# Costello on Stimulus Debt



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

From the ABC the voice of reason, just these few words from Costello makes more sense than anything I've heard from Rudd or Swan...........ever !



> Australia 'may never repay stimulus debt'
> Posted 19 minutes ago
> 
> Former federal treasurer Peter Costello says it is possible Australia may never be able to pay back money the Government is borrowing to fund its stimulus packages.
> ...


----------



## RP_Automotive (29 April 2009)

Couldn't agree more. While Rudd likes to keep people happy I think he's more of a crowd pleaser than a business man. If you ask me the stimulus package is not the way to fix it. Imo its like putting glad wrap up when a window is broken and claiming its fixing the problem....sure it fixes it for now but it soon turns into something useless.


----------



## MS+Tradesim (29 April 2009)

"Because you need me, [Australia]. Your guilty conscience may move you to vote [Labour], but deep down you long for a cold-hearted [Liberal] to lower taxes, brutalize [boat-people], and rule you like a king."

- Sideshow Bob [kind of]


----------



## Mr J (29 April 2009)

I wonder if we can sue the Government over mismanagement of funds.


----------



## gfresh (29 April 2009)

I am quite concerned the Government believes our corporate tax revenue will be "back to normal" by 2011/12, and be right back into surplus to start paying it off.. That's a hell of a gamble to be making.


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

All very emotive stuff but remember the vast proportion of that $200B would have to be borrowed (over the next 2 years remember) REGARDLESS of who was in government - Libs or Labor, as the bulk of the borrowing is required due to recession induced revenue short-falls, not stimulus spending. The stimulus spending is at most 25% of that total, ($50B?)l and of that, more than half is capital works/ infrastructure spending etc which is pretty productive spending over-all.

This is typical Costello stuff really - play on the emotions, sound like you know what you are talking about, but in reality he is snow-balling you all by distorting his facts and conclusions to achieve is own political ends. Ie link the one off stimulus payment to the total $200B deficit, when he KNOWS that is not correct.

What I would like to hear answered from Costello (or any of you being sucked in by his BS) is -

** What would you be doing differently?

* What would the deficit be if you were still running the show??

* And finally, what would the deficit be if you hadn't cut taxes so aggressively and PERMANENTLY reduced the commonwealth revenue base during the boom times?
* 

Do any of you here believe that we would still be looking at a surplus this year if Costello was PM or still treasurer?? What are we actually saying - that because of current government policy, it will take 7 years instead of 10 years to pay off what was an inevitible deficit? Is that the actual argument?

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Do any of you here believe that we would still be looking at a surplus this year if Costello was PM or still treasurer?? Beej



Yes.


----------



## Kez180 (29 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Yes.





You have got to be joking... 

What Labor has done might not have been the best thing, but I can only think of a few areas they went wrong, on the whole they have done pretty well.

They have stepped in with targeted spending, such as the 30% capital allowance for new investment and taken some of the strain off the RBA....

If the government hadn't stimulated the economy we'd be looking at a 2% Cash rate...


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

I think it's a sensible statement not emotive at all, just factual.

The deficit under Costello would be much less because he knows what he's doing.

Do differently - I say again, no inflated FHBG, no cash handouts, large provision for dole payments.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

Kez180 said:


> You have got to be joking...
> 
> What Labor has done might not have been the best thing, but I can only think of a few areas they went wrong, on the whole they have done pretty well.
> 
> ...




Well supposedly these are the people who know what they are doing right? And then you say: 







> I can only think of a few areas they went wrong



 which is in the plural. 

Costello has a track record, Swan is building a track record. History will show who was better.


----------



## Struzball (29 April 2009)

Kez180 said:


> If the government hadn't stimulated the economy we'd be looking at a 2% Cash rate...




Sounds like a good thing to me, all the dud companies would've been allowed to fail and flushed out of the market.

We'd all be doing well on the stock market cos there would be nobody artificially holding it up and no bad companies left to invest in.

Property would be stimulated due to the low interest rates.

Government would earn good revenue by investing at the bottom of the market instead of all the way down and ensuring the future of the country.

Jobs would be lost but the world has a way of sorting itself out I believe.

Best of all, we'd have an extra $20billion of our taxes sitting there not spent.

Or maybe I don't know anything about anything and money shortages mean we have to spend the only money we have left and more to get more money.


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I think it's a sensible statement not emotive at all, just factual.
> 
> The deficit under Costello would be much less because he knows what he's doing.
> 
> Do differently - I say again, no inflated FHBG, no cash handouts, large provision for dole payments.




Oh riiiiight - let's check your maths; FHBG - $1.5B (and by the way Costello/Howard brought that in in the first place and there's NO WAY they would have removed it). cash handouts - $21B, of which a fair proportion would come back to the government anyway (let's say 20% to be conservative). So deficit cost is $16B.

So far you have the deficit down to $180B or so. You would still be whinging just as loudly over that figure if the government had done as you are suggesting.

PS: Dole payments are provisioned for by default. Arguably, with no stimulus more dole payments would be required as well.....




It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Yes.




Then you are delusional.




> Costello has a track record, Swan is building a track record. History will show who was better.




No it won't because Costello was too gutless to topple Howard when he should have and have a chance at staying in power, and then was to timid to take on the opposition leadership once they had lost. Now he is a nobody back-bencher sniping at the government (like many here) in a truly armchair general style!

So as a result we have only ever seen Costello in charge in the boom times. He never had to face a recession, let alone the type of global crisis we have right now. In fact many would argue that his policies (which encouraged the free/easy credit many go on about here) as being partly responsible for the current mess.

Anyway re history, It's like driving a car downhill faster than the other guy driving uphill and claiming you are therefore the better driver.....

Beej


----------



## glads262 (29 April 2009)

Kez180 said:


> You have got to be joking...
> 
> What Labor has done might not have been the best thing, but I can only think of a few areas they went wrong, on the whole they have done pretty well.
> 
> ...




Perhaps if the government hadn't blown the cash, the cash rate would be 2%. This would mean the stimulus would have come from interest rates, not debt debt debt.
I for one would have preferred this. We are in the middle of the BLAH BLAH BLAH, so we should have a 2% cash rate (if not slightly lower.) The RBA have not been able to do this because of the Rudd/Swan combo using GFC as an excuse to give money away, and spend to become popular (which has worked a treat...)

This business of "keeping the powder dry we may need it" is crap. We needed lower rates two months ago. This would have removed the need for Rudd/Swan to blow $20 billion on cash handouts.


That said, when the recession turns around, which it will probably do quickly for us thanks to China, don't forget this.
Australians have saved most of the $30 billion odd that we have been handed out. It will have been paid off mortgages, put in savings accounts, or be payed off credit cards. Perhaps when the recession ends, the Rudd/Swan will enact a 2% tax on all taxpayers earning between $40k and $100k?? Quickly too, before people begin spending more than they earn again?? 

