Hey, big spender: Howard the king of the loose purse strings.     :(

Date
    January 11, 2013


AUSTRALIA'S most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found.     :(

The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies.

It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard    



The Rudd government's stimulus spending during the financial crisis doesn't rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy.     ;)


The Whitlam Labor government of 1972 to 1975 also escapes censure.

Responding to the IMF report, shadow treasurer Joe Hockey, who was a minister for financial services in the Howard government, said the Coalition left Labor with a $20 billion surplus and no net debt.

"It was not John Howard and Peter Costello who wasted billions of taxpayer dollars on dangerous pink batts and overpriced school halls, it was this Labor government," he said.

The economists from the IMF's fiscal affairs department found the only other year of profligate spending during the past six decades took place during the conservative government of Robert Menzies, in 1960. It says the Menzies government was notably prudent in 1950.

In the postwar years of 1947 to 1949, the Chifley Labor government was deemed prudent as were the Scullin and Lyons Labor and Coalition governments between 1931 and 1935.

John Curtin's Labor government was profligate in 1942.

The study found that in broad terms Australia's government debt has been falling since 1932, when it peaked at 98 per cent of gross domestic product. Across all levels of government it is currently just above 20 per cent after climbing since the global financial crisis.

The budget balance has been broadly stable for half a century.

The key finding is that Australia has few examples of economic recklessness compared with other developed nations. Canada's government debt peaked at 143 per cent of GDP in 1946, Japan's reached 233 per cent in 2011, Israel's hit 284 per cent in 1984.

New Zealand recorded government debt of 226 per cent in 1933 and a budget deficit of 7.5 per cent of GDP in 1995.

Developed nations were generally at their most prudent before World War I and during the 1990s, the study finds.

They were generally their least prudent during the mid-1970s and in some cases after the global financial crisis.

The IMF study mirrors findings of a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession.

The number of spending decisions worth more than $1 billion climbed from one in the first Howard budget to nine in the last. The proportion of savings measures fell from one-third of budget measures at the start of the Howard era to 1.5 per cent at the end.

In its final year in office, the Coalition boosted the AusLink national roads program by $2.3 billion and announced grants for water conservation and water buybacks worth $10 billion over 10 years.

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/hey-big-spender-howard-the-king-of-the-loose-purse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html#ixzz2HbQlPZaF

I dont understand, I thought they said the liberals were good money managers.     :(

wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 5:44am:

I dont understand, I thought they said the liberals were good money managers.     :(

They boast about many things, but if you were to look deeper, you'd find it's propaganda. The only thing they're good at is widening the gap between rich and poor.

Watch the conga line of suckholes avoid this topic, they hate facts.

The gong for most wasteful easily goes to Labor under Rudd and now Gillard. Look at the long list - FuelWatch, GroceryWatch, pink batts, school halls (BER), other rorted stimulus schemes, laptops in schools, foreign bribes to win temporary UN Security Council seat, mining tax (didn't rake in anything but they still spent what they hoped to get from it), NBN, border security blowout from less than $100m per year to nearly $2bn per year. The list goes on and on and on. No other government in the past (Labor or Coalition) comes anywhere close to the level of waste this government has created. Were the current government a board of directors at a company listed on the stock market, they'd have all been sacked ages ago by fed-up shareholders!!! Alas, we will see that happen some time this year - better late than never!!!

well if you create a bigger pie, our system encourages you to serve it up during your term in office.

very short sighted, i agree

Its NET DEBT when the Libbos are in and its GROSS DEBT when Labor is in power   ;D

And the Libbo fan club laps it up every time  :D

Economics 101 wanna be style  :D

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 6:28am:

The gong for most wasteful easily goes to Labor under Rudd and now Gillard. Look at the long list - FuelWatch, GroceryWatch, pink batts, school halls (BER), other rorted stimulus schemes, laptops in schools, foreign bribes to win temporary UN Security Council seat, mining tax (didn't rake in anything but they still spent what they hoped to get from it), NBN, border security blowout from less than $100m per year to nearly $2bn per year. The list goes on and on and on. No other government in the past (Labor or Coalition) comes anywhere close to the level of waste this government has created. Were the current government a board of directors at a company listed on the stock market, they'd have all been sacked ages ago by fed-up shareholders!!! Alas, we will see that happen some time this year - better late than never!!!

