Quote:

Australia has now had a price on carbon for a little over eight months. Some people in positions of power and influence were expecting the carbon tax, as it has colloquially become known, to either "act as a wrecking ball across the economy” or be "absolutely catastrophic", "wipe out jobs big-time" while towns like Whyalla would be "wiped off the map" because of it. Further, it would create "ghost towns” and "discourage investment” in mining. Get the drift? There were forecasts that the carbon tax would completely undermine economic growth and market conditions. How accurate have these projections been? With economic data flowing in and financial markets trading over those eight months, it is possible to test the validity of forecasts of "wrecking balls” and catastrophe. The facts below are all based on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics or Reserve Bank data, unless otherwise indicated. Since the carbon price was introduced: – Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent). – Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000. – The unemployment rate has edged up to 5.4 per cent in January 2013 from 5.3 per cent in June 2012, just before carbon was priced. – The stock market (All Ordinaries Index) has risen 25 per cent, adding approximately $296 billion to the value of Australian shares. A further $30 billion or so of dividends have been paid to shareholders since June 30, 2012. – According to RP Data, house prices have risen 2.8 per cent since June 30, 2012, adding approximately $110 billion to the wealth of owners of houses. At this point I might pause. Have a think about those last two points: the gains in stock market values and house prices alone have been nearly $410 billion in just over eight months. That is just under $50,000 per Australian household, on average. – In terms of inflation, the CPI has risen by 1.6 per cent in six months, a figure which includes the boost to prices from the carbon price driven lift in electricity and gas prices. Underlying inflation has risen 1.3 per cent in the six months (annualised pace of 2.7 per cent) and this figure has also been inflated by the carbon price. – The wages price index has risen by 1.5 per cent in six months (annualised pace of 3.1 per cent), locking in a period of moderate wage increases. – Average weekly earnings have risen by $39.10 a week (from May 2012 to November 2012) with an annualised increase of $2035. – The value of retail sales has risen by just 0.1 per cent (annualised rate 0.3 per cent). – The number of new motor vehicle registrations has risen by 4.7 per cent with the six largest monthly number of new car sales ever recorded being registered in the last six months. – The number of dwelling building approvals has fallen 10.1 per cent since June and the number of new housing loans for owner occupation has fallen 0.1 per cent over the same period. – The NAB measure of business conditions has fallen from -1 points in June to -2 points in January, but business confidence has risen from -3 points to +3 points over the same timeframe. – The Westpac measure of consumer sentiment has risen by 13.3 per cent since June to be at a 38-month high. – The RBA index of commodity prices has fallen 5.4 per cent in Australian dollar terms since June and has fallen 2.1 per cent in US dollar terms. – The RBA has cut the official cash rate from 3.5 per cent to 3 per cent. – The 10-year government bond yield has risen a net 35 basis points to 3.40 per cent as of yesterday’s close. – The Australian dollar has risen around 0.9 per cent as strong foreign inflows into Australia continue. At the same time, Australia’s triple-A credit rating from all three ratings agencies remains unchallenged. So a wrecking ball? Catastrophic? Wiped off the map? The disconcerting thing is that all of those dire predictions from above were made by Tony Abbott, the man who studied economics at university and the man likely to be prime minister in a little over six months. Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/7/national-affairs/australias-cotton-wool-wrecking-ball#ixzz2PzgL5uZx

Was Abbott deliberately trying to talk down the economy or is he just clueless.

.

To be fair, it's near-impossible to talk UP the economy with an incompetent, debt-riddled, deficit-plagued buffoon like Wayne Swan sending it down the drain...

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:11am:

To be fair, it's near-impossible to talk UP the economy with an incompetent, debt-riddled, deficit-plagued buffoon like Wayne Swan sending it down the drain...

How does that affect the way you make economic decisions, armchair?