I doubt it as this would not be a popular way of clawing back the funds.
What would be popular is increasing the top marginal tax rate, increasing tax on alcohol, perhaps an increase in company tax, increasing the capital gains tax, a carbon tax(not a direct tax on voters, so easy to disguise), means testing private health rebate, a 1.5% special medicare levy for the top tax rate for a short period, higher taxes on luxury goods, increasing import levy's on foreign made cars(or keeping such), removing support for rural Australians (has been happening by the truck load already), 

Have I missed any?? Taxes that impact the minority,  but draw in cash??


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Oh riiiiight - let's check your maths; FHBG - $1.5B (and by the way Costello/Howard brought that in in the first place and there's NO WAY they would have removed it). cash handouts - $21B, of which a fair proportion would come back to the government anyway (let's say 20% to be conservative). So deficit cost is $16B.
> So far you have the deficit down to $180B or so. You would still be whinging just as loudly over that figure if the government had done as you are suggesting.
> PS: Dole payments are provisioned for by default. Arguably, with no stimulus more dole payments would be required as well.....
> Then you are delusional.
> Beej




LOL you should be working for Swan in the dodgy figures room next to Rudd just down the hall from Gillard.
Taking presumed tax figures off to get a net amount is rubbish.

Economic vandals, create a mess trying to make yourself popular (it's working for the moment) then leave the lot to the Libs to sort out, but EVERYONE will pay by the time the creep is finished.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> No it won't because Costello was too gutless to topple Howard when he should have and have a chance at staying in power, and then was to timid to take on the opposition leadership once they had lost.
> Beej




Next to the current team of fools, con men and liars, he's looking pretty good.


----------



## drsmith (29 April 2009)

The level of vision from the last years of the Howard/Costello government was no better than what we are seeing now.

They could have used the proceeds of the resources boom to undertake a meaningful reform of tax but instead they threw the proceeds around like confetti.


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> LOL you should be working for Swan in the dodgy figures room next to Rudd just down the hall from Gillard.
> Taking presumed tax figures off to get a net amount is rubbish.
> 
> Economic vandals, create a mess trying to make yourself popular (it's working for the moment) then leave the lot to the Libs to sort out, but EVERYONE will pay by the time the creep is finished.




Look - use the whole $21B if you want to be delusional about money flow in the economy and how some always comes back to the government through taxes - what difference does it make? Your whole argument is still bogus!

*Ie even if your hero was still treasurer the debt would still rise to $180B!* QED.



> Next to the current team of fools, con men and liars, he's looking pretty good.




Except for one fact - he lost and they won..... he doesn't get to call the shots anymore. He's not even on the shadow front bench FFS!

Beej


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

> Then you are delusional.



No you are emotional. 



> No it won't because Costello was too gutless to topple Howard when he should have and have a chance at staying in power, and then was to timid to take on the opposition leadership once they had lost. Now he is a nobody back-bencher sniping at the government (like many here) in a truly armchair general style!



But this is about stimulous debt. Not leadership aspirants and their perceived failures. 


> So as a result we have only ever seen Costello in charge in the boom times. *He never had to face a recession*, let alone the type of global crisis we have right now. In fact many would argue that his policies (which encouraged the free/easy credit many go on about here) as being partly responsible for the current mess.



You actually have confirmed the fiscal prudence of Costello when other countries had recessions. 



> Anyway re history, It's like driving a car downhill faster than the other guy driving uphill and claiming you are therefore the better driver.....



Not at all. Its the attention to the core principles that matter regardless of direction.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

drsmith said:


> The level of vision from the last years of the Howard/Costello government was no better than what we are seeing now.
> 
> They could have used the proceeds of the resources boom to undertake a meaningful reform of tax but instead they threw the proceeds around like confetti.



I think it is quite right to say that the Howard Costello governemnt was not a perfect government and over the years some things could have been implemented or undone.


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> You actually have confirmed the fiscal prudence of Costello when other countries had recessions.




This is delusional - you really think governments (and even individual treasurers) cause/stop the economic cycle??????

In that case do you blame Howard for the early 80s recession? He was treasurer then you know?

Look - this whole argument is bogus and Costello really is full of it. If any of you get sucked in by his spin good luck to you. 

Me? I don't care who is in government, I don't think the situation would be much different re government debt/deficit regardless under the current circumstances. You can argue around the margins all you like, but the reality is that if you are worried about there being 10/20 years or whatever required to pay down the debt, then that was going to happen regardless given the way events have unfolded.

I just hope that things do turn around sooner rather than later so we can get that corporate tax revenue and GST etc flowing and pay off any debt that get's run up as quickly as possible!

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

We'll have our own recession after the big one is over trying to pay for Rudds ago driven madness.

Labor have NEVER for us out of anything, except prosperity.


----------



## [t..o..m] (29 April 2009)

Hmm... people seem to forget that the liberals had a *larger* pre-election (howard vs rudd) budget compared to labour.

The liberals were on a spending spree to gain votes... what would have happened if they remained in government??


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> We'll have our own recession after the big one is over trying to pay for Rudds ago driven madness.
> 
> Labor have NEVER for us out of anything, except prosperity.




Again - like a broken record. 

You still haven't managed to explained to us how it would be any different if the Libs were still in? What would the debt to be paid back be in that case again? What - $180B instead of $200B? Maybe with even higher unemployment? And higher total dole payments etc? Maybe the Libs deficit would actually be more because of these factors?



[t..o..m] said:


> Hmm... people seem to forget that the liberals had a *larger* pre-election (howard vs rudd) budget compared to labour.
> 
> The liberals were on a spending spree to gain votes... what would have happened if they remained in government??




It's called VERY selective memory tom


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2009)

Anyone else think Rudd is a high functioning BPD sufferer: Or am I delusional


----------



## tech/a (29 April 2009)

They've fallen for the same trap most others have fallen for.

*CREATING BAD DEBT.*

Debt which has no or minimal on going return.
debt for you and I---the Kids credit card has to be repaid by us and its *LAW*---Taxes!

I'm in business and cant afford to have *BAD* non income producing debt. Governments can they just print money.
I do that and I go to jail without my $900!

All governments will eventually come to the same conclusion the US of A came to in the Great Depression.

Get the country investing *IN THE COUNTRY.*
This country has just lost one of the greatest opportunities to be a *GREAT* country.
Those billions could have been invested in countless infra structure projects generation 10,000s of jobs *LONG TERM*.

So we continue to give labour *ANOTHER* go and *EVERYTIME *they display complete lack of knowledge of *BASIC *economics.
In a time where we need *EXPERTS*.

*I'm a little passionate about this.*


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Again - like a broken record.