Yet the facts prove you along, AGAIN. ;D ;D ;D

skippy. wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 6:44am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 6:28am: The gong for most wasteful easily goes to Labor under Rudd and now Gillard. Look at the long list - FuelWatch, GroceryWatch, pink batts, school halls (BER), other rorted stimulus schemes, laptops in schools, foreign bribes to win temporary UN Security Council seat, mining tax (didn't rake in anything but they still spent what they hoped to get from it), NBN, border security blowout from less than $100m per year to nearly $2bn per year. The list goes on and on and on. No other government in the past (Labor or Coalition) comes anywhere close to the level of waste this government has created. Were the current government a board of directors at a company listed on the stock market, they'd have all been sacked ages ago by fed-up shareholders!!! Alas, we will see that happen some time this year - better late than never!!! Yet the facts prove you along, AGAIN. ;D ;D ;D

Really? So the pink batts scheme nor the school halls (BER) weren't rorted to the tune of millions of dollars? Labor didn't waste tens of millions of dollars on bribes for a temp UN Security Council seat? The mining tax didn't bring in any cash and Labor didn't spend the money it had budgeted the tax to bring in? The NBN hasn't blown out, nor the border security farce that Labor caused? You're clearly confusing fact with fiction, but that's what we all expect of you...

wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 5:44am:

I dont understand, I thought they said the liberals were good money managers.     :(

they spent money they HAD. Labor spends money we dont.

thats what GOOD money management is all about.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:44am: I dont understand, I thought they said the liberals were good money managers.     :( they spent money they HAD. Labor spends money we dont. thats what GOOD money management is all about.

Precisely! In addition to that, Labor also raised the debt ceiling and continue to spend money they don't have while not paying back what they've borrowed.

Notice how Hockey says...NET DEBT....losers  ;D

wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 5:44am:

I dont understand, I thought they said the liberals were good money managers.     :(

I thought YOU said the Libs didnt spend anything.. do anything..

ask yourself... DID HOWARD BORROW MONEY TO WASTE

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:05am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 7:03am: wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:44am: I dont understand, I thought they said the liberals were good money managers.     :( they spent money they HAD. Labor spends money we dont. thats what GOOD money management is all about. Precisely! In addition to that, Labor also raised the debt ceiling and continue to spend money they don't have while not paying back what they've borrowed.

isnt that what the GFC was all about????????????????

cods wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:46am:

wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:44am: I dont understand, I thought they said the liberals were good money managers.     :( I thought YOU said the Libs didnt spend anything.. do anything.. ask yourself... DID HOWARD BORROW MONEY TO WASTE

Yes..because NO NET DEBT does not mean NO DEBT

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:02am:

skippy. wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 6:44am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 6:28am: The gong for most wasteful easily goes to Labor under Rudd and now Gillard. Look at the long list - FuelWatch, GroceryWatch, pink batts, school halls (BER), other rorted stimulus schemes, laptops in schools, foreign bribes to win temporary UN Security Council seat, mining tax (didn't rake in anything but they still spent what they hoped to get from it), NBN, border security blowout from less than $100m per year to nearly $2bn per year. The list goes on and on and on. No other government in the past (Labor or Coalition) comes anywhere close to the level of waste this government has created. Were the current government a board of directors at a company listed on the stock market, they'd have all been sacked ages ago by fed-up shareholders!!! Alas, we will see that happen some time this year - better late than never!!! Yet the facts prove you along, AGAIN. ;D ;D ;D Really? So the pink batts scheme nor the school halls (BER) weren't rorted to the tune of millions of dollars? Labor didn't waste tens of millions of dollars on bribes for a temp UN Security Council seat? The mining tax didn't bring in any cash and Labor didn't spend the money it had budgeted the tax to bring in? The NBN hasn't blown out, nor the border security farce that Labor caused? You're clearly confusing fact with fiction, but that's what we all expect of you...

