Great article over at Crikey. Particularly for those of you restricted to the New Limited narrative. It's not behind a pay wall so well worth a visit.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/03/27/heres-the-real-story-of-australian-debt/

The real story of government debt is much more complicated than News Ltd papers claim. And there’s a deep irony in their campaign against it, write Bernard Keane and Glenn Dyer.

Of all the campaigns against Labor in News Limited publications, its latest one on government debt is the most deeply hypocritical.

The “exclusive” today purported to reveal Prime Minister Julia Gillard would be leaving $14,238 in debt to every working Australian (journalists John Rolfe and Gemma Jones used the wrong workforce number and inflated the calculation, but never mind that). Like the Coalition’s version of recent economic history, the piece airbrushes the global financial crisis from its account of events.

That’s the financial crisis that Tony Abbott recently said had ended nearly four years ago, and that Bank of England governor Mervyn King said on Monday was “far from over”.

The hypocrisy lies in this: let’s assume the Rudd government had done what Christopher Pyne says the Coalition would have done and run surpluses during the financial crisis, thereby ripping tens of billions of dollars out of the economy while the financial crisis and ensuing recession was unfolding. In the absence of the Rudd government’s stimulus packages, and with another $25 billion+ pulled out of demand, Australia’s jobless rate would have soared, particularly in industries like construction, retail and manufacturing. The result would have been massive unemployment across areas like western Sydney — exactly the area whose interests The Daily Telegraph purports to represent. In effect, the Telegraph is telling its readers it would have preferred if many of them had lost their jobs just so we could stay debt free. Still, it’s easy for News Ltd journalists and editors working in Surry Hills and in the bubble of Canberra to cavalierly dismiss the importance of keeping a job for a tradie or shop assistant living in Blacktown.

The Tele’s article invoked some heavyweights to back up its case, including Saul Eslake, who told Crikey he’d been taken a little out of context in the piece. According to Eslake, Rolfe had contacted him to ask if Australia faced a debt crisis. Eslake’s reply was that Australia didn’t, and he compared us with Canada, which will not return to surplus for some years and will likely have a debt approaching 30% of GDP, compared with 11.5% for Australia. Over time, Eslake suggested, Australia might develop a problem due to the actions of a number of governments, including the John Howard government. This prompted Rolfe to ask how soon it would become a crisis, which Eslake answered by noting a debt crisis can come on very quickly — “the lights don’t turn amber, they turn red”. This, said Eslake, was portrayed as him saying a debt crisis was around the corner and it was entirely the fault of this government.

“We have a fiscal problem,” Eslake said, “because what was a temporary surge in revenue before the financial crisis from corporate tax, the GST and capital gains tax was used to fund permanent increases in outlays in welfare programs, public sector payrolls (chiefly by state governments) and subsidies and transfer payments, as well as tax cuts. I was one of the few saying around 2005-06 that this surge wouldn’t last. Chris Richardson did too, there weren’t too many others.”

There are other problems around debt, but they’re not the ones you expect. High-quality debt, like that offered by the Australian government, is in short supply. The Financial Times reported this morning there was a shortage of high-rated AAA debt in the world, as the number of top-rated economies had fallen since 2007. Why is that a problem? Big investors around the world (government agencies, central banks and transnational agencies) need AAA bonds, as do insurers. It’s a form of reassurance for them. That’s why more than 30 foreign central banks now have Australian dollar investments in their foreign reserves, and why giant insurers and investors, such as Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway insurance group, have been buying Australian government bonds and other assets. Australian bonds pay 3% or better, which is more than you can get in the US, Japan or the UK and Europe. The Financial Times reports:

“The expulsion of the US, the UK and France from the ‘nine-As’ club has led to the contraction in the stock of ­government bonds deemed the safest by Fitch, Moody’s and Standard & Poor’s, from almost $11tn at the start of 2007 to just $4 trillion now.”

Of course, during that time and apparently in defiance of the debt concerns of News Ltd, Australia joined the nine-As club courtesy of the government’s economic management and low debt levels. And if you read the first Stability Review of 2013, issued this morning by the Reserve Bank, you find not a word of concern about the level of government debt, especially federal debt in this country from the nation’s pre-eminent economic manager.