Hey right back at you, you quote dodgy figures over and over again, show us links, evidence.


----------



## ands (29 April 2009)

Everyone here is biased... Go the Libs!


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

> You are truly delusional - you really think governments (and even individual treasurers) cause/stop the economic cycle??????



Not at all. The economic cycle is influenced by policies of various governments which impact each other. Currently we face the problems supposedly borne out of the subprime problem in the US. It is all about bad debt and profligate spending. A deviation from the core principles of fiscal prudence.



> In that case do you blame Howard for the early 80s recession? He was treasurer then you know?



I am not blaming anyone for recessions. 


> Look - this whole argument is bogus and Costello really is full of it. If any of you get sucked in by his spin good luck to you.



Time will tell if it is spin. Thanks for the good luck wish. May luck be with you too.



> Me? I don't care who is in government, I don't think the situation would be much different re government debt/deficit regardless under the current circumstances. You can argue around the margins all you like, but the reality is that if you are worried about there being 10/20 years or whatever required to pay down the debt, then that was going to happen regardless given that way events have unfolded.



Well, I care because it will impact on my future. If you don't care just vote for fiscal prudence. 



> I just hope that things do turn around sooner rather than later so we can get that corporate tax revenue and GST etc flowing and pay off any debt that get's run up as quickly as possible!



Do you think the corporate world is going to pay for all of this? No tax rises for the middle class?


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> It's called VERY selective memory tom




Hmmm from memory Costello called the financial crisis while Swan was running around saying "we are light years away from recession" . Swan has been the most confused treasurer I have seen in a while.


----------



## prawn_86 (29 April 2009)

APoliticians are all just looking out for themselves. Its the hallmark of a capitalist society why should pollies be any different.

Would you really care what happened as long as you knew you were getting a nice fat pension and consuklting job after a couple of terms? 

Im sure some start with good intentions but end up hamstrung by the drawn out political process. *A politician is a politician is useless *in my books


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

[t..o..m] said:


> Hmm... people seem to forget that the liberals had a *larger* pre-election (howard vs rudd) budget compared to labour.
> 
> The liberals were on a spending spree to gain votes... what would have happened if they remained in government??




Tell you what Tom you'd be out there making money not sitting on a dodgy PC with a can of baked beans in candlelight waiting to get swine flu.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

moXJO said:


> Hmmm from memory Costello called the financial crisis while Swan was running around saying "we are light years away from recession" . Swan has been the most confused treasurer I have seen in a while.




Confused, in this case = incompetent.


----------



## glads262 (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Again - like a broken record.
> 
> you still haven't successfully explained how it would be any different if the Libs were still in? What would the debt to be paid back be in that case again? What - $180B instead of $200B? Maybe with even higher unemployment? And dole higher total payments etc? Maybe the Libs deficit would actually be more because of these factors?




1. The libs would not have harped on about inflation genie's, and warned people that the economy was out of control. This was poor leadership and poor timing.
2. There would not be a whole lot of people stuck with 8.6% rates on their homeloans for 5 years. I work in a bank, and HEAPS of customers locked in fixed rates because they were frightened by 1. They are paying for it now. If they did not lock in, they would have more spare cash and would not be cutting back now.
3. Libs would have brought forward tax cuts when this thing started, not 6 months after the fact blow $30 billion. This would have cost much less, and had an earlier effect.
4. Libs would not be harping on about a poorly conceived carbon tax (which Penny Wong does not even understand how it will work.) This has been holding back investment for the past 2 years. Investment in electricity generation etc that we need. Hence, growth would be higher (or less negative)
5. Libs would not have put a million dollar guarantee on all bank deposits, when most other counties only had $100k guarantees. This has caused the freezing of billions in assets in mortgage funds, and created more uncertainty.
6. Libs would not be harping on about "GFC this, GFC that, worst GFC since BLAH BLAH BLAH" Mentioning it all the time just makes people more pessimistic.
7. "this will get worse before it gets better" Krudd says this because he wants to be "honest". Well, blind freddy knows this. We need our leaders to say "What an opportunity - this GFC is great, lets move forward with new ideas.

Need I go on??

I would say the Lib's deficit would be probably $20-30 billion less than Krudds over the next four years.

And, Krudd is saying that this 20-30 billion dollar difference is only small change?? 

As we all know, $20 billion is $2000 per Australian taxpayer.


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

tech/a said:


> They've fallen for the same trap most others have fallen for.
> 
> *CREATING BAD DEBT.*
> 
> ...




Those are great arguments - but on the original topic, would Costello/Howard have done what you are suggesting?? Based on their track record, I'd say the answer is a resounding "no". Costello is not making one single constructive spending suggestion - his only response to attack the debt that would have been built up regardless of who was in government. That's why he gives me the sh*&s!



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Do you think the corporate world is going to pay for all of this? No tax rises for the middle class?




Unfortunately I fear the middle class is going to get hit yes (which includes me). But the sooner the corporate money tap flows again the better then regardless! 

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Mr J (29 April 2009)

prawn_86 said:


> Im sure some start with good intentions but end up hamstrung by the drawn out political process. *A politician is a politician is useless *in my books




I'd agree. Those who were genuine start making so many compromises, that they forget why they're there in the first place. I'm sure others just want to mess around whether it's for ego, self-interest, or the thing to do.


----------



## prawn_86 (29 April 2009)

Mr J said:


> I'd agree. Those who were genuine start making so many compromises, that they forget why they're there in the first place. I'm sure others just want to mess around whether it's for ego, self-interest, or the thing to do.




We're on the same page here. I would do it just for something to do, after i had made my fortune, much as Turnball etc, but im realistic enough to know that one politician cant make a difference, let alone one vote in a country where the 2 majors are the same


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

> Those are great arguments - but on the *original topic*, would Costello/Howard have done what you are suggesting?? Based on their track record, I'd say the answer is a resounding "no". Costello is not making one single constructive *spending suggestion* - his only response to attack the debt that would have been built up regardless of who was in government. That's why he gives me the sh*&s!




It is the original topic - debt. 

Spending is the problem.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Well just getting back to the original post it's good to see we all agree Costello is spot on once again


----------



## [t..o..m] (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Tell you what Tom you'd be out there making money not sitting on a dodgy PC with a can of baked beans in candlelight waiting to get swine flu.