Really? So the pink batts Home insulation scheme nor the school halls Building the Education Revolution  (BER)

The Audits show that the BER was value for money in something like 97% of cases.

Insulation was properly installed in millions of homes, many people will be very grateful later today when they both stay cooler and save money.

The mining tax didn't bring in any cash

The mining sector spent millions in advertising undermining the tax fully supported by the Liberals.

It was done in a manner which undermined Australias PM at the time leading to his sacking.

the liberals and mining bullies got their way in the end which produced a poor deal on the legislation which did impact on our budget results and comes at a significant cost to average tax payers. God forbid that the mining sector should pay their fair share of tax.

Howard was a bad treasurer and his economic record as PM is actually very poor. The economy was set up by Labor and Howard reaped the benefits of a very positive external environment. However, instead of legitimately paying off debt he wasted money and achieved his legacy through diminishing infrastructure and transferring public debt to private debt. No wonder our competitiveness went south smack bang in the middle of the Howard years.

About time a few home truths were told.

adelcrow wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 7:47am:

cods wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 7:46am: wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:44am: I dont understand, I thought they said the liberals were good money managers.     :( I thought YOU said the Libs didnt spend anything.. do anything.. ask yourself... DID HOWARD BORROW MONEY TO WASTE Yes..because NO NET DEBT does not mean NO DEBT

Bill Gates has debt. its a meaningless distinction. NET DEBT is always inferred.

Under Howard the economy was flat for his first few terms and only got into gear when China opened up its economy and started growing at a break neck speed.
Without Labors reforms and Chinas boom Howard would've led a very flat economy with his only solutions being record taxation, new taxes and massive cuts to health, education, infrastructure etc etc etc.
And it will be more of the same when Abbott rises to power so be prepared for our public institutions to be run down and for spending on roads, bridges, flood mitigation etc etc to be slashed.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 8:06am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 7:47am: cods wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 7:46am: wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 5:44am: I dont understand, I thought they said the liberals were good money managers.     :( I thought YOU said the Libs didnt spend anything.. do anything.. ask yourself... DID HOWARD BORROW MONEY TO WASTE Yes..because NO NET DEBT does not mean NO DEBT Bill Gates has debt. its a meaningless distinction. NET DEBT is always inferred.

Thats why the Libs always quote net debt when they are concerned and gross debt when Labor is mentioned.
Its no wonder the public reckons they are Mean and Tricky

Quote:

AUSTRALIA'S most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found.     The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies. It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.     The Rudd government's stimulus spending during the financial crisis doesn't rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy.

Quite the extensive and comprehensive examination - which highlights the differences between reality and fact - and perception

( ... though I'm surprised no-one has butted in with "the IMF know jack-sh!t" - as yet ?)

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 8:32am:

Quote: AUSTRALIA'S most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found.     The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies. It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.     The Rudd government's stimulus spending during the financial crisis doesn't rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy. Quite the extensive and comprehensive examination - which highlights the differences between reality and fact - and perception ( ... though I'm surprised no-one has butted in with "the IMF know jack-sh!t" - as yet ?)

and during this time we acheived the status of BEST ECONOMY IN the world. so either Howard wasnt profligate or profligacy is a good economic tool.  cant have it both ways.

The IMF love debt so would love labor, the debt and taxes party. The IMF love to come and take over parts of countries who cant pay their debt, like labor cant seem to pay debt, just accumulate more.

I can see why IMF would make a propaganda report that labor are so good and a party who left a country in a perfect position to get through a GFC, would be so bad. Bit like the UN who are leftists through and through.