MOTR wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:44am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:11am: To be fair, it's near-impossible to talk UP the economy with an incompetent, debt-riddled, deficit-plagued buffoon like Wayne Swan sending it down the drain... How does that affect the way you make economic decisions, armchair?

In the case of our bumbling Treasurer, he clearly uses a board with a spinning arrow to make his decisions.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:51am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:44am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:11am: To be fair, it's near-impossible to talk UP the economy with an incompetent, debt-riddled, deficit-plagued buffoon like Wayne Swan sending it down the drain... How does that affect the way you make economic decisions, armchair? In the case of our bumbling Treasurer, he clearly uses a board with a spinning arrow to make his decisions.

The question was how your pessimism has affected your economic decision making.

MOTR wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:54am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:51am: MOTR wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:44am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:11am: To be fair, it's near-impossible to talk UP the economy with an incompetent, debt-riddled, deficit-plagued buffoon like Wayne Swan sending it down the drain... How does that affect the way you make economic decisions, armchair? In the case of our bumbling Treasurer, he clearly uses a board with a spinning arrow to make his decisions. The question was how your pessimism has affected your economic decision making.

I'm not an economist and I don't work in government anymore, so I don't make decisions regarding the economy.

So your decisions to save, invest or spend has no impact on our economy. You must be as clueless as Abbott.

reading the op... I am amazed that swanny didnt make his surplus.....not just make it.. but make it double his first shot...


hilarious.. here we are being told from the left of course how brilliant everything is.. tell that to the 500 Holden workers.. who got their notice...also what about this ginormous debt swanny is running up????.. whats with that??
MOTR wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 4:57am:

Since the carbon price was introduced: – Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent). – Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000. – The unemployment rate has edged up to 5.4 per cent in January 2013 from 5.3 per cent in June 2012, just before carbon was priced. – The stock market (All Ordinaries Index) has risen 25 per cent, adding approximately $296 billion to the value of Australian shares. A further $30 billion or so of dividends have been paid to shareholders since June 30, 2012. – According to RP Data, house prices have risen 2.8 per cent since June 30, 2012, adding approximately $110 billion to the wealth of owners of houses. At this point I might pause. Have a think about those last two points: the gains in stock market values and house prices alone have been nearly $410 billion in just over eight months. That is just under $50,000 per Australian household, on average. – In terms of inflation, the CPI has risen by 1.6 per cent in six months, a figure which includes the boost to prices from the carbon price driven lift in electricity and gas prices. Underlying inflation has risen 1.3 per cent in the six months (annualised pace of 2.7 per cent) and this figure has also been inflated by the carbon price. – The wages price index has risen by 1.5 per cent in six months (annualised pace of 3.1 per cent), locking in a period of moderate wage increases. – Average weekly earnings have risen by $39.10 a week (from May 2012 to November 2012) with an annualised increase of $2035. – The value of retail sales has risen by just 0.1 per cent (annualised rate 0.3 per cent). – The number of new motor vehicle registrations has risen by 4.7 per cent with the six largest monthly number of new car sales ever recorded being registered in the last six months. – The number of dwelling building approvals has fallen 10.1 per cent since June and the number of new housing loans for owner occupation has fallen 0.1 per cent over the same period. – The NAB measure of business conditions has fallen from -1 points in June to -2 points in January, but business confidence has risen from -3 points to +3 points over the same timeframe. – The Westpac measure of consumer sentiment has risen by 13.3 per cent since June to be at a 38-month high. – The RBA index of commodity prices has fallen 5.4 per cent in Australian dollar terms since June and has fallen 2.1 per cent in US dollar terms. – The RBA has cut the official cash rate from 3.5 per cent to 3 per cent. – The 10-year government bond yield has risen a net 35 basis points to 3.40 per cent as of yesterday’s close. – The Australian dollar has risen around 0.9 per cent as strong foreign inflows into Australia continue. At the same time, Australia’s triple-A credit rating from all three ratings agencies remains unchallenged. So a wrecking ball? Catastrophic? Wiped off the map? The disconcerting thing is that all of those dire predictions from above were made by Tony Abbott, the man who studied economics at university and the man likely to be prime minister in a little over six months. Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/7/national-affairs/australias...