So you attribute the pre-election spending spree by liberals (if they had remained in government) as an economic boost? You can not, in all seriousness, think that if the liberals had remained in power, that Australia would be in some economic bubble that would have protected us from the GFC

I mean Labour has made financial mistakes of course, but to completely dismiss that the liberal's wouldn't have brought us to the same conclusion we are in now, you would have to be delusional


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

[t..o..m] said:


> So you attribute the pre-election spending spree by liberals (if they had remained in government) as an economic boost? You can not, in all seriousness, think that if the liberals had remained in power, that Australia would be in some economic bubble that would have protected us from the GFC
> 
> I mean Labour has made financial mistakes of course, but to completely dismiss that the liberal's wouldn't have brought us to the same conclusion we are in now, you would have to be delusional




Apparantly a lot of us are delusional. Perhaps it is the debt we are concerned about.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

[t..o..m] said:


> So you attribute the pre-election spending spree by liberals (if they had remained in government) as an economic boost? You can not, in all seriousness, think that if the liberals had remained in power, that Australia would be in some economic bubble that would have protected us from the GFC
> 
> I mean Labour has made financial mistakes of course, but to completely dismiss that the liberal's wouldn't have brought us to the same conclusion we are in now, you would have to be delusional




We would be in a much better position now and would come out of it sooner. 

Rudd is just grandstanding and Swan ...........well..........say no more.


----------



## [t..o..m] (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> We would be in a much better position now and would come out of it sooner.
> 
> Rudd is just grandstanding and Swan ...........well..........say no more.




Well speculation and assumption will get us no where. Who knows what would have happened if Howard / Costello had remained in government. All I'm saying is that I can't imagine it would be very far from where we are now.


----------



## lowwy (29 April 2009)

The recession isn't the problem. The recession is the cure. Unprofitable companies go bankrupt, mal-investments are purged. The fittest survive. The government does not create wealth, they can only redistribute it. Cutting taxes, cutting spending is what the government should be doing. That will free up the resources for private corporations to create wealth motivated solely by profit and loss.


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> We would be in a much better position now and would come out of it sooner.




Very empty words unless you can prove it!

Again - what would the deficit be in 2 years time if the Libs were still in? (Ie let's assume your hero Costello actually had some intestinal fortitude). 

How long would that take to pay off compared to the current forecast scenario?

Answers with workings will receive bonus marks 

Beej


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

lowwy said:


> The recession isn't the problem. The recession is the cure. Unprofitable companies go bankrupt, mal-investments are purged. The fittest survive. The government does not create wealth, they can only redistribute it. Cutting taxes, cutting spending is what the government should be doing. That will free up the resources for private corporations to create wealth motivated solely by profit and loss.



As the French would say: Merci.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

[t..o..m] said:


> Well speculation and assumption will get us no where. Who knows what would have happened if Howard / Costello had remained in government. All I'm saying is that I can't imagine it would be very far from where we are now.




Yes this is just going round in circles now, that ca ching you hear is billions more going into poker machines around the country, the cheques are just going out, what a wonderful life, we're in a recession and money drops from the sky, it's just so right isnt it ?


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Yes this is just going round in circles now, that ca ching you hear is billions more going into poker machines around the country, the cheques are just going out, what a wonderful life, we're in a recession and money drops from the sky, it's just so right isnt it ?



It's a lot like that delusion that is being pushed.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Very empty words unless you can prove it!
> Beej




You cant prove otherwise, Rudd should step aside for the good of the country and let real financial experts take the helm.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Very empty words unless you can prove it!
> 
> Again - what would the deficit be in 2 years time if the Libs were still in? (Ie let's assume your hero Costello actually had some intestinal fortitude).
> 
> ...




Yes but we all know who had more experiance at paying the debt back
Not like that debt train called labor.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> All very emotive stuff but remember the vast proportion of that $200B would have to be borrowed (over the next 2 years remember) REGARDLESS of who was in government - Libs or Labor, as the bulk of the borrowing is required due to recession induced revenue short-falls, not stimulus spending. The stimulus spending is at most 25% of that total, ($50B?)l and of that, more than half is capital works/ infrastructure spending etc which is pretty productive spending over-all.
> 
> This is typical Costello stuff really - play on the emotions, sound like you know what you are talking about, but in reality he is snow-balling you all by distorting his facts and conclusions to achieve is own political ends. Ie link the one off stimulus payment to the total $200B deficit, when he KNOWS that is not correct.
> 
> ...




Costello's experience of paying back the debt created by the Labour government of Hawke / Keating would be a guiding factor don't you think?


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

moXJO said:


> Yes but we all know who had more experiance at paying the debt back
> Not like that debt train called labor.




Actually that is COMPLETE BS. 

In the 80s, Labor inherited a massive debt from the previous government (you know, the one where John Howard was treasurer??). They paid most of it off and ran budget surpluses for several years before the 90/91 recession hit. Only then did the deficit run back up.

So Labor governments have just as much "experience" at paying down debt and producing a surplus after a previous "incompetent" government ran it right up. If you believe that sort of rhetoric anyway, which btw I don't in either case.....

So if spouting partisan political spin, please study the actual economic history as well.



It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Costello's experience of paying back the debt created by the Labour government of Hawke / Keating would be a guiding factor don't you think?




No - see above information. 

Anyway. any government when presented with 16 years of un-interrupted economic growth can pay down debt. Especially when they sell all the cash generating public owned assets to do it as well.... (which I'm not saying is a bad thing by the way, just pointing out how it was done).

So really, all you and Mr Burns et al are relying on is "faith"? Sounds more like religion, rather than economics to me?

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Actually that is COMPLETE BS.
> 
> In the 80s, Labor inherited a massive debt from the previous government (you know, the one where John Howard was treasurer??). They paid most of it off and ran budget surpluses for several years before the 90/91 recession hit. Only then did the deficit run back up. Any government when presented with 16 years of un-interrupted economic growth can pay down debt.
> 
> ...




Oh what clap trap, State Labor here Vic cost us our State Bank and forced us to take on pokies to pay for everything, Labor as a whole are useless BS artists that do nothing for anybody including their delusional brain dead supporters.


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Oh what clap trap, State Labor here Vic cost us our State Bank and forced us to take on pokies to pay for everything, Labor as a whole are useless BS artists that do nothing for anybody including their delusional brain dead supporters.




So you are denying that Howard when treasurer ran up a series of huge deficits? And you deny that it was Hawke/Keating who first returned the government budget to surplus in the 80s?

Beej


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Actually that is COMPLETE BS.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




No its not, I was talking about the current governments. Which has more experiance. Not talking about walking down memory lane




> They paid most of it off



Thats gold


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> So really, all you and Mr Burns et al are relying on is "faith"? Sounds more like religion, rather than economics to me?



Not at all. Fiscal prudence of reducing future debt and paying off current debt.


----------



## Kez180 (29 April 2009)

It's Snake Pliskin said:


> Not at all. Fiscal prudence of reducing future debt and paying off current debt.





Be quiet or we will put you back in LA...


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

moXJO said:


> No its not, I was talking about the current governments. Which has more experiance. Not talking about walking down memory lane




I think Labors past failures are just as important as their present failures.


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I think Labors past failures are just as important as their present failures.




