me.


----------



## nunthewiser (4 February 2009)

Bugga the insulation . what australia needs  is .........LAMB CHOPS !


----------



## juw177 (4 February 2009)

SenTineL said:


> Turnbull is a jackass.
> 
> What has he offered as an alternative? Do nothing while every other country is doing similar things?




How is it working in these "other countries" and the markets? Are you talking about the US tax payer money that went into a black hole that is the Federal Reserve?

The alternative is to cut back public spending and encourage savings. We can take the hit now and get it over with or we can go in more debt, dragging this on for many years to come.


----------



## Calliope (4 February 2009)

Rudd and Swan are convinced that they can spend their way out of recession, and they admit they don't know if it will work. But they say it has to be done urgently just in case it does work. If it fails, and it probably will, they think they can at least fall back on the gratitude of those who get the handouts.

A large part of the 28 billion going on infrastructure will go down the gurgler. Like all money spent in a hurry there will be little control on waste, graft and bad management. Governments are notoriously bad at getting value for the taxpayers buck. 

I am disgusted that this naive, inexperienced government can impose this horrific debt on taxpayers and future taxpayers.


----------



## juw177 (4 February 2009)

The AUD has declined 20% against the Yen and 15% against USD in the last 30 days. That is what the market thinks of our stimulus.


----------



## CoffeeKing (4 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> Rudd and Swan are convinced that they can spend their way out of recession, and they admit they don't know if it will work. But they say it has to be done urgently just in case it does work. If it fails, and it probably will, they think they can at least fall back on the gratitude of those who get the handouts.
> 
> A large part of the 28 million going on infrastructure will go down the gurgler. Like all money spent in a hurry there will be little control on waste, graft and bad management. Governments are notoriously bad at getting value for the taxpayers buck.
> 
> I am disgusted that this naive, inexperienced government can impose this horrific debt on taxpayers and future taxpayers.




it's called "The labor party"


----------



## moXJO (4 February 2009)

SenTineL said:


> Turnbull is a jackass.
> 
> What has he offered as an alternative? Do nothing while every other country is doing similar things?




Are you kidding me.... I for one do not want $42b rushed through with no thought. I don't disagree with all of the package. But at the same time, I can see us heading into a lot more debt down the track after we blow this lot.


----------



## grace (4 February 2009)

I think I might have to vote for Kev.

$4000 in Dec (I've got 4 young children)

$5700 over the next few months (you know, they are off to School, and so on and so forth).

Do I need it? No......why don't they asset test these things.....

I'll save every cent though Kev, buy some shares for the kids when the time is right.

Money should have been put into health.  Good that money is being spent on buildings in Schools.

Vote for Kev,......NEVER.


----------



## juw177 (4 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> Rudd and Swan are convinced that they can spend their way out of recession, and they admit they don't know if it will work.




It won't work. They tried last Christmas and it didn't do anything so they throw even more money the second time? Sound like the ever increasing bailouts in the US?

Unfortunately, we cannot borrow near as much money as the US (the US are getting away with it for now because US treasuries are a perceived flight to safety). If we try to borrow and spend like the US, we must pay a high interest yield, and the AUD will be destroyed. The kicker is that all our USD denominated debt will increase with it and then we will probably spiral into a depression.


----------



## cashcow (4 February 2009)

Half the nation in flood and with typical rainfall way in excess of what they can catch, and use, year in year out; the other half in extended drought.  It'd be ambitious but I wish they'd have a crack at solving that one in the flurry of spending.

Regarding the handouts to the masses, I can't see that doing much good, partly because lots of people don't seem to make very smart choices on what to spend their money on (something I've done in the past), and partly because our economy is so heavily service-geared.  If people, for example, go and buy a plasma, then the retailer gets some, and maybe some goes into the supply chain, and then the rest goes overseas.  If we had a decent manufacturing sector still, it might pass through more Australian hands and keep more of us gainfully employed.

Just my  but I'd be interested in people's comments and rebuttals


----------



## Julia (4 February 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> The only result I can see after spending $4 billion on insulation is that all the businesses that were created as part of the exercise will fold afterwards, all of the people that were working putting in the insulation will be out of a job afterwards, and all that will be left are some well insulated homes.



I suppose it's his gesture towards coping with 'climate change', i.e. less need for air conditioning/heating if houses are insulated.  I think the principle is reasonable but it does not deserve the amount of money spent on it he has suggested.  It will also spawn many rip off merchants.




> Nothing to pin any kind of future on, nothing to build on, nothing to utilise, no seeds of growth planted, its highly unlikely any innovations will have resulted from it, nobody reskilled or educated as a result of it.



I'd hoped that the funds destined for Education might have been some attempt to employ more teachers, or improve teacher education so that we produce teachers who are actually properly equipped to teach.  But no, it's to go to creating splendid new assembly halls, music auditoriums etc.  These are great if there's plenty of spare money but hardly seem a priority for borrowed money.






> Geez build the railways up in the Northern territory to exploit the minerals out of there.



Or expand the ports so that when the mining resumes at full levels there are not the bottlenecks causing ships to wait at sea for days before loading/unloading.



> Or build a gas pipeline up to Asia.  Solve water and erosion problems.  Spend on a complete overhaul and consolidation of health administration in Australia and related health services which are back in the 19th century in a lot of instances - this will encourage all sorts of innovation - health is an area crying out for innovative ideas and any significant spending will result in all sorts of side benefits and will likely create lasting, internationally competitive businesses.  It will also help out all of the ageing Australians that will need those health services.



Yes.  Even put funds into new nursing homes for the ageing population, at the same time introducing a level of user pays for upper levels of care.





> But no lets put the money into pokies, alcohol and insulation bats - in quantities unheard of.
> 
> What a disgraceful waste of years of Australian productivity and savings - current and future.    Banana republic here we come.
> 
> Someone wake me up ... or is it April 1st? ... or did the Chaser team somehow manage to take over the Australian media for a day?



It's certainly feeling like some sort of bad dream.
But are all of us wrong?  Most of the country's economists seem to be in favour of it.






MrBurns said:


> I agree this is all aimed at confidence. The Govt simply havent got the money to bail us out of this, problem is their lame attempts will burden future generations with enormous debt, Rudd doesn't give a root , this is his moment in the sun.



I think he's actually revelling in all the drama.  



juw177 said:


> Reckless borrowing and spending is what caused this problem. And what do we do? Spend more money we don't have.
> 
> Deficit spending is extremely short sighted. It assumes that someone will lend us huge amounts of money and that we can pay the interest on it. You would think that the current rise in US treasury yields market may be of some warning to Rudd?
> 
> We need to do the opposite, that is, *encourage savings and cut back public sector spending*. There is no other way to weather this out.



That's my natural inclination also.  But wasn't this what happened in the Great Depression and as a result all the umm experts have resolved to do the opposite now?

Quite apart from whether massive spending does work for more than five minutes, the whole concept imo encourages the population to continue in the belief that it's just fine to go on spending more than you earn, and that there is no day of reckoning.






juw177 said:


> No. Infrastructure spending is only good if there is a demand for it and right now there is little. Every dollar the government spends is one less dollar for more essential social services later. We taxpayers will end up paying it all back plus interest.
> 
> Building bridges to nowhere will only make the recovery take longer.



Perhaps there is sense in building infrastructure now which will be needed when the recovery occurs.  I don't see that assembly halls in schools fit into this category.




Grumpy Old Man said:


> I dont think he was saying that.  More that we might need to do something else in 6 months time and if we spend all the money now - where do we go next?  Borrow another trillion $???
> 
> And how do we pay it back?
> 
> Personally, I earn and pay tax and would like to understand a few of the details.  Given that I am working and paying tax, I dont have time.  So I am glad Turnbull is sticking his knackers on the line to do it for me.



I couldn't agree more.  The urgency with which Rudd & Co expect the Senate to pass this legislation is quite obscene.  I also would like a detailed account of just how all this proposed spending is going to create exactly how many jobs and details of how long these jobs will last, e.g. the fly by night batt installers.

The whole thing smacks of  panic by a government who is high on fear and low on expertise as to how to fix the problem.  They seem to be taking the view that if you slap around enough money something positive might come out of it.

Malcolm Turnbull has significantly risen in my estimation with his preparedness to take such an unpopular stand.   He may find he has more support than he may have anticipated.

Did anyone see the Lateline interview with Peter Costello last night?
Back to his old fiery self.  I can't help wishing he was still Treasurer right now.


----------



## jet328 (4 February 2009)

It's amazing how quick Kev & his buddies are to tell us how many jobs they will 'create' but never mention how many jobs they will destroy.

When the government raises $40bn from its bonds, thats $40bn that productive private companies won't be able to access. Like its not hard enough already to roll over finance, Kev is going to make you compete against him now. How is a private business meant to compete against someone with their own printing press?

So we're going to destroy real, efficient, productive private sector jobs to create phoney inefficient temporary jobs. I'm sure glad Kev isn't 'just doing nothing'


----------



## cashcow (4 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Dangle a $1900 carrot in front of my face, and now Turnbull wants to take it away - one can only imagine these sorts of feelings are amplified across the voting public. The man has just commited political suicide, I'm afraid.




Maybe, or maybe he's thinking, "Hmmm, this government was elected by a fair majority, but there's still another ~2years until the next Federal election, what have I got to lose by playing devil's advocate?"


----------



## Julia (4 February 2009)

cashcow said:


> Maybe, or maybe he's thinking, "Hmmm, this government was elected by a fair majority, but there's still another ~2years until the next Federal election, what have I got to lose by playing devil's advocate?"



Or is it just possible that - as someone who presumably has a few more clues than Kev about things financial - he genuinely believes in what he is saying and knows Kev's package is poor.  Thinks it's worth sticking his neck out politically in the hope of a more responsible approach?


----------



## ghotib (5 February 2009)

Does anyone else remember that Turnbull heartily commended Hank Paulson's original US stimulus package? The one that the Bush administration got through in double quick time and which turned out to be hopelessly inadequate. I distinctly remember hearing Malcolm talk about his old friend Hank and what a very smart man he was; I wonder what he thinks now.

I don't think the national interest is in Turnbull's mind much at all right now, except insofar as he thinks that a coalition government after the next election would be in the national interest. Maybe he's right about that, but we've got to get through the next year or more first and I for one would appreciate some sign that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is prepared either to propose some alternatives or to make its opposition constructive. 

I had hopes that Turnbull would raise the level of policymaking in the coalition and or debate in the Parliament. He's a big disappointment. 

Ghoti


----------



## juw177 (5 February 2009)

Someone needs to show Rudd our exponential increase in foreign debt. It had been used to fuel the boom, and now that's over, we are left with over *$1 trillion in debt denominated in (mostly) US dollars.*

If Rudd continues to flood the economy with money and cutting interest rates, the AUD will suffer. As a result, foreign debt servicing goes up. Then the government / banks will need more liquidity to service the debt which causes the AUD to fall even more. Ultimately, the Australian economy will spiral into bankruptcy. With the cost of borrowing increasing, this can happen sooner than people think.


----------



## GumbyLearner (5 February 2009)

ghotib said:


> Does anyone else remember that Turnbull heartily commended Hank Paulson's original US stimulus package? The one that the Bush administration got through in double quick time and which turned out to be hopelessly inadequate. I distinctly remember hearing Malcolm talk about his old friend Hank and what a very smart man he was; I wonder what he thinks now.
> 
> I don't think the national interest is in Turnbull's mind much at all right now, except insofar as he thinks that a coalition government after the next election would be in the national interest. Maybe he's right about that, but we've got to get through the next year or more first and I for one would appreciate some sign that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition is prepared either to propose some alternatives or to make its opposition constructive.
> 
> ...




Funny you should mention that Ghoti. He used to work for Goldman Sachs too, just like Paulson did. Hypocrisy..anyone? Well at least he approved Paulsons cash to bankers and wooden toy arrow makers.  Why on earth would he want to support this stimilus package? Targeting the wrong people obviously!


----------



## CoffeeKing (5 February 2009)

This was the way...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ifip7u-3Ks&feature=related

This is now the way...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3fgXf6HAk38&feature=related


----------



## Calliope (5 February 2009)

Julia said:


> I'd hoped that the funds destined for Education might have been some attempt to employ more teachers, or improve teacher education so that we produce teachers who are actually properly equipped to teach.  But no, it's to go to creating splendid new assembly halls, music auditoriums etc.  These are great if there's plenty of spare money but hardly seem a priority for borrowed money.





Exactly. But they have to find projects they can throw money at quickly, even if it won't improve the children's education one iota. Before you build magnificent libraries children need to be educated to to level where they will use the library

The quality of the teachers (and the teachers' teachers) is so poor there is no short term answer, and the tragedy is that after this spendfest there will be no money left for long term solutions.


----------



## Prospector (5 February 2009)

Anyone else find it frightening to look at the professional qualifications of the Labor Government.  Rock star, professional politicians, lawyers, trade unionists.  So exactly how many of them have had any experience in running a business?  Let alone a business facing financial pressure. 

Let alone the business of running Australia!

Put the infrastructure into channelling the flood waters from NT/FNQ into Victoria and South Australia.  Will cost billions I know, that is always the catch cry, but we seem as though we have billions to spend anyway.  Solves many problems.


----------



## knocker (5 February 2009)

nunthewiser said:


> Bugga the insulation . what australia needs  is .........LAMB CHOPS !




AND VB lol especially south of the border.:


----------



## knocker (5 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Anyone else find it frightening to look at the professional qualifications of the Labor Government.  Rock star, professional politicians, lawyers, trade unionists.  So exactly how many of them have had any experience in running a business?  Let alone a business facing financial pressure.
> 
> Let alone the business of running Australia!
> 
> Put the infrastructure into channelling the flood waters from NT/FNQ into Victoria and South Australia.  Will cost billions I know, that is always the catch cry, but we seem as though we have billions to spend anyway.  Solves many problems.




Don't worry about the water, gravity will see it arrive in Vic eventually lol


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 February 2009)

juw177 said:


> Someone needs to show Rudd our exponential increase in foreign debt. It had been used to fuel the boom, and now that's over, we are left with over *$1 trillion in debt denominated in (mostly) US dollars.*
> 
> If Rudd continues to flood the economy with money and cutting interest rates, the AUD will suffer. As a result, foreign debt servicing goes up. Then the government / banks will need more liquidity to service the debt which causes the AUD to fall even more. Ultimately, the Australian economy will spiral into bankruptcy. With the cost of borrowing increasing, this can happen sooner than people think.




In addition, Australia's AA international credit rating is sure to take a big hit. That won't help the AUD going forward either.

I seem to remember some problem with Gough's Labor gumint trying to obtain international loans for Treasury back in the 70's (the notorious Khemlani Affair). 







> IT WAS known as the Khemlani affair, but for the Whitlam government the money trail started in Adelaide with Greek emigre Gerry Karidis, 37. Thirty years later Karidis, a rich Adelaide builder who now specialises in retirement villages, is adamant the $4 billion "funny money" stream of petrodollars promised by shady Pakistani businessman Tirath Khemlani really was there, and more.
> 
> Speaking for the first time in 30 years about his role in the loans affair, *Karidis says up to $8 billion in Middle Eastern oil money was waiting to be tapped and could have helped the Whitlam government realise its grand vision, which included major new infrastructure investment and a plan to take up a strategic interest in Australia's mineral wealth*.
> 
> "Khemlani mentioned $4 billion, he even mentioned $8 billion, and the money was there. I knew from another source $5 billion was there just from one person; we weren't blowing hot air," says Karidis.



http://www.theage.com.au/news/natio...-blowup-of-1975/2005/10/28/1130400363882.html

Sound familiar? Big loans needed to pay for Labor's grand vision for infrastructure & mining developments? LOL

I'm also pretty sure we will see a massive blowout in the "official" gummint deficit figures over the next 12-18 months. They have guessed (intentionally?) WAY under the real figure to date, so I have ABSOLUTELY NO CONFIDENCE in their current rubbery projected figures. 



chiz,

aj


----------



## CAB SAV (5 February 2009)

juw177 said:


> Someone needs to show Rudd our exponential increase in foreign debt. It had been used to fuel the boom, and now that's over, we are left with over *$1 trillion in debt denominated in (mostly) US dollars.*
> 
> If Rudd continues to flood the economy with money and cutting interest rates, the AUD will suffer. As a result, foreign debt servicing goes up. Then the government / banks will need more liquidity to service the debt which causes the AUD to fall even more. Ultimately, the Australian economy will spiral into bankruptcy. With the cost of borrowing increasing, this can happen sooner than people think.




Yesterday our news bullitin friends here, Compare Shares, reported that US senators were trying to explain to the average Joe how much a trillion dollars is. So they gave the example that laying dollar notes end to end would go around the Earth over 38 times. I suggest Mr Rudd should use Uranus as an example for Oz.


----------



## juw177 (5 February 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> In addition, Australia's AA international credit rating is sure to take a big hit. That won't help the AUD going forward either.
> 
> I seem to remember some problem with Gough's Labor gumint trying to obtain international loans for Treasury back in the 70's (the notorious Khemlani Affair).




Frightening.

Difference is the government has guaranteed our bank debt. For now the banks have had no trouble raising more money abroad (ie, getting into billions more debt). But how long can this continue before conditions take a turn and the government is left with a bill of epic proportions?

Watch the US treasuries and the AUD. These two dictate the cost of our borrowing. Notice US bond yields are increasing? This is an indication that interest rates have bottomed out.
http://bigcharts.marketwatch.com/advchart/frames/frames.asp?symb=tnx&sourceid=Mozilla-search


----------



## glenn_r (5 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Anyone else find it frightening to look at the professional qualifications of the Labor Government.  Rock star, professional politicians, lawyers, trade unionists.  So exactly how many of them have had any experience in running a business?  Let alone a business facing financial pressure.
> 
> Let alone the business of running Australia!
> 
> Put the infrastructure into channelling the flood waters from NT/FNQ into Victoria and South Australia.  Will cost billions I know, that is always the catch cry, but we seem as though we have billions to spend anyway.  Solves many problems.




I agree with the quality of Labour MP's but irrigating the Darling - Murray with Northern Australia's floodwater would create a world food bowl creating many more permanent jobs for our kids future not just the current drop in the ocean effect, the typical Labour management of finances is to spend now on anything and pay later with increased taxation etc.

The only good thing about Rudd and Swan hitting the panic button is it has woken up Costello from the back bench.


----------



## inrodwetrust (5 February 2009)

Rudd rescue bonds expected to draw global cash



> Up to $24 billion worth of Commonwealth bonds will be issued in the next five months, compared with the annual $5 billion in the past four financial years.






> The new debt will also compete with government-guaranteed commercial paper from the banks in a market flooded with at least $30 billion in the past few months.




What if they can't raise the funds after making all those promises.Although I not suggesting they won't or have any reason to think they can't..out of my area.

But how much will capital raisings be affected....will it be counter productive to the corporate sector?

Hypothetically speaking ... if Chairman Rudd can't raise the dough....maybe we could do our patriotic duty & put our multiples of $950 into the new Aussie Bonds?!.....would that then be like 'feeding the hand that feeds you"?


----------



## cuttlefish (5 February 2009)

Prospector said:
			
		

> Anyone else find it frightening to look at the professional qualifications of the Labor Government. Rock star, professional politicians, lawyers, trade unionists. So exactly how many of them have had any experience in running a business? Let alone a business facing financial pressure.
> 
> Let alone the business of running Australia!




It would seem not - but I don't think Rudd has had much real life experience at anything except textbook diplomatic theory and maybe some textbook economics.


Someone should physically restrain these idiots from getting their hands on Australia's chequebook.


This plan is like someone with a credit card bill and no job going and buying a flat screen TV from Harvey Norman on two years interest free, and then selling it to pay off the credit card debt.   What happens in two years time?  Buy two flat screen TV's and sell them to pay off the first one?  Roll forward 10 years of doing the same thing ... thats about where we're at now.

The Australian dollar will be a historical relic at this rate.


----------



## cuttlefish (5 February 2009)

I guess the only saving grace for Australia is if we can string our debt on debt out for long enough, eventually the global cycle will swing back our way and we can use our big holes in the ground to pay it all off again ... what a clever country we are.


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 February 2009)

CAB SAV said:


> Yesterday our news bullitin friends here, Compare Shares, reported that US senators were trying to explain to the average Joe how much a trillion dollars is. So they gave the example that laying dollar notes end to end would go around the Earth over 38 times. I suggest Mr Rudd should *use Uranus* as an example for Oz.




Be careful how you pronounce Ur-anus.


----------



## inrodwetrust (5 February 2009)

> I agree with the quality of Labour MP's but irrigating the Darling - Murray with Northern Australia's floodwater would create a world food bowl creating many more permanent jobs for our kids future not just the current drop in the ocean effect, the typical Labour management of finances is to spend now on anything and pay later with increased taxation etc.




I read somewhere, that ancient Persia( now Iran) like many centuries ago(maybe even in BC times), the region was crippled by droughts & lack  of rain, so the rulers of the day, in their  wisdom & foresight, built aqueducts or similar from the mountains to the lowlands I turned the area into flourishing agriculture area. It might have even been a main contributor to the rise of the ancient Persian Empire. I don't know how long it took or how may slaves used etc.

It could be a load of bunk but I'll try to find more details. If true interesting how the ancients had it seems greater vision than today's leaders.... or maybe just plenty of slaves!


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 February 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> ...The only result I can see after spending $4 billion on insulation is that all the businesses that were created as part of the exercise will fold afterwards, all of the people that were working putting in the insulation will be out of a job afterwards, and all that will be left are some well insulated homes...




If lots of people were feeling hot and bothered and had considered getting roof insulation OR a small aircon, what solution might they now plump for?

They can either fork out $1,000-1,500 for a small aircon, OR get roof Batts, essentially for FREE. I think I know which way the aircon industry might go from here & it won't be up. I wonder how many aircon installers and associated industries will now close down?  

Let's face it, the pollies are all exhorting us to NOT use aircons when it gets hot anyway!

Of course, the gummint would have considered this side effect of "insulating" Oz from the dreaded "R" word.

Sure. They're clever.


----------



## moXJO (5 February 2009)

What I want to know is what happened to Rudd being an economic conservative? Wasn’t he spouting this off during the election? 
I also have a problem having any faith in Swan. I remember Costello mentioned a financial tsunami was headed our way a while back. But didn't Swan say we were light years away from a recession? It feels like there is no well thought out economic leadership. And I doubt the libs would be better off in control at the moment either.
And the RBA didn't help with pushing interest rates up so high. Was it timed right? Or did it put economic activity in a tailspin considering how low it has gone now? Did they just get it wrong?
I suppose it did reign in debt and stop people splurging but now they are trying to do the opposite


----------



## MrBurns (5 February 2009)

moXJO said:


> I also have a problem having any faith in Swan. I remember Costello mentioned a financial tsunami was headed our way a while back. But didn't Swan say we were light years away from a recession? It feels like there is no well thought out economic leadership. And I doubt the libs would be better off in control at the moment either.




Swan's an idiot, totally clueless.


----------



## juw177 (5 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Perhaps there is sense in building infrastructure now which will be needed when the recovery occurs.




Right. In essence, we are burning up future demand now which will result in less jobs in the future.

This "want it now" attitude is the reason for the slump. If you buy a TV this month, you won't buy one the next. And we have already bought enough stuff that we don't need.


----------



## investorpaul (5 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Swan's an idiot, totally clueless.




Rudd and Swam both wait until after the **** hits the fan, then quickly scramble to come up with a policy, add a heap of spin and trick the majority of people into believing they saw it coming.