And that is a perfect point made. Did liberals borrow money to waste. No, they left Australai rich. Labor just wasted it and borrowed more than Australia ever has.

buzzanddidj wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 8:32am:

Quote: AUSTRALIA'S most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found.     The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies. It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.     The Rudd government's stimulus spending during the financial crisis doesn't rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy. Quite the extensive and comprehensive examination - which highlights the differences between reality and fact - and perception ( ... though I'm surprised no-one has butted in with "the IMF know jack-sh!t" - as yet ?)

well they did tell us about 3 years ago the GFC was over and we had turned the corner... just as Greece folded and went into melt down..two days later..

no offence you believe thats fine..you have the faith that fine also..

but America is on the fiscal cliff.. and it aint going away. but I am not sure the IMF take any notice of that. its just a small detail.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 8:37am:

The IMF love debt so would love labor, the debt and taxes party. The IMF love to come and take over parts of countries who cant pay their debt, like labor cant seem to pay debt, just accumulate more. I can see why IMF would make a propaganda report that labor are so good and a party who left a country in a perfect position to get through a GFC, would be so bad. Bit like the UN who are leftists through and through.

you wonder how many balls they keep in the air dont you whilst they juggle the worlds monetary  problems..that they never seem to have the answers too.

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 8:37am:

The IMF love debt so would love labor, the debt and taxes party. The IMF love to come and take over parts of countries who cant pay their debt, like labor cant seem to pay debt, just accumulate more.

Actually, it is the Government's ability to pay debt ( ... low, in relation to GDP) that has maintained the Standard & Poor's and Moody's credit rating that it has


                 http://jef.dk/media/8175/aaa_soliditets_hoejeste_kreditvaerdighedsscore_249x98.jpgi

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 8:37am:

The IMF love debt so would love labor, the debt and taxes party. The IMF love to come and take over parts of countries who cant pay their debt, like labor cant seem to pay debt, just accumulate more. I can see why IMF would make a propaganda report that labor are so good and a party who left a country in a perfect position to get through a GFC, would be so bad. Bit like the UN who are leftists through and through. And that is a perfect point made. Did liberals borrow money to waste. No, they left Australai rich. Labor just wasted it and borrowed more than Australia ever has.

Attaking the messenger again, progs. So the IMF is part of a conspiracy to destroy the Australian economy. You really are nuts, progs.

HOWARD WAS A WEASEL

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 10:38am:

HOWARD WAS A WEASEL

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3WJ10xGkas&sns=em

Weasel is too kind.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCWjRHr6WAs&sns=em

Quote:

It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.

Kevin Rudd was also cruising (most popular PM) until the GFC hit and revenue plunged....The wealthfare spending and Howard era tax cuts had already been locked in and where unsustainable once revenue declined and the economy slowed down.....The budget was already in structural deficit when Rudd took office as the revenue was based on mining boom forward estimates that as we now know never eventuated and are only just now starting to recover.....The economy is doing well under a Labor Government who are still dealing with the worst recession in over 70 years!!!

:) :) :)

MOTR wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 10:34am:

progressiveslol wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 8:37am: The IMF love debt so would love labor, the debt and taxes party. The IMF love to come and take over parts of countries who cant pay their debt, like labor cant seem to pay debt, just accumulate more. I can see why IMF would make a propaganda report that labor are so good and a party who left a country in a perfect position to get through a GFC, would be so bad. Bit like the UN who are leftists through and through. And that is a perfect point made. Did liberals borrow money to waste. No, they left Australai rich. Labor just wasted it and borrowed more than Australia ever has. Attaking the messenger again, progs. So the IMF is part of a conspiracy to destroy the Australian economy. You really are nuts, progs.

