Federal Labor Party discussion

[chiff]

As to the banks falling over-only from my experience and not political.When the GFC was on I was going to withdraw my hard earned on the Monday,but was saved when the government guaranteed deposits on the Sunday.
A rush or panic on bank withdrawals can lead to any bank being decimated,especially if they haven't got the readies to satisfy the rush.
Is my view valid?

 

[qldfrog]

I've never heard of "The Stubborn Mule" which seems to be your source here.
If there was any fear of our banks falling over, it would have been a contagion of fear, not a realistic assessment that our well regulated, profitable banks were actually going to collapse.

To prevent such an unnecessary concern spreading, the government came up with the guarantee as a way of saying 'stop worrying, folks, we're the government and we're here to help'.

Then they charged the banks for this.

Given the status of our big four banks as some of the most stable and profitable in the world, if they were to collapse we might as well all fold our tents.

Julia, do you remember the dozen of billions USD given as emergency loans by the american federal bank to keep wetpac and Nab(I believe) upfloat?
if you do not remember just ask and I will dig out the exact figures and references(ie facts)

 

[MrBurns]

Well this economic statement only confirm what we all know, these fools have no clue.:frown:

 

[sptrawler]

Well this economic statement only confirm what we all know, these fools have no clue.:frown:

I'm suprised they haven't asked all the people, who got the gift cheque in the mail, to repay the money.

I see Bowen has picked up Swans book of fairy tales, " Budget surpluses and other myths" by the Labor Party.

Apparently Bowen is saying it isn't a crisis, it's a transition, yeh from bad to worse.lol

 

[sptrawler]

Another example of the government short term vision,IMO
They have given the go ahead for offshore processing of the Browse Basin. Short term thinking again, dig it up get rid of it mentality.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/newshome/18311233/gray-paves-way-for-browse-flng/

 

[moXJO]

Julia, do you remember the dozen of billions USD given as emergency loans by the american federal bank to keep wetpac and Nab(I believe) upfloat?
if you do not remember just ask and I will dig out the exact figures and references(ie facts)

From memory that had nothing to do with the banks falling over, but simply a grab at cheap cash

 

[sptrawler]

From memory that had nothing to do with the banks falling over, but simply a grab at cheap cash

I'm with you on that, just not as confident on my memory. The U.S was throwing around cheap cash to mitigate their sub prime CDO's, that were based on toxic U.S sub prime loans.

 

[Julia]

Julia, do you remember the dozen of billions USD given as emergency loans by the american federal bank to keep wetpac and Nab(I believe) upfloat?
if you do not remember just ask and I will dig out the exact figures and references(ie facts)

Yes, I do remember it, but not that it was an 'emergency loan'. Neither was it 'dozens of billions as you suggest.
National Australia Bank borrowed USD$4.5 billion over 2008 and 2009 and Westpac Banking Corp USD$1.09 billion in January of 2008.

That was at the height of the credit squeeze and banks were taking money from wherever they could source it. Didn't mean either Westpac or Nab was going to fall over. All the institutions were caught up in the reluctance to engage in inter-bank borrowing/lending for fear the loans would turn bad such as had happened with banks in the US. No one was sure how far the contagion had spread.

I remember the period well because it enabled me to walk into a bank, say I have $X to invest, what are you prepared to give me? They agreed to 8% on the spot, despite this not being advertised.

 

[Tink]

Economists shocked and disappointed.

Economists say an increase in the federal government's budget deficit is shocking and disappointing.
AMP chief economist Shane Oliver said he was surprised that the budget deficit is now expected to be $30.1 billion in 2013/14, rather than the $18 billion estimated in the May budget.
"It's a bit disappointing to see the deficit is so much worse," Dr Oliver said.
"I'm shocked by how much it's deteriorated.
"We seem to keep pushing out the return to surplus and the return to surplus gets steeper and steeper as time goes by."
The updated budget forecast came in the government's economic statement on Friday, which also forecast a rise in the unemployment rate to 6.25 per cent as the government grapples with a $33 billion revenue writedown.

THE Federal Government's budget update is "muddled" and raises concerns about its ability to ever deliver a surplus as it lacks any clear effort to bring wasteful spending under control, senior business leaders said.
The reality check saw the deficit almost double from $18 billion to $30.1 billion for 2013-14 as a result of the government's inability to rein in spending as revenues took a massive hit from the slowing economy.
Business Council of Australia chief executive Jennifer Westacott said the government's fiscal strategy has put the nation's future prosperity at risk.

How to spend $10 billion in 10 weeks, they will be lucky to last until October.
Disgraceful.

 

[noco]

Economists shocked and disappointed.





How to spend $10 billion in 10 weeks, they will be lucky to last until October.
Disgraceful.

Just another bungle by this inept Labor Governemnt. No wonder they are desperate to tax everyone to high hell .

Are they still the working man's party or have they forgotten?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...oyment-will-rise/story-fnihsrf2-1226690435538

 

[bunyip]

Just another bungle by this inept Labor Governemnt. No wonder they are desperate to tax everyone to high hell .

Are they still the working man's party or have they forgotten?