Furthermore Rudd has got to be one of the most uninspiring people on the planet, when he talks its basically monotone, he has no enthusiasm or energy in his voice and he comes across as weak. 

Given the economic conditions we need strong leadership, we need someone to speak with conviction and say regardless of the situation life goes on and we will come out of this stronger, we do have a proper plan, we will implement it properly. This then needs to be followed through with actions.

Rudd is all talk, he has flown around the world numerous times to have his photo taken with leaders, called numerous summits and talk sessions, including the 2020 summit which was just a bunch of his mates (who already agree with him) and therefore no debate was stimulated. They should have just called it an agreement session, where everyone sits around and agrees with Rudd. If we follow Rudds line of thinking all we would believe is: The worlds doomed because of climate change, the worlds doomed because of the economic situation, the worlds doomed because of capitalism, the worlds doomed because the liberals delivered 10 yrs of economic growth, with low unemployment and economic prosperity, the worlds doomed because of this that and the other.


----------



## MrBurns (5 February 2009)

investorpaul said:


> Rudd and Swam both wait until after the **** hits the fan, then quickly scramble to come up with a policy, add a heap of spin and trick the majority of people into believing they saw it coming.
> 
> Furthermore Rudd has got to be one of the most uninspiring people on the planet, when he talks its basically monotone, he has no enthusiasm or energy in his voice and he comes across as weak.
> 
> ...




Good post, sums up the present situation very well.


----------



## Glen48 (5 February 2009)

Could I get insulation for my car?


ATTACH]27724[/ATTACH]


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 February 2009)

Glen48 said:


> Could I get insulation for my car?
> 
> 
> ATTACH]27724[/ATTACH]




Heehee! 

I'm not sure whether Yank Tanks qualify. 

However, I'm sure a nice Policeman would be glad to write you a roadworthiness ticket!! LOL


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 February 2009)

*SENATE INQUIRY TO BE HELD INTO $42BILLION PACKAGE*

http://www.theage.com.au/national/senate-inquiry-into-labors-42b-stimulus-package-20090205-7y2k.html

Vote now not expected until next Thursday.

At last - some scrutiny.


----------



## Buddy (5 February 2009)

This package is the most irresponsible economic pile of claptrap produced by Keynesian lemmings, that this country has ever seen. There may be merit in boosting infrastructure spending (there always is justification for that) but the pork barrelling give aways indicates the total lack of experience and naievity that these politicans exhibit. It will not have any positive impact on the world's state of finanical affairs (Australia is irrelevant in thie equation)and is simply a populist exercise on the masses, who have about as much knowledge of finance and economics as a gnat. (that does not include ASFers, who are a very knowledge bunch - maybe we should be running the country).

The commentators, as usual, as slamming Turnbull. Of course, they have all lived through a recession/depression and have the wisdom of Solomon. But politics aside, it strikes me that this man has more credibility in finance and Australia's future wellbeing than this lot. Keynesian policies might work to tinker the levers wheels and buttons but have never worked when things get critical. And it strikes me as ironic that these people really believe that spending the future wealth of Australia is going to get them out of this mess.  They must have a greater sense of their own (and Australia's) importance than everyone else on the planet. 

None of this will work, and thanks to these policies, the country is inextricably sliding into the mud.

Even though (some) people say the USD will tank, and maybe it will, the US bond yield is increasing.  IMHO I think the world will see a period of deflation followed by potentially severe inflation. At the same time the AUD is probably heading for the low 50s (maybe lower). This does not bode well for Australia, and the krudd/duck policies will hasten this decline. And leave a lasting debt for the future. Of course, there is a theory going around that this is exactly what these Keynesians are all about (debt reduction via inflation). 

If any of this is true, and I suspect it is, then every single person over the age of, say 50, should be extremely worried by this government's policies. You're savings/superannuation are rapidly erroding. I hope you like working. And every single person under the age of, say 50, should be extremely worried by this governemnt's policies. You will have a massive debt burden. I hope you like working.

This bunch of nincompoops has to be, as cuttlefish says, physically restrained. What really worries me though is that the great unwashed out there think that krudd/duck/and the woman with the horrible voice, are doing a good job. Have a look at the newspaper polls.  Just shows how easy it is to corrupt the Australian dumbed down population via bribery.  There is no hope and the light at the end of the tunnel is surely a large freight train.

It seem to me that virtually a 100% of ASFers hold the view (and lets face it, we are a pretty intelligrent buch) that this lot are practicing economic vandalism. So what are we going to do about it?  Hmmmmm!


----------



## Aussiejeff (5 February 2009)

Buddy said:


> This package is the most irresponsible economic pile of claptrap produced by Keynesian lemmings, that this country has ever seen. There may be merit in boosting infrastructure spending (there always is justification for that) but the pork barrelling give aways indicates the total lack of experience and naievity that these politicans exhibit. It will not have any positive impact on the world's state of finanical affairs (Australia is irrelevant in thie equation)and is simply a populist exercise on the masses, who have about as much knowledge of finance and economics as a gnat. (that does not include ASFers, who are a very knowledge bunch - maybe we should be running the country).
> 
> The commentators, as usual, as slamming Turnbull. Of course, they have all lived through a recession/depression and have the wisdom of Solomon. But politics aside, it strikes me that this man has more credibility in finance and Australia's future wellbeing than this lot. Keynesian policies might work to tinker the levers wheels and buttons but have never worked when things get critical. And it strikes me as ironic that these people really believe that spending the future wealth of Australia is going to get them out of this mess.  They must have a greater sense of their own (and Australia's) importance than everyone else on the planet.
> 
> ...




Partake in interlocutorial intercourse?


----------



## Buddy (5 February 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Partake in interlocutorial intercourse?




Yes, we are having a chat. 
Are you suggesting some sort of legal action.


----------



## Calliope (5 February 2009)

Rudd's policy (unlike God's) is to help people who won't help themselves. In a country of heat extremes like ours who are these people who have never bothered to have their homes insulated?  As rental houses don't qualify for the handout it won't help the very ones it could benefit either.


----------



## nick2fish (5 February 2009)

Buddy said:


> It seem to me that virtually a 100% of ASFers hold the view (and lets face it, we are a pretty intelligrent buch) that this lot are practicing economic vandalism. So what are we going to do about it?  Hmmmmm!




Nice post but it would have been better if you would have devoted even a little of it to suggestions of a better alternative. 
You can't be an ostrich in these times.
I'm sure you can agree that the best and most logical way of trying to soften the blow to the economy is to go and build something that will benefit society and which is something that we NEVER do in boom times when we are trying to break budget surplus records.
As for the cash give aways, you do need instant measures to ensure the money will keep circulating. That is why we won't get any because they know that we will either pay down debt or save.
IMV,inaction is the danger here, not if we overspend by a few billion.
The boom will be back and my kids will be happy to sacrifice a bit of hard earned to pay for the work entailed in ensuring their future education,health and economic welfare have been met


----------



## MrBurns (5 February 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Nice post but it would have been better if you would have devoted even a little of it to suggestions of a better alternative.
> You can't be an ostrich in these times.
> I'm sure you can agree that the best and most logical way of trying to soften the blow to the economy is to go and build something that will benefit society and which is something that we NEVER do in boom times when we are trying to break budget surplus records.
> As for the cash give aways, you do need instant measures to ensure the money will keep circulating. That is why we won't get any because they know that we will either pay down debt or save.
> ...




I guess there's always war


----------



## Buddy (5 February 2009)

nick2fish said:


> Nice post but it would have been better if you would have devoted even a little of it to suggestions of a better alternative.
> You can't be an ostrich in these times.
> I'm sure you can agree that the best and most logical way of trying to soften the blow to the economy is to go and build something that will benefit society and which is something that we NEVER do in boom times when we are trying to break budget surplus records.
> As for the cash give aways, you do need instant measures to ensure the money will keep circulating. That is why we won't get any because they know that we will either pay down debt or save.
> ...




Well, yes, I did agree that infrastructure spending in not a bad thing. However, I cannot agree that handouts are anything more than that. They dont do much apart from lining the pockets of gambling owners in NSW, and funnel debt overseas. If handouts are so wonderful then why not give to everyone on the proviso that they have to spend on consumables.  And what differentiates the so called rich against the poor with regards to this sort of claptrap policy on the run. By the way have you asked your kids about this sacrifice? If you have, and they said fine, then all I can say is well done for bringing with such a fine sense of civic duty . And forget about the "boom will be back". That's years away, and besides I hardly think this last "boom" really had any lasting long term benefit for Australia. IMO it was an opportunity lost by government.

As for a "better alternative", that's not my job.  But I will say that if the politicans followed Austrian economic theory rather that Keynesian, then IMO we would not even be in this mess. Although having said that, so would other countries.


----------



## Buddy (5 February 2009)

Here is a very eloquent commentary from Jeff Kennett. I cannot agree more.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25009319-5000117,00.html
Unfortunately Rome burns and the writing is on the wall.  
This federal government will surely be judged as the worst in Australia's history.


----------



## Calliope (5 February 2009)

Buddy said:


> Here is a very eloquent commentary from Jeff Kennett. I cannot agree more.
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25009319-5000117,00.html
> Unfortunately Rome burns and the writing is on the wall.
> This federal government will surely be judged as the worst in Australia's history.




It's a very depressing commentary on our society. Having an old fashioned sense of values these days is regarded as an alien concept. In fact Rudd's policies are only workable when the majority have little or no sense of values.


----------



## jonojpsg (5 February 2009)

What a load of bollocks!  Jeff Kennett built a strong Victoria in the 90s by selling everything he could get his hands on!  And the libs while certainly working hard to pay off the government debt did very little with the squillions of surplus they had apart from...oh yes, throwing it up in the air by handing back personal tax cuts.  

I completely agree though that we need to spend the money on worthwhile infrastructure like transport and communications - I'm constantly bemoaning the lack of vision of Tassies politicians, eg when there is more water than we can poke a stick at within cooee of some of the driest farmland in the state they mull over what to do about it for years and then do nothing!!!


----------



## MrBurns (5 February 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> What a load of bollocks!  Jeff Kennett built a strong Victoria in the 90s by selling everything he could get his hands on!




Well I think he had to after Cain and Kirner bankruped the state and lost the State Bank for us


----------



## Buddy (5 February 2009)

jonojpsg said:


> What a load of bollocks!  Jeff Kennett built a strong Victoria in the 90s by selling everything he could get his hands on!  And the libs while certainly working hard to pay off the government debt did very little with the squillions of surplus they had apart from...oh yes, throwing it up in the air by handing back personal tax cuts.
> 
> I completely agree though that we need to spend the money on worthwhile infrastructure like transport and communications - I'm constantly bemoaning the lack of vision of Tassies politicians, eg when there is more water than we can poke a stick at within cooee of some of the driest farmland in the state they mull over what to do about it for years and then do nothing!!!




What? So you're saying it's bollocks to old fashion values of thrift, manage your affairs, live within your means and only spend what you have?  Then I say.... bollocks to you!


----------



## nick2fish (5 February 2009)

Buddy said:


> That's years away, and besides I hardly think this last "boom" really had any lasting long term benefit for Australia. IMO it was an opportunity lost by government.
> 
> As for a "better alternative", that's not my job.  But I will say that if the politicans followed Austrian economic theory rather that Keynesian, then IMO we would not even be in this mess. Although having said that, so would other countries.




There is no way we could have avoided "This mess". 
Our customer base has been decimated, completely. Income levels reduced so severely that a lot of Australians that have done the normal thing and brought a house will lose their job and in consequence maybe their house.
If the country goes into debt it won't be the first time and it won't be the last, but if it saves homes and jobs, I won't be asking my kids, I'll be telling them..."This is how it is"

These proposed measures alone won't ensure that we can emerge from this period unscathed, that will rely on an combined international economic stimulus of the like we have never seen. You better hope they spend much more than what we are prepared to do.

Or probably this economic downturn is not going to effect you ... is it?


----------



## nick2fish (5 February 2009)

Buddy said:


> What? So you're saying it's bollocks to old fashion values of thrift, manage your affairs, live within your means and only spend what you have?  Then I say.... bollocks to you!




YES, YES and YES and I will NEVER invest in a company which is not prepared to grow by setting an acceptable equity level for itself.

If you could give me an example of any company which has adhered to your above statement and grown please advise


----------



## juw177 (5 February 2009)

^^ Why does anyone not see the simple fact that there is no "STIMULUS"? The losses have to be taken by somebody whether it is the shareholders or the taxpayer. It was unavoidable from the time the bad loan was made.

The stimulus programs can only:
- delay the losses by more borrowing. We have to pay back every dollar plus interest.
- transfer the losses to the government (taxpayer)
- transfer the risk from the corporate bonds to the AUD: dangerous when our debt is denominated in USD
- create demand by destroying future demand: That means buying stuff we don't currently need, including infrastructure.
- throw away money: hand outs, home buyer grants
- tax cuts: good if the government cuts out all the crap above!

There is no free lunch. Nothing is fixed until the debt is paid or destroyed!


----------



## Buddy (5 February 2009)

nick2fish said:


> There is no way we could have avoided "This mess".
> Our customer base has been decimated, completely. Income levels reduced so severely that a lot of Australians that have done the normal thing and brought a house will lose their job and in consequence maybe their house.
> If the country goes into debt it won't be the first time and it won't be the last, but if it saves homes and jobs, I won't be asking my kids, I'll be telling them..."This is how it is"
> 
> ...




Nick, unfortunately you are probably correct in that we, as in Australia, could not avoid this mess. By and large it was caused by outside events, although our huge debt to overseas interests is not helping anyone around here. I was simply expressing the opinion that Keynesian economic theory is flawed for these circumstances. And the end result will be significant inflation and massive sovereign debt. 

This currect handout is just playing politics. It is not necessary from an economic viewpoint as it will have no impact.  And when the shan hits the fit, where is the government going to get money from to assist people really in need.

As for whether this economic downturn will affect me? Well yes, my super has tanked, my shares are buggered and my fixed savings are being devalued (lower interest rates). Whether I will have a job? Dont know. Also, dont know what might happen 1-2 years down this track. Doesn't look good though.


----------



## Julia (5 February 2009)

moXJO said:


> And the RBA didn't help with pushing interest rates up so high. Was it timed right? Or did it put economic activity in a tailspin considering how low it has gone now? Did they just get it wrong?
> I suppose it did reign in debt and stop people splurging but now they are trying to do the opposite



It seems they don't wait long enough to assess the effects of previous decisions before jumping in and repeating the process.  Hence the overshoot we saw on the way up and no doubt the same will happen on the way down.
Far too much fiddling and manipulation by all aspects of government, RBA especially.



MrBurns said:


> Swan's an idiot, totally clueless.



Agree.  But he gives the impression of perhaps a bit more sincerity than Rudd.
Come back, Costello.



Buddy said:


> The commentators, as usual, as slamming Turnbull. Of course, they have all lived through a recession/depression and have the wisdom of Solomon. But politics aside, it strikes me that this man has more credibility in finance and Australia's future wellbeing than this lot.



I'd have thought so too.


> What really worries me though is that the great unwashed out there think that krudd/duck/and the woman with the horrible voice, are doing a good job. Have a look at the newspaper polls.  Just shows how easy it is to corrupt the Australian dumbed down population via bribery.



And the more cash that is thrown at them the more they will grin and say "Hey, thank you Mr Rudd".  And tick the "I love Labor" box on the next survey form.



Buddy said:


> Here is a very eloquent commentary from Jeff Kennett. I cannot agree more.
> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25009319-5000117,00.html
> Unfortunately Rome burns and the writing is on the wall.
> This federal government will surely be judged as the worst in Australia's history.



That is a brilliant piece by Jeff Kennett.   Sums it up so accurately.

How is it, though, that seemingly all the economists/financial commentators, business groups etc are all in favour of the Rudd Plan Version 2?   
Is it a bit like the story of the Emperor's New Clothes?
For those who are too young to know this cautionary tale from Hans Christian Anderson it goes roughly like this:



> An emperor of a prosperous city who cares more about clothes than military pursuits or entertainment hires two swindlers who promise him the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they tell him, is invisible to anyone who was either stupid or unfit for his position. The Emperor cannot see the (non-existent) cloth, but pretends that he can for fear of appearing stupid; his ministers do the same. When the swindlers report that the suit is finished, they dress him in mime. The Emperor then goes on a procession through the capital showing off his new "clothes". During the course of the procession, a small child cries out, "But he has nothing on!" The crowd realizes the child is telling the truth. The Emperor, however, holds his head high and continues the procession.




Do all the economists so much in agreement share a fear of speaking out against the whole stimulus philosophy because they believe they will look foolish amongst their peers?


----------



## moXJO (5 February 2009)

nick2fish said:


> There is no way we could have avoided "This mess".
> Our customer base has been decimated, completely. Income levels reduced so severely that a lot of Australians that have done the normal thing and brought a house will lose their job and in consequence maybe their house.
> If the country goes into debt it won't be the first time and it won't be the last, but if it saves homes and jobs, I won't be asking my kids, I'll be telling them..."This is how it is"
> 
> ...




Refering back to mofras post:


> What I don't understand is - he hope to create 90,000 with the package, yet is spending $466,667 per job created with this new package.




How is that sensible spending? The idea of spending money for the sake of spending money is daft. Didn’t this package go out before the results of the first stimulus came back in?
Also the fact the labor govt is using every means possible to rush this package through without it being scrutinized also smells fishy. Yes the country will need to go into debt. But I question the amount being thrown around. And the fact that TBull is demonized for asking questions that are very relevant for all Australians.


----------



## knocker (5 February 2009)

"Australians planning to spend Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's promised $950 bonus on holidays, new drum kits, Wii games, tattoos and weekend-long benders have flooded into a new Facebook group."
http://www.theage.com.au/national/facebook-fury-over-turnbull-no-to-cash-splash-20090205-7yo0.html

Totally indicative of the level of intellect Australians display now days.

Cracking the sh!ts because they can not get tattoos or Wii games.

I reckon let this country rot along with the knuckle dragers that seem so rife.


----------



## Buddy (5 February 2009)

knocker said:


> "Australians planning to spend Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's promised $950 bonus on holidays, new drum kits, Wii games, tattoos and weekend-long benders have flooded into a new Facebook group."
> http://www.theage.com.au/national/facebook-fury-over-turnbull-no-to-cash-splash-20090205-7yo0.html
> 
> Totally indicative of the level of intellect Australians display now days.
> ...




I said something earlier about the dumbed down great unwashed Australian masses. Seems this proves me correct. These people really do need protecting from themselves, let alone the politicians. So why spend all the money on schools, education doesn't seem to have worked too well with these cretins.

Maybe we should rename krudd "the leader of the cargo cult". Move over Mugabe, Zimbabwe here we come.


----------



## MrBurns (5 February 2009)

As I've always said - 

Just give the great unwashed a pair of oversized breasts and a happy ending, and they'll 'oink' for more every time.


----------



## joeyr46 (5 February 2009)

Cannot beleive what is going on they must be panicking but not al agree this says it all very well

http://www.ipa.org.au/news/1789/the-bail-out-disease


----------



## drsmith (5 February 2009)

Anyone wish to place odds on the the income tax cuts slated for 2009/10 and 2010/11 surviving the May budget ?

Abandoning them is one way the government could shore up it's revenue base post stimulus package#2 and improve the potential for further one off handouts in the lead up to the next election.

It would be interesting to know Malcolm Turnbull's thinking on this. By bringing forward the 2009/10 tax cuts as he has suggested the option of the government reneging on them in the next budget would be much more difficult.


----------



## IFocus (5 February 2009)

Realistically the $42 bil will delay the lost of jobs which is a good thing but not much else.

As for the dept amount compared to our GDP its nothing and wont be the last to get spent. 

As Keating pointed out the 1st government ever to run a surplus was the Hawke / Keating government up until then ever Australian government ran deficits, shock horror that Liberal icon Bob Menzies yes ran deficits.

Turnbull's opposition to the package is political and about positioning the Libs for when things get ugly then they can say they were right as the Labor strategy failed. 

Fact is nothing will stop the inevitable don't want to sound like a doomsayer but its just reality.


----------



## bunyip (5 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Anyone else find it frightening to look at the professional qualifications of the Labor Government.  Rock star, professional politicians, lawyers, trade unionists.  So exactly how many of them have had any experience in running a business?  Let alone a business facing financial pressure.
> 
> Let alone the business of running Australia!
> 
> Put the infrastructure into channelling the flood waters from NT/FNQ into Victoria and South Australia.  Will cost billions I know, that is always the catch cry, but we seem as though we have billions to spend anyway.  Solves many problems.




Pity people didn't more carefully consider the 'professional qualifications' of Krazy Kev and his loony club before voting them into power, eh Prospector?

Your water diversion idea has merit. I've always believed in that plan, and could never see that cost should have held it back. Over time the cost would be returned many times over, not to mention the obvious spin-offs from such a project during the construction phase. 
Australia has plenty of water.....it's just that it's not getting to the places where it's needed most.

Now, who said you and I never agree!


----------



## bunyip (5 February 2009)

crtsd said:


> http://www.pm.gov.au/media/Release/2009/media_release_0778.cfm
> 
> How will this "SUPPORT" my employees if I can no longer afford to keep them as staff?
> 
> ...




The article below strongly supports what you're saying.
I suspect that the unfolding crisis will be much bigger than Rudd and his grandiose plans to combat it. 

A cabbie in Brisbane was telling me last night that the taxi business has become very quiet in recent months....according to him it's always one of the first industries to start feeling the pinch in the early stages of a recession.

_Global leaders are planning on capital expenditure programs to promote employment and tax cuts to stimulate consumption. Neither will be effective unless consumer confidence is restored. In 1929 President Hoover implemented similar measures, but with little effect. Confidence had been shaken by the rash of bank failures and soaring unemployment (exacerbated by a commitment to maintain high wages and attendant tariff protection). Consumers increased savings and paid off debt to protect themselves from uncertainty, while business adopted a similar defensive strategy: cutting costs, reducing debt and deferring new capital projects. Their priority was survival. 

Herbert Hoover was undoubtedly one of the most capable and business-focused leaders to have graced the White House. A professional engineer with a reputation as an efficiency expert, by the age of 35 he had become financially independent and devoted his life to public service. Serving as Secretary for Commerce under presidents Harding and Coolidge, he earning a reputation for thorough research and a bias for action that made him the obvious successor to Coolidge. Despite this, his efforts to rescue the economy from recession failed dismally. 

While Hoover is often blamed for the Great Depression, as Secretary for Commerce he had criticized the Federal Reserve's expansionary (cheap money) policy. His attempts to intervene were thwarted by the independent status of the Fed. Bankers serving on the board of the New York Fed (in those days more dominant than the Federal Reserve Board) resented this interference from an outsider. They also sought to preserve the margins enjoyed by borrowing at artificially low interest rates and lending on brokers loans secured by stocks ”” at call rates between 15 and 20 per cent. 

As Secretary for Commerce, Hoover had prepared the economy for a future recession. He planned to smooth out any fall in consumption with increased capital spending programs by government, railroads and other large corporations over whom he had influence. The increase in capital spending was, however, outweighed by an overall decline in private sector investment and in residential construction. Tax revenues also fell as the economy declined, hampering further federal, state and municipal spending programs. Consumption continued to fall, leading to more business and bank failures, more job losses and declining tax revenues. The downward cycle became self-reinforcing. The economy was only rescued by World War II: increased war production and, later, conscription helping to solve the unemployment problem. 