It is not my mission to get you up to speed on the IMF and I am pretty sure you know the end game of your ideology, but that depends on just how much of a mushroom you are.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Quote: It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007. Kevin Rudd was also cruising (most popular PM) until the GFC hit and revenue plunged....The wealthfare spending and Howard era tax cuts had already been locked in and where unsustainable once revenue declined and the economy slowed down.....The budget was already in structural deficit when Rudd took office as the revenue was based on mining boom forward estimates that as we now know never eventuated and are only just now starting to recover.....The economy is doing well under a Labor Government who are still dealing with the worst recession in over 70 years!!! :) :) :)

So labor couldn't put tax hikes on to cover the tax breaks(hmmm). I thought you were trying to say they were responsible government. Lemmings abound.

This thread epitomises why EVERYTHING the Coalition says, and MOST of
what the 'Govt' says about the economy goes in one ear and straight out
the other.

As do SOME (not all) of the discussions here on the economy.

I look to independent assessments, and they overwhelmingly (and often
begrudgingly) acknowledge that OUR economy is one of the best.

Unlike many, it IS growing (if slowly).

There are MANY things about this country that are going pear-shaped.

The economy is not one of them.

Do I think a better job could be done?

Shyt, yes.

Are the CURRENT Opposition the ones who can/will do it?

smack, NO!!!

What I'd LIKE to see?

Peter Costcutto as PM/Treasurer, and Turnbull as Deputy.

And get rid of ALL those who rode to the front-bench on
Howard's coat-tails, and, sadly, remain there.

The WHOLE Cabinet/front-bench MUST be new blood, and
not from the extreme right of the Party.

THAT, I'd vote for. Not much else.

NOT Labor. NOT Green. NOT the Coalition as it currently stands.

We were better off under Howard though.

You can't disagree he didn't look after us.

In its final year in office, the Coalition boosted the AusLink national roads program by $2.3 billion and announced grants for water conservation and water buybacks worth $10 billion over 10 years.


Oh, how horrific....

John Howard wasted the lives of a Generation of disadvantaged Australians with his crusades against social security and employment security.  I will never forgive the Government for it, nor for listening to the right wing policy groups who pushed it... :)

Howard rejects IMF's 'big spender' tag

Date
    January 11, 2013


    Howard the king of loose purse strings

Former prime minister John Howard rejects the charge that his government spent wastefully, saying that ''the reason Australia dodged the global downturn was due to the strong fiscal position of the Howard government''.

Mr Howard responded through a spokesman to an international study that found Australia's most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments.     :(


The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies.


It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during Mr Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.

Mr Howard defended his record on Friday, saying that government spending as a percentage of GDP declined during his term.


Finance minister Penny Wong says the IMF has endorsed Labor's stimulus spending.

''According to none other than the Governor of the Reserve Bank, Australia's fiscal position is the envy of the developed world,'' the former prime minister's spokesman said.

But the Grattan Institute economist, Saul Eslake, argues that Mr Howard's statement about spending declining as a percentage of GDP, while technically true, is irrelevant and misleading.     :-?

''The Howard government in its last two terms was rolling in cash,'' Mr Eslake said.

Mr Howard rode two booms - in mining and household spending - and as a result raked in ''extraordinary'' amounts of income during its last two terms.

During that period, Mr Eslake said, the Howard government increased spending ''in real terms'' at a faster rate than any other government since the Whitlam years.

Mr Eslake did say, however, that he was ''gobsmacked'' the IMF did not judge Gough Whitlam's government as profligate.

''That they didn't regard the 40 per cent plus increase in government spending in 1974 to 1975 under the Whitlam government as profligate . . . [that's] far worse than anything the Howard government undertook,'' Mr Eslake said.

The Minister for Finance, Penny Wong, said the IMF study endorsed the current Labor government's ''responsible spending decisions'' while diminishing Mr Howard's record.

''The study shows the Howard government clearly missed opportunities to effectively use the mining boom and strong global economic conditions to invest in Australia's future, and it debunks the myth spouted by Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey that the Howard government exercised spending restraint,'' Ms Wong said.     :(

''Rather than investing in key infrastructure projects like the National Broadband Network, which this government is rolling out . . . the Howard government made spending decisions that made the budget unsustainable''.     :(

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/political-news/howard-rejects-imfs-big-spender-tag-20130111-2ck3z.html#ixzz2HdYlUUHn

Wow, go figure. If ever the following term should be used, it is now.