But past Liberal government failures don't enter into your thinking?

(for moXJO) Now THAT'S gold! 

Burnsie you in particular are so partisan it's almost not worth replying, other than to expose your obvious partisanship! 

Me? I don't give a rat's whether it's Swan or Costello, I think the outcome (re the debt) would be roughly the same. Mostly they all just follow Treasury advice anyway.... As distressing as this is for many to accept, it's the reality.


----------



## Pappon (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I think Labors past failures are just as important as their present failures.




I totally agree. WELL SAID LABOR IS NO GOOD, NEVER HAVE BEEN NEVER WILL.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> But past Liberal government failures don't enter into your thinking?




If Libs make mistakes there's always enough in the coffers to fix it unlike Labor droobs who just stuff it up then p#ss off and leave the mess for others.


----------



## Pappon (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Very empty words unless you can prove it!
> 
> Again - what would the deficit be in 2 years time if the Libs were still in? (Ie let's assume your hero Costello actually had some intestinal fortitude).
> 
> ...





Let's see how much you like that $900 handout when taxes start to rise to pay it back i hope you don't have a family to look after when that DOES happen and don't argue that "if labor didn't throw the cash handouts unemployment would be higher". Unemployment is GOING HIGHER!! OMG OMG the handouts ARN'T WORKING!!!!!

The cash handouts don't work to inspire CONFIDENCE in the economy a very IMPORTANT thing.

I've always looked at the people who vote labor as vastly under educated and people who voted for liberals as extremely educated 

BELOW IS TAKEN FROM THE AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV


"But one of Australia's leading budget experts, *Access Economics' *Chris Richardson, *suggests that Treasury has underestimated* the collapse in company taxes due to the recession and the cratering of commodity prices. If so, it would further expose the structural reduction in the income tax base produced by six years of income tax cuts and the two more annual rounds scheduled to come. 

*That would push the budget deeper into the red than Treasury forecasts*. It also would mean that the deficit will not whirr back into the black as quickly as in previous economic recoveries. Richardson suggests "fiscal drag" -- *the increased tax take as wage inflation pushes taxpayers into higher tax brackets -- will have much less bite in the next recovery. "This will be a long, hard grind," he warns."*


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> But past Liberal government failures don't enter into your thinking?
> 
> (for moXJO) Now THAT'S gold!
> 
> .




Oh I'm sorry I didn't know I could vote them in during the last election


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Labor - 

Cash handouts destructive to everything except Rudds standing in the polls.

Doubling of FHBG - only hepls Vendors dispose of property at high prices and stuffs FHB's who are sucked into the housing bubble head first.

Al adding to Labors list of failures taking working families down - once again.


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> If Libs make mistakes there's always enough in the coffers to fix it unlike Labor droobs who just stuff it up then p#ss off and leave the mess for others.




Except of course for that pesky Liberal John Howard who when he was treasurer left an ALMIGHTY mess to be cleaned up by the following Labor government - you know, the one that put the budget in surplus for the first time in several decades?

And what about the mess that Howard/Costello left this time around? Aren't you one of the guys always going on about the the credit bubble etc? You don't think your heroes were complicit in creating that? And isn't that the primary cause of the current mess that now has to be dealt with? 

Not to mention that as a proportion of GDP the Howard government was the biggest spending federal government in our countries history! Much of it squandered on wasteful exercises like all the bloody adverts for work choices etc etc. Where's the fiscal prudence in THAT that you are all harping about?



Pappon said:


> Let's see how much you like that $900 handout when taxes start to rise to pay it back i hope you don't have a family to look after when that DOES happen and don't argue that "if labor didn't throw the cash handouts unemployment would be higher". Unemployment is GOING HIGHER!! OMG OMG the handouts ARN'T WORKING!!!!!




Pappon - I got zilch from the hand outs - don't support them either. My point is in the big picture it doesn't make much difference. Cash stimulus can't stop the inevitable - so of course unemployment is going higher. It's like a shock absorber that's all - best you can hope for is it makes things a little less bad.

PS: I do have a family, and believe me I know about high taxes - I lived and worked through the aftermath of the 80s and 90s recessions - my experience from all that is it is not going to make ANY difference whether it's Labor or Liberal - they have both caused the type of things in the past that everyone is worried about (debt) - it's just many here have very selective memories because they are partisan!

PPS: Your Australian quote just proves my point - a big deficit was coming no matter who was in government. The decline in corporate tax receipts due to recession and commodities bust is outside the control of any government, even if it was ran by Peter "Clarke Kent" Costello!

Beej


----------



## Soft Dough (29 April 2009)

[t..o..m] said:


> I mean Labour has made financial mistakes of course, but to completely dismiss that the liberal's wouldn't have brought us to the same conclusion we are in now, you would have to be delusional




They are both useless.

Liberals in their inefficient and reckless tax cuts

Labour in their inefficient and reckless handouts

the first one was squandered on residential property = loss of opportunity cost of mining proceeds.

the second one was squandered on plasmas = profit to China.


----------



## Pappon (29 April 2009)

Soft Dough said:


> They are both useless.
> 
> Liberals in their inefficient and reckless tax cuts
> 
> ...






I should be prime minister. Everybody would be on a high protein/low carb diet!


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Except of course for that pesky Liberal John Howard who when he was treasurer left an ALMIGHTY mess to be cleaned up by the following Labor government - you know, the one that put the budget in surplus for the first time in several decades?
> 
> And what about the mess that Howard/Costello left this time around? Aren't you one of the guys always going on about the the credit bubble etc? You don't think your heroes were complicit in creating that? And isn't that the primary cause of the current mess that now has to be dealt with?
> 
> ...




Ahh gee Beej - 

Libs = prosperity

Labor = the great recession

You can argue with me but you cant argue with the facts


----------



## Uncle Festivus (29 April 2009)

Or we could look past The Cheshire Cat's periodic forays in public pontification on how it _should_ be done etc etc, and see it for what it really is - keeping up appearances for 3 years down the track when all is well and he can have another tilt at the Liberal leadership, after both Rudd & Turnbull have been discarded into the economic and political badlands?

The majority of polititians are cut from the same cloth and only have an agenda covering a timespan of up to the next election?


----------



## Soft Dough (29 April 2009)

Pappon said:


> I should be prime minister. Everybody would be on a high protein/low carb diet!




I'll vote for you, but a lot of people will require means tested fibre handouts, as most of the middle class welfare recipients who cry poor are full of....


----------



## Pappon (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Ahh gee Beej -
> 
> Libs = prosperity
> 
> ...




MrBurns never in my lifetime have i heard words so powerful that are so true! Liberals hold the highest reward to risk ratio. 

