Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866

Poll to gauge which party you believe is the better managers of the Australian economy...

How do you link to youtube here?  Anyway, this answers the OP.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3wKCzIw5Gs

Aussie wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

How do you link to youtube here?  Anyway, this answers the OP. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3wKCzIw5Gs

Highlight, then hit media button, top left, fifth button in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z3wKCzIw5Gs

Oh & btw, Yes, it would be true to say that Tony has NFI, when it comes to current Economics!

But, he's not on his lonesome there, so are a few others, on both the Right & Left of Politics, including Maqqa!

PM calls Abbott a "kindy economist"

PM is being very kind to the fool.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866

Yeah...whatever.  You just keep those blinkers on and your head in the sand:


Australia's most wasteful spending came in Howard era, finds IMF

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.
...
The IMF study mirrors findings in 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.

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2K6XT5B3H

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1L66KhP0jYg

Oh....yeah...............just a test.

8-)

(Thanks perceptions.)

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 6:09pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 4:28pm: Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866 Yeah...whatever.  You just keep those blinkers on and your head in the sand: Australia's most wasteful spending came in Howard era, finds IMF 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. ... The IMF study mirrors findings in 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. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2K6XT5B3H

I think that IMF report would be most useful being utilised as toilet paper. Also, regarding spending during the last four years of the Howard government - the money spent was not money borrowed, unlike the current government. Swan makes Costello look like a tight-arse with money...

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 6:09pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 4:28pm: Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866 Yeah...whatever.  You just keep those blinkers on and your head in the sand: Australia's most wasteful spending came in Howard era, finds IMF 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. ... The IMF study mirrors findings in 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. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2K6XT5B3H

The whole thing sounds very bias;

"The stimulus spending of the Rudd government during the financial crisis does not rate as profligate because the measure makes allowance for spending needed to stabilise the economy."

This suggests that it doesn't matter how much you spend, nor does it matter how much you have to spend, as long as the spending seems justified by the report. Basically the report arbitrarily decides what was good spending and what was wasteful and then determines who has been naughty or nice.

How much information did this report have to come to these conclusions? What spending did it list exactly as being either wasteful or justified? How did it conclude the impact this spending had on the actual economy so as to determine if it was a correct use of money? (Since if the money was borrowed whilst in debt or taken out of the spare cash in the piggy bank seems totally irrelevant to this report). 

I don't remember Howard ever having a national wipe your arse with $100 bills day. As there was no lets waste money for the sake of it spending that I can remember, what exactly was Howard so wastefully spending money on that the current Labor government would not have? 

Poll added again. DO NOT DELETE!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 7:40pm:

Poll added again. DO NOT DELETE!

Why not I would if I could - My position would be if you want it left up leave out the derogatory slant.

PM calls Abbott a "kindy economist"

Isn't that just a kind way to say exactly what Peter Costello had said about him being useless on economic matters?

Quantum wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 7:24pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 6:09pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 4:28pm: Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866 Yeah...whatever.  You just keep those blinkers on and your head in the sand: Australia's most wasteful spending came in Howard era, finds IMF 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. ... The IMF study mirrors findings in 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. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2K6XT5B3H The whole thing sounds very bias;

Yeah right.  THe IMF is biased against Howard.  Or maybe Howard was just crap?  As most people except the rusted on realise

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 7:40pm:

Poll added again. DO NOT DELETE!

Now, its balanced!

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 8:36pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 7:40pm: Poll added again. DO NOT DELETE! Now, its balanced!

Unlike AP!!!

;) ;) ;)

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 8:36pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 7:40pm: Poll added again. DO NOT DELETE! Now, its balanced!

I want to change my vote now. ;D

I am surprised that labor would use discriminatory language. Going On how labor speak of other language of negative, sexist, discriminatory language, you would think they were perfect on their own pathetic ramblings.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 7:24pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 6:09pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 4:28pm: Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866 Yeah...whatever.  You just keep those blinkers on and your head in the sand: Australia's most wasteful spending came in Howard era, finds IMF 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. ... The IMF study mirrors findings in 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. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2K6XT5B3H The whole thing sounds very bias; Yeah

Thanks for agreeing. i
If you are not even going to bother responding to 95% of the post (which is where the argument for the first 5% that you did quote is contained) then don't expect anything better in return.