The fix is in

The left are hobling together

Howard was a great economic manager..we had interest rate increases DURING the election campaign..thats how in control of the economy he was  ;D

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

We were better off under Howard though. You can't disagree he didn't look after us.

Lol, DR HOWARD was the weakest link!

He will be remembered for what exactly??? Watching money roll in from exports whilst pretending his govt controls interest rates... what a joke!

Andrie, even you have to see that makes him a laffing stock for the history books to eat alive!!

adelcrow wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 2:44pm:

Howard was a great economic manager..we had interest rate increases DURING the election campaign..thats how in control of the economy he was  ;D

DR HOWARD WATCHED MONEY ROLL IN FROM EXPORTS WHILST PRETEDNING HIS GOVT CONTROLLED INTEREST RATES, LOL: IF THAT AINT CANNON FODDER FOR THE HISTORIANS I DON'T KNOW WHAT IS!

HOWARD LOVERS ARE SO FULL OF HOT SHAME.....

THERE WILL BE NO CARBON TAX UNDER A GOVERNMENT I LEAD.

philperth2010 wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 10:52am:

Quote: It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during John Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007. Kevin Rudd was also cruising (most popular PM) until the GFC hit and revenue plunged....The wealthfare spending and Howard era tax cuts had already been locked in and where unsustainable once revenue declined and the economy slowed down.....The budget was already in structural deficit when Rudd took office as the revenue was based on mining boom forward estimates that as we now know never eventuated and are only just now starting to recover.....The economy is doing well under a Labor Government who are still dealing with the worst recession in over 70 years!!! :) :) :)

to misquote Keating: 'the recession we never had'

how did Rudd deal with the worst recession in 70 years since that was 1983? hasnt been a recession in australia since keating.

I see the conga line of suckholes are in meltdown damage control and long whine is being his usual liar but the facts are here, read em and weep fools. As much as you all lie whine and misrepresent the facts say the lying little rodent wasted sh it loads more than Gillard. ;D ;D ;D

Everybody has a right to social security...John Howard devoted his time in office victimizing the underprivileged and robbing them of the little they had...that is his legacy...spite and meanness.  And that is why I spy on his ideological progeny so closely.. :)

adelcrow wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 8:07am:

Under Howard the economy was flat for his first few terms and only got into gear when China opened up its economy and started growing at a break neck speed. Without Labors reforms and Chinas boom Howard would've led a very flat economy with his only solutions being record taxation, new taxes and massive cuts to health, education, infrastructure etc etc etc. And it will be more of the same when Abbott rises to power so be prepared for our public institutions to be run down and for spending on roads, bridges, flood mitigation etc etc to be slashed.

Better a flat economy than a nose-diving one struggling to keep its head above water due to increasing debt and a Reserve Bank providing life support in the form of very low interest rates. Yeah, I'd rather a flat economy with minimal growth and no debt as opposed to the soaring debt and low consumer confidence/spending that we are seeing now thanks to Swan's economic incompetence. That fool couldn't balance the books of a kids' lemonade stand!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

We were better off under Howard though. (the select few were) You can't disagree he didn't look after us.

First time I have agreed with you in a while, Howard didn't look after all of us.

In fact even Howard agreed with that assesment.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 6:16am:

adelcrow wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 8:07am: Under Howard the economy was flat for his first few terms and only got into gear when China opened up its economy and started growing at a break neck speed. Without Labors reforms and Chinas boom Howard would've led a very flat economy with his only solutions being record taxation, new taxes and massive cuts to health, education, infrastructure etc etc etc. And it will be more of the same when Abbott rises to power so be prepared for our public institutions to be run down and for spending on roads, bridges, flood mitigation etc etc to be slashed. Better a flat economy than a nose-diving one struggling to keep its head above water due to increasing debt and a Reserve Bank providing life support in the form of very low interest rates. Yeah, I'd rather a flat economy with minimal growth and no debt as opposed to the soaring debt and low consumer confidence/spending that we are seeing now thanks to Swan's economic incompetence. That fool couldn't balance the books of a kids' lemonade stand!