I just cant explain it... can you?

guess we just have to believe dear old swanny....who will be voted out at the next election....thats how good most people think he is..

cods wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 11:27pm:

reading the op... I am amazed that swanny didnt make his surplus.....not just make it.. but make it double his first shot... hilarious.. here we are being told from the left of course how brilliant everything is.. tell that to the 500 Holden workers.. who got their notice...also what about this ginormous debt swanny is running up????.. whats with that?? MOTR wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 4:57am: Since the carbon price was introduced: – Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent). – Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000. – The unemployment rate has edged up to 5.4 per cent in January 2013 from 5.3 per cent in June 2012, just before carbon was priced. – The stock market (All Ordinaries Index) has risen 25 per cent, adding approximately $296 billion to the value of Australian shares. A further $30 billion or so of dividends have been paid to shareholders since June 30, 2012. – According to RP Data, house prices have risen 2.8 per cent since June 30, 2012, adding approximately $110 billion to the wealth of owners of houses. At this point I might pause. Have a think about those last two points: the gains in stock market values and house prices alone have been nearly $410 billion in just over eight months. That is just under $50,000 per Australian household, on average. – In terms of inflation, the CPI has risen by 1.6 per cent in six months, a figure which includes the boost to prices from the carbon price driven lift in electricity and gas prices. Underlying inflation has risen 1.3 per cent in the six months (annualised pace of 2.7 per cent) and this figure has also been inflated by the carbon price. – The wages price index has risen by 1.5 per cent in six months (annualised pace of 3.1 per cent), locking in a period of moderate wage increases. – Average weekly earnings have risen by $39.10 a week (from May 2012 to November 2012) with an annualised increase of $2035. – The value of retail sales has risen by just 0.1 per cent (annualised rate 0.3 per cent). – The number of new motor vehicle registrations has risen by 4.7 per cent with the six largest monthly number of new car sales ever recorded being registered in the last six months. – The number of dwelling building approvals has fallen 10.1 per cent since June and the number of new housing loans for owner occupation has fallen 0.1 per cent over the same period. – The NAB measure of business conditions has fallen from -1 points in June to -2 points in January, but business confidence has risen from -3 points to +3 points over the same timeframe. – The Westpac measure of consumer sentiment has risen by 13.3 per cent since June to be at a 38-month high. – The RBA index of commodity prices has fallen 5.4 per cent in Australian dollar terms since June and has fallen 2.1 per cent in US dollar terms. – The RBA has cut the official cash rate from 3.5 per cent to 3 per cent. – The 10-year government bond yield has risen a net 35 basis points to 3.40 per cent as of yesterday’s close. – The Australian dollar has risen around 0.9 per cent as strong foreign inflows into Australia continue. At the same time, Australia’s triple-A credit rating from all three ratings agencies remains unchallenged. So a wrecking ball? Catastrophic? Wiped off the map? The disconcerting thing is that all of those dire predictions from above were made by Tony Abbott, the man who studied economics at university and the man likely to be prime minister in a little over six months. Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/7/national-affairs/australias... I just cant explain it... can you? guess we just have to believe dear old swanny....who will be voted out at the next election....thats how good most people think he is..

So are you blaming the carbon tax for the lack of surplus? IF not, what did your utterings have to do with the OP???????

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:11am:

To be fair, it's near-impossible to talk UP the economy with an incompetent, debt-riddled, deficit-plagued buffoon like Wayne Swan sending it down the drain...

That's nice. And WHAT does that have to do with the "CATASTROPHIC" carbon tax???

FRAUDBAND IS A GLOBAL JOKE!!

MOTR wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 5:08am:

Was Abbott deliberately trying to talk down the economy or is he just clueless.