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...oyment-will-rise/story-fnihsrf2-1226690435538

Only fools believe that Labor is the party that looks after workers. In the lead up to the last election the workers themselves fully understood that ‘their’ party wasn’t acting in their or anyone else’s best interests – that’s why the polls showed Rudd was headed for a landslide defeat. Then he was ousted by the red-haired liar, and some of the workers foolishly decided to give Labor another chance. Predictably, JuLIAR turned out to be a disaster, and once again the workers realised that Labor was no longer the party that respresented their best interests. Hence Gillard was headed for a landslide defeat.
But then Rudd made a comback, Gillard got what she deserved, and once again the gullible workers were willing to give Labor another chance.

Now we await the election....will the workers remain gullible by voting Rudd back in, or will they open their eyes and realise that their lives will be negatively affected by Rudd’s new taxes, by his continued inability to find a reasonable solution to the illegal immigrant problem that he caused, by the funding cuts he’s had to make as a result of him running the coffers dry through years of reckless spending, and by the job losses resulting from Rudd making our main industries less competetive through his various taxes/imposts/charges.
As I’ve said before, Labor voters tend to be a very gullible lot – let’s just hope they open their eyes and start thinking clearly before they put the incompetent Rudd back in for another term. It will be a nightmare for Australia is Rudd is given another three year term to carry on like he’s done in the past, particularly the last three or four weeks.

 

[Zedd]

Only fools believe that Labor is the party that looks after workers.

Only in the same way that only "fools" believe any party is looking after their interests. Like it or not there will always be a place for unions, collective bargaining, and protectionist policies and in general, those interests are represented by the Labour party.

As I’ve said before, Labor voters tend to be a very gullible lot ...

Pot, kettle ... The number of Labour voters who blindly march to their party's tune are easily matched by the number of Liberals doing the same.

Just because we had some good years under Howard, does not mean they are the default party to lead. This attitude of all intelligent, hard-working Australians voting by default for the Liberals, is arrogant, elitist, offensive and a major failing of the Liberal party and dare I suggest it a reason why Howard lost his last election.

An election is not a question of swinging enough "gullible fools" to join all of the intelligent, hard-working Australians in voting for the Liberals. It's a question of convincing a significant portion of the population who choose freely, between parties, rather than vote along party lines, both of which have shown they can shine, but have also failed miserably at times.

You want people to be open-minded and free thinking when they vote? Try starting at home.

 

[noco]

Here are some true facts why under Rudd's big spending and high taxing policies we will be paying for his stupid mistakes for years to come.

Yes and during that time those rusted on Labor supporters will be complaining about the lack of infrastructure and high unemployement should the Coalition win government. It will then be the coaltition's fault.

You can bet your boots if and when the coaltition get the economy back to a surplus and debt frree, it will be a time for a change of government and history will repeat itself all over again.

I just trust the inititive of the public will have long memories of the choas that a Labor government can offer.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ste-and-spending/story-fn59niix-1226690463570

 

[Calliope]

Now that Rudd has announced 7 September as the election date, I guess the Labor Government is now in caretaker mode. This should stop from further destructive raids on the economy. He knows he can't win the election and massive spending decisions over the past few weeks are only to bequeath a sh!theap of problems to Abbott.

However, to look on the bright side...only 5 more weeks of Labor.

 

[noco]

Rudd is raving on about the millionaires who are backing Abbott.

What a hypocrite he is when he and his wife are multi millionares.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/september_7_election/

 

[dutchie]

Rudd is raving on about the millionaires who are backing Abbott.

What a hypocrite he is when he and his wife are multi millionares.



http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/september_7_election/

Didn't you know that their businesses are backing the coalition because they know the coalition is better for business and therefore more jobs and a better economy.

 

[Julia]

Had to laugh catching Rudd in a TV commercial this evening saying how Labor would forge necessary links with business to make Australia successful.

Terrific, Kev. You've been so good at this so far, haven't you!

Ditto claiming success on the economy. Didn't we just hear about a $30 billion deficit?

 

[bunyip]

Only in the same way that only "fools" believe any party is looking after their interests. Like it or not there will always be a place for unions, collective bargaining, and protectionist policies and in general, those interests are represented by the Labour party.

Yes, we’ll always have unions, but whether they look after the best interests of workers is debatable. Significant falls in union membership suggest that workers are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the unions that supposedly represent them.
This disillusionment with unions has quite understandably translated into disillusionment with union-dominated ALP governments. Hence the landslide defeats for the ALP governments in NSW and QLD. Hence the landslide defeat that was certain for the last Rudd government if Rudd hadn’t been deposed as leader. Hence the certain landslide defeat for the Gillard government in September if the red-haired wrecker hadn’t been booted out by her own party.

Just because we had some good years under Howard, does not mean they are the default party to lead. This attitude of all intelligent, hard-working Australians voting by default for the Liberals, is arrogant, elitist, offensive and a major failing of the Liberal party and dare I suggest it a reason why Howard lost his last election.