The economic downturn we have seen has been due to the impact of the GFC - nothing else.

As Australia prospered from a booming world economy it suffers under a world economic collapse.

It is not difficult to understand.

The valid measure is the fact that we have out performed much of the rest of the world in this period, sure somewhat due to our starting position but also some of our problems were generated there as well. Our economy was geared to get into trouble in any sort of downturn.

Money spent differently in the previous term could have made a big difference to our position today, fact is that in retrospect it is apparent that Costello (Howard) could have positioned our economic situation much better in terms of a less favourable world economic climate. 

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 7:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 6:16am: adelcrow wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 8:07am: Under Howard the economy was flat for his first few terms and only got into gear when China opened up its economy and started growing at a break neck speed. Without Labors reforms and Chinas boom Howard would've led a very flat economy with his only solutions being record taxation, new taxes and massive cuts to health, education, infrastructure etc etc etc. And it will be more of the same when Abbott rises to power so be prepared for our public institutions to be run down and for spending on roads, bridges, flood mitigation etc etc to be slashed. Better a flat economy than a nose-diving one struggling to keep its head above water due to increasing debt and a Reserve Bank providing life support in the form of very low interest rates. Yeah, I'd rather a flat economy with minimal growth and no debt as opposed to the soaring debt and low consumer confidence/spending that we are seeing now thanks to Swan's economic incompetence. That fool couldn't balance the books of a kids' lemonade stand! The economic downturn we have seen has been due to the impact of the GFC - nothing else. As Australia prospered from a booming world economy it suffers under a world economic collapse. It is not difficult to understand. The valid measure is the fact that we have out performed much of the rest of the world in this period, sure somewhat due to our starting position but also some of our problems were generated there as well. Our economy was geared to get into trouble in any sort of downturn. Money spent differently in the previous term could have made a big difference to our position today, fact is that in retrospect it is apparent that Costello (Howard) could have positioned our economic situation much better in terms of a less favourable world economic climate.

The GFC has been over for ages now. Can't use that for an excuse anymore, numpty!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 11^th, 2013 at 1:58pm:

We were better off under Howard though. You can't disagree he didn't look after us.

Howard only look after the high and middle income earners. He didn't govern for all Australian, for example how many tax cuts did they get and how many times did the pension go up not counting the CPI increase.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 7:50am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 7:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 6:16am: adelcrow wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 8:07am: Under Howard the economy was flat for his first few terms and only got into gear when China opened up its economy and started growing at a break neck speed. Without Labors reforms and Chinas boom Howard would've led a very flat economy with his only solutions being record taxation, new taxes and massive cuts to health, education, infrastructure etc etc etc. And it will be more of the same when Abbott rises to power so be prepared for our public institutions to be run down and for spending on roads, bridges, flood mitigation etc etc to be slashed. Better a flat economy than a nose-diving one struggling to keep its head above water due to increasing debt and a Reserve Bank providing life support in the form of very low interest rates. Yeah, I'd rather a flat economy with minimal growth and no debt as opposed to the soaring debt and low consumer confidence/spending that we are seeing now thanks to Swan's economic incompetence. That fool couldn't balance the books of a kids' lemonade stand! The economic downturn we have seen has been due to the impact of the GFC - nothing else. As Australia prospered from a booming world economy it suffers under a world economic collapse. It is not difficult to understand. The valid measure is the fact that we have out performed much of the rest of the world in this period, sure somewhat due to our starting position but also some of our problems were generated there as well. Our economy was geared to get into trouble in any sort of downturn. Money spent differently in the previous term could have made a big difference to our position today, fact is that in retrospect it is apparent that Costello (Howard) could have positioned our economic situation much better in terms of a less favourable world economic climate.  The GFC has been over for ages now. Can't use that for an excuse anymore, numpty!