In the present crisis, as in the 1930s, neither business nor consumers are likely to be lured into new capital investment or increased consumption until stability is restored. Stimulus packages treat the symptoms of a recession, but they do not address the underlying cause. Rebuilding confidence requires more effort than increasing government spending and a few media releases. Only when concerns over bank solvency, inflationary monetary policy, ballooning federal debt, business failures and further job losses have been settled are we likely to witness a return to normal consumption and investment patterns. The task requires exceptional leadership as well as a deep understanding of the underlying issues. Otherwise we could end up in a worse position than Herbert Hoover. 



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



_


----------



## Julia (5 February 2009)

joeyr46 said:


> Cannot beleive what is going on they must be panicking but not al agree this says it all very well
> 
> http://www.ipa.org.au/news/1789/the-bail-out-disease




Thanks, Joey.  Excellent article.
This excerpt re Ansett correctly sums up the principle that should be taking place at present.



> Does anybody doubt that if the Government was presented with the imminent collapse of Ansett that it would have quickly ponied up the cash? At the time, the Howard government resisted the howls of Ansett executives and the unions and let Ansett die the death it deserved. Nearly a decade later, flights have never been cheaper and it is safe to assume that most of those who were laid off at the time have been able to find work in a more productive enterprise.




We should be allowing non-competitive companies to fail.


----------



## nick2fish (5 February 2009)

moXJO said:


> How is that sensible spending? The idea of spending money for the sake of spending money is daft. Didn’t this package go out before the results of the first stimulus came back in?
> Also the fact the labor govt is using every means possible to rush this package through without it being scrutinized also smells fishy. Yes the country will need to go into debt. But I question the amount being thrown around. And the fact that TBull is demonized for asking questions that are very relevant for all Australians.




What is the use of having a debt facility if you never are going to use it.
We need government to spend money that they have saved now and if that spending is not enough ...borrow. But spend it on infrastructure, build an irrigated food bowl in the North, do it and do it now. Build the rail facilities to port so desperately needed, just do it now, not tomorrow when the boom is back, today even though there is a lesser need. Build just one road in Sydney that has enough lanes so that it doesn't turn into a gas chamber. Build a few more dams around the place so we don't have to watch so much water running out to sea and then start thinking about taking the salt out of it.

The time to do something is now and debt is not a problem if your countries economic fundamentals are strong. Ours Are IMO


----------



## juw177 (5 February 2009)

nick2fish you are delusional.

Our country is in heavy debt as it is, dont get it confused with the previous surpluses. Spend like there is no tomorrow? Wake up, that is has already been done in the last decade of cheap borrowing and it made us broke. Every dollar spent now is one less dollar we will be able to spend in the future. Add interest repayments too.



> debt is not a problem if your countries economic fundamentals are strong. Ours Are IMO




Are you sure?
http://business.smh.com.au/business/deep-in-foreign-debt-20081112-5msv.html


----------



## nick2fish (6 February 2009)

Cheers for the assessment mate, I'll cancel my appointment with my Physiologist.

Get the main spiel with my post. 
I pay over and above tax to meet my families needs. I have a mortgage and I need a job otherwise my little house of cards falls down.

I got bumped of with RIO and now I have a 6 month contract and then Hope

We Ozzie's sit back and watch all our customers spend money on their economies, and we will pull the purse strings shut and bitch and moan about free trade.  
You should wake up, as now we live in a global economy and because some Wall St Geeks found a way to pour money down a hole, it is a global response needed. 
Anyway its late and I've gotta fly, c u in 6
Your assessment is totally off in my books, because we are not going to spend money like there is no tomorrow 
We are spending because there is going to be a tomorrow.


----------



## Aussiejeff (6 February 2009)

Hahaha!

A SuperCapitalist jumps into bed with a SuperSocialist! 

I wonder what Lowy stands to gain from their frenzied intercourse. 

Oh, what interesting times we live in....



> *ONE of Australia's richest men and the head of the Westfield shopping empire Frank Lowy has thrown his weight behind the Rudd government's $42 billion stimulus package.*



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25015321-5005961,00.html


----------



## MrBurns (6 February 2009)

> ONE of Australia's richest men and the head of the Westfield shopping empire Frank Lowy has thrown his weight behind the Rudd government's $42 billion stimulus package.




Gee what a surprise, doyathink he might be looking for some of that to be spent in his shopping centers.???????????????? Naaaa he's just a good corporate citizen looking out for you and me


----------



## Prospector (6 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> Pity people didn't more carefully consider the 'professional qualifications' of Krazy Kev and his loony club before voting them into power, eh Prospector?
> 
> Now, who said you and I never agree!




Not me!    Actually I think we have had some interesting discussions.  And I voted for the other side too! :  Well, I just dont trust trade unions to do the right thing for business; they just dont get that small business employs most of their people anyway!


----------



## moXJO (6 February 2009)

nick2fish said:


> What is the use of having a debt facility if you never are going to use it.
> We need government to spend money that they have saved now and if that spending is not enough ...borrow. But spend it on infrastructure, build an irrigated food bowl in the North, do it and do it now. Build the rail facilities to port so desperately needed, just do it now, not tomorrow when the boom is back, today even though there is a lesser need. Build just one road in Sydney that has enough lanes so that it doesn't turn into a gas chamber. Build a few more dams around the place so we don't have to watch so much water running out to sea and then start thinking about taking the salt out of it.
> 
> The time to do something is now and debt is not a problem if your countries economic fundamentals are strong. Ours Are IMO




I'm all for debt for infrastructure spending, if it has long term benefits. I wasn’t arguing against that. I was arguing for that, not quick cash splurges. There was enough waste in this package that it needs to be scrutinized. That’s the whole point of having an opposition. It's going to take what? A week or two, and people are whining already over not getting there cash handout. Its $42b for Christ’s sake is there that much wrong with checking it over.
We will need another stimulus in coming months, and possibly over coming years that will add a lot more debt. I do not want to see rushed plans with no after thought. 

With upcoming workplace reforms, and carbon trading, I doubt there is much to look forward to for business confidence.
 Business will fail, people will lose jobs. And those that leveraged to the hilt will feel the pain. That’s just how it is, and most likely unavoidable. It's happened before and no doubt will happen again.


----------



## Calliope (6 February 2009)

Does anyone doubt that the Newspoll coming out on Monday will show massive support for Rudd's spendfest. Most don't care much for Turnbull's values. The  see him only as a threat to their handouts.


----------



## knocker (6 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> Does anyone doubt that the Newspoll coming out on Monday will show massive support for Rudd's spendfest. Most don't care much for Turnbull's values. The  see him only as a threat to their handouts.




Mindless majority. Good luck to them, they deserve what is coming


----------



## Buddy (6 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> Does anyone doubt that the Newspoll coming out on Monday will show massive support for Rudd's spendfest. Most don't care much for Turnbull's values. The  see him only as a threat to their handouts.




No doubt at all! The pigs (read "probably about 60-70% of the Australian population") can see the pig-swill coming and can't wait to get their snouts into it. And, I am talking about the cash handout, not the infrastructure bit (which is just the political part of krudds socialist agenda).

Capitain krudd, leader of the cargo cult, is spending like a drunken sailor. And the hypocrites out there are condeming Turnbull for questioning this.  Pfft. You morononic idiots, I hope you go down before me, because I will not be lifting one finger to help you out of the quicksand.


----------



## Terry Dactil (6 February 2009)

I came across this explanation of how the Economic Stimulus will work.
I think it may be frighteningly close to the truth.



> Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:
> 
> Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
> A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.
> ...


----------



## Prospector (6 February 2009)

Hey Terry Dactil (Love the name) your post is in jest, but wouldnt stimulating the economy of China actually be a good thing for Australia?


----------



## knocker (6 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Hey Terry Dactil (Love the name) your post is in jest, but wouldnt stimulating the economy of China actually be a good thing for Australia?




Um why? So we can get into deeper poo poo?


----------



## knocker (6 February 2009)

Maybe Australia should just proclaim itself a new state of Communist China. I mean after all, a large proportion of the population is Chinese and we rely soley on them.


----------



## Prospector (6 February 2009)

knocker said:


> Um why? So we can get into deeper poo poo?




Why the bang head? When China advised that its growth was slowing to I think, 8%, that was when the Australian economy really started to tank.  So, you are suggesting it is in our best interests not to help it stabilise?  I think a few Mining based industries may have a problem with that.


----------



## knocker (6 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Why the bang head? When China advised that its growth was slowing to I think, 8%, that was when the Australian economy really started to tank.  So, you are suggesting it is in our best interests not to help it stabilise?  I think a few Mining based industries may have a problem with that.




Um because digging **** out of the ground is only a stop gap measure. Why oh why has Australia turned itself into one big mining pit? **** we don't even have sheep anymore. All we have done in the last decade is sell house and dig holes. Well guess what? The grave is deep enough now. lol


----------



## Prospector (6 February 2009)

knocker said:


> **** we don't even have sheep anymore. All we have done in the last decade is sell house and dig holes. Well guess what? The grave is deep enough now. lol




Hmm, well the drought took care of the sheep and as for the rest of your post all I can say is


----------



## Beej (6 February 2009)

knocker said:


> Um because digging **** out of the ground is only a stop gap measure. Why oh why has Australia turned itself into one big mining pit? **** we don't even have sheep anymore. All we have done in the last decade is sell house and dig holes. Well guess what? The grave is deep enough now. lol




You really have an incredibly narrow (and incorrect) view of what actually goes on across the Australian economy.....


----------



## prawn_86 (6 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Just give the great unwashed a pair of oversized breasts and a happy ending, and they'll 'oink' for more every time.




While this may be true, we are not in a better position ourselves. So we can see whats going on, and see the govs actual motives, or at least predict what the outcomes will be. So What? What can we do about it? SFA thats what

Ignorance is bliss, so they say...


----------



## juw177 (6 February 2009)

Guys, the growth in China is finished. Their growth depended on the reckless western consumer with access to easy credit. We are entering deflation which means commodity prices will go DOWN along with our exports. No stimulus can reinflate the unsustainable bubble.


----------



## Prospector (6 February 2009)

juw177 said:


> Guys, the growth in China is finished. Their growth depended on the reckless western consumer with access to easy credit.




Actually, I think China's growth is primarily internally focussed.  The collapse of external markets hasn't helped but China will re-emerge.


----------



## SenTineL (6 February 2009)

So is everyone feeling stimulated by the govt?

All this stimulus talk is making me want to stimulate myself  

Sorry couldn't resist....


----------



## bunyip (6 February 2009)

knocker said:


> Um because digging **** out of the ground is only a stop gap measure. Why oh why has Australia turned itself into one big mining pit? **** we don't even have sheep anymore. All we have done in the last decade is sell house and dig holes. Well guess what? The grave is deep enough now. lol





We don't have sheep any more? Last time I drove through western QLD I saw a few thousand white woolly things that looked suspiciously like sheep.
Australia-wide there were 115 million of them at the most recent count.


----------



## Prospector (6 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> We don't have sheep any more? Last time I drove through western QLD I saw a few thousand white woolly things that looked suspiciously like sheep.
> Australia-wide there were 115 million of them at the most recent count.




Must be raining in Queensland then; please send some to us in Victoria and South Australia.  Even the koalas are dying of thirst.....


----------



## knocker (6 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> We don't have sheep any more? Last time I drove through western QLD I saw a few thousand white woolly things that looked suspiciously like sheep.
> Australia-wide there were 115 million of them at the most recent count.




Actually I stand corrected. we do have sheep, and most of them are after the stimulus package. bababababa


----------



## Julia (6 February 2009)

Australia has no sheep????


----------



## bunyip (6 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Must be raining in Queensland then; please send some to us in Victoria and South Australia.  Even the koalas are dying of thirst.....




Indeed it is, with more than 60% of Queensland currently flood-affected. Still a few dry spots though.
Not only does Queensland produce some impressive floods at times - we also produced Kevin bloody Rudd.....unfortunately!

Better not send your koalas to NSW this weekend for a drink....it's predicted to be the 'hottest place on earth' tomorrow and Sunday, with temperatures of 46 degrees in store for some outback regions.
Even Rudd's stimulus package would soon dry up in that kind of heat!


----------



## Prospector (6 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> Better not send your koalas to NSW this weekend for a drink....it's predicted to be the 'hottest place on earth' tomorrow and Sunday, with temperatures of 46 degrees in store for some outback regions.
> !




Pffft, we have had those temperatures for the last 2 weeks.  Typical NSW, ignores everything that is happening elsewhere, as soon as it happens to them then they cry hellfire and damnation.

A pleasant 42 here at the moment!


----------



## glenn_r (6 February 2009)

Another SNAFU from the Krudd Govt, in todays mail I received a letter from the ATO explaining that to help small business the Gov has decided to give us a one off 20% reduction on the December quarter PAYG, but as they have already issued the BAS statements we must manually adjust Label T7 blah blah blah as the original PAYG amount is there, don't these Richard Craniums realise we have better things to do with our business time than try and work out their crap, as I bet we will have to pay it sooner or later anyway.


----------



## MrBurns (6 February 2009)

glenn_r said:


> Another SNAFU from the Krudd Govt, in todays mail I received a letter from the ATO explaining that to help small business the Gov has decided to give us a one off 20% reduction on the December quarter PAYG, but as they have already issued the BAS statements we must manually adjust Label T7 blah blah blah as the original PAYG amount is there, don't these Richard Craniums realise we have better things to do with our business time than try and work out their crap, as I bet we will have to pay it sooner or later anyway.




That crap is their job. The more they can frustrate you with forms to fill out and "procedures" the better they like it , this is like an orgasm to them, more crap more prodedures more administation, they are the brick wall between you and success and happiness.

The Mafia has the right idea, they dont pay tax and they kill anyone who tries to make them, I just love the simplicity of it all.


----------



## Calliope (6 February 2009)

Have you noticed that K Rudd has modified his favourite cliche from; 



> shoulders to the wheel



 to 







> all hands to the pumps




Is he preparing us for the next stage? 







> *abandon ship*


----------



## knocker (6 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> Have you noticed that K Rudd has modified his favourite cliche from;
> 
> to
> 
> Is he preparing us for the next stage?




What no man the life boats? Of course not, because he and his merry band of labor thugs and missfits  have all ready filled them. Thanks for nothing KRudd


----------



## Calliope (6 February 2009)

"Shovel ready" pigs at the trough.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/...y-lovely-crisis/2009/02/05/1233423403733.html


----------



## sassa (6 February 2009)

I have been waiting for Rudd,Swan or Tanner to apportion some blame for the delay of the stimulus to Brown,Fielding,Xenophon et al.Or is it only Turnbull?Or would slighting them cause some future passage of bills?The silence of the 3 amigos must mean that we do have a bipartisan parliament.


----------



## mayk (6 February 2009)

http://newmatilda.com/2009/02/06/my-what-big-package-you-have
My, What A Big Package You Have


> The Government's $42 billion stimulus package is probably the most ambitious and sweeping public spending program since 1974, when Gough Whitlam bet the entire Commonwealth Budget on black, and is the sort of development that can restore people's faith in politics and make them feel that for once in their life, they have more money than they did yesterday.


----------



## Nyden (6 February 2009)

Turnbull on YouTube against the stimulus (sorry if already posted)

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25012287-12377,00.html


http://www.youtube.com/user/MalcolmTurnbullMP

Is that really such a harsh argument against the package? $9500 in debt for every Australian, in honesty - it doesn't sound like all that much to me. No matter what changes are implemented, with the way things are heading - we are going to have these levels of debts anyway! His main argument should be his disagreement of the current target sectors, and not the deficit racked up.

I *would* of course like to know that the money is well targeted, and that perhaps an amendment for cash-living retirees should be included in this, but overall I think it's a fair balance of a little bit of everything.

I guess what it boils down to (for me, at least) - is that I'd rather have $9500 in debt, with $2000 in my back pocket, as opposed to $9500 in debt, and no direct personal benefit at all.

I also find it somewhat hypocritical; that nearly every single first response to this package was probably along the lines of personal entitlement. "Do I get some of that money?" -  was the question posed by most when this announcement was made. Upon discovering their lack of entitlement, many  individuals seem to be angry at those of us who are going to receive it - and are describing us as dole bludging, bribed pigs at the trough! 

I, for one - am glad that average people are receiving the money this time. Not just people of certain lifestyle choices (families), but most working individuals who contribute to tax!

Oh, and yes - it is a wise move to build infrastructure before it's needed. I'm sick of this boom-bust situation we have in Australia. Miners, and builders - earning six figure sums ... it was a joke.


----------



## gav (6 February 2009)

Check out this video from the ALP website:

http://www.alp.org.au/labortv/TFmNiVCncL

During the lead up to the election, Krudd says, and I quote:

*"A number of people have described me as an economic conservative.  When it comes to public finance, it's a badge I wear with pride."*

How is putting our budget into a deficit in less than 1yr in office and spending $42B considered "conservative"?

What a joke...


----------



## Nyden (6 February 2009)

gav said:


> How is putting our budget into a surplus in less than 1yr in office and spending $42B considered "conservative"?




Rudd putting us into a surplus? Surely you jest :


----------



## gav (6 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Rudd putting us into a surplus? Surely you jest :




Typo, I meant deficit :


----------



## knocker (6 February 2009)

So i guess some smart people will get the 950 and the first home owners and buy a cheapy in QLD Gives you about 15000$. No stamp duty on first home. Make a 20% deposit.

Buy a decent bedsitter for 90000$ in Cairns , or a 1 bedder for 140000$. Could even pay it off if you were on the dole. Or just live in it for 6 months rent 6 months a year and use for a holiday home. ;-) there's smart thinking:


----------



## mayk (6 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> I guess what it boils down to (for me, at least) - is that I'd rather have $9500 in debt, with $2000 in my back pocket, as opposed to $9500 in debt, and no direct personal benefit at all.
> 
> I also find it somewhat hypocritical; that nearly every single first response to this package was probably along the lines of personal entitlement. "Do I get some of that money?" -  was the question posed by most when this announcement was made. Upon discovering their lack of entitlement, many  individuals seem to be angry at those of us who are going to receive it - and are describing us as dole bludging, bribed pigs at the trough!
> 
> I, for one - am glad that average people are receiving the money this time. Not just people of certain lifestyle choices (families), but most working individuals who contribute to tax!




Well put. I think it is for the best under current dire economic circumstances. 


For those arguing about deficit or surplus (), it is the global economy stupid. If labor would have won the election in 2004, all this boom glory would have been on their shoulder. It is just the timing, and I think Labor is a sucker for good timing, they always trade government with liberals when the recession is starting or about to start, and end up in red.

For the most part of politics, I don't think any government would have done any different. It is just the nature of the game to score point at critical junctures.


----------



## Trevor_S (6 February 2009)

glenn_r said:


> as I bet we will have to pay it sooner or later anyway.



  Yes, it is only a delay, you have to pay it the next time you remit your quarterly PAYG, so don't go and spend it.  I am not quite sure why they thought this would be a good idea, Rudd ever referred to it as a rebate back in December before he was corrected and reminded it was a deferral only. Deferring tax will tempt some to cry poor when they do have to finally pay it.... and tax revenues may drop accordingly ? if business income has been affected that badly, you have always been able to self adjust the friggin' thing anyway, so what the hell...

I have always manually calculated based on a quarterly P&L and always end up with a reasonable rebate at the end of the year because the deprecation is not accounted for until the end of the year.


----------



## shaunQ (6 February 2009)

Okay, I've been avoiding this thread. And not surprising to see this discussion (if you can call it that) all about self satisfying snipes rather than actually conceding the political reality of the present situation.

As the saying goes, unfortunetly, no matter who you vote for, you always end up with a politician.

Liberal, Labor, whoever. They all would have come up with a similar package. 

Out of all the politicians, I think Bob Brown is playing this the best. Understanding the reality and working it to his advantage. That is politics.

Labor debt? Is that your problem?  Your concerned about $42 Billion. 4% of GDP, of which 75% is being spent on infrastructure and support.

What about the over $1 Trillion dollar personal debt accumulated during the Howard dynasty? It was only a couple of hundred million in 1996. As I read once, one thing Howard was good at was shifting problems to someone else.

Hey and don't forget, in 2004, Howard had doubled the foreign debt owed by Keating from $194B to $393 Billion and blew the lot.

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/07/07/1089000222261.html

But hey - don't let facts get in the way of your discussion, keep the cliches coming. :

Edit: 







> For the most part of politics, I don't think any government would have done any different. It is just the nature of the game to score point at critical junctures.




Well said.


----------



## Nyden (6 February 2009)

More on my pro-handout discussion :

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25009813-5013871,00.html



> Under the economic stimulus package unveiled by Kevin Rudd on Tuesday, it will be possible for some parents, mainly mothers who work part-time but still receive Family Tax Benefit B, to get paid twice. And students who also work will qualify for two payments totalling $1900, although the Government refused to confirm this last night.
> 
> Despite the aim of the stimulus package to support low and medium-income earners, some high-earning families will be able to access payments.
> 
> ...




How is this even an issue? If I have worked, and worked enough as to earn above the tax threshold (including offsets) in crappy little $20/hour jobs - sacrificing my free time outside of study/uni; then darn right I'm entitled to double dip! Were parents "double-dipping" the last time because of multiple kids? Give me a break. I paid thousands in tax last year (which shows you how much I worked outside of study!), and I'm entitled to that refund just as much as any other worker is as well.

*This* is why I'm not a big fan of this enquiry. Just pass my handout bills already, the senate can debate for months on the rest of it for all I care! The idea of just $950 doesn't sound as nice as $1900 did.

I'm sure I won't get much discussion out of this though, most here seem to be anti-payout.

Same argument for those mothers though - why should those of us that put in that little bit of extra effort not be rewarded as well? I work, and study 7 days a week dammit, give me my money!

I really am concerned the government will compromise on that matter, and I'll lose half my carrot.

Furthermore, what of those that were full-time workers last year, but became midyear entry students last year (after the financial year)? There were quite a few of those last year. Best to just leave it as it is, or it'll become too complicated.


http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,25016295-5006301,00.html


> Under questioning from the South Australian senator, an official from the Department of Families, Housing, Community Services and Indigenous Affairs confirmed that a student working part-time could receive a $950 bonus to help with academic costs and a $950 taxpayer bonus.




Oh, the horror! A hard working student who works until 1am will be able to buy books, pay fees, and maybe even buy lunch this year, who knows - maybe even catch a movie on the weekend! Just evil, that is.


----------



## Wysiwyg (6 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> I'm sure I won't get much discussion out of this though, most here seem to be anti-payout.




Does anyone know whether the money is being borrowed from overseas or coming from the treasury bank account?

Another thing is I have known our government bodies to give with one hand and take with the other.
What is the catch?


----------



## Nyden (6 February 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Does anyone know whether the money is being borrowed from overseas or coming from the treasury bank account?
> 
> Another thing is I have known our government bodies to give with one hand and take with the other.
> What is the catch?




Well, the catch is that it'll all need to be paid back one day. I'm a young individual, and providing I stick around - I'll be one of the people paying this all back. It doesn't phase me - if this helps me live a better life in the short term, and helps me secure myself financially - and perhaps even go towards buying a house ... then I'm willing to incur the temporarily slightly higher taxes of the future 

Ugh, it really does frustrate me that double dipping is an issue. I may be a student, but I contributed tax as well last year, more than enough to pay 6-7 blooming payouts. Xenophon should just be quiet.