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 8:51pm:

I am surprised that labor would use discriminatory language. Going On how labor speak of other language of negative, sexist, discriminatory language, you would think they were perfect on their own pathetic ramblings.

ramblings of a mad man ... does that makes any sense to anybody?????

Quote:

PM calls Abbott a "kindy economist"

What are their respective qualifications?

Julia Gillard - Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Laws - University of Melbourne

Tony Abbott - Bachelor of Economics and a Bachelor of Laws at Sydney University and for a Master of Arts as a Rhodes Scholar at The Queen's College, Oxford University

Abbott has an economics degree Julia doesn't.  Sydney University wouldn't be impressed being called a kindergarten...

Another Julia face plant...


rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 8:34pm:

Yeah right.  THe IMF is biased against Howard.  Or maybe Howard was just crap?  As most people except the rusted on realise

Hockey has already pointed out that that The IMF report you (And SMH's Peter Martin) are quoting is not an official IMF report Rabbitt


Quote:

Friday, 11 January 2013 MARTIN MISREPRESENTS OFFICIAL OPINION OF THE IMF The article published by Peter Martin in Fairfax newspapers this morning under the headline ‘Australia’s most wasteful spending came in Howard era, finds IMF’ is a gross misrepresentation of the view of the IMF and their perspective on the economic management of the Howard/Costello Government. The so-called IMF ‘study’ referred to by Mr Martin is, in fact, a Working Paper prepared by four researchers of the IMF and does not represent the views of the IMF. Page 2 of the Working Paper unequivocally states: “This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF. The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate.”[1] Any attempt to make this paper look like the official view of the IMF is grossly misrepresenting both the facts and the organisation.

You should read this one (it's official)

http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2007/pn07112.htm
2007

Quote:

Executive Board Assessment Executive Directors commended the Australian authorities for their exemplary macroeconomic management, which is widely recognized as being at the forefront of international best practice. Sound fiscal, monetary, and structural policies, against a background of sizable terms of trade gains, have created the conditions for a continued expansion, supported by high employment levels. Directors expressed confidence that the authorities will continue to implement the reforms needed to spur efficiency in order to enhance productivity and income growth, and face long-term economic challenges, particularly related to population aging.

Besides Labor are an economics basket case and how can you possibly argue otherwise.  They have yet to balance a bluddy budget in over 20 years FFS.... ::)

Swagman wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 9:11pm:

Tony Abbott - Bachelor of Hockeynomics and a Bachelor of Laws at Sydney University

Well it depends on what you consider a good management style Puddle.

Personally I think Keating was a great economic manager because he took the hard decisions and reformed the economy which in turn gave Howard and Costello their base to work from(as admitted by both men).
Notice I use a name rather than a party.
Rudd/Swan as much as it goes against your bias did do the right thing and stimulated the economy when needed, and as much as it goes against my bias, Costello steered the ship well and also added a few tweaks which helped improve upon Keatings ground work.
Again a name rather then a party.
Before you launch into your predictable rant about Debt, I'll just point out if you ran your budget as you expect the federal government to you wouldn't own a new car until mid to late 30's and never own property.


Back to the style question, I consider a manager that looks to the future and makes tough but uncomfortable decisions far better than one that coasts and thinks problems that are 10 to 15 years down the track someone elses problem and in doing so making the fall that much harder.
Both current choices for Treasurer are crap, I have no confidence in either party as well.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 8:36pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 7:40pm: Poll added again. DO NOT DELETE! Now, its balanced!

Do your own poll if you want to add nonsense to it. The question asks "which party", of which there are only two parties. Grow up!

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 8:42pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:36pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 7:40pm: Poll added again. DO NOT DELETE! Now, its balanced! Unlike AP!!! ;) ;) ;)

I've locked the poll. It's a fair, balanced poll. If you don't like it then don't vote and don't comment.

John Smith wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 9:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:51pm: I am surprised that labor would use discriminatory language. Going On how labor speak of other language of negative, sexist, discriminatory language, you would think they were perfect on their own pathetic ramblings. ramblings of a mad man ... does that makes any sense to anybody?????

