Costello on Stimulus Debt

[MrBurns]

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]]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

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]

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

Cheers,

Beej

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]

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]

Actually that is COMPLETE BS.






Cheers,

Beej

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.