Labor uses to much capital on one trade which we all know leads to capital destruction


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Or we could look past The Cheshire Cat's periodic forays in public pontification on how it _should_ be done etc etc, and see it for what it really is - keeping up appearances for 3 years down the track when all is well and he can have another tilt at the Liberal leadership, after both Rudd & Turnbull have been discarded into the economic and political badlands?
> 
> The majority of polititians are cut from the same cloth and only have an agenda covering a timespan of up to the next election?




UF - glad someone else here can see past the partisan spin that is flying left right and centre!



Pappon said:


> MrBurns never in my lifetime have i heard words so powerful that are so true! Liberals hold the highest reward to risk ratio.
> 
> Labor uses to much capital on one trade which we all know leads to capital destruction




Huh! Unfortunately in my lifetime I have heard such obviously partisan and unsubstantiated rubbish many, many times......


----------



## Pappon (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Huh! Unfortunately I have heard such obviously partisan and unsubstantiated rubbish many, many times......




Yet you still dismiss the facts as i said liberal voters educated and labor voted uneducated


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

Pappon said:


> Yet you still dismiss the facts as i said liberal voters educated and labor voted uneducated




Sorry which facts am I dismissing? Your facts as posted simply proved my argument?? All Burnsie posts are partisan opinions unsubstantiated by any facts.

Beej


----------



## Mr J (29 April 2009)

I don't see this as a problem of parties, but of politicians. What politician would tell the unemployed that they just have to gut it out, that for many it's their own fault that they're losing their home, and to those that lost much of their life savings in the market that it's simply a necessary correction. 

No politician is going to take a tough love stance, and they have to be seen as doing something. If they sit on their hands, the public will be out for blood. As always, politicians only think as far as the next election, so they're only going to do what keeps them in power rather than what is good for the majority.

If Howard and Costello would be "better", it's probably because their base is less likely to approve of handouts and higher taxes.


----------



## Pappon (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Sorry which facts am I dismissing? Your facts as posted simply proved my argument?? All Burnsie posts are partisan opinions unsubstantiated by any facts.
> 
> Beej




FACT labor ruin the country every time their in government

FACT the above statement is true

FACT the prior statement is also true

FACT labor voters dismiss the FACTS

FACT the above statement is true

want anymore FACTS?


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

Pappon said:


> FACT labor ruin the country every time their in government
> 
> FACT the above statement is true
> 
> ...




I thought you were claiming to be educated? Those are OPINIONS - not facts.

In fact  when you did post some facts like the below, all you did was substantiate my argument, which is that it would make little/no difference if Costello was still Treasurer or Prime Minister, as the run up of the federal deficit was inevitable:



Pappon said:


> BELOW IS TAKEN FROM THE AUSTRALIAN NEWSPAPER
> 
> "But one of Australia's leading budget experts, Access Economics' Chris Richardson, suggests that Treasury has underestimated the collapse in company taxes due to the recession and the cratering of commodity prices. If so, it would further expose the structural reduction in the income tax base produced by six years of income tax cuts and the two more annual rounds scheduled to come.
> 
> That would push the budget deeper into the red than Treasury forecasts. It also would mean that the deficit will not whirr back into the black as quickly as in previous economic recoveries. Richardson suggests "fiscal drag" -- the increased tax take as wage inflation pushes taxpayers into higher tax brackets -- will have much less bite in the next recovery. "This will be a long, hard grind," he warns."




Beej


----------



## Pappon (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> I thought you were claiming to be educated? Those are OPINIONS - not facts.
> 
> Beej




No i think you'll find that 

A. Labor = high unemployment and excessive debt burden on Australian taxpayers
B. Labor = always does the above
C. How is this good for Australia? FACT it's not

Labor is not good with money FACT


----------



## Pappon (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> I thought you were claiming to be educated? Those are OPINIONS - not facts.
> 
> In fact  when you did post some facts like the below, all you did was substantiate my argument, which is that it would make little/no difference if Costello was still Treasurer or Prime Minister, as the run up of the federal deficit was inevitable:
> 
> ...




I haven't claimed to YOU that the libs would or would not go into deficit that comment in no way relates to me. 

In fact what you cut and pasted from a previous post validates my point even more:

LABOR = DEBT = a cold hard FACT


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Pappon is right - the Libs could go into deficit, but the difference between the Libs and Labor doing that is with the Libs you know it's as a result of what's needed to be done and they will be able to handle it whereas with labor you know that it's because they havent got a clue and have no way of knowing if they can get us out of it again.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2009)

Lol this thread will go for another ten pages if you two keep stirring up those lab supporters.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

moXJO said:


> Lol this thread will go for another ten pages if you two keep stirring up those lab supporters.




I know, better stop it I've used up most of my standard insults


----------



## ands (29 April 2009)

We won't even start on state labor especially here in Queensland... Cost blowouts on all infrastructure projects, waiting till everything is in a crisis before they act, waited until we were in drought before they started building the recycled water pipeline and when they finally finished it we were out of the drought. The hospital system is a joke, tried to cover up Dr Death (Jayant Patel) until the opposition made it public. $72 billion debt...


----------



## drsmith (29 April 2009)

We can only imagine what could have been had Howard handed over to Costello one year or so into the Coalition's last term in government.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Victoria, state bank gone, pokies in, ticketing system Myki. $500m blowout to $1.3B and way over time now expected in 2010 an election year. Worse than useless.


----------



## moXJO (29 April 2009)

You Cane toads and mexicans have nothing on NSW Labor party


----------



## waza1960 (29 April 2009)

2 Points: 1/ Peter Costello was not gutless or lacked ambition for the leadership he simply did what was best for the Liberal party something that a lot of people are unwilling to come to terms with because he is highly principled and that is unusual especially among politicians 2/ I cringe whenever Swan is mentioned in the same sentence as Costello,in the substantial time that Costello was Treasurer did you ever see him at any time even for an instant be other than totally at ease with his position or ever make the slightest slip up. Swan on the other hand inspires no confidence looks like a rabbit in the headlights just before getting splatted.


----------



## drsmith (29 April 2009)

How long before workchoices gets thrown onto the fire ?


----------



## So_Cynical (29 April 2009)

5 pages of pointless political pondering, and in only 6 hours...well done.

Costello = gutless


----------



## aleckara (29 April 2009)

Wow this debate is heated.

All I can add to this is that the politicans are only reflecting the masses and their wants. If you want to blame everybody step back out of the culture you were brought up in, your high standards of living - think outside the square. Then realise we are spoiled in Australia and the person you should be complaining about is yourself.