Yeh gee, it is a bit hard for some to use the english language and gauge what the commas are used for. Then again, like johnny, you cant be too dumb for any situation. As long as you have an answer, you must be right hey jonny boy.

John Smith wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 9:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:51pm: I am surprised that labor would use discriminatory language. Going On how labor speak of other language of negative, sexist, discriminatory language, you would think they were perfect on their own pathetic ramblings. ramblings of a mad man ... does that makes any sense to anybody?????

I'll help you out Smithy.

By demeaning Abbott Gillard is being a misandrist and therefore a hypocrite in the extreme..... :(

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 9:47pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:42pm: perceptions_now wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:36pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 7:40pm: Poll added again. DO NOT DELETE! Now, its balanced! Unlike AP!!! ;) ;) ;) I've locked the poll. It's a fair, balanced poll. If you don't like it then don't vote and don't comment.

It seems, there may be relationship problem?

So, this thread Rightly belongs with Aussie!

Quantum wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 8:54pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:34pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 7:24pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 6:09pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 4:28pm: Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866 Yeah...whatever.  You just keep those blinkers on and your head in the sand: Australia's most wasteful spending came in Howard era, finds IMF 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. ... The IMF study mirrors findings in 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. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2K6XT5B3H The whole thing sounds very bias; Yeah Thanks for agreeing. i If you are not even going to bother responding to 95% of the post (which is where the argument for the first 5% that you did quote is contained) then don't expect anything better in return.

Yeah right.

THe rest of your post consisted of tripe of this quality:
...I don't remember Howard ever having a national wipe your arse with $100 bills day. As there was no lets waste money for the sake of it spending that I can remember, what exactly was Howard so wastefully spending money on that the current Labor government would not have?
You don't remember years of middle class welfare?  Baby bonus?  Increased family tax benefits for those who didn't need it? Tax free super payments for the over 60s? Health insurance rebates for the rich?  Giving money away to people who didn't need it to buy their votes.  But no spending on the things we actually needed like infrastructure, an NBN etc etc.  Don't remember any of this?  How old are you? 8?!?

Harden up Tinkerbell.  You write crap - you get treated like an idiot.  Sounds like you better get used to it.

Swagman wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 9:53pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 9:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:51pm: I am surprised that labor would use discriminatory language. Going On how labor speak of other language of negative, sexist, discriminatory language, you would think they were perfect on their own pathetic ramblings. ramblings of a mad man ... does that makes any sense to anybody????? I'll help you out Smithy. By demeaning Abbott Gillard is being a misandrist and therefore a hypocrite in the extreme..... :(

is she? or is she merely pointing out Abbotts flaws? After all, to use Abbotts example, Gillard has a boyfriend therefore she cannot be a misandrist

progressiveslol wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 9:50pm:

John Smith wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 9:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:51pm: I am surprised that labor would use discriminatory language. Going On how labor speak of other language of negative, sexist, discriminatory language, you would think they were perfect on their own pathetic ramblings. ramblings of a mad man ... does that makes any sense to anybody????? Yeh gee, it is a bit hard for some to use the english language and gauge what the commas are used for. Then again, like johnny, you cant be too dumb for any situation. As long as you have an answer, you must be right hey jonny boy.

is that what that was? By the way stupid, in the English language, names such as Johnny are spelt with a capital and the word English is spelt with a capital ... Given these are rules of the English language, you either didn't use English or you're an idiot?

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:54pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:34pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 7:24pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 6:09pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 4:28pm: Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866 Yeah...whatever.  You just keep those blinkers on and your head in the sand: Australia's most wasteful spending came in Howard era, finds IMF 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. ... The IMF study mirrors findings in 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. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2K6XT5B3H The whole thing sounds very bias; Yeah Thanks for agreeing. i If you are not even going to bother responding to 95% of the post (which is where the argument for the first 5% that you did quote is contained) then don't expect anything better in return. Yeah right. THe rest of your post consisted of tripe of this quality: ...I don't remember Howard ever having a national wipe your arse with $100 bills day. As there was no lets waste money for the sake of it spending that I can remember, what exactly was Howard so wastefully spending money on that the current Labor government would not have? You don't remember years of middle class welfare?  Baby bonus?  Increased family tax benefits for those who didn't need it? Tax free super payments for the over 60s? Health insurance rebates for the rich?  Giving money away to people who didn't need it to buy their votes.  But no spending on the things we actually needed like infrastructure, an NBN etc etc.  Don't remember any of this?  How old are you? 8?!? Harden up Tinkerbell.  You write crap - you get treated like an idiot.  Sounds like you better get used to it.