With comments like that one, it is apparent who the numpty is!

Dnarever wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 7:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 6:16am: adelcrow wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 8:07am: Under Howard the economy was flat for his first few terms and only got into gear when China opened up its economy and started growing at a break neck speed. Without Labors reforms and Chinas boom Howard would've led a very flat economy with his only solutions being record taxation, new taxes and massive cuts to health, education, infrastructure etc etc etc. And it will be more of the same when Abbott rises to power so be prepared for our public institutions to be run down and for spending on roads, bridges, flood mitigation etc etc to be slashed. Better a flat economy than a nose-diving one struggling to keep its head above water due to increasing debt and a Reserve Bank providing life support in the form of very low interest rates. Yeah, I'd rather a flat economy with minimal growth and no debt as opposed to the soaring debt and low consumer confidence/spending that we are seeing now thanks to Swan's economic incompetence. That fool couldn't balance the books of a kids' lemonade stand! The economic downturn we have seen has been due to the impact of the GFC - nothing else. As Australia prospered from a booming world economy it suffers under a world economic collapse. It is not difficult to understand. The valid measure is the fact that we have out performed much of the rest of the world in this period, sure somewhat due to our starting position but also some of our problems were generated there as well. Our economy was geared to get into trouble in any sort of downturn. Money spent differently in the previous term could have made a big difference to our position today, fact is that in retrospect it is apparent that Costello (Howard) could have positioned our economic situation much better in terms of a less favourable world economic climate.

seriously.... do you think it is even logically possible to have an economy that doesnt suffer in a downturn?

John S wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 7:58am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 1:58pm: We were better off under Howard though. You can't disagree he didn't look after us. Howard only look after the high and middle income earners. He didn't govern for all Australian, for example how many tax cuts did they get and how many times did the pension go up not counting the CPI increase.

FIVE tax cuts and EVERYBODY got approx the same percentage. thats called fairness.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:24am:

John S wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 7:58am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 1:58pm: We were better off under Howard though. You can't disagree he didn't look after us. Howard only look after the high and middle income earners. He didn't govern for all Australian, for example how many tax cuts did they get and how many times did the pension go up not counting the CPI increase. FIVE tax cuts and EVERYBODY got approx the same percentage. thats called fairness.

Did the pensions go up FIVE times by the same percentage?

John S wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:29am:

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 8:24am: John S wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 7:58am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 1:58pm: We were better off under Howard though. You can't disagree he didn't look after us. Howard only look after the high and middle income earners. He didn't govern for all Australian, for example how many tax cuts did they get and how many times did the pension go up not counting the CPI increase. FIVE tax cuts and EVERYBODY got approx the same percentage. thats called fairness. Did the pensions go up FIVE times by the same percentage?

it had CPI increases which maintain the value of the pension. the tax cuts were also not dissimilar to tax indexation by the amount of the CPI.

gold_medal wrote on Jan 12^th, 2013 at 8:59am:

John S wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 8:29am: gold_medal wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 8:24am: John S wrote on Jan 12th, 2013 at 7:58am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jan 11th, 2013 at 1:58pm: We were better off under Howard though. You can't disagree he didn't look after us. Howard only look after the high and middle income earners. He didn't govern for all Australian, for example how many tax cuts did they get and how many times did the pension go up not counting the CPI increase. FIVE tax cuts and EVERYBODY got approx the same percentage. thats called fairness. Did the pensions go up FIVE times by the same percentage? it had CPI increases which maintain the value of the pension. the tax cuts were also not dissimilar to tax indexation by the amount of the CPI.

Income earners got pay increase as well as tax cuts.

If you scroll back up and see my reply #50 I did say not including CPI increase to the pensions