Probably a bit of both.

He really does NOT deserve to lead this country.

And I regard his (and his supporters) using blatant lies to talk
the economy down to be not far short of treason.

The man's a grub, so is his party, and so are his supporters.

A vote for Abbott is the vote of a fool.

Quote:

"I just cant explain it... can you? guess we just have to believe dear old Swanny....who will be voted out at the next election....that's how good most people think he is.."

Actually, it would appear that 'most people' DON'T THINK.

If they did, they wouldn't be buying Tony's PROVEN bullshit.

Those who swallow Tony's BS are not intelligent enough to be allowed to vote, IMO.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 12:23am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:11am: To be fair, it's near-impossible to talk UP the economy with an incompetent, debt-riddled, deficit-plagued buffoon like Wayne Swan sending it down the drain... That's nice. And WHAT does that have to do with the "CATASTROPHIC" carbon tax???

I'm not surprised you don't know...or don't want to admit it. The carbon dioxide tax has increased the cost of living. Consequently, people have less money to spend and this affects the economy. Oh, by the way, nice of you to finally acknowledge that it is actually a TAX!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:11am:

To be fair, it's near-impossible to talk UP the economy with an incompetent, debt-riddled, deficit-plagued buffoon like Wayne Swan sending it down the drain...

You didn't read the lead article did you?

Or was it that you just didn't understand it????

A long series of facts which do a lot more than just talking up the economy.

The Abbott will still spend billions of our taxpayer money on a scheme that is more expensive and will not work.....How the Coalition could ever support such a crap policy is astounding.....No Abbott supporters will defend the merits of Direct Action because they know it is worthless.....Ignoring the alternative says a lot about Conservative values or the lack there of!!!

::) ::) ::)

Kat wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:54am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 5:08am: Was Abbott deliberately trying to talk down the economy or is he just clueless. Probably a bit of both. He really does NOT deserve to lead this country. And I regard his (and his supporters) using blatant lies to talk the economy down to be not far short of treason. The man's a grub, so is his party, and so are his supporters. A vote for Abbott is the vote of a fool.

Quote:

Was Abbott deliberately trying to talk down the economy or is he just clueless.

Quote:

Probably a bit of both.

.

Tony has been talking down the economy since he became opposition leader and as Peter Costello said supported by Howards decisions that on matters of the economy Abbott is in fact incompetent.

That said what Abbott has to say to the media is mostly a series of sound bites - they often have no relationship to either what he believes or the truth.

.

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

The Abbott will still spend billions of our taxpayer money on a scheme that is more expensive and will not work.....How the Coalition could ever support such a crap policy is astounding.....No Abbott supporters will defend the merits of Direct Action because they know it is worthless.....Ignoring the alternative says a lot about Conservative values or the lack there of!!! ::) ::) ::)

How the ALP and it's ever-shrinking base of supporters could support the Malaysia deal, which has zero chance of success with more than 800 people arriving in a week, is astounding. Never seen so many people rusted on to such bad policy. Time to go back to the pacific Solution, the policy proven to work and put fear into the people smugglers.

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:03am:

The Abbott will still spend billions of our taxpayer money on a scheme that is more expensive and will not work.....How the Coalition could ever support such a crap policy is astounding.....No Abbott supporters will defend the merits of Direct Action because they know it is worthless.....Ignoring the alternative says a lot about Conservative values or the lack there of!!!

Abbott painted himself into the direct action corner by opposing everything else on the table for political gain. This is liberal policy simply because it was the only option left and they all know its crap.