In fact, the Reserve Bank again points out that “given the low amount of government debt in Australia” regulators have been forced to devise a one-off system of ensuring Australian banks have enough liquidity in the event of a new financial crisis and the loss of access to offshore markets for our banks. The bank also finds the financial system remains solid, with bank debts under control, consumers continuing to save and pre-pay mortgages faster than they should and funding pressures on the banks getting easier.

Indeed, the continuing strength of the high dollar (up today around one US cent or more at $US1.048), which is harming the employment prospects of so many Telegraph readers in western Sydney, is testament to how relaxed financial markets are about the supposedly iniquitous levels of debt bequeathed by Gillard. Moreover, the debacle in Cyprus has ended, for the moment, and hopes the Reserve Bank had for the dollar to continue a recent softness and drift towards parity. Instead it is current around four month highs.

The danger, as the continuing depression in Europe illustrates, comes if politicians take seriously the sort of cant about debt pushed by News Ltd and start treating budget outcomes and debt reduction as ends in themselves, rather than tools of economic management. A fiscal policy that goes beyond addressing the structural problems of our tax and spending frameworks to a cut-debt-at-all-costs policy not merely has the potential to drive the economy into recession, but it would risk thereby increasing what little debt problem we have through reduced economic growth and tax revenues.

But Eslake doesn’t see much danger from austerity-driven politicians. Instead, he is concerned that an incoming Coalition government, should one eventuate, will repeat the mistakes of the Fraser years and fail to use its position to drive necessary fiscal discipline. “Like the Fraser government, an Abbott government may be divided between a leader who distrusts markets, has little interest in economics and is actually contemptuous of economists, a National Party that has reverted to its traditional agrarian socialism, and reformist liberals like Hockey, Robb, Turnbull and Sinodinos.”

As it turns out, the world of debt is a lot more complicated than journalists and editors might have us believe.

People like simple one liners from their political masters so its no wonder that rusted on neo cons panic whenever Abbott claims that we're all doomed without him and only him at the helm.

not that this is exactly an unbiased view.

But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election?

not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place.

5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD.

another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:01pm:

not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence.

They know the massacre is coming, they just think the sick horse of economic magic will get better if they keep applying hot air.

As usual, labor are on the wrong horse.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:01pm:

not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence.

You're a lunatic, longy. Are you honestly suggesting a Coalition government would have avoided debt.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:11pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. You're a lunatic, longy. Are you honestly suggesting a Coalition government would have avoided debt.

I could try a balanced and informative post but you would only misinterpret it so why would I say something like "I believe debt was unavoidable but should have been less and there should be more to show for it at the end". you would only say something like you just said.

You are becoming a hysterical thinker.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:16pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:11pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. You're a lunatic, longy. Are you honestly suggesting a Coalition government would have avoided debt. I could try a balanced and informative post but you would only misinterpret it so why would I say something like "I believe debt was unavoidable but should have been less and there should be more to show for it at the end". you would only say something like you just said. You are becoming a hysterical thinker.

When I close my eyes, I can picture MOTR in the foetal position on the floor in September when Labor concedes defeat to Prime Minister Abbott... including the crying and howling as well.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:01pm:

not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence.

Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes.

Read properly next time.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time.

Oh I read it quite fine. I was reading the bulk of ti while you were reading the fine print. and if howards welfare was excessive then labor can remove it - but hasnt. but i always love the shiny hypocrisy of 'howard took money from the poor' and 'howard gave excessive welfare (to the poor)'

it is always good for a mocking laugh.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:29pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. Oh I read it quite fine. I was reading the bulk of ti while you were reading the fine print. and if howards welfare was excessive then labor can remove it - but hasnt. but i always love the shiny hypocrisy of 'howard took money from the poor' and 'howard gave excessive welfare (to the poor)' it is always good for a mocking laugh.

I think that situation could be upsetting because it takes away from labor rhetoric. Tell a lie long enough is labors new motto.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time.