They would get voted out plain and simple if they told people that pain is required to move ahead in the future because we are spoiled and want it NOW. The problem is the politicial system itself - just like American corporations (e.g GM) encouraging good reporting results by quarter over long term planning. Debt by its very nature is good now, pain later which is great for every government who is just looking at the next 3 yearly results. If all you are thinking about is short term you will be like a young girl getting hooked on credit cards - thinking your getting the world, never achieving anything of substance and then looking at all the things you bought later and thinking they were all useless and/or stupid.

i.e compare our government to China's. Sure China's government has committed several human rights abuses, and made many other stuffup's but they have beaten the Western world simply due its short-termism. i.e to name a few examples - 

they devalue their dollar, we Westerners see it as a short term cheap source of goods (can't put protectionism now because of course people would protest of higher prices NOW forgetting about the later), and ...

they acquire all the resources from companies who want cash NOW, and gain an increasingly monopolistic position (China has an almost rare-earth monopoly atm and a lot of companies are increasingly getting worried about their ability to manufacture at all due to this including Toyota).

EDIT: What we need is a government that is run a bit more like a club IMO. When revenues are goods horde and save, and make investments later. We pay taxes - the government gets its money for nothing so why should they have to borrow it? They should spend their free money within their means.


----------



## Macquack (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Labor as a whole are useless BS artists that do nothing for anybody including their delusional brain dead supporters.




Burns, you have managed to insult more than half the nation, not a statistically clever thing to do.

I invite you to wear a T-shirt printed with your quote :

"*Labor as a whole are useless Bull Sh*t artists that do nothing for anybody including their delusional brain dead supporters*"

-to the next ALP National Conference (Sydney Convention & Exhibition Centre - 30 Jul 2009 to 1 Aug 2009)

Put up or shut up, Burns.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> Burns, you have managed to insult more than half the nation, not a statistically clever thing to do.
> 
> I invite you to wear a T-shirt printed with your quote :
> 
> ...




Glad to,  non of them can read thanks to State Labor Govt schools.


----------



## Macquack (29 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Glad to,  non of them can read thanks to State Labor Govt schools.




I can read and I will make sure I am there to act as an interpreter for any one that cant read.

I would not wont to miss this, it will be a knockout.


----------



## MrBurns (29 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> I can read and I will make sure I am there to act as an interpreter for any one that cant read.
> 
> I would not wont to miss this, it will be a knockout.




I couldnt bear to be in the presence of such a strong stench of unwashed bodies and rotton teath.

Even if they could keep their hands out of their pants long enough to throw a punch it wouldn't  do much good, they're all girls.


----------



## Julia (29 April 2009)

Beej said:


> Mostly they all just follow Treasury advice anyway.... As distressing as this is for many to accept, it's the reality.



Yes, that's probably basically right in terms of whether stimulus should be applied or not.  But I believe the cash handouts were unique to Labor and part of Rudd's ongoing campaign to keep himself high in the polls.
The Libs would have been more likely to have moved tax cuts forward and/or spent on necessary infrastructure.




Pappon said:


> Yet you still dismiss the facts as i said liberal voters educated and labor voted uneducated



I'd like to see some stats on that Pappon.   If you consider that most of the 'intelligentsia' are left in their political leanings, e.g. university staff, plus most who have humanities degrees, I doubt your suggestion would be right at all.  I've actually been surprised at the people who have not supported the cash handouts and wonder where the Rudd supporters in the polls are coming from.





Mr J said:


> I don't see this as a problem of parties, but of politicians. What politician would tell the unemployed that they just have to gut it out, that for many it's their own fault that they're losing their home, and to those that lost much of their life savings in the market that it's simply a necessary correction.
> 
> No politician is going to take a tough love stance, and they have to be seen as doing something. If they sit on their hands, the public will be out for blood. As always, politicians only think as far as the next election, so they're only going to do what keeps them in power rather than what is good for the majority.
> 
> If Howard and Costello would be "better", it's probably because their base is less likely to approve of handouts and higher taxes.



Yes.   Popularity rules everything.





waza1960 said:


> 2 Points: 1/ Peter Costello was not gutless or lacked ambition for the leadership he simply did what was best for the Liberal party something that a lot of people are unwilling to come to terms with because he is highly principled and that is unusual especially among politicians



Costello highly principled????  Give me a break!   He never had the numbers while Howard was still Prime Minister and then when the Libs lost the election he either lacked the guts to take on Opposition leadership, or was simply having a hissy fit and saying ' you didn't offer it to me when I wanted it, so you can just go suck it now".  Pretty childish if that was what was in his mind.




> 2/ I cringe whenever Swan is mentioned in the same sentence as Costello,in the substantial time that Costello was Treasurer did you ever see him at any time even for an instant be other than totally at ease with his position or ever make the slightest slip up. Swan on the other hand inspires no confidence looks like a rabbit in the headlights just before getting splatted.



But yes, I completely agree with you on this.   Swan is the worst of bad jokes as Treasurer.  If I didn't loathe him so much I'd feel sorry for him.  He is way, way out of his depth.

Beej, I'm a swinging voter.  Have voted both Libs and Labor, both federally and state.  Was quite happy to be open minded about Labor.  But all the grandstanding and  overblown rhetoric plus the horrible waste of billions in cash handouts just so the next quarter's figures would look a bit better, have removed any confidence I might have had.  Consider even just the stupidity of Rudd's saying on the one hand:
"Go out and spend, spend, spend",
whilst on the other continually talking down confidence and increasing pessimism in the community with his endless references to things being "really, really tough:"   and  "it's going to be a really tough budget but we won't shrink from the tough decisions".    OK, we got "tough".

I don't know, but I wouldn't mind betting a proportion of businesses have sacked staff in anticipation of actually needing to do this, just on the basis of the government's mumblings of misery.

Just one question for you Beej:   if you could choose to have the Turnbull/Hockey team in charge or the Rudd/Swan one, which would you choose?   Or even a further option:  Costello/Hockey    or  even
Turnbull/Costello (though I can't see that working out.)


----------



## The Muffin Man (29 April 2009)

The country would still find itself in deficit within the next few years if the Liberal Party was in power. It's a simple matter of a severely dwindling revenue base, coupled with higher welfare payments.

In saying that, the Rudd Government should be ashamed of itself with how it has handled things so far. If they are trying to position this country to bounce back and come out of this (what will be) recession stronger, then why was the 'tax bonus' and December 'stimulus' money not directed towards the development of economic infrastructure?

Now we have this 'Building Australia' Fund experiencing a catastrophic shortfall in money because the $20Bn promised was based on future revenue streams. 

So to sum up, instead of the Rudd Government using the surplus it had to ensure these economic projects of national significance went ahead, thus creating meaningful employment in the areas of construction, maintenance, and other related services, they gave the surplus away. Their tactic of handing out money to stimulate the economy is akin to a person firing wildly with a machine gun at a target 200m away. Some bullets will hit the target, but many will miss. It's not efficient. How much of that 'stimulus' money went to the pokies? How much was used to pay off the mortgage? How much was used to pay down credit card and personal loan debt? How much was saved? How much was used to fund a holiday to Thailand, flying an airline that employs next to no Australians? How much of the December pension went to pensioners travelling and living overseas? How do any of these uses stimulate our economy and create any jobs? The Labor Government has been telling us how bad this is all going to get, and then expect people to run out and spend their money they receive rather than save it or pay down debt because people are fearing for their job security. It is such an inefficent waste of our surplus.


