- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
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 !
Costello on Stimulus Debt
- Thread starter MrBurns
- Start date
- Joined
- 28 August 2007
- Posts
- 82
- Reactions
- 0
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.
- Joined
- 14 June 2007
- Posts
- 1,130
- Reactions
- 3
"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]
- Sideshow Bob [kind of]
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
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
- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
Yes.
- Joined
- 27 February 2009
- Posts
- 152
- Reactions
- 0
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...
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
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.
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.
- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
Well supposedly these are the people who know what they are doing right? And then you say:
which is in the plural.
Costello has a track record, Swan is building a track record. History will show who was better.
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.
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.
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
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??
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
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.
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Next to the current team of fools, con men and liars, he's looking pretty good.
- Joined
- 28 October 2008
- Posts
- 8,609
- Reactions
- 39
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.
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.
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.
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
- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
No you are emotional.
But this is about stimulous debt. Not leadership aspirants and their perceived failures.
You actually have confirmed the fiscal prudence of Costello when other countries had recessions.
Not at all. Its the attention to the core principles that matter regardless of direction.
- Joined
- 21 April 2005
- Posts
- 3,922
- Reactions
- 5
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.
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