----------



## Julia (6 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Is that really such a harsh argument against the package? $9500 in debt for every Australian, in honesty - it doesn't sound like all that much to me.



Have you considered interest on the debt for many years into the future?



> No matter what changes are implemented, with the way things are heading - we are going to have these levels of debts anyway! His main argument should be his disagreement of the current target sectors, and not the deficit racked up.



Can you clarify this?   I'd like to better understand what you are trying to say here.







> I guess what it boils down to (for me, at least) - is that I'd rather have $9500 in debt, with $2000 in my back pocket, as opposed to $9500 in debt, and no direct personal benefit at all.
> 
> I also find it somewhat hypocritical; that nearly every single first response to this package was probably along the lines of personal entitlement. "Do I get some of that money?" -  was the question posed by most when this announcement was made.



Nyden, this criticism is breathtaking in its hypocrisy!   There would be no one on this thread who was more enraged about receiving nothing initially, or then more jubilant about receiving a hand out than yourself.




> Upon discovering their lack of entitlement, many  individuals seem to be angry at those of us who are going to receive it - and are describing us as dole bludging, bribed pigs at the trough!



I can recall one post which used such language to disagree with the idea.





> I, for one - am glad that average people are receiving the money this time. Not just people of certain lifestyle choices (families), but most working individuals who contribute to tax!



As I understand the package, many families will receive a second handout.

This to me seems unreasonable when e.g. the unemployed receive nothing.
They are probably the group most in need.
And then self funded retirees who have paid tax via their SF's will not be entitled to anything under either package.  Especially considering the diminished income of this group, is that fair?



I wonder how you might feel, Nyden, if the negotiations between the Libs, and the minority Senators, remove your handout?   Will you still be so much in favour of this terrific package?

Of course it's human nature to want for ourselves, but your very hypocrisy takes this characteristic to new levels.  Enjoy your money.


----------



## Julia (6 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Xenophon should just be quiet.




On the contrary.  It's good to see that some non-government senators are insisting on examining the package before acceding to the government's urging for immediate agreement.

Imo it's unbelievably arrogant of the government to take weeks to come up with their proposition and then suggest that the Opposition and minority parties are being irresponsible for not passing it within 24 hours and without proper examination.

Much of this package does not make sense and needs to be properly scrutinised before committing us to such a massive debt.


----------



## Econinvestor (6 February 2009)

Julia said:


> On the contrary.  It's good to see that some non-government senators are insisting on examining the package before acceding to the government's urging for immediate agreement.
> 
> Imo it's unbelievably arrogant of the government to take weeks to come up with their proposition and then suggest that the Opposition and minority parties are being irresponsible for not passing it within 24 hours and without proper examination.
> 
> Much of this package does not make sense and needs to be properly scrutinised before committing us to such a massive debt.




I'm with Julia on this one. The type of fiscal policy matters a lot to how effective it might be in achieving stimulus. The wrong types either just wastes taxpayer dollars or takes so long that it crowds out emerging private investment. The effect of fiscal policy is also quite hard to see in data: we are taking this kind of policy on faith because of concerns about people's diminished confidence. On top of this, most predictions are that the recession will be light. The policy is insurance against the possibility it is much longer and deeper than the data suggests.

42 billion needs careful scrutiny and two weeks will make no difference anyhow.


----------



## Nyden (6 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Have you considered interest on the debt for many years into the future?
> 
> 
> Can you clarify this?   I'd like to better understand what you are trying to say here.
> ...





Julia, I (believe - perhaps not) have stated that the bulk of the package does perhaps need better targeting; and to not be of such a shotgun effect.

I would of course be upset, were I not receiving anything - just as I was upset last time. What I was trying to get across; was that many arguing against this particular aspect of the package may be doing so purely out of sour grapes. 

How can an individual say something is irresponsible, when their own first response was to see if they were getting a piece of the pie as well? "I want it, do I get it? No? It's irresponsible then" - is a lot of the commentary I've been reading. Not necessarily here, but on comments on news articles.

I do entirely believe we'll have the debt level Turnbull is arguing against either way, simply because the Rudd government *is* hellbent on spending. Does anyone honestly believe, that if they remove the handouts - they won't simply be directing this debt-fueled expenditure someplace else? I guess I'd just rather have that directed towards me, because if I'm going to be paying this debt back one day ... I want to be able to at least know that I got something out of it.

I guess I am being impatient, and as I've stated - I do believe some of the targeting to be at fault here. Pensioners, and struggling retirees should receive money. Perhaps those that received the previous payment should be excluded from the current; seems fair to me.

I'm probably coming across as very arrogant here! I guess it's just anger, above anything else. It's emotional manipulation, where the leader of the country states something as already written fact, only to then have it potentially taken away.

The rest of the package; it does need work. As I said, I'm not too keen on the shotgun approach, but I personally believe the targeted sectors to be correct. Schools, hospitals, infrastructure - I see no problem in any of those, the amounts being spent? Well, I simply have no control over that, none of us do - so why fret over it? Just try to protect yourself as best as possible, which is what I'm trying to do.


Believe me, had Rudd said that I was not receiving anything from the start, I would have been quite upset - but not as angry as I seem to be feeling now. It's just something of a very upsetting tease. The little payout represented much to me - an opportunity to finally let my hair down a little, and now I feel as though it was just a lie. Truth be told, I'm as angry at Rudd as I am at anyone else. Perhaps he should have spoken with Turnbull prior to the announcement.

Imagine scratching a lottery ticket with a couple of thousand in winnings, one would be (as you clearly stated I was!) jubilant. Then imagine a day later being told that the ticket may in fact be void. Money is, and always has been my emotional weakness! Perhaps it's something I best work on.

I'm just frustrated at governments, all governments. The savings I've worked hard for are barely producing any sort of income ... perhaps I should just end my rant, whilst I'm behind! I may just be too young to already be bitter, and disenchanted.


----------



## bunyip (7 February 2009)

Maybe this should be sent to Rudd instead of to ASF!


A Boss Who Tells It Like It Is
Date: Fri 06 02 2009 

To All My Valued Employees, 
There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job; however, is the changing political landscape in this country. 

However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests. 
First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Subaru Outback outside. You've seen my big home at last year's Christmas party. I'm sure all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life. 


However, what you don't see is the back story. 
I started this company 28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 2 bedroom flat for 3 years. My entire living area was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you. 
My diet consisted of baked beans, stew and soup because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a wonky transmission. I didn't have time to go out with women. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business -- hard work, discipline, and sacrifice. 
Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50,000 a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting David Jones for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount stores extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had. 
So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden -- the nice house, the Subaru, the vacations... you never realise the back story and the sacrifices I've made. 

_*Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy who made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their pay suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for. *_
Yes, business ownership has its benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds. 
Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why: 


I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire an accountant to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a cheque to the Australian tax Office for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" cheque was? Zero. Zip. Zilch.


The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare cheque? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country. 


The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your pay you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded for only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy. 


Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had the government suddenly mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Canberra black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now. 
When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of Australia and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. But the power brokers in Canberra believe the poor of Australia are the essential drivers of the Australian economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep. 


So where am I going with all this? 
It's quite simple. 
If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your 4WD and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more. 
Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship. 
So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of politicians who swept through this country and changed its financial landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about.... 


Signed, 
Your boss


----------



## shaunQ (7 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> Maybe this should be sent to Rudd instead of to ASF!




Definitely some truth in what he says, but on the other hand, his business would be nothing, zero, zilch, without the 2,200,000 people per year he services. Without them he wouldn't have the ability to make the profit that makes him liable to pay $220,000 in tax.


----------



## PeterJ (7 February 2009)

Bunyip 

some very good points ...
i sold my Day Care Centre for adults ( sorry, business )
and will not go back 

Peter


----------



## sinner (7 February 2009)

Thanks shaunQ for the charts. Excellent graphic representation of what I have been screaming fruitlessly to friends and family for years now.


----------



## Wysiwyg (7 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> A Boss Who Tells It Like It Is
> Date: Fri 06 02 2009




Looks like the fella took the wrong path in life.Someone forgot to tell him you`re only young once, slaves cost money and running a business is damn hard cerebral work.

But I`m sure he new all that.


----------



## Trevor_S (7 February 2009)

shaunQ said:


> Okay, I've been avoiding this thread. And not surprising to see this discussion (if you can call it that) all about self satisfying snipes rather than actually conceding the political reality of the present situation.
> 
> As the saying goes, unfortunetly, no matter who you vote for, you always end up with a politician.
> 
> Liberal, Labor, whoever. They all would have come up with a similar package.




Certainly voting for Liberal or Labor is a wasted vote but that's an entire other debate.  As to the rest of your statement, I disagree 

The problem with the stimulus packages is, well... they aren't... poorly thought out and targeted would be a nice way of portraying them. If like me you are used to running things frugally, you abhor waste, be it water or tax dollars.. and this is one big slap in the face for prudent fiscal spending



> ABN Amro Morgans' Michael Knox: “The Obama stimulus package has a multiplier or bang for the buck of around 1. This means that there is around $1.00 of GDP added for each $1.00 of stimulus spent. The Rudd stimulus package seems to have a much lower multiplier of 0.3 in its first year and no more than 0.6 in its second year. The multiplier is much lower because the *Rudd package chooses to spend its money on social infrastructure rather than economic infrastructure. In terms of economic impact, the bang for the buck in the Rudd package is so soft it must be rated as a dull thud.* The object of the stimulus package appears to be to simply take the edge off the current recession until such time as the cut in interest rates administered by the RBA generates a recovery in private investment and recovery in the Australian economy.”


----------



## kotim (7 February 2009)

SIMPLE FACT

The vast majority of people who vote do so according to the condition of their finanacial hip pocket, they may have "strong convictions" about things etc but when push comes to shove on election day, they put aside those other convictions and vote for the best personal financial outcome.

So if you've got a job being a politiican and you want to keep your job, then you must take notice of those who vote you in and their tendancies.

We the average joe blow out there are the cause of the so called 'pathetic politicians' because we give them the ammo do treat us like we want to be treated.

Unless people are personally going to go out there and make a difference, then who cares what pollies do, yes we all hate taxes and if we could get around them easy enough we would.

Gov't can increase taxes and decrease spending which would head us down towards depression, or they can stimulate and they will only stimulate according to our hip pocket vote, does RUDD care about the good of the country, yes he does, but he and most other politiicans are constrained by
OUR desires, let alone their own imperfections.


----------



## knocker (7 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> Maybe this should be sent to Rudd instead of to ASF!
> 
> 
> A Boss Who Tells It Like It Is
> ...




Exactly what I've done. Left this **** hole of a country that I used to love and call my home.

Hope all the whingers get there 950$ from Krudd and p!ss it up against the wall because that is all Australia is good for nowdays, that and handouts to single mums,dole bludgers and equity junkies. At least my taxes won't be paying for it anymore.


----------



## mayk (7 February 2009)

knocker said:


> Exactly what I've done. Left this ***** hole* of a country that I used to love and call my home.
> 
> Hope all the whingers get there 950$ from Krudd and p!ss it up against the wall because that is all Australia is good for nowdays, that and handouts to single mums,dole bludgers and equity junkies. At least my taxes won't be paying for it anymore.




Which country are you satisfied with?


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

knocker said:


> Exactly what I've done. Left this **** hole of a country that I used to love and call my home.
> 
> Hope all the whingers get there 950$ from Krudd and p!ss it up against the wall because that is all Australia is good for nowdays, that and handouts to single mums,dole bludgers and equity junkies. At least my taxes won't be paying for it anymore.




Australia does have problems, but it's hardly a "**** hole". I think you'll find that a near identical approach has been adopted world wide. Individuals in the US have received stimulus cheques as well, and it wouldn't shock me as to see them receiving more.

I would be curious to see if a moderator could have a gander at your IP address, as to see if you really are outside the country. I have my doubts. If you truly have only recently left (because of this - another issue I find unbelievable), then I wish you well - and hope that you find a country more suited to your liking. I have always believed that if one doesn't enjoy their surroundings, change them 

Bunyip, depending on what your business is - I would have thought it would have experienced a boost after a stimulus? I would be fairly certain that many small retailers would have felt it last time. Perhaps your business is in something entirely different though.


----------



## knocker (7 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Australia does have problems, but it's hardly a "**** hole". I think you'll find that a near identical approach has been adopted world wide. Individuals in the US have received stimulus cheques as well, and it wouldn't shock me as to see them receiving more.
> 
> I would be curious to see if a moderator could have a gander at your IP address, as to see if you really are outside the country. I have my doubts.




Did I ever say I was outside Australia at this point in time? And yes most developed nations are throwing money left right and centre into the abyss. Try thinking outside the circle bro.


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

knocker said:


> Did I ever say I was outside Australia at this point in time? And yes most developed nations are throwing money left right and centre into the abyss. Try thinking outside the circle bro.




Yes, you did, "bro". Oh, and it's square; thinking outside the square, or box - not circle. 



knocker said:


> Exactly what I've done. Left this **** hole of a country that I used to love and call my home.


----------



## bunyip (7 February 2009)

shaunQ said:


> Definitely some truth in what he says, but on the other hand, his business would be nothing, zero, zilch, without the 2,200,000 people per year he services. Without them he wouldn't have the ability to make the profit that makes him liable to pay $220,000 in tax.





True enough....he needs them and they need him. But neither of them will have each other if the government continues to tax him and other businesses out of existence.


----------



## gav (7 February 2009)

ShaunQ, how is the personal debt accumulated and household saving ratio Howards fault?  The majority of 1st world countries have similar suffered the same fate since the 70's, in fact places like the UK and US are far worse!


----------



## gav (7 February 2009)

U/K:

*Household savings ratio falls to lowest level in almost 50 years *

Families in the UK are saving at the lowest level in almost half a century as the credit crunch squeezes into their incomes, official figures have shown.

Britons are having to dig deep into their savings as they face soaring mortgage rates, rising food and energy costs and stagnant wage increases, the statistics reveal. 

The savings ratio is compiled by The Office for National Statistics and measures the proportion of a person's disposable income - after paying tax and national insurance - that is put away for a rainy day. It includes savings in bank accounts, ISAs and also pensions. 

The saving ratio more than halved in the first three months of the year to 1.1% - the lowest level since 1959, when Harold Macmillan was Prime Minister. 

The trend will cause major concern within the City and Whitehall: a sharp fall in the savings ratio is usually a sign that the economy is about to suffer a serious slowdown.

The ratio is now far shy of its average rate since the 1980s of 7.8%. 

http://www.bestsavingsaccounts4u.co.uk/topic-111214997702bs.htm

Just 1.1%!!!! Down from over 13% in the early 90's!


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 February 2009)

*Xenophon questions stimulus focus*

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/07/2484930.htm?section=business

Key senators are continuing to question the spending targets outlined in the Federal Government's economic rescue plan.

The Government needs the support of the cross bench senators to get its $42 billion spending package through the Parliament. 

Already the Family First Senator Steve Fielding has called for more money for the unemployed. 

The Greens want to make sure new public housing is energy efficient.

Independent Senator Nick Xenophon says there may be a better way of spending the money.

"When you have a number of leading commentators saying that we should be looking at fixing at the Murray Darling Basin for instance, spending the money on fundamental infrastructure that will improve productive capacity in the economy," he said. 

"That's the sort of thing that needs to be considered."

Senator Xenophon is also wondering why rich private schools are getting millions of dollars. 

"The need can't be shown on any objective basis," he said.

Whenever I read about the Senator I can't help but think of that great movie
'The Warriors'


----------



## gav (7 February 2009)

Total UK personal debt at the end of December 2008 stood at £1,457bn

http://www.creditaction.org.uk/debt-statistics.html

shaunQ, why blame Howard when it was happening all over the world?


----------



## bunyip (7 February 2009)

PeterJ said:


> Bunyip
> 
> some very good points ...
> i sold my Day Care Centre for adults ( sorry, business )
> ...




Same here. Government interference/taxes/red tape had a big bearing on my decision to get out of business and semi-retire at a relatively young age. 
Now I have residential rental property in growth areas of Queensland,  and I trade the Foreign Exchange market. I'm still not totally immune from government taxes and interference - nobody is - but these days I enjoy a far simpler and more laid-back lifestyle than when I was running a fully fledged business with employees etc.


----------



## GumbyLearner (7 February 2009)

gav said:


> Total UK personal debt at the end of December 2008 stood at £1,457bn
> 
> http://www.creditaction.org.uk/debt-statistics.html
> 
> shaunQ, why blame Howard when it was happening all over the world?




Your right on this point, gav.

Almost every western country has become a debtor nation. But private debt did skyrocket during JH's time in office.


----------



## knocker (7 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Yes, you did, "bro". Oh, and it's square; thinking outside the square, or box - not circle.




lol so you are stalking my movements right? Get a life loser


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

knocker said:


> lol so you are stalking my movements right? Get a life loser




Commenting on 2 posts, only a couple of posts apart is stalking? I'm sorry I have a higher short term memory span than that of a goldfish. 

You are of course entitled to any, and all opinions knocker - All I ask is that you try to phrase some of your more harsh opinions more tactfully. Stating that countries are "**** holes", and how "fukced up" everything here is, hardly makes for good reading.


----------



## bunyip (7 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> I think you'll find that a near identical approach has been adopted world wide. Individuals in the US have received stimulus cheques as well, and it wouldn't shock me as to see them receiving more.
> 
> 
> Bunyip, depending on what your business is - I would have thought it would have experienced a boost after a stimulus? I would be fairly certain that many small retailers would have felt it last time. Perhaps your business is in something entirely different though.




The stimulus package will give mostly only a short term boost to business.
I would have thought there are dozens of projects that the money could be better spent on.....projects that would not only provide short term stimulus, but also longer term revenue generation and jobs for decades to come.

Rudd may be duplicating an approach that's been adopted world-wide, but that doesn't mean it's the correct approach. Rudd and his cronies don't have business brains.
In fact the more I see of them, the more I doubt they have any kind of brains at all.


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

GumbyLearner said:


> *Xenophon questions stimulus focus*
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/07/2484930.htm?section=business
> 
> ...



I guess Xenophon, and Fielding have some good points here : Especially with regards to the wealthy schools receiving the same amount of money as those that are poorer. My question, is that why are private schools receiving any money out of this at all? Aren't they just that - private, and not state owned? Seems odd to be injecting money directly into a private business.

The unemployed, well - I guess what I would be happy to accept, was that in return for cancelling the handouts, perhaps all benefits across the board could be increased. Pensions, unemployment benefits, and even student youth allowance (or, at the very least - make youth allowance non-income tested, so that I may work as much as I can without being penalized).

The issue about country schools is something I just can't seem to sympathize with, though. A school with only 60 students in the middle of the desert, should by no means be receiving the same amount of money as a city based school with 400. It would be immensely inefficient - much like the government forcing the telco's to build telecommunication infrastructure smack bang in the middle of Australia as to service 100 people ... but that's a whole other topic!


----------



## prawn_86 (7 February 2009)

Knocker - I would love to know where you now live and how it is so much better than Aus? Every country has its own problems, and all the 'Western' countries seem to be having the same problems right now. Can you honestly tell me you dont live in a Western country?

Nyden - RE schools, i would think that they get money on a per capita basis. IE a school with 200 kids gets 4 times a school with 50 kids. Perhaps thats too logical for the gov though...

That letter is a good example of why i never want to own my own business that employs people. I have seen my old man do it and it looks too much hard work for me


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> Rudd may be duplicating an approach that's been adopted world-wide, but that doesn't mean it's the correct approach. Rudd and his cronies don't have business brains.
> In fact the more I see of them, the more I doubt they have any kind of brains at all.




They're politicians; it's one of their goals to perpetuate a perception of having no brains to one segment of voters, and to appear to have all the answers to the other!

What I was trying to get at, was that this individual (was it you?) in the letter was complaining about his lack of entitlement to the handout, but surely in the short term his business (and therefore, himself) will receive far more monetary benefit out of this than that one little lump sum.

Such as, a small retailer missing out on the money, but selling 50 additional TV units that month. Surely the profit of those sales would outweigh the $950. Hence the reason retailers are arguing for it.


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Knocker - I would love to know where you now live and how it is so much better than Aus? Every country has its own problems, and all the 'Western' countries seem to be having the same problems right now. Can you honestly tell me you dont live in a Western country?
> 
> Nyden - RE schools, i would think that they get money on a per capita basis. IE a school with 200 kids gets 4 times a school with 50 kids. Perhaps thats too logical for the gov though...
> 
> That letter is a good example of why i never want to own my own business that employs people. I have seen my old man do it and it looks too much hard work for me





Yes, I believe that's how it is with the schools. However, I read in one of these articles that one of the senators was upset by this - and how unjust it was for a country school to only be receiving $250,000, as opposed to millions. Which is simply nonsense. A country school with 60 kids hardly needs an entirely new science wing.


----------



## knocker (7 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> The stimulus package will give mostly only a short term boost to business.
> I would have thought there are dozens of projects that the money could be better spent on.....projects that would not only provide short term stimulus, but also longer term revenue generation and jobs for decades to come.
> 
> Rudd may be duplicating an approach that's been adopted world-wide, but that doesn't mean it's the correct approach. Rudd and his cronies don't have business brains.
> In fact the more I see of them, the more I doubt they have any kind of brains at all.




I guess on the flip side, some people may use the handout to pay off a credit card, bills etc. But then I just can't help thinking that perhaps these are the people who blew money on useless things like wii tatoos or pokies.

So in effect I doubt the money will be headed to shopping malls or anything constructive.

One poster suggested better irrigation as a more apt use for government funds and I tend to agree. At least we could become a little more self sufficient in these hard times instead of importing cheap food produce from abroad.

But as always that makes too much sense, and i suspect that a lot of people in this country rely heavily on bringing in cheap stuff from overseas.  Oh well.


----------



## Prospector (7 February 2009)

There is a terrible story in the Advertiser (SA paper) showing how this money is being directed to scum bags.  Some of you might remember last year the story in SA where three people were arrested for child neglect and cruelty to 16 children living in 1 home.  Several kids were in hospital for months.  The woman arrested was also about to give birth to another.  Oh yeah, the Housing Trust House they trashed took weeks to clean up.  The RSPCA seized the animals that were rotting there, yet the child welfate took an extra 3 days or so to take the children into care.  So they are getting a nice clean new one.

Well, it seems that not only did she get the baby bonus of $5000 payable in instalments, but under Rudd's plan they will get* $30,000!*


----------



## Prospector (7 February 2009)

knocker said:


> Exactly what I've done. Left this **** hole of a country that I used to love and call my home.
> At least my taxes won't be paying for it anymore.



Then why do you care?  Oh, I see that you havent left Australia then. Well, I'm confusen!

The first stimulus package does nothing for businesses who work with businesses.


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> There is a terrible story in the Advertiser (SA paper) showing how this money is being directed to scum bags.  Some of you might remember last year the story in SA where three people were arrested for child neglect and cruelty to 16 children living in 1 home.  Several kids were in hospital for months.  The woman arrested was also about to give birth to another.  Oh yeah, the Housing Trust House they trashed took weeks to clean up.  The RSPCA seized the animals that were rotting there, yet the child welfate took an extra 3 days or so to take the children into care.  So they are getting a nice clean new one.
> 
> Well, it seems that not only did she get the baby bonus of $5000 payable in instalments, but under Rudd's plan they will get* $30,000!*




She should get nothing, simply because child services should take her children away. 16 people per one house should be illegal, simple as that. Lack of privacy can be emotionally damaging.