That's a pretty decent synopsis.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:31pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. That's a pretty decent synopsis.

Agreed. In Spades.

Kat wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:33pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. That's a pretty decent synopsis. Agreed. In Spades.

except who is going to pay off this debt, unemployment boy? YOU? no. your contribution will be adding to the debt from your dole and then whining about it.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:29pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. Oh I read it quite fine. I was reading the bulk of ti while you were reading the fine print. and if howards welfare was excessive then labor can remove it - but hasnt. but i always love the shiny hypocrisy of 'howard took money from the poor' and 'howard gave excessive welfare (to the poor)' it is always good for a mocking laugh.

If I read the fine print and you read the bulk then how coudl you have gotten so much of it so wrong in your initial reply????  As for Howard, the whole point of many of his middle class wealthfare had NOTHING to do with the poor, hence why it is quite clear we've now become a very needy nation who ACTUALLY believe that being on a middle income is classified as being poor.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:40pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:33pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. That's a pretty decent synopsis. Agreed. In Spades. except who is going to pay off this debt, unemployment boy? YOU? no. your contribution will be adding to the debt from your dole and then whining about it.

And your true thoughts have just been shown in all their glory.

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. Oh I read it quite fine. I was reading the bulk of ti while you were reading the fine print. and if howards welfare was excessive then labor can remove it - but hasnt. but i always love the shiny hypocrisy of 'howard took money from the poor' and 'howard gave excessive welfare (to the poor)' it is always good for a mocking laugh. I think that situation could be upsetting because it takes away from labor rhetoric. Tell a lie long enough is labors new motto.

whats the lie being told in the article? Or did you  just feel the necessity to open your mouth?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. Oh I read it quite fine. I was reading the bulk of ti while you were reading the fine print. and if howards welfare was excessive then labor can remove it - but hasnt. but i always love the shiny hypocrisy of 'howard took money from the poor' and 'howard gave excessive welfare (to the poor)' it is always good for a mocking laugh. If I read the fine print and you read the bulk then how coudl you have gotten so much of it so wrong in your initial reply????  As for Howard, the whole point of many of his middle class wealthfare had NOTHING to do with the poor, hence why it is quite clear we've now become a very needy nation who ACTUALLY believe that being on a middle income is classified as being poor.

and in 5 years this supposed great evil didn't appear on Rudd/Gllard's horizon? how convenient.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:40pm: Kat wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:33pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. That's a pretty decent synopsis. Agreed. In Spades. except who is going to pay off this debt, unemployment boy? YOU? no. your contribution will be adding to the debt from your dole and then whining about it. And your true thoughts have just been shown in all their glory.

i have had enough of Kat pretty much in every post saying he wants more dole. it gets old after a while and it is particularly galling to hear people (like imfullofit) talking about such matters when they are solely on the taking side of the equation.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:40pm: Kat wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:33pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. That's a pretty decent synopsis. Agreed. In Spades. except who is going to pay off this debt, unemployment boy? YOU? no. your contribution will be adding to the debt from your dole and then whining about it. And your true thoughts have just been shown in all their glory.

I can see where his view of you may be valid too you, but to imply anyone else cares , is just desperation.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:29pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. Oh I read it quite fine. I was reading the bulk of ti while you were reading the fine print. and if howards welfare was excessive then labor can remove it - but hasnt. but i always love the shiny hypocrisy of 'howard took money from the poor' and 'howard gave excessive welfare (to the poor)' it is always good for a mocking laugh. If I read the fine print and you read the bulk then how coudl you have gotten so much of it so wrong in your initial reply????  As for Howard, the whole point of many of his middle class wealthfare had NOTHING to do with the poor, hence why it is quite clear we've now become a very needy nation who ACTUALLY believe that being on a middle income is classified as being poor. and in 5 years this supposed great evil didn't appear on Rudd/Gllard's horizon? how convenient.