Try harder sweetheart. You quoted a BS article and as always you expect everyone to just agree. Your rant is just deflecting from the fact that you can't back it up and have simply ignored calls to do so.

No one is dumb enough to believe that the current government (under both its Prime Ministers) has been spending money on only things that have been productive while the former government was just burning money without any benefit. It's a tough argument to make and so far you have done nothing to support it besides one baseless article.

Your I'm too smart to discuss anything with anyone attitude doesn't fool anyone. You're certainly no idiot, but you ain't nowhere near as cleaver as you think you are. If you have a real argument make it for a change instead of pretending that everyone else is too dumb to understand.

Quantum wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 7:09pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 10th, 2013 at 3:40pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:54pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:34pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 7:24pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 6:09pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 4:28pm: Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866 Yeah...whatever.  You just keep those blinkers on and your head in the sand: Australia's most wasteful spending came in Howard era, finds IMF 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. ... The IMF study mirrors findings in 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. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2K6XT5B3H The whole thing sounds very bias; Yeah Thanks for agreeing. i If you are not even going to bother responding to 95% of the post (which is where the argument for the first 5% that you did quote is contained) then don't expect anything better in return. Yeah right. THe rest of your post consisted of tripe of this quality: ...I don't remember Howard ever having a national wipe your arse with $100 bills day. As there was no lets waste money for the sake of it spending that I can remember, what exactly was Howard so wastefully spending money on that the current Labor government would not have? You don't remember years of middle class welfare?  Baby bonus?  Increased family tax benefits for those who didn't need it? Tax free super payments for the over 60s? Health insurance rebates for the rich?  Giving money away to people who didn't need it to buy their votes.  But no spending on the things we actually needed like infrastructure, an NBN etc etc.  Don't remember any of this?  How old are you? 8?!? Harden up Tinkerbell.  You write crap - you get treated like an idiot.  Sounds like you better get used to it. Try harder sweetheart. You quoted a BS article and as always you expect everyone to just agree. Your rant is just deflecting from the fact that you can't back it up and have simply ignored calls to do so. No one is dumb enough to believe that the current government (under both its Prime Ministers) has been spending money on only things that have been productive while the former government was just burning money without any benefit. It's a tough argument to make and so far you have done nothing to support it besides one baseless article. Your I'm too smart to discuss anything with anyone attitude doesn't fool anyone. You're certainly no idiot, but you ain't nowhere near as cleaver as you think you are. If you have a real argument make it for a change instead of pretending that everyone else is too dumb to understand.

Nothing to add to the argument?  Just whinging.

Grow up sonny.  Don't try to discuss things you don't understand.

Look up "middle class welfare" under Howard - then get back to us

Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6^th, 2013 at 4:28pm:

Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866

Figgers it was the telegraph. So what makes her dysfunctional exactly? (and dont bring up that old lie about the carbon tax)

SOB

rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 10^th, 2013 at 9:33pm:

Quantum wrote on Feb 10th, 2013 at 7:09pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 10th, 2013 at 3:40pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:54pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 8:34pm: Quantum wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 7:24pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 6:09pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Feb 6th, 2013 at 4:28pm: Juliar Gillard, leader of the most disfunctional, incompetent, fiscally irresponsible government in Australian history today called Tony Abbott a "kindy economist" during QT in Canberra. This is laughable, coming from a woman who leads a party that cannot remember the last time they managed to balance the books. This is laughable coming from a woman who leads a Treasurer who has given us the biggest deficits in Australian history. This is laughable coming from a woman who promised to deliver a surplus - no ifs, no buts. No wonder no one takes Gillard or Swan seriously anymore!!!  ;D ;D ;D http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/julia-gillard-gives-tony-abbott-a-dressing-down-as-question-time-begins/story-e6freuy9-1226571754866 Yeah...whatever.  You just keep those blinkers on and your head in the sand: Australia's most wasteful spending came in Howard era, finds IMF 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. ... The IMF study mirrors findings in 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. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/australias-most-wasteful-spending-came-in-howard-era-finds-imf-20130110-2cj38.html#ixzz2K6XT5B3H The whole thing sounds very bias; Yeah Thanks for agreeing. i If you are not even going to bother responding to 95% of the post (which is where the argument for the first 5% that you did quote is contained) then don't expect anything better in return. Yeah right. THe rest of your post consisted of tripe of this quality: ...I don't remember Howard ever having a national wipe your arse with $100 bills day. As there was no lets waste money for the sake of it spending that I can remember, what exactly was Howard so wastefully spending money on that the current Labor government would not have? You don't remember years of middle class welfare?  Baby bonus?  Increased family tax benefits for those who didn't need it? Tax free super payments for the over 60s? Health insurance rebates for the rich?  Giving money away to people who didn't need it to buy their votes.  But no spending on the things we actually needed like infrastructure, an NBN etc etc.  Don't remember any of this?  How old are you? 8?!? Harden up Tinkerbell.  You write crap - you get treated like an idiot.  Sounds like you better get used to it. Try harder sweetheart. You quoted a BS article and as always you expect everyone to just agree. Your rant is just deflecting from the fact that you can't back it up and have simply ignored calls to do so. No one is dumb enough to believe that the current government (under both its Prime Ministers) has been spending money on only things that have been productive while the former government was just burning money without any benefit. It's a tough argument to make and so far you have done nothing to support it besides one baseless article. Your I'm too smart to discuss anything with anyone attitude doesn't fool anyone. You're certainly no idiot, but you ain't nowhere near as cleaver as you think you are. If you have a real argument make it for a change instead of pretending that everyone else is too dumb to understand. Nothing to add to the argument?  Just whinging. Grow up sonny.  Don't try to discuss things you don't understand. Look up "middle class welfare" under Howard - then get back to us

Still deflecting from the argument with your I'm too smart for this forum attitude. Explain the conclusion the IMF came to. You're the one who supported the claim, but so far you have ignored every comment to the fact that the report picks and chooses what it considers wasteful spending without any good justification. How did it come to these conclusions? 

When are we going to have that surplus that was promised over 500 times?

damien wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 4:00pm:

When are we going to have that surplus that was promised over 500 times?

One should always be careful what one asks for, as one just may get what one asks for?

And, in this instance, the costs of what you're asking for, may just be a little different to what you may envisage?

Btw, it is likely that the Liberals will try to deliver what you have asked for, by way of an across the board AUS-terity program, when they win the next election.

BUT, I guarantee, the outcomes will not be what you or the Liberals, envisage!

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

damien wrote on Feb 11th, 2013 at 4:00pm: When are we going to have that surplus that was promised over 500 times? One should always be careful what one asks for, as one just may get what one asks for? And, in this instance, the costs of what you're asking for, may just be a little different to what you may envisage? Btw, it is likely that the Liberals will try to deliver what you have asked for, by way of an across the board AUS-terity program, when they win the next election. BUT, I guarantee, the outcomes will not be what you or the Liberals, envisage!

The alps won't get us back into a surplus - ever!!

damien wrote on Feb 11^th, 2013 at 6:25pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 11th, 2013 at 6:14pm: damien wrote on Feb 11th, 2013 at 4:00pm: When are we going to have that surplus that was promised over 500 times? One should always be careful what one asks for, as one just may get what one asks for? And, in this instance, the costs of what you're asking for, may just be a little different to what you may envisage? Btw, it is likely that the Liberals will try to deliver what you have asked for, by way of an across the board AUS-terity program, when they win the next election. BUT, I guarantee, the outcomes will not be what you or the Liberals, envisage! The alps won't get us back into a surplus - ever!!

and what would you prefer Amien? A surplus or a sound economy?

Dear Ohn, With gillard you have neither. But thanks to a past government who did have a surplus we have an economy that is better shape than if it were the libs taking over from a labor gov.