----------



## Prospector (7 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> She should get nothing, simply because child services should take her children away. 16 people per one house should be illegal, simple as that. Lack of privacy can be emotionally damaging.




You would think, wouldn't you!  Will see if I can find the link to it.


----------



## knocker (7 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Then why do you care?  Oh, I see that you havent left Australia then. Well, I'm confusen!
> 
> The first stimulus package does nothing for businesses who work with businesses.




Why? Because I choose to come back here every now and then to visit family?

I still care for my family and the plight they are in.


----------



## bunyip (7 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> What I was trying to get at, was that this individual (was it you?) in the letter was complaining about his lack of entitlement to the handout, but surely in the short term his business (and therefore, himself) will receive far more monetary benefit out of this than that one little lump sum.




No it wasn't me.....I couldn't care less about the handout. I haven't even bothered to check if I'm eligible for it. Either way, it won't make much difference to me.


----------



## Calliope (7 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> The stimulus package will give mostly only a short term boost to business.
> I would have thought there are dozens of projects that the money could be better spent on.....projects that would not only provide short term stimulus, but also longer term revenue generation and jobs for decades to come.
> 
> Rudd may be duplicating an approach that's been adopted world-wide, but that doesn't mean it's the correct approach. Rudd and his cronies don't have business brains.
> In fact the more I see of them, the more I doubt they have any kind of brains at all.




The whole package is designed to spend money quickly and has nothing to do with individual need or long term stability. Mr Rudd is no longer talking about job creation, but has switched to job maintenance.

The lack of forward thinking is demonstrated in the billions being poured into the school buildings program. No doubt refurbished class-rooms, halls and libraries will make life more pleasant for the pupils and will provide jobs for a while.

But nobody can deny that any country's future is dependent on the finished product that our schools turn out. Will all these billions help our secondary schools educate children to a level where they are capable of undergoing the high level of tertiary scientific education we will need in the future?

I think not.


----------



## knocker (7 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> The whole package is designed to spend money quickly and has nothing to do with individual need or long term stability. Mr Rudd is no longer talking about job creation, but has switched to job maintenance.
> 
> The lack of forward thinking is demonstrated in the billions being poured into the school buildings program. No doubt refurbished class-rooms, halls and libraries will make life more pleasant for the pupils and will provide jobs for a while.
> 
> ...




I tend to agree. how the hell does assembly halls etc make a student more productive?

Sounds like jobs for mates to me.


----------



## Prospector (7 February 2009)

knocker said:


> I tend to agree. how the hell does assembly halls etc make a student more productive?
> 
> Sounds like jobs for mates to me.




Well, each year the Year 12 exams are held in them!  So they should be airconditioned because the temps are usually in the high 30's and those exams determine whether or not they get to Uni.  And the way buildings are constructed these days makes them like ovens even on a mild day.


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

knocker said:


> I tend to agree. how the hell does assembly halls etc make a student more productive?
> 
> Sounds like jobs for mates to me.




By that logic, how does having enough hospital beds, and air conditioning in the buildings allow people to recover faster?

More rooms, and perhaps even more teachers would mean that class sizes could also be reduced.

A comfortable environment is incredibly beneficial, and productive - to both the teaching faculty, and the students. Half of my high school life was spent in a lower-class high school, and it really was quite appalling. We had near-obsolete computers, holes in the floor, a lack of heating, as well as air conditioning, an *unsafe hall* that needed to be closed down for a couple of months for repairs, asbestos in the hall change-room ceilings (we were told to never hit the ceiling!), and a multitude of other problems. 

This was the main high school of the area as well (inner suburbia!) - so please, do not say that schools don't need money.

Oh, and yes - as prospector just mentioned, it wasn't only the exams, but also trying to learn, and pay attention during class time was very difficult when it's 45 degrees inside the room. Many students would simply not attend class, and would lose the benefit of that day's lesson. How's that for productivity?


----------



## Julia (7 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> There is a terrible story in the Advertiser (SA paper) showing how this money is being directed to scum bags.  Some of you might remember last year the story in SA where three people were arrested for child neglect and cruelty to 16 children living in 1 home.  Several kids were in hospital for months.  The woman arrested was also about to give birth to another.  Oh yeah, the Housing Trust House they trashed took weeks to clean up.  The RSPCA seized the animals that were rotting there, yet the child welfate took an extra 3 days or so to take the children into care.  So they are getting a nice clean new one.
> 
> Well, it seems that not only did she get the baby bonus of $5000 payable in instalments, but under Rudd's plan they will get* $30,000!*



Prospector, that is, of course, just appalling.  And it will be repeated in perhaps less dramatic fashion throughout Australia.

But $30,000 to cretins like this is just what Rudd & Co want!  Because they will go out and spend it quickly on useless rubbish.  Don't worry about that though because it will provide another quick spike in the quarterly figures so our esteemed leaders may say : "OK, folks, there we are now - see what a great job we're doing - Australia is still not in recession, just look at those retail figures."

This country - and the others who share this short term amoral attitude - needs a whole new political and governmental philosophy.   It won't happen, of course.  It's just all so depressing.


----------



## Mofra (7 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Well, each year the Year 12 exams are held in them!  So they should be airconditioned because the temps are usually in the high 30's and those exams determine whether or not they get to Uni.  And the way buildings are constructed these days makes them like ovens even on a mild day.



The point if moot if the number of no of uni placements are fixed - the entrance scores will slightly rise if anything, however if no further university placements are added then we wont have any higher numbers of tertiary entries.


----------



## IFocus (7 February 2009)

What happens if the government doesn't deploy stimulus packages?

What happens if they under spend?

What happens if they over spend? Is this a bigger problem?

What is better preemptive action or reactive action?

Is an accelerating rate of crisis a good thing?

What is the "velocity of money"?

Which official / mainstream estimates have been accurate in relation to the current state of the Australian economy?

What is the issue for the future if the majority of estimates are continually behind the curve?

This is one example of acting behind the curve
US job losses biggest since 1974
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25019938-36375,00.html


----------



## Calliope (7 February 2009)

A letter writer in the Weekend Australian poses the question;



> Could it be that Kevin Rudd's ideological basis for the $42 billion answer to life, the recession and everything is more Douglas Adams than John Maynard Keynes?


----------



## mayk (7 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Prospector, that is, of course, just appalling.  And it will be repeated in perhaps less dramatic fashion throughout Australia.
> 
> But $30,000 to cretins like this is just what Rudd & Co want!  Because they will go out and spend it quickly on useless rubbish.  Don't worry about that though because it will provide another quick spike in the quarterly figures so our esteemed leaders may say : "OK, folks, there we are now - see what a great job we're doing - Australia is still not in recession, just look at those retail figures."
> 
> This country - and the others who share this short term amoral attitude - needs a whole new political and governmental philosophy.   It won't happen, of course.  It's just all so depressing.





Are you guys/girls serious. It is like watching today tonight. Take a particular case and then generalize it on the whole population. That is just ridiculous. Have you ever heard of the terms "Average" or "Mean", "Variance" and "Standard deviation"? Have you ever heard of statistical analysis?

I just hate when one particular extreme example is generalized to support a point.


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

mayk said:


> Are you guys/girls serious. It is like watching today tonight. Take a particular case and then generalize it on the whole population. That is just ridiculous. Have you ever heard of the terms "Average" or "Mean", "Variance" and "Standard deviation"? Have you ever heard of statistical analysis?
> 
> I just hate when one particular extreme example is generalized to support a point.




I don't think anyone is trying to generalize people here. I think it's moreso just a case of shock in the face of rampant exploitation. Perhaps amendments should be made as to have a cap for the maximum amount of children one can claim for.

There's no reason to even have that many children, it's just wrong.


----------



## mayk (7 February 2009)

Julia said:


> *But $30,000 to cretins like this is just what Rudd & Co want!  Because they will go out and spend it quickly on useless rubbish.  Don't worry about that though because it will provide another quick spike in the quarterly figures so our esteemed leaders may say : "OK, folks, there we are now - see what a great job we're doing - Australia is still not in recession, just look at those retail figures."*






Nyden said:


> I don't think anyone is trying to generalize people here. I think it's just more a case of shock in the face of rampant exploitation. Perhaps amendments should be made as to have a cap for the maximum amount of children one can claim for.
> 
> There's no reason to even have that many children, it's just wrong.


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

mayk said:


>




I can't speak for what Julia was trying to say, but perhaps she was just angry that there will be quite a few cases like this. Bad parents with a bunch of kids raking in tens of thousands of dollars. 

Perhaps such cases should be dealt with on a more individual basis. It certainly upsets me to think that an abusive mother will receive $30,000.


----------



## mayk (7 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> There's no reason to even have that many children, it's just wrong.




A cap on the claim for number of children is inherently discriminatory, it is for children welfare not their parents, contrary to popular belief.

Putting a cap on the number of children is also not humane. You want your government to control the number of kids you can have?


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

mayk said:


> A cap on the claim for number of children is inherently discriminatory, it is for children welfare not their parents, contrary to popular belief.
> 
> Putting a cap on the number of children is also not humane. You want your government to control the number of kids you can have?




When it is beyond your own means as to support all these children, damn right I do (want them to control how many we can have). When the quality of life of these children is reduced, simply because the parents don't have the time, nor the money as to properly nurture, and support them all - it's just wrong. Especially when the taxpayer has to pay the difference.

There are too many parental rights in our society, and not enough child rights. The young girl being thrown off of the bridge is a prime example of this. Apparently there was already some concerns about the father, but nothing was done.

If the family payments are indeed for the welfare of the child, then why not simply give coupons in lieu of money?

An unfit parent is an unfit parent, at least as far as I'm concerned. It's as black and white as it can possibly be. Race, culture, and socio-economic standing are irrelevant - if there is child neglect present, the child needs to be removed.


----------



## mayk (7 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> When it is beyond your own means as to support all these children, damn right I do (want them to control how many we can have). When the quality of life of these children is reduced, simply because the parents don't have the time, nor the money as to properly nurture, and support them all - it's just wrong. Especially when the taxpayer has to pay the difference.
> 
> There are too many parental rights in our society, and not enough child rights. The young girl being thrown off of the bridge is a prime example of this. Apparently there was already some concerns about the father, but nothing was done.
> 
> If the family payments are indeed for the welfare of the child, then why not simply give coupons in lieu of money?




I am against this kid pop cash injection scheme, creates too many complications (like the aforementioned cases). 

Regarding your last point, it is better to abandon this scheme then to morph it with coupons, which can ultimately be sold for cash. 

Sorry for getting off topic, please continue on with KRudd bashing.


----------



## mayk (7 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> An unfit parent is an unfit parent, at least as far as I'm concerned. It's as black and white as it can possibly be. Race, culture, and socio-economic standing are irrelevant - if there is child neglect present, the child needs to be removed.




Agreed completely.


----------



## bunyip (7 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> By that logic, how does having enough hospital beds, and air conditioning in the buildings allow people to recover faster?
> 
> More rooms, and perhaps even more teachers would mean that class sizes could also be reduced.
> 
> ...




Schools need money, yes. 
But the question is whether expenditure on new assembly halls, libraries, roofing insulation etc, is the best use of the money Rudd is splashing around? 
Or could there be better ways to spend it....ways that would generate on-going revenue and jobs for many decades to come, while at the same time providing significant economic boost short term? Kill two birds with the one stone, so to speak.

The Rudd package has a short term ring to it, but seems to be lacking in longer term vision.


----------



## white_goodman (7 February 2009)

it would be good if we just apointed the nations top economists to political roles...

its gonna be a big night at the pokies the week this thing gets paid out...


----------



## Nyden (7 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> Schools need money, yes.
> But the question is whether expenditure on new assembly halls, libraries, roofing insulation etc, is the best use of the money Rudd is splashing around?
> Or could there be better ways to spend it....ways that would generate on-going revenue and jobs for many decades to come, while at the same time providing significant economic boost short term? Kill two birds with the one stone, so to speak.
> 
> The Rudd package has a short term ring to it, but seems to be lacking in longer term vision.




Well, to be perfectly honest ... despite possibly delaying my payment p, I would like to see some water infrastructure in the works. Water supply is possibly going to be one of the most pressing issues in the future of Australia; and I would love to see it resolved. Power supply infrastructure as well would be fantastic. Imagine the revenue brought in with a government owned Geothermal, or solar plant in the outback - these could be assets that could even be sold off in the future. These projects would not only create many construction jobs, but would also provide long term ongoing jobs at the actual facilities.


----------



## Prospector (7 February 2009)

mayk said:


> Are you guys/girls serious. It is like watching today tonight. Take a particular case and then generalize it on the whole population. That is just ridiculous. Have you ever heard of the terms "Average" or "Mean", "Variance" and "Standard deviation"? Have you ever heard of statistical analysis?
> 
> I just hate when one particular extreme example is generalized to support a point.




Of course it is an extreme example, but it highlights one thing - do these payments go to people and places who/that will positively impact on the economy.  

There is controversy as to whether this stimulus package will actually do what it needs to.  Small business employs most people, yet other than a backhoe, there are no benefits, no tax relief, nada!  So if a large proportion of handouts goes to people who are not likely to stimulate the economy, other than social workers and garbage collectors, how can you say it will achieve its purpose!


----------



## bunyip (7 February 2009)

mayk said:


> Sorry for getting off topic, please continue on with KRudd bashing.




Well, you've gotta admit it's great fun bashing these politicians....particularly the ALP variety!!

Seriously though, I wouldn't want the responsibility of having to come up with policies to sort out all this mess....not even if they offered me the PM's job and quadrupled the salary.
I'm just eternally grateful to be in a recession-proof, redundancy-proof business.


----------



## Prospector (7 February 2009)

mayk said:


> A cap on the claim for number of children is inherently discriminatory, it is for children welfare not their parents, contrary to popular belief.
> 
> Putting a cap on the number of children is also not humane. You want your government to control the number of kids you can have?




But you can cap the amount that goes to a family. Why not just give each family a payment of $5000?  No mention of kids at all.

Actually, Rudd would probably be voted in forever in SA and Victoria if he would simply spend $1billion and get us some water.  Everything else is luxury for us at the moment.

At this stage, each member of our household will receive $950 - that is almost $4000.  We would like it, but really, we dont need it.  But I would love $4000 worth of water right now.


----------



## mayk (7 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> There is controversy as to whether this stimulus package will actually do what it needs to.  Small business employs most people, yet other than a backhoe, there are no benefits, no tax relief, nada!  So if a large proportion of handouts goes to people who are not likely to stimulate the economy, other than social workers and garbage collectors, how can you say it will achieve its purpose!




Don't worry tax breaks will be in the third stimulus. You are not naive enough to believe that this is it! 

Where is the evidence that tax breaks are going to stimulate the economy? They are all theories, which business will survive without a consumer base, even with a tax free reign?

A  balanced commentary :
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/new.../clash-of-the-titans/1427385.aspx?storypage=0
Clash of the titans


> In the Government's corner is the British economist John Maynard Keynes. Keynes was the first real proponent of the idea that governments should smooth the business cycle by boosting their spending when private sector spending drops off. The $42 billion spending package is a classic Keynesian stimulus.
> 
> In the Opposition corner, Turnbull and the shadow treasurer, Julie Bishop, have assembled three American economists to justify their decision to oppose the package: Milton Friedman, John B. Taylor and Arthur Laffer.
> 
> ...


----------



## Prospector (7 February 2009)

mayk said:


> Don't worry tax breaks will be in the third stimulus. You are not naive enough to believe that this is it!
> 
> Where is the evidence that tax breaks are going to stimulate the economy? They are all theories, which business will survive without a consumer base, even with a tax free reign?




There isnt any evidence for most things this Government is trying to do.  I dont need a tax break personally either because of investment deductions, but small business certainly does!   Instead of throwing money to the masses we need to invest in infrastructure; for SA and Vic that means water supply.  Unless you have seen Victoria and SA recently you cannot imagine how bad it is.


----------



## Calliope (7 February 2009)

I understand that in Nambour they are using their grant to commence a "shovel ready" project of erecting a *Giant Stimulator * in the main street. It is hoped to employ anyone with a backhoe. This amazing structure will not only overshadow the Giant Pineapple down the road but will put the Giant Banana to shame.


----------



## bunyip (7 February 2009)

white_goodman said:


> it would be good if we just apointed the nations top economists to political roles...
> 
> its gonna be a big night at the pokies the week this thing gets paid out...




Indeed it will - the pubs and clubs will be loving these handouts.
My wife and I have lunch at the golf club about once a month. We always walk through the gaming room on the way out to see who's poking the pokies. Invariably there's numerous elderly people in there...rough old sheilas with a durry hung off their bottom lip and a glass of booze beside them, ancient men of similar description, all shovelling their pension money into the bandits.

After that last handout we noticed a significant increase in the already high number of elderly people in the gaming room...the club even had a young female employed full time in bringing free coffee to the gaming patrons so they'd spend more time at the pokies.

This time around it'll be no different....the club and pub owners will be grinning all over their faces when Rudd's latest gift starts filtering into the system.


----------



## Julia (7 February 2009)

mayk said:


> Are you guys/girls serious. It is like watching today tonight. Take a particular case and then generalize it on the whole population. That is just ridiculous. Have you ever heard of the terms "Average" or "Mean", "Variance" and "Standard deviation"? Have you ever heard of statistical analysis?
> 
> I just hate when one particular extreme example is generalized to support a point.



No one was generalizing across the whole population inclusively.

Let's look at Prospector's example:  do you think that is a reasonable use of the taxpayers' money, Mayk?   What do you think that abusive mother will do with it?  Seriously?

I've worked in the welfare sector for more than twelve years and seen family after family where a less dramatic scenario than Prospector describes plays out.     Parents who spend their benefits on gambling/alcohol etc and then want the taxpayer to pick up the electricity bill or pay the rent. 

Who do you think benefits when unfit parents continue to produce children?   
Certainly not the children, I promise you.

You think it's discriminatory to have any interference in any woman's capacity to continue having children, even when she has demonstrated over and over that she has no understanding of parenting in any constructive sense, and when she has failed to respond to repeated assistance, education/intervention.

How is it appropriate or useful for such people to continue producing children who will need foster care, especially when there is such a shortage of foster carers?





mayk said:


> A cap on the claim for number of children is inherently discriminatory, it is for children welfare not their parents, contrary to popular belief.



Good Lord, let's have a reality check here!  This is exactly what we're talking about, i.e. of course the money is supposed to be for the kids, but it doesn't always get spent on the kids, believe it or not!   If you think that abusive and neglectful parents reliably and responsibly put this money into items that will benefit their children, you are naive in the extreme.





> Putting a cap on the number of children is also not humane. You want your government to control the number of kids you can have?






Nyden said:


> When it is beyond your own means as to support all these children, damn right I do (want them to control how many we can have). When the quality of life of these children is reduced, simply because the parents don't have the time, nor the money as to properly nurture, and support them all - it's just wrong. Especially when the taxpayer has to pay the difference.
> 
> There are too many parental rights in our society, and not enough child rights. The young girl being thrown off of the bridge is a prime example of this. Apparently there was already some concerns about the father, but nothing was done.



Well said, Nyden.  





Nyden said:


> I would like to see some water infrastructure in the works. Water supply is possibly going to be one of the most pressing issues in the future of Australia; and I would love to see it resolved. Power supply infrastructure as well would be fantastic. Imagine the revenue brought in with a government owned Geothermal, or solar plant in the outback - these could be assets that could even be sold off in the future. These projects would not only create many construction jobs, but would also provide long term ongoing jobs at the actual facilities.



I agree.   There is so much of lasting benefit that this borrowed money could be used for.


----------



## shaunQ (7 February 2009)

Not sure if its been mentioned, but since your all concerned about the $42B, Just thought I'd mention the actual proposal includes a total provision of $200B.



gav said:


> why blame Howard when it was happening all over the world?




Not blaming him at all, just defending the Costello brainwashed attacks against Labor. The graph I was highlighting was the Net Foreign Debt under Hawke/Keating was $33B and under Howard it was $45B. When Howard won the election in 1996, he doubled Labors national debt from $197B to $363B. In real-terms we became more indebted under Liberal, during a boom.



bunyip said:


> Schools need money, yes.
> But the question is whether expenditure on new assembly halls, libraries, roofing insulation etc, is the best use of the money Rudd is splashing around?
> Or could there be better ways to spend it....




Part of the requirements are that they be "shovel ready", not necessarily specific infrastructure. Most schools would have been planning this sort of expenditure in the near term anyway.



Julia said:


> ... it will provide another quick spike in the quarterly figures so our esteemed leaders may say : "OK, folks, there we are now - see what a great job we're doing - Australia is still not in recession, just look at those retail figures."




If a reasonable amount of money could be spent to enable that statement. (The debate being what is reasonable), surely being able to say that would be a great confidence boost to the Australian economy. The general public would be quite relieved not to go into Recession.


----------



## knocker (7 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> There isnt any evidence for most things this Government is trying to do.  I dont need a tax break personally either because of investment deductions, but small business certainly does!   Instead of throwing money to the masses we need to invest in infrastructure; for SA and Vic that means water supply.  Unless you have seen Victoria and SA recently you cannot imagine how bad it is.




I absolutely agree there. head to central Victoria and try to find green..


----------



## Judd (7 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> By that logic, how does having enough hospital beds, and air conditioning in the buildings allow people to recover faster?




Just to clarify one small point on this aspect - and totally off the point you are making.  You can have have as many hospital beds as you want and even construct new hospitals (last time I researched it about 12 years ago it was $600,000 per acute care bed in construction costs which does not include equipment, land costs, roads, etc, etc) but if you don't have the necessary staff don't bother.  And staffing costs are around 70% of a hospital's budget, 15% on consumables (medicines, bandages, etc), 5% fuel, light power, and  the remainder on repairs, maintenance and small capital works.


----------



## Luthien (7 February 2009)

First post - long time lurker.

I hoped the govt would provide greater incentives to install rain water tanks. The water situation is dire in Vic.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (7 February 2009)

The package seems to have been invented to get the government out of trouble rather than the economy.

What a waste of money and future generations will have to pay it all back.

gg


----------



## justjohn (7 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> But you can cap the amount that goes to a family. Why not just give each family a payment of $5000?  No mention of kids at all.
> 
> Actually, Rudd would probably be voted in forever in SA and Victoria if he would simply spend $1billion and get us some water.  Everything else is luxury for us at the moment.
> 
> At this stage, each member of our household will receive $950 - that is almost $4000.  We would like it, but really, we dont need it.  But I would love $4000 worth of water right now.




how about drinkable water ,i haven't been to Adelaide for 30 years and still have nightmares about there tap water


----------



## cashcow (7 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> There isnt any evidence for most things this Government is trying to do.  I dont need a tax break personally either because of investment deductions, but small business certainly does!   Instead of throwing money to the masses we need to invest in infrastructure; for SA and Vic that means water supply.  Unless you have seen Victoria and SA recently you cannot imagine how bad it is.




Here, here.


----------



## Julia (7 February 2009)

shaunQ said:


> Not sure if its been mentioned, but since your all concerned about the $42B, Just thought I'd mention the actual proposal includes a total provision of $200B.



That's quite correct, essentially a line of credit.  But to be fair, about $130B of this is potential deficit induced by diminished tax take as a result of mining slow down and general business lower profits.


----------



## cashcow (7 February 2009)

Julia said:


> That's quite correct, essentially a line of credit.  But to be fair, about $130B of this is potential deficit induced by diminished tax take as a result of mining slow down and general business lower profits.