ALP governments have a history of being poor economic managers. The general pattern is that when Labor comes to office they inherit low or no debt and healthy budget surpluses, and they quickly turn them into substantial debts and big deficits.
Then along comes a Lib government that fixes the situation, followed by the next Labor government that repeats the same old ALP pattern.

I see it as common sense, not arrogant and elitist, to suggest that only people who are gullible and foolish will believe Rudds’ spin and put him back into office after his woeful track record last time around.
In typical Labor fashion, Rudd inherited a strong economy with no debt and a healthy budget surplus, and quickly turned it into a substantial debt and a big budget deficit. He splashed money around with reckless abandon, wasting scores of billions on ill-considered schemes like pink batts and mostly unneeded and grossly overpriced school halls.
He inherited a proven effective border control policy, and immediately turned it into a debacle that has caused us to be flooded with illegal immigrants that are costing us tens of billions of dollars.
His pitiful economic incompetence and wild spending have seen him desperately searching for ways to bring in more revenue to counteract the money pouring out – hence a range of new taxes such as the mining and carbon taxes that have killed some projects and forced quite a few business owners out of business. And now to top it all off the bastard has the audacity to start raiding our bank accounts as well!!!!
Labor made promise after promise to bring the budget back to surplus, but of course it never happened. How the hell could it happen when the fools kept spending money like there was no tomorrow.
Rudd of course blames the GFC and falling revenue for the position the government now finds itself in. But what he doesn’t mention is that there’s been a mining boom for most of the last six years, nor does he mention that he and Gillard could have produced a budget surplus for every one of the last six years if they hadn’t spent money so recklessly, and if they hasn’t been so incompetent and irresponsible on border control.

I don’t know about you, but I’m not stupid enough to vote for the renewal of the contract of a proven incompetent like Kevin Rudd.
If I or anyone else owned a business that was being run into the ground by an incompetent manager, we’d terminate his employment and replace him with somebody else.
Kevin Rudd and the ALP have been running our country down for too long – it’s just common sense for us to say ‘Kevin ol’ mate, enough is enough, out you go!’

 

[Zedd]

Significant falls in union membership suggest that workers are becoming increasingly disillusioned with the unions that supposedly represent them.

Part disillusion, part worker satisfaction I think has led to a decrease in members. When the balance of power swings to the employers and too many people start to get taken advantage of the unions will be there to help.

This disillusionment with unions has quite understandably translated into disillusionment with union-dominated ALP governments.

Interesting thought. While I think the unions support the ALP, I don't think disappointment in the unions translates to the ALP also. I think the ALP's performance has more to do with its ratings in the polls than the unions.

I see it as common sense, not arrogant and elitist, to suggest that only people who are gullible and foolish will believe Rudds’ spin and put him back into office after his woeful track record last time around.

Anyone who gets taken in by ANY politician's spin is gullible. Having to sort through the BS and identify who you believe to be more credible, as well as who's policies you agree with more, is a sad fact in our democracy. This election will see many people vote for Abbott, not because they support his policies, or because they believe his spin, but simply because he's not Rudd. In the same manner I have spoken to a number of people who will be voting Rudd because he's not Abbott, rather than the fact they've been taken in by spin.

If I or anyone else owned a business that was being run into the ground by an incompetent manager, we’d terminate his employment and replace him with somebody else.

Agree, but in a critical position you can't leave it vacant until a good candidate presents themselves. So you're left with the choice of terminating the incumbent, and immediately replacing them with one of the available candidates, or leave the incumbent where they are while actively advertised for suitable candidates.

Seeing Beattie come back yesterday brought back to mind the QLD state election where Flegg ran against him. There was huge momentum against Beattie, and the election was the Coalition's to lose. They should have won on a "Vote No to Beattie" alone, let alone any supporters of their policies. All they needed to do was to put up a candidate for Premier that was just-good-enough. They ran Springborg/Flegg and Beattie won. QLD kept ticking, life didn't end, and Beattie, and then Bligh went on to achieve some good things for QLD, but at the same time left the health system to fail and destroyed out economic credentials. It was always on the cards, it was clear to all I spoke to at the time, and yet I couldn't bring myself to vote against Beattie in the election, as there was not a viable alternative.

I understand how you've formed the opinions you have on a number of Rudd's and the ALP's actions. I disagree with the generalization that in the last 6 years, Labor has either not followed through with its promises/policies or when it has they have failed miserably. There have been plenty of successes under the last two governments, but I agree that some of their failures absolutely beggar belief that they could have occurred in the first place. Given a viable choice I would have voted against them in the last election, as well as the coming one.

Rudd has made some mistakes, and the government's performance, even in the best light, has been sub-par. But just like someone could always do better, someone could always do worse.

This election is still Abbott's to lose, and he has huge momentum with the anger at Labor's poor performance. I want to vote "No to ALP" but am yet to be convinced that under his leadership the Coalition is a viable alternative.

 

[drsmith]

This election is still Abbott's to lose, and he has huge momentum with the anger at Labor's poor performance. I want to vote "No to ALP" but am yet to be convinced that under his leadership the Coalition is a viable alternative.

The question is whether it's a better alternative than Labor.