well, unfortunately given the very low level of information that is provided to the vast majority of the electorate, once the genie was let out it is almost impossible to reign it back in without being fatally wounded.  Gillard and Rudd are weaklings, as are all politicians in the current Australian arena. Hence why they'll meddle around the sides, as opposed to going in strong and actually doign real welfare reform. And that's another reason why a Tony government is just going to be a blimp in history that either 1) Kept things relatively the same as they are today or 2) caused some damage, but were so stupid that it was quite easy to repair.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:49pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:40pm: Kat wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:33pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. That's a pretty decent synopsis. Agreed. In Spades. except who is going to pay off this debt, unemployment boy? YOU? no. your contribution will be adding to the debt from your dole and then whining about it. And your true thoughts have just been shown in all their glory. i have had enough of Kat pretty much in every post saying he wants more dole. it gets old after a while and it is particularly galling to hear people (like imfullofit) talking about such matters when they are solely on the taking side of the equation.

well guess what, I was on the taking side for around 3 months whilst completing my uni studies. And that's about it. And I can tell you, many years after ever receiving a smidgen of welfare, that IT NEEDS TO BE INCREASED for those WHO NEED IT and removed for those who get it as a bonus.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 5:01pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:49pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:40pm: Kat wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:33pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. That's a pretty decent synopsis. Agreed. In Spades. except who is going to pay off this debt, unemployment boy? YOU? no. your contribution will be adding to the debt from your dole and then whining about it. And your true thoughts have just been shown in all their glory. i have had enough of Kat pretty much in every post saying he wants more dole. it gets old after a while and it is particularly galling to hear people (like imfullofit) talking about such matters when they are solely on the taking side of the equation. well guess what, I was on the taking side for around 3 months whilst completing my uni studies. And that's about it. And I can tell you, many years after ever receiving a smidgen of welfare, that IT NEEDS TO BE INCREASED for those WHO NEED IT and removed for those who get it as a bonus.

most of us have been in the same situation as well but didnt spend years whining about it. and i did my university with ZERO govt support. no allowances, no welfare at all.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 4:49pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:40pm: Kat wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:33pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:26pm: longweekend58 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 4:01pm: not that this is exactly an unbiased view. But can anyone else smell the sheer desperation in the posts of people who simply cannot countenance the massacre coming their way in the coming election? not only was the GFC a product of 'greed is good' but now we have to contend with the 'debt is good, debt is great, can we have some more please' argument from the morons that brought us the GFC in the first place. Debt is a sometimes necessity but it is always an evil that needs to be paid back in good times. But the logic in labor circles is that as long as we have less debt that countries that are on the verge of bankruptcy, it is okay.  It is that kind of idiocy that lead to these countries becoming insolvent in the first place. 5 years ago labor lamblasted Howard because private individuals had record debt and government had none. in a fit of stupidity that only labor could come up with, private individuals have reduced personal debt by record amounts having seen what the GFC affects those in debt only to see the govt go into massive debt in record time and then defend it as GOOD. not even 'neceessary' but GOOD. another reason why joe voter who has gone without to reduced debt looks at a debt-addicted labor govt and questions their integrity and competence. Quite simply put, you are deluded.  The article in no way suggests that debt is good. What it suggests is that given  economic climate as a result of the GFC in 2008, taking on debt to support the economy was a necessity.  And what it suggests is that by no means should we never repay debt, but the current economic climate puts us in a position where we are better off then many others, with our debt levels. And, should not be putting such a hysteria on it as Abbott and the likes of you suggest. Further, what has been suggested is that we have a fiscal problem as a result of MIDDLE CLASS WEALTHFARE brought on by the imbeciles like Howard, who did not see the long term problem, but rather a short term opportunity to win votes. Read properly next time. That's a pretty decent synopsis. Agreed. In Spades. except who is going to pay off this debt, unemployment boy? YOU? no. your contribution will be adding to the debt from your dole and then whining about it. And your true thoughts have just been shown in all their glory. i have had enough of Kat pretty much in every post saying he wants more dole. it gets old after a while and it is particularly galling to hear people (like imfullofit) talking about such matters when they are solely on the taking side of the equation.

does that mean you won't be back?