Whoa, I didn't realise the extent of the latter; just inwardly wondered if personal income tax cuts were really a prudent policy in this scenario (rhetorical question, I think).

May I inquire after the source of that figure?  Surely it's not a mainstream media outlet?


----------



## shaunQ (7 February 2009)

cashcow said:


> May I inquire after the source of that figure?  Surely it's not a mainstream media outlet?




Some may expect the government to reduce expenditure by over $100B in order to maintain a surplus. But thats a lot of services cut, or a lot of tax increases. $42B is just a spit in the ocean of what can be lost.

A source below...



			
				Daily Telegraph said:
			
		

> THE economic nose dive will rip $115 billion from government revenue as its tax take shrinks by roughly 10 per cent over four years.






			
				Daily Telegraph said:
			
		

> And it guarantees the Budget will go into deficit because the shortfall will be too big to be covered by cost-cutting alone... "There's no way a razor gang is going to find $100 billion without wrecking entire programs," said a Government source.




http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,24999947-5001021,00.html

But actually considering the revenue lost. It makes you wonder what services will need to be cut in the long term


----------



## Julia (7 February 2009)

cashcow said:


> Whoa, I didn't realise the extent of the latter; just inwardly wondered if personal income tax cuts were really a prudent policy in this scenario (rhetorical question, I think).
> 
> May I inquire after the source of that figure?  Surely it's not a mainstream media outlet?



ABC Radio National:  one of their current affairs programmes a few days ago.


----------



## cashcow (7 February 2009)

shaunQ said:


> Some may expect the government to reduce expenditure by over $100B in order to maintain a surplus. But thats a lot of services cut, or a lot of tax increases. $42B is just a spit in the ocean of what can be lost.
> 
> A source below...
> 
> ...




Thanks for the linkage shaunQ (and for Julia's source also)

Yes, it does make me wonder.  And it makes all those election promises seem all the more ambitious ...

PS - is the Q in your name meant to be pronounced like a "k"?  No offence intended if it's not, but chuckle-worthy if I'm right


----------



## Prospector (8 February 2009)

Judd said:


> but if you don't have the necessary staff don't bother.




Too true; we have wards closed in our Public Hospitals because we dont have the Nurses to staff them.  I think that Nurses HECS fees should be  paid for by the Government - they are the crux of the Public Health system.


justjohn said:


> how about drinkable water ,i haven't been to Adelaide for 30 years and still have nightmares about there tap water




Our water is good now - filtered etc.  We just dont have enough of it!


----------



## cuttlefish (8 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Prospector, that is, of course, just appalling.  And it will be repeated in perhaps less dramatic fashion throughout Australia.
> 
> But $30,000 to cretins like this is just what Rudd & Co want!  Because they will go out and spend it quickly on useless rubbish.  Don't worry about that though because it will provide another quick spike in the quarterly figures so our esteemed leaders may say : "OK, folks, there we are now - see what a great job we're doing - Australia is still not in recession, just look at those retail figures."
> 
> This country - and the others who share this short term amoral attitude - needs a whole new political and governmental philosophy.   It won't happen, of course.  It's just all so depressing.





This is the problem with these handouts.   When you think of all the positive, constructive things that would benefit society that $30,000 could be spent on.  Multiply that effect by over one hundred thousand (i.e. billions in handouts) and all of this money that could be going to constructive social purposes is just being tipped down the drain.  Its criminal, its an obnoxious waste of Australia's wealth.

30,000 - airconditioning in a school?  Half a teachers wage?  Half a nurses wage?  A hospital bed?  A training program?  A tree planting program? A small medical research grant (or any other worthwhile research?  Sporting equipment for a school? A pre-feasability study for a works project?  

Or tip it into a pokie machine and a bottleshop or a flat screen TV?

Compare the resultant effect on society.

Multiply by over 100,000.

I hated it when Howard (and Costello) did it, and I hate it that Rudd is doing it - particularly on this scale.  So uncreative, so uninspiring, so bland and visionless, and such a waste of opportunity.


----------



## cuttlefish (8 February 2009)

Reading the paper today - $30,000 would help towards fire fighting equipment or possibly fund a program to create a fire break around an area.

But pokies, booze - far more productive.


----------



## GumbyLearner (8 February 2009)

cuttlefish said:


> This is the problem with these handouts.   When you think of all the positive, constructive things that would benefit society that $30,000 could be spent on.  Multiply that effect by over one hundred thousand (i.e. billions in handouts) and all of this money that could be going to constructive social purposes is just being tipped down the drain.  Its criminal, its an obnoxious waste of Australia's wealth.
> 
> 30,000 - airconditioning in a school?  Half a teachers wage?  Half a nurses wage?  A hospital bed?  A training program?  A tree planting program? A small medical research grant (or any other worthwhile research?  Sporting equipment for a school? A pre-feasability study for a works project?
> 
> ...




Fair Call CF! Where is the 'boy' from Bankstown when you REALLY need him? Way better than the jokers you have mentioned. JMO! 
Australia needs a statesman not an obseqious academic (Rudd) or a US butt-licker (JH) JMO!


----------



## bunyip (8 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Too true; we have wards closed in our Public Hospitals because we dont have the Nurses to staff them.  I think that Nurses HECS fees should be  paid for by the Government - they are the crux of the Public Health system.
> 
> 
> Our water is good now - filtered etc.  We just dont have enough of it!




Yes, that might go a long way towards addressing the shortage of nurses. 
Better still, bring back the old system where nurses were trained in the hospitals, getting lots of hands on experience and getting paid a small wage at the same time. They lived in the nurses quarters for minimal rental, had all their meals provided, were accommodated right there on the job site......a far better system that what's in place today with nursing being a uni course, big on classroom experience but small on practical experience. And a dirty big hex bill at the end of it. Crazy.
My wife has a number of nursing degrees. She trained through the hospital system, says  the uni trained nurses these days are graduating with limited practical skills due to their limited hands-on experience. She reckons the current nurse training system is a poor substitute for the old hospital-based training system.


----------



## hotbmw (8 February 2009)

how much would a stimulus package cost if we did this instead of what they chose:

- small to med business owners (who employ more than a certain amount of people) lay off no workers in the 2009 calendar year get a 50% tax break.

- KEEP THIER PLAN FOR BUSINESS SPENDING ON MACHINERY/EQUIPMENT WITH A 30% REBATE

- a further 50% reduction on CGT for any asset purchases (property/shares) in 2009 calendar year if held for a certain period of years (3 or 5 years)

- no stamp duty payable on purchases in 2009 calendar year

would this be well over 40 billion?
if its not over 40 billion, use the remaining billions on needed infrastructure spending 

wouldnt this stimulate us all? save jobs. entice us to invest?

or is this a mind blowing 100 billion $ + expense???


----------



## Julia (8 February 2009)

On  "The Insiders" this morning Julia Gillard was asked about the unemployed receiving no hand out in Package No. 2 other than the 'training bonus'.  Barry Cassidy suggested to her that to expect people on Newstart to live on $225 p.w. was pretty unrealistic.  She skipped over the question (of course) and went on to laud the benefits of the training available.

Given that we may well see increased numbers of people seeking this benefit, is the government's approach yet another example of their short term view?
i.e. if people can't meet their mortgage repayments/rent, don't we then have a much greater problem to deal with in the form of homelessness, not to mention the personal distress of individuals?

And we might imagine that people who have been in the workforce for a while will be able to bolster the government's meagre assistance by using their own savings to supplement their government benefit.  Ah but no, a single person may not be eligible for Newstart until their level of personal assets is less than $2500.   

Isn't this completely unreasonable and in fact counter-productive?


----------



## Wysiwyg (8 February 2009)

Introduce work for the unemployment benefit for every person after 6 months of unemployment assistance.

I guarantee you will see more bludgers jumping off the couches and beds around Australia faster than one could ever point a stick at.


----------



## gfresh (9 February 2009)

hotbmw said:


> - small to med business owners (who employ more than a certain amount of people) lay off no workers in the 2009 calendar year get a 50% tax break.




Exactly the sort of thing I would think would be more effective than cash handouts to indirectly help employment - $10bn is a lot of money that could be used to keep a lot of people in work *directly* (none of this guessing whether cash will keep people in work), and provide tax breaks or other subisidies to encourage employers to keep people on for at least the next 12 months. That money could be used to pay $20k of the direct wages for 500,000 employees  

Maybe that's not great in terms of productivity if there is not much work for them to do, but workers still contribute taxes, and at least have their regular spending capacity - which is a lot more than $950 in a year. 

Anyhow, while it's not too popular on ASF, seems the "general public" sees otherwise, and just sees the $$ in their eyes. It's a vote winner.. 

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25026302-5013871,00.html



> According to the latest Newspoll survey, taken exclusively for The Australian at the weekend, primary vote support for Labor jumped five percentage points to 48 per cent - the same as in December - after the $42 billion economic stimulus package was announced last week.
> 
> A large majority of those surveyed, 63 per cent, also think the Rudd Government is doing a good job managing the economy during the global financial crisis and only 33 per cent think the Coalition would do a better job.


----------



## Buddy (9 February 2009)

gfresh said:


> Anyhow, while it's not too popular on ASF, seems the "general public" sees otherwise, and just sees the $$ in their eyes. It's a vote winner..
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25026302-5013871,00.html




Just goes to show how much the great unwashed know and understand of national monetary and fiscal matters. It's all about their hip pocket, eh?

It's really ironic. I don't get the 950 smackeroos but my wife does and 2 of my children.  And I think I can get up to 1600 of them for an insulation rort. None of us really need it but there you go. I think it will just go towards an overseas trip. Just imagine what this money could do for people impacted by the bushfires!  And before you lecture me about donating it to the bushfire fund, yes I will be donating.  But it's just appalling gummint policy.


----------



## pacestick (9 February 2009)

Wysiwyg said:


> Introduce work for the unemployment benefit for every person after 6 months of unemployment assistance.
> 
> I guarantee you will see more bludgers jumping off the couches and beds around Australia faster than one could ever point a stick at.




To right many of them work the system to the utmost for instance if  you are unemployed and go on a taffe course for one term you get paid benefits  for a whole year and you dont have to go back for the last three terms . It helped  my son when his class fell from 40 to 10  more time with teacher,
I personally know of one individual  who has used government money to be trained as  a child care worker then as a nurse because she doesnt want to go to work. Its a real problem.


----------



## Calliope (9 February 2009)

Nick Xenophon has the perfect opportunity to shame the Rudd government into diverting his popular handouts toward massive relief for the fire victims. Having seen first hand the horrific devastation to lives and property Mr Rudd does not have the right to play politics on this issue. He may lose in the popularity stakes but he would sleep better at night.

In addition to relief and rebuilding, the stage has been reached for massive injections into infrastructure to ensure SA and Vic never lose another life through lack of water.


----------



## Prospector (9 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> Nick Xenophon has the perfect opportunity to shame the Rudd government into diverting his popular handouts toward massive relief for the fire victims. Having seen first hand the horrific devastation to lives and property Mr Rudd does not have the right to play politics on this issue. He may lose in the popularity stakes but he would sleep better at night.
> 
> In addition to relief and rebuilding, the stage has been reached for massive injections into infrastructure to ensure SA and Vic never lose another life through lack of water.




Hear hear to all of that!


----------



## Julia (9 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> Nick Xenophon has the perfect opportunity to shame the Rudd government into diverting his popular handouts toward massive relief for the fire victims. Having seen first hand the horrific devastation to lives and property Mr Rudd does not have the right to play politics on this issue. He may lose in the popularity stakes but he would sleep better at night.
> 
> In addition to relief and rebuilding, the stage has been reached for massive injections into infrastructure to ensure SA and Vic never lose another life through lack of water.




Completely agree on both counts.  Rudd won't do it though.  More votes to be had from all those $950 handouts than anyone connected with the fires.


----------



## profit off it (9 February 2009)

Julia said:


> On  "The Insiders" this morning Julia Gillard was asked about the unemployed receiving no hand out in Package No. 2 other than the 'training bonus'.  Barry Cassidy suggested to her that to expect people on Newstart to live on $225 p.w. was pretty unrealistic.  She skipped over the question (of course) and went on to laud the benefits of the training available.
> 
> Given that we may well see increased numbers of people seeking this benefit, is the government's approach yet another example of their short term view?
> i.e. if people can't meet their mortgage repayments/rent, don't we then have a much greater problem to deal with in the form of homelessness, not to mention the personal distress of individuals?
> ...




My feeling is that the Federal Government always had the intention of increasing pensions and unemployment benefits in the upcoming Federal  Budget, despite the pressure on them to do something earlier. If they did it now, along with all the other stimulus measures, they wouldn't have a WHAM BAM announcement at Budget time to win over the public and hit the opposition with. They are closer to the next election than the last, and need to make an impact to set themselves up for 2010. I guess we will see in May.


----------



## aleckara (9 February 2009)

bunyip said:


> Yes, that might go a long way towards addressing the shortage of nurses.
> Better still, bring back the old system where nurses were trained in the hospitals, getting lots of hands on experience and getting paid a small wage at the same time. They lived in the nurses quarters for minimal rental, had all their meals provided, were accommodated right there on the job site......a far better system that what's in place today with nursing being a uni course, big on classroom experience but small on practical experience. And a dirty big hex bill at the end of it. Crazy.
> My wife has a number of nursing degrees. She trained through the hospital system, says  the uni trained nurses these days are graduating with limited practical skills due to their limited hands-on experience. She reckons the current nurse training system is a poor substitute for the old hospital-based training system.




There are a lot of new nurses as well that are complaining that the old nurses know nothing about newer medications and don't know the medical side of training and give people the wrong care. The experience takes a few years to get but knowledge is important as well.

Admittedly I think the role of a nurse has been redefined a lot and now they need a bit more medical knowledge especially with the personal liability they have if they screw up.

The nursing union likes the new system. Keeps wages higher as it effectively stops people from changing to the career when they lose their job or they want to move to it for any reason (barriers to overcoming structural unemployment). Only the young can afford to give up a few years of work to get a degree in nursing.

In this country there is a shortage of anything worthwhile. Everyone aspires to get a cushy lazy job.


----------



## Calliope (10 February 2009)

> I can tell ya that doing nothing is not an option



says Obama in his loud braying voice.

Sound familiar? That's Mr Rudd's mantra. Except when it comes to allocating the billions of dollars needed to redistribute Australia's plentiful water resources to where they are needed desperately. 

Pink bats and massive handouts to the undeserving for God's sake. As I have said before;

God helps those who help themselves. Rudd helps those who can't be bothered. And his excuse is that he knows they will spend it more quickly.


----------



## Largesse (10 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> says Obama in his loud braying voice.
> 
> Sound familiar? That's Mr Rudd's mantra. Except when it comes to allocating the billions of dollars needed to redistribute Australia's plentiful water resources to where they are needed desperately.
> 
> ...




Pull your head in mate, i'm a full time student (yes that's right FULL TIME) trying to live on govt support of ~$180 a week and a measly earnings allowance of ~$125. Don't you dare suggest i 'can't be bothered', mate.

This payment/bonus will make a huge difference to me in very real and very tangible terms


----------



## psychic (10 February 2009)

I personally believe that the package will not be passed unless the unemployed get the $950 cash payment too.


----------



## sinner (10 February 2009)

Largesse said:


> Pull your head in mate, i'm a full time student (yes that's right FULL TIME) trying to live on govt support of ~$180 a week and a measly earnings allowance of ~$125. Don't you dare suggest i 'can't be bothered', mate.
> 
> This payment/bonus will make a huge difference to me in very real and very tangible terms




I never asked the government for support while I was a full time high school and uni student, I worked anywhere between 12-72 hours in a week! Avg over the year usually 36 hours a week, just under a full time roster, including full time uni.

Think getting indignant that the free money you get isn't enough, $305/wk, more than I budget for myself NOW per week, is a bit backwards.

What exactly are you spending money on that $305/wk isn't enough?


----------



## Largesse (10 February 2009)

rent - $120
groceries - $80
transport (public) - $25

Set aside for utilities per week - $25 (internet contribution, water/elec/gas)
Set aside for telephone per week - $10

That leaves me with a whopping $55 per week over what i need for BARE essentials. 

So if i need to say... buy myself some uni stationary or textbooks for example, or if i need you know... a pair of shoes or some underwear, or maybe something like a new pillow case because the one i currently have is going yellow because i've had it for 3 years, i have to save for weeks.
Let alone if i wanted to, SHOCK HORROR, have a beer or two with my mates!


But you don't get it because you're probably just another silly old man. 

"when i was a boy i could get by on $20 a week" except you are forgetting 20c could buy you a pie and sauce, and you could rent a small room right next door to university for $10 a week. 

i'll say it again, pull your head in


----------



## tommymac (10 February 2009)

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/09/2486668.htm

The Aust Retail Association wants vouchers instead of cash to be paid to ensure the money is spent and not saved.

It's really worrying when someone says:
"There is something uncomfortable to us about taxpayer funds being used to reduce credit card debt."


----------



## MrBurns (10 February 2009)

Largesse said:


> rent - $120
> groceries - $80
> transport (public) - $25
> 
> ...




So what are you studying ?


----------



## Largesse (10 February 2009)

commerce

edit: $45


----------



## Calliope (10 February 2009)

Largesse said:


> Pull your head in mate, i'm a full time student (yes that's right FULL TIME) trying to live on govt support of ~$180 a week and a measly earnings allowance of ~$125. Don't you dare suggest i 'can't be bothered', mate.
> 
> This payment/bonus will make a huge difference to me in very real and very tangible terms




What made you think I was talking about you?


----------



## sinner (10 February 2009)

Largesse said:


> rent - $120
> groceries - $80
> transport (public) - $25
> 
> ...




Actually, silly young boy, I just graduated at the end of 2008, I'm only 22 and I've been working and studying full time since I was 14 and 9 months (the legal age). I've kicked **** at Woolies and Luna Park and countless other **** kicking jobs to get to where I am today. Never complained once or asked the government for a dime even when I was getting $450 a FORTNIGHT working an industrial traineeship working 9-5 at CSIRO and studying full time night courses. (it was actually $500 but minus $50 for HECS which I always pay every fortnight) 

We brew our own beer here, to the cost <$1 a bottle. Share rent with 3 other people to reduce costs. Live near the uni and work to reduce transport costs and save time. Transcribe all notes to the puter to save stationary costs. Get our furniture when there's a council clean up or make our own. Grow our own veggies, herbs and medicinal plants. Eat Mi Gorengs and frozen beans when there is no money for food. Second hand uni books where possible (or just pirate them from the net).

$55 * 52 weeks = $2860. What exactly are you buying, egyptian cotton pillow cases? $1500 gives you $750 for books each semester. That leaves $1360. $1000 can be spent on pillowcases and underwear. $360 left means $7 a week left for beer, hey presto $3.50 beer at the uni bar, perfect a couple of beers a week.

Instead of being disillusioned by silly old men who buy pies for 20c, and the hundreds of free dollars you get every week which my taxes pay for, why don't you grow up.


----------



## Calliope (10 February 2009)

sinner said:


> Instead of being disillusioned by silly old men who buy pies for 20c, and the hundreds of free dollars you get every week which my taxes pay for, why don't you grow up.




Obviously the "full time" study of Commerce gives Largesse (his name says it all) far too much spare time to sit around with his mates complaining that the silly old men who pay the taxes which supply his largesse are being mean to him.


----------



## joeyr46 (10 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> So what are you studying ?




Good manners He's flunking


----------



## Glen48 (10 February 2009)

Any one explain why J B HI FI is going up when others are tanking?
Is the bail out money being spent on CD, DVD etc?
Strange how Hardly Normal is complaining when he was one of the first to introduce nothing to pay for eons and now its coming back to bit him.


----------



## Trevor_S (10 February 2009)

Largesse said:


> But you don't get it because you're probably just another silly old man.




shrug.. add me to the list, 43.. I guess is pretty old.... if your <20.  I couldn't afford to study full time when I studied, so I studied part time, worked full time, then did my last year working full time and studying full time.

I now employ (some) Uni students, and I observe them.  I see lots of them struggle to cope, piss poor time management mostly... ie ring in sick for a shift for work but find time to go to a staff social... they don't go out for a beer or 2, they go out and get so blind drunk, then don't come to work the next day and then later that week complain they have no money... and some of them balance it well.  The former group complain, often, the latter group don't complain much at all and just get things done.


----------



## shaunQ (10 February 2009)

Glen48 said:


> Any one explain why J B HI FI is going up when others are tanking?
> Is the bail out money being spent on CD, DVD etc?
> Strange how Hardly Normal is complaining when he was one of the first to introduce nothing to pay for eons and now its coming back to bit him.




I guess cause they posted some pretty good results, +27% odd profit, 50% dividend increase.


----------



## Glen48 (10 February 2009)

I guessed that S Q but Harvey Norman, WOW, Strathfield sell along the same lines?
I did read were J B employs Hip young ones not the UNI type.


----------



## tasmart (10 February 2009)

Largesse said:


> "when i was a boy i could get by on $20 a week" except you are forgetting 20c could buy you a pie and sauce, and you could rent a small room right next door to university for $10 a week.




Funny reading this - your figures are spot on! 

When I started Uni in 1972 I got a Commonwealth Scholarship which was $20 per week. Full board (I had to move to Sydney) was $18 but I moved out of there after a few months into a share house and paid $10 per week - that was down on Coogee Beach - and I would walk (or ride my bike) up to UNSW. I worked as a waiter to help ends meet - could earn $10 on a good night! And I certainly didn't waste money on a pie & sauce!

hmmm....... come a long way since then.

But it really is irrelevant to this discussion.


----------



## Julia (10 February 2009)

tommymac said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/09/2486668.htm
> 
> The Aust Retail Association wants vouchers instead of cash to be paid to ensure the money is spent and not saved.



I don't see that going to all the extra administrative stuffing about to issue vouchers would achieve anything at all.   People will simply use the vouchers to buy food etc that they would buy anyway, allowing them to free up other funds to do what they would have done with the original cash.





> It's really worrying when someone says:
> "There is something uncomfortable to us about taxpayer funds being used to reduce credit card debt."



Worrying, is it?   Can you explain why you find this statement worrying?
Personally I find it distinctly uncomfortable that my tax dollars should be used to pay off someone's profligate credit card spending, if that in fact is what is being suggested.


----------



## Julia (10 February 2009)

Re handout going to students, I don't have any problem with this.  Students are our future, they are racking up huge HECS debts, most work as well as study.

I'd much prefer they get a one-off $950 than that families where one partner earns way in excess of $100K p.a. but the other earns slightly less, will once again get many thousands - depending on how many children they have - when they have already received several thousands in the pre-Christmas splurge.

A relative of mine gets the Parenting Payment as a single mother.  She received  $4000 pre-Christmas and will get the same again in April.   She has a private agreement with her ex-husband via which she gets about another $400 p.w.
She doesn't work and enjoys a million dollar home on Sydney's north shore.

So don't begrudge a student a payment of less than a thousand dollars.
I think they will make very good use of this money.


----------



## shaunQ (10 February 2009)

Julia said:


> A relative of mine gets the Parenting Payment as a single mother.  She received  $4000 pre-Christmas and will get the same again in April.   She has a private agreement with her ex-husband via which she gets about another $400 p.w.
> She doesn't work and enjoys a million dollar home on Sydney's north shore.




I appreciate the point, but thats a fairly non-standard situation. You could probably say the same about some students who seem to live like millionaires. 