----------



## Beej (29 April 2009)

Julia said:


> Just one question for you Beej:   if you could choose to have the Turnbull/Hockey team in charge or the Rudd/Swan one, which would you choose?   Or even a further option:  Costello/Hockey    or  even
> Turnbull/Costello (though I can't see that working out.)




Hmmmm - like I said I really don't think it would make a lot of difference, but maybe Turnbull/Costello by a nose if that was really an option. But I think the reality is that they would be dysfunctional politically even if they had the best chance of competence economically. I think Joe Hockey is a purely politically driven buffoon (he was my local member for 8 years before I moved and I've actually met him a couple of times personally), so no way would I want to see him in there as Treasurer if I could choose. So given all of that probably best to stick with the guys who are there right now!

As for the rest of the argument - still haven't seen one answer showing me how if Costello WAS still treasurer how we would avoid a huge deficit? What taxes would he raise? What spending would he cut? Remember you need to find about $150B - $200B worth of increased revenue and/or reduced expenditure over 3-4 years to make up for the loss of corporate, GST and personal tax receipts!

Cheers,

Beej


----------



## Macquack (30 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> Even if they could keep their hands out of their pants long enough to throw a punch it wouldn't  do much good, they're all girls.




The offer still stands, feel free to wear a skirt with your T-shirt, Mrs Burns.


----------



## MrBurns (30 April 2009)

Macquack said:


> The offer still stands, feel free to wear a skirt with your T-shirt, Mrs Burns.




Be bad enought wearing trousers among all those bludging homos, err sorry they're friends of your arent they


----------



## moXJO (30 April 2009)

Beej said:


> As for the rest of the argument - still haven't seen one answer showing me how if Costello WAS still treasurer how we would avoid a huge deficit? What taxes would he raise? What spending would he cut? Remember you need to find about $150B - $200B worth of increased revenue and/or reduced expenditure over 3-4 years to make up for the loss of corporate, GST and personal tax receipts!
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Beej




Well for one, Business would still have favorable conditions to operate without the current labor unfair dismissal and other associated crap. Work choices did go too far in a lot of aspects though. But business was more willing to take on extra staff without the fear. While not in the billions, employment stops the drain on welfare and provides taxes. Just this can do a lot for sentiment. You can not say that labor is business friendly just their carbon scheme will cost billions, and force business offshore. 
How much in handouts did we waste again? How about a few less subs considering we cant man them all? 




Macquack said:


> Burns, you have managed to insult more than half the nation, not a statistically clever thing to do.
> 
> I invite you to wear a T-shirt printed with your quote :
> 
> ...




I'll take two That would be a massive laugh. I can wear it on Rove when our PM is on there again trying to be a celebrity to the masses and appeal to his demographic.  I'd wear one to the local union meeting if it contained the word corrupt Aholes. 
Unfortunately I voted labor on their education revolution spin what a crock that turned out to be. I actually thought the spending on education was a good move.


Petrol watch *FAIL*

Grocery watch(did this even get off the ground?) *FAIL*

Knowledge Summit *FAIL*

Aboriginal Apology *HOLLOW WORDED FAIL*

Initially Stopping the Solar panel rebate *FAIL*

Carbon Scheme (Considering the damage it will do to the majority of our industries, and even labor is still unsure how it works) *FAIL*

Computer for every child at school? (Not to sure of the details of this now, price blow out or scratched?) Given the cost atm and the state of the economy probably a good thing it’s on hold for the moment.

Work Choices (will be interested to see how business responds. They are lucky that they can blame the downturn for job losses atm)

Handouts *FAIL*
There’s probably plenty more I can't remember


----------



## MrBurns (30 April 2009)

Pappon said:


> MrBurns never in my lifetime have i heard words so powerful that are so true! Liberals hold the highest reward to risk ratio.
> 
> Labor uses to much capital on one trade which we all know leads to capital destruction




I think it's worth repeating don't you ?

Perhaps a T Shirt ?


*Libs = prosperity

Labor = the great recession

You can argue with me but you cant argue with the facts*


----------



## Beej (30 April 2009)

MrBurns said:


> I think it's worth repeating don't you ?
> 
> Perhaps a T Shirt ?
> 
> ...




I've edited your quote above to show the ACTUAL facts. Your statements were conjecture.

More actual facts: It just so happens that the Libs were lucky and were in government for 11 years of the 15 year period of uninterrupted economic growth from 1992 -> 2007. Labor were in for the first 4 years of that time. When Howard got in interest rates were already down to 6%, the back of inflation had been broken, and employment was growing at a booming pace.

Conversely, from 1975 -> 1983 the Libs were in power during a period of world economic turmoil. And a global recession from 1981-1983 - was it their fault? Seeing as you blame the government of the day your logic would HAVE to blame the Libs (with John Howard as Treasurer) for the 80s recession!

Me, I know that in all cases the government does not cause/fix these downturns, they just happen due to global circumstances. Only the naive blindly blame one political party in the way you do. That's a political philosophy that is about as intellectual as a one eyed Rabbito's/South Sydney rugby league supporter!

Beej


----------



## MrBurns (30 April 2009)

Beej said:


> I've edited your quote above to show the ACTUAL facts. Your statements were conjecture.
> More actual facts: It just so happens that the Libs were lucky
> Beej




Just like a Labor to steal ideas from a Liberal, my quote is copyright go find your own.

Libs were lucky, oh sure, the better they are at their job the luckier they got , unlike Whitlam for instance who had to be SACKED he was so bad and Rudd well if he's not sacked or rolled by his own party by the time this is over it will be a miracle, but he's so UNLUCKY isnt he ? now where did all those billions go ? oh well not his fault


----------



## Temjin (30 April 2009)

Wow, this thread gets so emotional!

For me, I only blame on the government's (whichever parties) economist advisers who were taught on FLAWED theories. Either side will suggest more spending either through handouts or infrastructure spending in replacement of private to be the solution of this crisis. All flawed. 

I say put on a team of Austrian economists, or Steve Keen himself as the principle economic adviser and we may see some changes happening.


----------



## MrBurns (30 April 2009)

Temjin said:


> I say put on a team of Austrian economists, or Steve Keen himself as the principle economic adviser and we may see some changes happening.




I reckon we replace Rudd with Priscilla Queen of the Desert and Swan with Forest Gump, they couldn't do any worse..


----------