In my view thats probably the worst things about this stimulus, regardless of what its spent on or how much, it causes division in the community - some thinking they're more deserving and the other isn't and all having good arguments to suit there own cause.


----------



## tommymac (11 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Worrying, is it?   Can you explain why you find this statement worrying?
> Personally I find it distinctly uncomfortable that my tax dollars should be used to pay off someone's profligate credit card spending, if that in fact is what is being suggested.




Would you be more comfortable if these same people used it to buy a new DVD Player knowing that you would never be able to use it, even though your tax dollars bought it? 

Isn't the handout only to people who have paid tax. Hence it's not your tax dollars. It's their tax dollars that they are getting back. Correct me if I'm wrong.

IMO it is not socially responsible for the Government to hand money to people, some who are struggling, and then force them to spend it when it should be used to reduce debt (whether they do it or not).

If the Government decided to give the money to people only because they had large credit card debt, that would be an entirely different matter. Basically getting rewarded for being irresponsible. But this handout is on a broad scale.

And note the quote came from the Aust. Retail Association so they have an interest in all the cash being spent.


----------



## Prospector (11 February 2009)

Only Uni students who get Youth Allowance will get the package, or those who earnt more than around $18,000 last financial year.  The others will still rack up their HECS debt but not get anything.


----------



## Calliope (12 February 2009)

Today is supposedly D-day for the so called stimulus package. The Senators who hold the balance of power after much posturing will fold rather than risk the wrath of the recipients of the handouts. Fielding will the assured that the unemployed he is concerned about will get their share closer to the election along with the pensioners, and the Greens will be happy with a few soothing words.

Only Nick Xenophon is on firm ground. He has a true concern for the rights of the SA people who put him there and believe me, the future of the Murray-Darling basin is a huge concern for the people of that state. If he can keep the blowtorch on Rudd on this one the whole country will be better off.


----------



## Julia (12 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> Today is supposedly D-day for the so called stimulus package. The Senators who hold the balance of power after much posturing will fold rather than risk the wrath of the recipients of the handouts. Fielding will the assured that the unemployed he is concerned about will get their share closer to the election along with the pensioners, and the Greens will be happy with a few soothing words.
> 
> Only Nick Xenophon is on firm ground. He has a true concern for the rights of the SA people who put him there and believe me, the future of the Murray-Darling basin is a huge concern for the people of that state. If he can keep the blowtorch on Rudd on this one the whole country will be better off.



Agree about Nick Xenophon.   Fielding was sounding pretty determined to get his way yesterday but he has folded before so you may be right.


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2009)

I heard on the radio today that maybe K Rudd has stopped negotiating with Xenophon because just maybe, with ratings at an all time high, he might just go with a double dissolution? 

And yes, while some despise Nick he is a man on a mission.  To save the River Murray which people like WRong, seem to have completely forgotten.  If I see her just one more time blaming Climate change for the water crisis I might just shoot the TV! 

Fielding?  He is a joke.  What a twit!


----------



## MrBurns (12 February 2009)

> I heard on the radio today that maybe K Rudd has stopped negotiating with Xenophon because just maybe, with ratings at an all time high, he might just go with a double dissolution?




Geez I hope so, awww you're just teasing ?


----------



## Beej (12 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Geez I hope so, awww you're just teasing ?




Be careful what you wish for Mr Burns - regardless of ones own personal political leaning, if we had a double dissolution election right now I reckon the government would be returned with an equal or even greater majority AND they would almost certainly gain control of the senate (as a double dissolution election means a FULL instead of only the usual half senate election).

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## moXJO (12 February 2009)

Beej said:


> Be careful what you wish for Mr Burns - regardless of ones own personal political leaning, if we had a double dissolution election right now I reckon the government would be returned with an equal or even greater majority AND they would almost certainly gain control of the senate (as a double dissolution election means a FULL instead of only the usual half senate election).
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Beej




I'm not so sure about that


----------



## MrBurns (12 February 2009)

moXJO said:


> I'm not so sure about that




Yep now that we're in the poo voters might prefer the Libs, but then again while Rudd is sqandering cash, as Labor does, he might get back.


----------



## Beej (12 February 2009)

moXJO said:


> I'm not so sure about that






MrBurns said:


> Yep now that we're in the poo voters might prefer the Libs, but then again while Rudd is sqandering cash, as Labor does, he might get back.




I am pretty sure - just look at the polls - government is WAY ahead. The punters are all happy - fuel heaps cheaper, interest rates mega low, and not many have yet had to deal with unexpected unemployment. The reasons they turfed Howard out are still fresh in their minds. In addition to this they feel that they are being looked after - cash bonus here, cash bonus there.....The mood here at ASF is not a good sample of the mood out in the electorates (read marginal seats) where our elections are primarily won and lost.

The downturn is not yet bad enough to effect the governments chances of re-election. They (and their advisers) know this - so do the Libs. If you think about this a little bit it explains all the current political posturing from both sides right now. It is also why the senate independents will cave in, as they stand a very real risk of being turfed out after less than a year via a double dissolution election - instead of keeping their snouts in the trough for the full 6 years they are expecting....

Beej


----------



## Julia (12 February 2009)

Beej said:


> I am pretty sure - just look at the polls - government is WAY ahead. The punters are all happy - fuel heaps cheaper, interest rates mega low, and not many have yet had to deal with unexpected unemployment. The reasons they turfed Howard out are still fresh in their minds. In addition to this they feel that they are being looked after - cash bonus here, cash bonus there.....The mood here at ASF is not a good sample of the mood out in the electorates (read marginal seats) where our elections are primarily won and lost.
> 
> The downturn is not yet bad enough to effect the governments chances of re-election. They (and their advisers) know this - so do the Libs. If you think about this a little bit it explains all the current political posturing from both sides right now. It is also why the senate independents will cave in, as they stand a very real risk of being turfed out after less than a year via a double dissolution election - instead of keeping their snouts in the trough for the full 6 years they are expecting....
> 
> Beej



I agree entirely (sadly).
The average voter out there is pretty damn happy with Rudd & Co.


----------



## MrBurns (12 February 2009)

Julia said:


> I agree entirely (sadly).
> The average voter out there is pretty damn happy with Rudd & Co.




Ditto but it would be interesting non the less.


----------



## pacestick (12 February 2009)

The greens have done a deal reducing payments by $50.00 and using the resultant money to create jobs


----------



## Calliope (12 February 2009)

pacestick said:


> The greens have done a deal reducing payments by $50.00 and using the resultant money to create jobs




$40 million to build bike paths and create 700 jobs, and they call that building infrastructure. Wasn't the first stimulus  package supposed to create jobs? Is anyone keeping the score on jobs created?


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2009)

Rudd would win an election hands down.  Jobs?  What was that about job creation?  I thought it was all about plasmas.


----------



## prawn_86 (12 February 2009)

Vote failed, with Xenephon opposing it:

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,25043894-462,00.html

Gunna try again for another vote next week i guess


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Vote failed, with Xenephon opposing it:
> 
> http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,25043894-462,00.html
> 
> Gunna try again for another vote next week i guess




Wow!  He really did it!  For once I didnt waste a vote!


----------



## Beej (12 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Wow!  He really did it!  For once I didnt waste a vote!




Let's see if he is prepared to risk all and do it twice.....

Beej


----------



## prawn_86 (12 February 2009)

Beej said:


> Let's see if he is prepared to risk all and do it twice.....
> 
> Beej




This is where i dnt understand politics and all the stupid posturing that goes along with it? How is he, or anyone, risking things (and what is he risking?) by voting no to something he doesnt like/agree with?


----------



## Calliope (12 February 2009)

In a double dissolution Rudd would win in a canter. In the old days of American Tammany Hall politics the politicians would hand out wads of money to bribe the voters on election day. 

Now they start earlier. And don't forget the pensioners and carers will get another boost before the election in case they get jumpy.


----------



## tcoates (12 February 2009)

It raises the prospect of a double dissolution BUT (read the following blog article first)...

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen/2009/02/an-early-federa.html

... somewhat unlikely?!?

Tim


----------



## Prospector (12 February 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> This is where i dnt understand politics and all the stupid posturing that goes along with it? How is he, or anyone, risking things (and what is he risking?) by voting no to something he doesnt like/agree with?




He is also in the Senate, that guarantees him a very long sentence, er, term!


----------



## juw177 (12 February 2009)

I am glad it didn't pass, but from what I read, it was all because of the politics rather than the economy. I am now convinced that neither side has any idea what is going on.


----------



## prawn_86 (12 February 2009)

juw177 said:


> I am glad it didn't pass, but from what I read, it was all because of the politics rather than the economy. I am now convinced that neither side has any idea what is going on.




When did they have any idea? Not in my short lifetime thats for sure. Heard an interesting quote in a song that applies to the ASF community IMO: "[We] see the strings that control the system". Pity the average person doesn't...


----------



## shaunQ (12 February 2009)

Labor could have easily passed this if they wanted to. They support the greens and probably always will, it gives them the green edge, preferences galore, and theres always a coalition prospect if things turn ugly.

Xenophon? He's just a small player, Labor don't care about him. They knew and hoped he'd stick to his guns (and would have no alternative not to). Maybe they could have reduced the payment to $800? - but no.

The worst thing for Labor is for this to go through simply. Then - its their idea, its their absolute head on the chopping block when it all fails - which ultimately, no matter what anyone might do - its probably going to appear like failure to the people.

So - now, we have Malcolm doing what he was meant to do - laughing his head of in parliament, sticking the finger into Labor. 

Everyone has an opinion on this stimulus - good or bad. But people hate political games more - and Liberal will come out of this the loser.

When Labor try again. It either gets knocked back again. Or it gets massively changed allowing Labor to effectively disown it. Its a win win. They won't go to a DD election.. They've only got around 12 months and they can call one anyway.


----------



## juw177 (12 February 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> When did they have any idea? Not in my short lifetime thats for sure. Heard an interesting quote in a song that applies to the ASF community IMO: "[We] see the strings that control the system". Pity the average person doesn't...




All I want to hear is for one person, just one person to come out and say "No, we cannot solve a debt problem with more debt"


----------



## rederob (12 February 2009)

juw177 said:


> All I want to hear is for one person, just one person to come out and say "No, we cannot solve a debt problem with more debt"



it assumes we have a "debt problem".
We don't, yet.
Furthermore, we don't have problem of "our" making.
We have inherited a malaise of global proportions, and there's no way of avoiding it.
The only real concerns with present events relate to duration and intensity.
Global fiscal stimuli have a chance of getting most economies out of recession. The combined effects could return markets to a semblance of rationality that, in time, will lead to "growth". 
The alternative is a waiting in the wings, fully fledged, depression.
Our fiscal stimulus may not get through in the Nick of time.


----------



## juw177 (12 February 2009)

rederob said:


> it assumes we have a "debt problem".
> We don't, yet.




Are you kidding me?



> Furthermore, we don't have problem of "our" making.
> We have inherited a malaise of global proportions, and there's no way of avoiding it.
> The only real concerns with present events relate to duration and intensity.




The reserve bank and APRA have all the authority they need to enforce lending standards. But people were allowed to buy homes with 5% down payment, then subsequently allowed to borrow against their mortgage to buy cars and televisions. All under the assumption that the property bubble was sustainable. When the property boom was coming to an end, the government introduced the first home buyers grant to artificially inflate demand. And we willingly supported it... so it is very much a problem of "our" making.




> Global fiscal stimuli have a chance of getting most economies out of recession. The combined effects could return markets to a semblance of rationality that, in time, will lead to "growth".




Show me an example where a global stimulus has benefited an economy long term. Look at Japan. Look at the US during the tech crash. They flooded liquidity into the market only to leave everyone with more debt that is now coming around. There is no growth without a reset.


----------



## Beej (13 February 2009)

juw177 said:


> Are you kidding me?
> 
> The reserve bank and APRA have all the authority they need to enforce lending standards. But people were allowed to buy homes with 5% down payment, then subsequently allowed to borrow against their mortgage to buy cars and televisions. All under the assumption that the property bubble was sustainable. When the property boom was coming to an end, the government introduced the first home buyers grant to artificially inflate demand. And we willingly supported it... so it is very much a problem of "our" making.




You are confusing Australia with the US mate! The problems Australia face are SQUARELY due to the drop off in demand from our trading partners for our exports + overseas sourced financing issues for our businesses, combined with a pull back in consumer spending due to falling confidence. Nothing to do with local consumer debt due to people buying cars with money they paid off their mortgages etc! Our mortgage default rates are MINISCULE!



prawn_86 said:


> This is where i dnt understand politics and all the stupid posturing that goes along with it? How is he, or anyone, risking things (and what is he risking?) by voting no to something he doesnt like/agree with?




Senators are elected for 2 terms (6 years) rather than only a single term as is the case for a regular MP (house of representatives). If a piece of legislation is passed by the lower house but rejected by the senate twice, then the government has the option of calling a "double dissolution" election - which means that the ENTIRE senate get's re-elected (instead of the normal half) along with the entire house of reps. So a DD election severely disadvantages minor parties and independents as well as the major opposition party re their chances of retaining seats in the senate. So Senator Xen is risking getting turfed out years earlier than he otherwise would.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Glen48 (13 February 2009)

Gillard on ABC Late line claims all the experts in the World say stimulate ......do as I say and it didn't work for us it may work for you.


----------



## juw177 (13 February 2009)

Beej said:


> You are confusing Australia with the US mate! The problems Australia face are SQUARELY due to the drop off in demand from our trading partners for our exports + overseas sourced financing issues for our businesses, combined with a pull back in consumer spending due to falling confidence. Nothing to do with local consumer debt due to people buying cars with money they paid off their mortgages etc! Our mortgage default rates are MINISCULE!




Sure drop in exports is a part of it, but the problem here is the same as the US and the rest of the world. We had an economy that relied on debt borrowed against assets that were assumed to be inflating. Mortgages is just an example. You can substitute it with iron ore if it makes more sense to you.

And FYI, overseas sourced financing does not actually contribute to our GDP. It may keep businesses afloat for longer but in the end it just adds more debt.


----------



## IFocus (13 February 2009)

juw177 said:


> Sure drop in exports is a part of it, but the problem here is the same as the US and the rest of the world. We had an economy that relied on debt borrowed against assets that were assumed to be inflating. Mortgages is just an example. You can substitute it with iron ore if it makes more sense to you.
> 
> And FYI, overseas sourced financing does not actually contribute to our GDP. It may keep businesses afloat for longer but in the end it just adds more debt.




Juw there is a high level of consumer dept borrowed against assets that are priced possibly to inflated /  bubble levels i.e. housing. In that area Oz is exposed to significant risk.

Where we differ and may escape is that we were fortunate to have banks that over charged the hell out of us with fees and make ridiculous profits without having to play the off balance sheet game that we see happen in US / Europe.

Risks are do nothing and chance the rapid fall in asset pricing with the knock on damage to our banks, then you are really screwed, start growing bananas.

Or provide stimulus to have the above happen in an orderly fashion worse case or actually buy time / soften the global effects on our economy.

The dept to be run up by the Australian Gov to do this is nothing in GDP terms and the outrageous claims by the Libs that its to much is bizarre.


----------



## Nyden (13 February 2009)

Looks as though Xenophon got some sort of a deal

http://www.smh.com.au/national/42b-...-cuts-a-deal-with-xenophon-20090213-86jw.html



> Phillip Coorey
> February 14, 2009 - 10:52AM
> The Rudd Government has saved its $42 billion stimulus package by cutting a deal with the South Australian Senator Nick Xenophon.
> 
> ...




I do hope something positive will be done with the Murray; and I don't quite understand why Labor was so hesitant as to bring forward the money anyway. If the money had already been earmarked, what difference does it make? If it would help to save local economies, it would also have a stimulus effect.

Seems ironic, as well - that Turnbull's fight was to apparently save the tax payer money ... but by voting against the bill, even *more* money had to be spent. Seems more like he was positioning himself for future politics, rather than actually fighting for his apparent problems with the bill.

They've all handled this atrociously, in my opinion. The libs, labor, greens, independents - the lot of them. I just find it sickly that personal politics and personal agendas were put before everything else.


----------



## Aussiejeff (13 February 2009)

Nyden said:


> Looks as though Xenophon got some sort of a deal
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/42b-...-cuts-a-deal-with-xenophon-20090213-86jw.html
> 
> I do hope something positive will be done with the Murray; and *I don't quite understand why Labor was so hesitant as to bring forward the money anyway. If the money had already been earmarked, what difference does it make*? If it would help to save local economies, it would also have a stimulus effect.




Mebbe they know something many of us suspect but aren't being told - that the forward treasury estimates are much worse than they have been letting on and they were hoping to keep the Murray "powder" dry, in reserve - knowing they are going to have to drop another "bombshell" re: the state of the economy - sooner rather than later!

Only one thing is for certain atm. The river IS turning to powder and the water reserves ARE going dry.


----------



## joeyr46 (14 February 2009)

rederob said:


> it assumes we have a "debt problem".
> We don't, yet.
> Furthermore, we don't have problem of "our" making.
> We have inherited a malaise of global proportions, and there's no way of avoiding it.
> ...




Your right the govt doesn't have a debt problem but society does credit cards maxed out etc The problem is of our own making Credit Inflation letting prices go up with no increase in value but thru the issue of credit to drive prices up every time it has happened in history it has led to Credit deflation or a credit crisis just like we have at the moment (and it can happen whether the govt is in deficit or surplus ) Can't be stopped by spending Can't actually be stopped reality is about to happen The prices were an illusion Could have possibly be stopped 30 years ago but we ignored the problem
It also probably suited the government to have some inflation Tax Bracket creep etc making people happy while stealing value from the dollar etcbut giving us the illusion of wealth re imaginary real estate values that could not be justified or sustained (but I'm probably 5 years ahead of time in OZ so very few will believe this)


----------



## drsmith (14 February 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> Only one thing is for certain atm. The river IS turning to powder and the water reserves ARE going dry.



And that won't change until the four state and federal governments come to terms with the fact that what the Murray/Darling basin needs is more water and something resembling an overall sustainable management plan.

Without that the federal government might as well throw it's (sorry, our) money into the drying bed of Lake Alexandrina and let the wind blow it away.

Pray for rain.


----------



## Calliope (14 February 2009)

drsmith said:


> And that won't change until the four state and federal governments come to terms with the fact that what the Murray/Darling basin needs is more water and something resembling an overall sustainable management plan.
> 
> Without that the federal government might as well throw it's (sorry, our) money into the drying bed of Lake Alexandrina and let the wind blow it away.
> 
> Pray for rain.




They can throw billions at bandaid solutions like Xenophon's deal and it won't make a scrap of difference to the sustainability of the Murray/Darling basin. Even flooding rains are only a temporary solution. A generation of neglect by state governments has left our iconic river systems in a terminal condition.

Years ago everybody knew that the only solution to this arid country's chronic water shortages was to build bigger and better water storage systems so that the floods could mitigate the droughts. But the NIMBY's and Greens don't like dams so they weren't built.

But now it is even too late for that. We have passed the point of no return.


----------



## drsmith (14 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> But now it is even too late for that. We have passed the point of no return.



What if the politicians focused on engineering solutions to harvest more rain and the greens focused on the efficient, sustainable use of water ?

Sorry,
Dreaming again.

No political mileage in that for either.


----------



## Prospector (15 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> But now it is even too late for that. We have passed the point of no return.




Please dont say that; you are dooming those communities to a death sentence!  And this gives the pollies the opportunity to walk away, conscience clear.  How pathetic is it if Australia kills it major water supplier to the Southern States!  And Victoria will need the River more than ever because its major catchment areas have been totally polluted by the bushfire fight.  And the smoke from the bushfires equals Australia's carbon emissions for the entire year!  How on earth is Rudd going to trade that away!  What a joke.  Oh yeah, and then Penny Wong will pipe up with her bloody "global warming" mantra!


----------



## prawn_86 (15 February 2009)

Prospector,

I personally think the Murray Darling Basin, and all the communities along it, are screwed. SA will be first and it will slowly work its way up. I have said since i was in YR 10 (6 yrs ago) that as long as Adelaide is around long enough for me to get my degree i will be happy. Politicains wont wever do anything constructive. My father is an irrigator and eternal optimist, but even he is thinking of selling up, he is just lucky he has no debt.


----------



## MrBurns (16 February 2009)

Too bad Krudd doesnt speak Japanese as well, he might have learned something before he started throwing our money around like a mad person - 



> Japanese economy to shrink by 10pc
> By North Asia correspondent Mark Willacy
> 
> Posted 55 minutes ago
> ...



http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/16/2492135.htm


----------



## Glen48 (16 February 2009)

Lindsay Tanner tells us it will work he has very confidence so at last it is all over .....xcept QLD has the fasts number of business going from large to small to nothing.


----------



## juw177 (16 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Too bad Krudd doesnt speak Japanese as well, he might have learned something before he started throwing our money around like a mad person -




America, UK, Japan, every failed economic policy so far has been expanded upon. Billions become trillions. Why would Rudd do different? The December stimulus had no effect? Raise the stakes!


----------



## MrBurns (16 February 2009)

juw177 said:


> America, UK, Japan, every failed economic policy so far has been expanded upon. Billions become trillions. Why would Rudd do different? The December stimulus had no effect? Raise the stakes!




It looks to me that not just Australia but the entire planet will go into liquidation at the hands of the 21st Century "experts"


----------



## prawn_86 (16 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> It looks to me that not just Australia but the entire planet will go into liquidation at the hands of the 21st Century "experts"




I have discussed this with my old man in length, and i came to the conclusion that everyone will be so far in 'debt' that the IMF etc will just write off everyones debt, or knock a sh1teload of zeros off, and effectively begin again without too much trouble etc (obviously a stock market meltdown, but no apocalyptic scenario)


----------



## Beej (16 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> It looks to me that not just Australia but the entire planet will go into liquidation at the hands of the 21st Century "experts"




You are MASSIVELY overstating the potential problem - probably been listening to Turnbull's emotive comments too much! "think of the kiddies and the grand kiddies".... - what a load of BS. I thought he was doing an OK job until this line started coming out the other day.

$50B of public debt = ~$2.5k/person in Australia.... *yawn*..... Hardly going to send us all bankrupt, into liquidation etc etc. It will all be paid back after a  few years of decent economic growth and then we will be back into surplus.

Plus due to past surpluses the Commonwealth has nearly $100B sitting around in "savings" anyway.....

And that's without even arguing whether (or not) that money over-all will have a net positive impact on our national wealth if it happens to be successful in providing some true economic stimulus.

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## MrBurns (16 February 2009)

Beej said:


> You are MASSIVELY overstating the potential problem - probably been listening to Turnbull's emotive comments too much! "think of the kiddies and the grand kiddies".... - what a load of BS. I thought he was doing an OK job until this line started coming out the other day.
> 
> $50B of public debt = ~$2k/person in Australia.... *yawn*..... Hardly going to send us all bankrupt, into liquidation etc etc. It will all be paid back after a  few years of decent economic growth and then we will be back into surplus.
> 
> ...




I dont take $50B lightly and neither should anyone else.

I think you've got your head in the sand beej, 



> It will all be paid back after a  few years of decent economic growth and then we will be back into surplus




Well lets not even think about it it's no problem just a drop in the bucket !

Passing debt to future generations on the whim of a grandstanding poseur makes me a little angry and I dont think Turnbull is understating it one bit.

Where do you think the growth will come from that you treat so lightly as a given ? Japan has already sunk a Trillion in and they're still going backwards, do you think KRudd will stop here when this lasts about a couple of months ? No he'll keep doing it to ingratiate himself to the bludgers that wait by the letter box then take it to the Tab or Harvey Norman, easy way to buy votes from the uneducated masses.


----------



## Beej (16 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I dont take $50B lightly and neither should anyone else.
> 
> I think you've got your head in the sand beej,
> 
> ...




Tell you what - if you are so certain about all this, grab a seat on the RBA board, and get a job consulting to the IMF - then I'll take your emotive and clearly politically biased views seriously. Economic growth is going to return - we are not Japan, their problems are quite unique and mostly of their own making.

The Australian government has run on debt for most of the past 100 years - We have had a good run over the past 10 years with surplus after surplus due to both some decent management of the budget by the previous government, and some good luck re the amount of economic growth and the mining boom providing windfall tax revenues. Going into deficit to the tune of a very small proportion of our GDP (less than 2%) in order to help cushion the impact of a slowing global economy on our local economy is a prudent and sensible move.

I don't particularly agree with the cash payments, but I don't see it as the end of the world either. Personally I'd like to see ALL the money spent on serious infrastructure (not just capital works) - like interstate highways, railways, ports, world class university facilities etc etc. The problem is these projects take a long time to get going, whereas halls for schools and fixing local roads etc can be started straight away, and this is the intention right now. Plus you can't always get everything you want! 

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## MrBurns (16 February 2009)

Beej said:


> I don't particularly agree with the cash payments, but I don't see it as the end of the world either. Personally I'd like to see ALL the money spent on serious infrastructure (not just capital works) - like interstate highways, railways, ports, world class university facilities etc etc. But you can't always get everything you want!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Beej




A friend of mines husband is on the RBA board but that doesnt help me.

I agree on how the money should be spent, there's a few jobs going in Victoria to get infrastructure back in place and build some community buildings for a start, throwing billions in cash to the masses is just plain bull****.
Economic valndalism.


BTW I'm a swinging voter and call it as it is regardless of the party.

and at some stage you do get emotive because the decisions being made on our behalf are just wrong sometimes and it's frustrating.


----------



## Calliope (16 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Passing debt to future generations on the whim of a grandstanding poseur makes me a little angry and I dont think Turnbull is understating it one bit.
> 
> Where do you think the growth will come from that you treat so lightly as a given ? Japan has already sunk a Trillion in and they're still going backwards, do you think KRudd will stop here when this lasts about a couple of months ? No he'll keep doing it to ingratiate himself to the bludgers that wait by the letter box then take it to the Tab or Harvey Norman, easy way to buy votes from the uneducated masses.




I have it on good authority that Mr Rudd is diverting some of the infrastructure money towards building bigger and better printing presses at the mint. Another initiative will be the provision of a wheel barrow to every family. This barrow was originally only going to working families, but it was realised they will probably be in a minority.


----------



## Glen48 (16 February 2009)

To the best of my knowledge Howard sold Telstra to pay for the Public servants supper which Krudd has now doled out also Japan would have to be the best country in manufacturing yet they are still in trouble so is the answer rocks and crops and get out of debt that way???


----------



## drsmith (16 February 2009)

One way the government will be able to delay public servants collecting on their supper will be to increase the minimum retirement age at which they can claim.

This has been done once allready in the early 1990's for public servants born after about 1960.


----------



## Prospector (16 February 2009)

drsmith said:


> One way the government will be able to delay public servants collecting on their *supper* will be to increase the minimum retirement age at which they can claim.




Maybe we should make them sing


----------



## juw177 (16 February 2009)

Beej said:


> $50B of public debt = ~$2.5k/person in Australia.... *yawn*..... Hardly going to send us all bankrupt, into liquidation etc etc. It will all be paid back after a  few years of decent economic growth and then we will be back into surplus.
> 
> Plus due to past surpluses the Commonwealth has nearly $100B sitting around in "savings" anyway.....
> 
> ...




Beej, I don't think you have any understanding of debt to GDP ratio, compound interest... or mathematics for that matter.

Debt to GDP ratio has risen exponentially in the previous years, and continues to do so as the government stimulates the economy and guarentees bank debt etc.

Debt is based on the expectation that our GDP will be able to service it. Interest on the debt compounds.

Unless someone is out there to lend an unlimited amount of money at zero interest rate, this will correct itself at some point.


----------



## Calliope (16 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Maybe we should make them sing




Especially the politicians. And I think their *suppers* should be reduced considerably, considering it is sedentary work.


----------



## MrBurns (16 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> Especially the politicians. And I think their *suppers* should be reduced considerably, considering it is sedentary work.




Perhaps we should go communist, who could be leader ?..........besides Rudd of course


----------



## drsmith (16 February 2009)

Prospector said:


> Maybe we should make them sing



One thing they will be singing is the virtues of increasing excise on cigarettes.


----------



## Glen48 (16 February 2009)

Smoking that's discussing !!!!


----------



## Julia (16 February 2009)

Beej said:


> .
> 
> 
> Plus due to past surpluses the Commonwealth has nearly $100B sitting around in "savings" anyway.....



Can you explain this, Beej?   Where is this $100B and where has it come from?
First I've heard of it.


----------



## noirua (16 February 2009)

I wonder if this second stimulus package is nearly enough.  Talk in the UK of a third package there totalling the equivalent of AU$220 billion. Germany are now sinking at the fastest rate in Europe and may do an about turn and follow the the stimulus route to support their ailing industry in the East.
Many now have their eyes on the encroaching Alt-a disaster in America, and the waves that will build up on the shores of those who bought the mortgage packages.

Aussie Banks have not really addressed their massive write down problems, though there are some signs of selling stocks and they may be trying to dress their balance sheets whilst they can.


----------



## Glen48 (16 February 2009)

Why can't the Poms get it right..maybe if Krudd gave lessons we could survive the depression:
UK govt loan guarantee scheme not working it appears that the [UK] govt's Gbp 1 bn guarantee scheme for small businesses is failing to trigger a surge in lending by banks, according to analysis by The Times. Indeed, the newspaper reports that only Gbp12 mn has been lent to companies with business organisations attacking the 'trickle' of funding from the banks. The findings follow last week's survey by the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB) that only 8% of businesses were benefitting from the govt guarantee scheme. The FSB revelations are also in complete contrast to claims made by PM Brown in the Commons last week when he said that 60k businesses had 'already benefited' from state initiatives to help cope with the credit crunch - the large figure apparently only refers to a scheme to help businesses defer tax payment, according to the Forum of Private Business. 
From GFT


----------



## hotbmw (17 February 2009)

*Stimulus package question*

Hey guys

The package that was passed last week, did it still include a 30% rebate to small business owners who spent money on business related equipment?
I own a small online website and i want to buy a camcorder to video record my products and add a small review clip on the site. Do you think im safe as this being part of the 30% rebate applicable to me? 

Thank you in advance
Rob


----------



## MrBurns (17 February 2009)

On the ABC last night Lateline - 

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2493046.htm

No transcript up yes but he says that tax cuts are the way to go, throwing cash away has been proven to be not as effective.


----------



## Julia (17 February 2009)

Interesting interview on ABC Radio Evenings last night with Professor Sinclair Davidson, economist, who disagreed that the Mark II package will be effective.  He also disagreed with Mark I.


----------



## investorpaul (17 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Interesting interview on ABC Radio Evenings last night with Professor Sinclair Davidson, economist, who disagreed that the Mark II package will be effective.  He also disagreed with Mark I.




Package 1 was definitely a waste of money, the hand out component of Package 2 will also fail. The infrastructure spending could produce some benefit but we will have to wait and see.

The problem is however, if both packages are proven to fail that will mean that approx $60bn has been thrown out the window and the government will have no money left to implement further changes and stimulus. The only option would be a larger deficit but given how the public view deficits it could be politic suicide.


----------



## Aussiejeff (17 February 2009)

investorpaul said:


> Package 1 was definitely a waste of money, the hand out component of Package 2 will also fail. The infrastructure spending could produce some benefit but we will have to wait and see.
> 
> The problem is however, if both packages are proven to fail that will mean that approx $60bn has been thrown out the window and the government will have no money left to implement further changes and stimulus. *The only option would be a larger deficit but given how the public view deficits it could be politic suicide.*




Still, the prospect of "political suicide" hasn't prevented some past gummints from doing just that!


----------



## investorpaul (17 February 2009)

The other option that got a brief mention by the media would be for Rudd to call an early election, before the full impact of the crisis hits and before his package is proven a waste of money. Although it would be a pretty risky exercise IMO


----------



## Calliope (17 February 2009)

Unfortunately the succession of Hockey to the shadow treasurer's job won't even make a blip on the progress of Rudd and co. in the destruction of our economy. Rudd has the opposition tightly wedged over a barrel. His handout policy is doing a great job in raising his popularity to record levels.

And Turnbull and Co. cannot do a thing about it without appearing to  be the villains. You don't get between a dog and it's bone  So they have reached  the situation where they are afraid to reassert themselves as true conservatives, and they are now muddling along as half-baked socialists.

It is unfortunate that any hope is dependant on the hole in the bucket becoming so big that the bucket will run dry. Costello will then step up to the plate, but I have serious doubts  about whether he has the ticker.


----------



## Calliope (17 February 2009)

NewsCom Headline

Reserve Bank minutes suggest Government stimulus will work

Well they would...wouldn't they?


----------



## MrBurns (17 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> NewsCom Headline
> 
> Reserve Bank minutes suggest Government stimulus will work
> 
> Well they would...wouldn't they?




No it wont, and so I advise, and I dont charge nearly as much as they do.


----------



## Prospector (17 February 2009)

Wasn't it the same Reserve Bank who just 12 months ago told us we had to save save save so they kept raising interest rates to force us into saving?  

We seem to be following each other at the moment C, and Mr B!


----------



## profit off it (17 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> Especially the politicians. And I think their *suppers* should be reduced considerably, considering it is sedentary work.




*And maybe their beef stroganoff?* 


Pensioners go hungry as MPs squabble over their food
Peter Jean
September 18, 2008 12:00am

PENSIONERS have slammed federal MPs for being out of touch after a complaint about a small serve of beef stroganoff triggered two inquiries into the quality of meals at Parliament House.

The Stroganoff Crisis began to stew when the wife of parliamentary secretary for trade John Murphy complained about the size of her $7.90 beef casserole from the staff dining room. 

Speaker Harry Jenkins promised to treat the complaints seriously, ordering the House Committee and the Department of Parliamentary Services to investigate. 

"They will be dealt with in a way that ensures there is appropriate and vast consultation," he said. 

Nationals chief Whip Kay Hull called for a survey of MPs, senators and staff on the quality, presentation and availability of food. 
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,,24362964-661,00.html


----------



## joeljp (17 February 2009)

I reckon this 2nd handout package is a complete waste of money. It's hard to believe that it only takes this Labor government just over a year to throw away all the surplus that took years to build up. Seriously, why does Australia have to live in denial that we're not in a recession by throwing all this money away? Will we win a medal on the world's stage that were better than all the other western countries? Rudd is so immersed in his own popularity right now and the power has well and truly gone to his head.


----------



## Aussiejeff (18 February 2009)

> [size=+1]*$15bn For Three Funds Wiped Out*[/size]
> 
> February 18, 2009
> 
> ...




http://www.theage.com.au/national/15bn-for-three-funds-wiped-out-20090217-8aah.html

Oops....


----------



## Calliope (18 February 2009)

Aussiejeff,

Oops indeed. Their stimulus packages are just sleight of hand with sweeteners. They are money jugglers. But how many packages can they keep in the air at the same time, before they fall in a heap?

When are they going to tell us what jobs they have created/saved?


----------



## kincella (18 February 2009)

we will all be paying for this nonsensical rubbish for years......
and Costello will save us ..when he comes out....
Turnbull is useless...never believed he would be anything but a stool pigeon....
Hockey is a bit like a little blue heeler...he will have a go anyway
heres Costello's advice on Rio today

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/tr...o-tinto-assurances-20090217-8a82.html?page=-1


----------



## Prospector (18 February 2009)

They always say the devil is in the detail!  Wonder where Rudd learnt to juggle!


----------



## Julia (18 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Can you explain this, Beej?   Where is this $100B and where has it come from?
> First I've heard of it.



Beej?    Hello??   Would really like to know about this $100B?


----------



## Beej (18 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Beej?    Hello??   Would really like to know about this $100B?




You know - the Future Fund etc? What do you think they did with all the extra cash once all the Commonwealth debt was paid off a few years ago?

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## juw177 (18 February 2009)

I thought future fund was only for public sector.


----------



## Judd (19 February 2009)

Julia said:


> Beej?    Hello??   Would really like to know about this $100B?






Beej said:


> You know - the Future Fund etc? What do you think they did with all the extra cash once all the Commonwealth debt was paid off a few years ago?
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Beej




A little bit of an exaggeration there Beej.  The Future Fund's assets as at 31 December 2008 stood at $59.62 billion (including $7.65 billion in Telstra shares) not $100 billion.

And its legislated purpose is "to assist future Australian governments meet the cost of public sector superannuation liabilities by delivering investment returns on contributions to the Fund."


----------



## cookiedude (19 February 2009)

Something I found floating around on the internet, sums it up nicely:

_Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus Payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers..

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. No, they are borrowing it from China. Your children are expected to repay the Chinese.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn’t that stimulating the economy of China?
A. Shut up.
_


----------



## Beej (19 February 2009)

juw177 said:


> I thought future fund was only for public sector.






Judd said:


> A little bit of an exaggeration there Beej.  The Future Fund's assets as at 31 December 2008 stood at $59.62 billion (including $7.65 billion in Telstra shares) not $100 billion.
> 
> And its legislated purpose is "to assist future Australian governments meet the cost of public sector superannuation liabilities by delivering investment returns on contributions to the Fund."




There are other funds that money has been put into announced in previous budgets as well - just can't remember their names. Anyway you can quibble over amounts if you like (even $60B is a lot!) - but I'm pretty sure there is another $20B-$40B floating around in other funds as well. Maybe some of that was forecast surpluses that now won't eventuate? Regardless, the facts are that since the elimination of federal debt a SIGNIFICANT amount of money has been saved in sovereign funds. At least $60B. Probably more.

As for the purpose of the Future Fund, well that's arbitrary - it's for whatever the government of the day decides to use the money for. Currently it is earmarked to cover public service superannuation liabilities yes - but if the fund was not there to cover that then those liabilities as they arise would just be paid out of general tax revenue anyway, including using borrowed money if we were in deficit. So the fact it is there means LESS money has to be spent from general revenue than would be the case if it was not there, so same difference - ie this money represents the "savings" of the commonwealth - capisce?

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## juw177 (19 February 2009)

You mean there is a bank bail out fund out there? That would be quite a big deal!


----------



## investorpaul (19 February 2009)

cookiedude said:


> Something I found floating around on the internet, sums it up nicely:
> 
> _Sometime this year, taxpayers will receive an Economic Stimulus Payment. This is a very exciting new program that I will explain using the Q and A format:
> 
> ...




Thats awesome, now only if the daily telegraph would print that on the front page, maybe the uneducated masses would see how bad this plan is


----------



## Judd (19 February 2009)

Beej said:


> As for the purpose of the Future Fund, well that's arbitrary - it's for whatever the government of the day decides to use the money for.




In a general sense, I agree with you except that Parliament must agree to certain legislative amendments where organisations and special purpose funds are established.  On that basis, don't underestimate the Senate.

It happens to be one reason why I like the "unrepresentative swill" as one of our former acerbic Prime Ministers described that State-centric institution.  Then again he did attribute Australia as being at the "**** end" of civilisation and he does like French clocks.


----------



## MrBurns (19 February 2009)

From Crikey.com.au - 



> US Reserve committee tips up to six years of downturn
> Glenn Dyer writes:
> 
> According to members of the US Federal Reserve, the American economy faces four to six years of sluggish growth ... a period of downturn longer than has been forecast by any other economic policy setting group around the world.
> ...


----------



## Aussiejeff (19 February 2009)

MrBurns said:


> From Crikey.com.au -




Dumb pessimists...


----------



## Aussiejeff (20 February 2009)

> *THE Federal Government has rejected research which shows its $42 billion economic stimulus package will not save jobs unless Australia's immigration intake is slashed*.
> 
> In a paper to be released today, demographic experts warn that new permanent and temporary migrant workers will soak up the 90,000 jobs the package is supposed to support.
> 
> ...



http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25081628-5005961,00.html

Ahh. Of course. Ms Gohard is more of an expert in these matters than the "experts". 

_"Saving face"_ seems to be just as powerful an instinct for Oz pollies as for their honorable Japanese counterparts.


----------



## MrBurns (20 February 2009)

Aussiejeff said:


> http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,25081628-5005961,00.html
> 
> Ahh. Of course. Ms Gohard is more of an expert in these matters than the "experts".
> 
> _"Saving face"_ seems to be just as powerful an instinct for Oz pollies as for their honorable Japanese counterparts.




I think it's about votes using the economy as an excuse to bribe people.


----------



## Temjin (20 February 2009)

Calliope said:


> NewsCom Headline
> 
> Reserve Bank minutes suggest Government stimulus will work
> 
> Well they would...wouldn't they?




Unfortunately, history shows that it NEVER worked. The Japanese have acted far faster and in greater "numbers" when their economy tanked due to excessive debt and speculation. What happened? Still in a technical depression.


----------



## MrBurns (20 February 2009)

Temjin said:


> Unfortunately, history shows that it NEVER worked. The Japanese have acted far faster and in greater "numbers" when their economy tanked due to excessive debt and speculation. What happened? Still in a technical depression.




Tell you what if thats how stupid the Reserve Bank board is we're in worse trouble than I thought.


----------



## kincella (20 February 2009)

in the asian crisis of 1989/1990 Japan waited too long before a stimulus package was in...not done until 1995...it was too late...by 5-6 years....then they built concrete paths everywhere.as their share in infrastructure..and to provide jobs...they had a job for life program..so even if the employer was going broke he could not sack them...there is a very old population and no immigration...
its all out there for everyone to see..just google it...
so since Japan had all these problems for almost 2 decades...they are just doing now ..what they should have done almost 20 years ago...
but until Japan changes its attitude...its stuck in a rut...very bad management on all levels...
all the young ones have to look forward to ,,,is looking after all the olds...what a basket case


----------



## joeyr46 (20 February 2009)

kincella said:


> in the asian crisis of 1989/1990 Japan waited too long before a stimulus package was in...not done until 1995...it was too late...by 5-6 years....then they built concrete paths everywhere.as their share in infrastructure..and to provide jobs...they had a job for life program..so even if the employer was going broke he could not sack them...there is a very old population and no immigration...
> its all out there for everyone to see..just google it...
> so since Japan had all these problems for almost 2 decades...they are just doing now ..what they should have done almost 20 years ago...
> but until Japan changes its attitude...its stuck in a rut...very bad management on all levels...
> all the young ones have to look forward to ,,,is looking after all the olds...what a basket case




Aged care is still one of the growth industries here too


----------



## Calliope (21 February 2009)

The Liberals must be looking back with yearning for the good old days when they controlled the treasury benches, and Howard and Costello cemented their position as top economic managers by handing out unearned and unmerited largesse in the form of baby bonuses, first home owner's grants and other goodies.

 The chickens they hatched have to be continually fed with borrowed money to win and retain the Top Economic Manager trophy. And the number clamouring to be hand-fed increases every day the downturn and *bad economic management* continue. One feeds off the other.


----------



## IFocus (21 February 2009)

kincella said:


> in the asian crisis of 1989/1990 Japan waited too long before a stimulus package was in...not done until 1995...it was too late...by 5-6 years....then they built concrete paths everywhere.as their share in infrastructure..and to provide jobs...they had a job for life program..so even if the employer was going broke he could not sack them...there is a very old population and no immigration...
> its all out there for everyone to see..just google it...
> so since Japan had all these problems for almost 2 decades...they are just doing now ..what they should have done almost 20 years ago...
> but until Japan changes its attitude...its stuck in a rut...very bad management on all levels...
> all the young ones have to look forward to ,,,is looking after all the olds...what a basket case




Acting in front of the curve is the general point most miss.

Acting well behind the curve as you point out above means you are generally screwed and there is no room for error.

The other point is that its treasury and RBA advice currently driving Labors moves that comes from the memory of missing the boat in the last decent recession (they acted behind the curve)

But of course we are all smarter than the collective knowledge of treasury and the RBA.


----------



## white_goodman (23 February 2009)

when are we likely to receive the second stimulus, April?

jsut wondering as i have festival tickets to buy in upcoming weeks


----------



## investorpaul (23 February 2009)

white_goodman said:


> when are we likely to receive the second stimulus, April?
> 
> jsut wondering as i have festival tickets to buy in upcoming weeks




My moneys going towards buying World Cup 2010 tickets, so it wont be staying in Aust.

Sorry to disappoint you Rudd


----------



## sassa (23 February 2009)

white_goodman said:


> when are we likely to receive the second stimulus, April?
> 
> jsut wondering as i have festival tickets to buy in upcoming weeks




April is correct.


----------



## hotbmw (25 February 2009)

Guys,

is this still included in the stimulus package? for sure 100%?
*
Small Businesses and General Business Tax Break*

    * A 30 cent in every dollar investment tax break for small and general businesses buying eligible assets.

How can i check what asset is classed as being eligible?
i want to buy a video camera to film my online shop products and add a small clip to each product. this would be ok yes?


----------



## Trembling Hand (25 February 2009)

hotbmw,

http://www.treasurer.gov.au/Display...09/012.htm&pageID=003&min=wms&Year=&DocType=0

And

http://www.ato.gov.au/taxprofessionals/content.asp?doc=/content/00175431.htm

How much is ya vid? If its less than $1000 its fully depreciatable anyway.


----------



## hotbmw (25 February 2009)

Hey TH
thanks for the info!
The vid cam i want is $1200 so it qualifies yes?


----------



## Glen48 (25 February 2009)

This will explain it all:
Shortly after class, an economics student approaches his economics professor and says, "I don't understand this stimulus bill.  Can you explain it to me?"
 The professor replied, "I don't have any time to explain it at my office, but if you come over to my house on Saturday and help me with my weekend project, I'll be glad to explain it to you."  The student agreed.
 At the agreed-upon time, the student showed up at the professor’s house. 

 The professor stated that the weekend project involved his backyard pool.
They both went out back to the pool, and the professor handed the student a bucket.   Demonstrating with his own bucket, the professor said, "First, go over to the deep end, and fill your bucket with as much water as you can."  The student did as he was instructed.
The professor then continued, "Follow me over to the shallow end, and then dump all the water from your bucket into it."  The student was naturally confused, but did as he was told.  The professor then explained they were going to do this many more times, and began walking back to the deep end of the pool.
 The confused student asked, "Excuse me, but why are we doing this?"
 The professor matter-of-factly stated that he was trying to make the shallow end much deeper.
 The student didn't think the economics professor was serious, but figured that he would find out the real story soon enough.
 However, after the 6th trip between the shallow end and the deep end, the student began to become worried that his economics professor had gone mad. The student finally replied, "All we're doing is wasting valuable time and effort on unproductive pursuits. Even worse, when this process is all over, everything will be at the same level it was before, so all you'll really have accomplished is the destruction of what could have been truly productive action!"
 The professor put down his bucket and replied with a smile,  "Congratulations.  You now understand the stimulus bill."


----------



## Julia (25 February 2009)

Thanks Glen,  good to have a smile about something which is actually anything but funny.


----------