At the end of the day Abbott will do nothing about carbon dioxide so it does not really matter in his view what policy they either never implement or put in place in a minimalist manner as a pretence to be doing something they don’t believe in.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:06am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:03am: The Abbott will still spend billions of our taxpayer money on a scheme that is more expensive and will not work.....How the Coalition could ever support such a crap policy is astounding.....No Abbott supporters will defend the merits of Direct Action because they know it is worthless.....Ignoring the alternative says a lot about Conservative values or the lack there of!!! How the ALP and it's ever-shrinking base of supporters could support the Malaysia deal, which has zero chance of success with more than 800 people arriving in a week, is astounding. Never seen so many people rusted on to such bad policy. Time to go back to the pacific Solution, the policy proven to work and put fear into the people smugglers.

The Malaysia deal puts people back to the start of the queue, a huge incentive to not take the risk, This had a better chance of success than Nauru ever had and the Liberals would have jumped at the same opportunity had they thought of it first.

In my view Nauru is and always was a disgrace and Malaysia is no better.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:14am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:06am: philperth2010 wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:03am: The Abbott will still spend billions of our taxpayer money on a scheme that is more expensive and will not work.....How the Coalition could ever support such a crap policy is astounding.....No Abbott supporters will defend the merits of Direct Action because they know it is worthless.....Ignoring the alternative says a lot about Conservative values or the lack there of!!! How the ALP and it's ever-shrinking base of supporters could support the Malaysia deal, which has zero chance of success with more than 800 people arriving in a week, is astounding. Never seen so many people rusted on to such bad policy. Time to go back to the pacific Solution, the policy proven to work and put fear into the people smugglers. The Malaysia deal puts people back to the start of the queue, a huge incentive to not take the risk, This had a better chance of success than Nauru ever had and the Liberals would have jumped at the same opportunity had they thought of it first. In my view Nauru is and always was a disgrace and Malaysia is no better.

We would reach the 800 quota in 7 or 8 days. What of the other 340-odd days in the year??? FAIL!!!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:06am:

philperth2010 wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:03am: The Abbott will still spend billions of our taxpayer money on a scheme that is more expensive and will not work.....How the Coalition could ever support such a crap policy is astounding.....No Abbott supporters will defend the merits of Direct Action because they know it is worthless.....Ignoring the alternative says a lot about Conservative values or the lack there of!!! ::) ::) ::) How the ALP and it's ever-shrinking base of supporters could support the Malaysia deal, which has zero chance of success with more than 800 people arriving in a week, is astounding. Never seen so many people rusted on to such bad policy. Time to go back to the pacific Solution, the policy proven to work and put fear into the people smugglers.

WTF does this crap have to do with the topic.....Typical deflection when you cannot defend Direct Action.....Look at the boats.....Anyway the Malaysian deal was pure crap from a desperate Government trying to deter innocent people from seeking our help.....Not a good time in history for Australia I am sad to say!!!

:( :( :(

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 7:21am:

Dnarever wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:14am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:06am: philperth2010 wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 7:03am: The Abbott will still spend billions of our taxpayer money on a scheme that is more expensive and will not work.....How the Coalition could ever support such a crap policy is astounding.....No Abbott supporters will defend the merits of Direct Action because they know it is worthless.....Ignoring the alternative says a lot about Conservative values or the lack there of!!! How the ALP and it's ever-shrinking base of supporters could support the Malaysia deal, which has zero chance of success with more than 800 people arriving in a week, is astounding. Never seen so many people rusted on to such bad policy. Time to go back to the pacific Solution, the policy proven to work and put fear into the people smugglers. The Malaysia deal puts people back to the start of the queue, a huge incentive to not take the risk, This had a better chance of success than Nauru ever had and the Liberals would have jumped at the same opportunity had they thought of it first. In my view Nauru is and always was a disgrace and Malaysia is no better. We would reach the 800 quota in 7 or 8 days. What of the other 340-odd days in the year??? FAIL!!!

Didn't Nauru reach its capacity in about the same time frame?????

Isn't this work around the one that Tony Abbott and the media recomended to the people smugglers???

Whoe's side is Tony on anyway???

OH sorry that's right the Answer is Tony's.

Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility

In my view no it didn't - he had none to start with.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 6:41am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 12:23am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:11am: To be fair, it's near-impossible to talk UP the economy with an incompetent, debt-riddled, deficit-plagued buffoon like Wayne Swan sending it down the drain... That's nice. And WHAT does that have to do with the "CATASTROPHIC" carbon tax??? I'm not surprised you don't know...or don't want to admit it. The carbon dioxide tax has increased the cost of living. Consequently, people have less money to spend and this affects the economy. Oh, by the way, nice of you to finally acknowledge that it is actually a TAX!

Did you read the op?

Bump Bump Bump

This thread is not going to trickle down so that it can be ignored.  Come on sheep who think the carbon tax has caused significant increases in living costs - debate!! 

.

Tony HAD Credibilty in the 1st place????

http://memecrunch.com/meme/G2S7/tony-abbott/image.png

Stop the bytes.

http://resources3.news.com.au/images/2013/04/10/1226617/322803-cheaoper-nbn-plan-meme.gif

http://sphotos-a.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/431261_10151425011437323_333995078_n.jpg

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/p480x480/522152_10151606444651563_22933586_n.jpg

bump bump.  Interesting how every "intelligent" right-leaning voter on this forum, concerned at the cost of the Carbon Tax, is staying away from this thread. Is this how you get your opinions? Avoid information as best as possible?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:14pm:

bump bump.  Interesting how every "intelligent" right-leaning voter on this forum, concerned at the cost of the Carbon Tax, is staying away from this thread. Is this how you get your opinions? Avoid information as best as possible?

I asked the same thing in a different thread earlier.

Got told I was an 'abusive leftie', and got accused of name-calling... :-? :-? :-? :o

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 6:51am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:44am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 6:11am: To be fair, it's near-impossible to talk UP the economy with an incompetent, debt-riddled, deficit-plagued buffoon like Wayne Swan sending it down the drain... How does that affect the way you make economic decisions, armchair? In the case of our bumbling Treasurer, he clearly uses a board with a spinning arrow to make his decisions.

that proves he has more skills than you do!

If Tony Abbott were to become PM it would be interesting with his 4 year Chicken Little act - "the sky is falling" to see if he is going to govern Australia from under his bed.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

If Tony Abbott were to become PM it would be interesting with his 4 year Chicken Little act - "the sky is falling" to see if he is going to govern Australia from under his bed.

It'll be 4 years of blaming labor for every single one of their decisions

Dont forget Julia Gillard has been playing Thatcher on single mothers and the disabled...

MOTR wrote on Apr 10^th, 2013 at 4:57am:

Quote: Australia has now had a price on carbon for a little over eight months. Some people in positions of power and influence were expecting the carbon tax, as it has colloquially become known, to either "act as a wrecking ball across the economy” or be "absolutely catastrophic", "wipe out jobs big-time" while towns like Whyalla would be "wiped off the map" because of it. Further, it would create "ghost towns” and "discourage investment” in mining. Get the drift? There were forecasts that the carbon tax would completely undermine economic growth and market conditions. How accurate have these projections been? With economic data flowing in and financial markets trading over those eight months, it is possible to test the validity of forecasts of "wrecking balls” and catastrophe. The facts below are all based on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics or Reserve Bank data, unless otherwise indicated. Since the carbon price was introduced: – Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent). – Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000. – The unemployment rate has edged up to 5.4 per cent in January 2013 from 5.3 per cent in June 2012, just before carbon was priced. – The stock market (All Ordinaries Index) has risen 25 per cent, adding approximately $296 billion to the value of Australian shares. A further $30 billion or so of dividends have been paid to shareholders since June 30, 2012. – According to RP Data, house prices have risen 2.8 per cent since June 30, 2012, adding approximately $110 billion to the wealth of owners of houses. At this point I might pause. Have a think about those last two points: the gains in stock market values and house prices alone have been nearly $410 billion in just over eight months. That is just under $50,000 per Australian household, on average. – In terms of inflation, the CPI has risen by 1.6 per cent in six months, a figure which includes the boost to prices from the carbon price driven lift in electricity and gas prices. Underlying inflation has risen 1.3 per cent in the six months (annualised pace of 2.7 per cent) and this figure has also been inflated by the carbon price. – The wages price index has risen by 1.5 per cent in six months (annualised pace of 3.1 per cent), locking in a period of moderate wage increases. – Average weekly earnings have risen by $39.10 a week (from May 2012 to November 2012) with an annualised increase of $2035. – The value of retail sales has risen by just 0.1 per cent (annualised rate 0.3 per cent). – The number of new motor vehicle registrations has risen by 4.7 per cent with the six largest monthly number of new car sales ever recorded being registered in the last six months. – The number of dwelling building approvals has fallen 10.1 per cent since June and the number of new housing loans for owner occupation has fallen 0.1 per cent over the same period. – The NAB measure of business conditions has fallen from -1 points in June to -2 points in January, but business confidence has risen from -3 points to +3 points over the same timeframe. – The Westpac measure of consumer sentiment has risen by 13.3 per cent since June to be at a 38-month high. – The RBA index of commodity prices has fallen 5.4 per cent in Australian dollar terms since June and has fallen 2.1 per cent in US dollar terms. – The RBA has cut the official cash rate from 3.5 per cent to 3 per cent. – The 10-year government bond yield has risen a net 35 basis points to 3.40 per cent as of yesterday’s close. – The Australian dollar has risen around 0.9 per cent as strong foreign inflows into Australia continue. At the same time, Australia’s triple-A credit rating from all three ratings agencies remains unchallenged. So a wrecking ball? Catastrophic? Wiped off the map? The disconcerting thing is that all of those dire predictions from above were made by Tony Abbott, the man who studied economics at university and the man likely to be prime minister in a little over six months. Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/7/national-affairs/australias-cotton-wool-wrecking-ball#ixzz2PzgL5uZx

bump. In case you are too lazy to go to page one.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 8:09pm:

MOTR wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 4:57am: Quote: Australia has now had a price on carbon for a little over eight months. Some people in positions of power and influence were expecting the carbon tax, as it has colloquially become known, to either "act as a wrecking ball across the economy” or be "absolutely catastrophic", "wipe out jobs big-time" while towns like Whyalla would be "wiped off the map" because of it. Further, it would create "ghost towns” and "discourage investment” in mining. Get the drift? There were forecasts that the carbon tax would completely undermine economic growth and market conditions. How accurate have these projections been? With economic data flowing in and financial markets trading over those eight months, it is possible to test the validity of forecasts of "wrecking balls” and catastrophe. The facts below are all based on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics or Reserve Bank data, unless otherwise indicated. Since the carbon price was introduced: – Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent). – Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000. – The unemployment rate has edged up to 5.4 per cent in January 2013 from 5.3 per cent in June 2012, just before carbon was priced. – The stock market (All Ordinaries Index) has risen 25 per cent, adding approximately $296 billion to the value of Australian shares. A further $30 billion or so of dividends have been paid to shareholders since June 30, 2012. – According to RP Data, house prices have risen 2.8 per cent since June 30, 2012, adding approximately $110 billion to the wealth of owners of houses. At this point I might pause. Have a think about those last two points: the gains in stock market values and house prices alone have been nearly $410 billion in just over eight months. That is just under $50,000 per Australian household, on average. – In terms of inflation, the CPI has risen by 1.6 per cent in six months, a figure which includes the boost to prices from the carbon price driven lift in electricity and gas prices. Underlying inflation has risen 1.3 per cent in the six months (annualised pace of 2.7 per cent) and this figure has also been inflated by the carbon price. – The wages price index has risen by 1.5 per cent in six months (annualised pace of 3.1 per cent), locking in a period of moderate wage increases. – Average weekly earnings have risen by $39.10 a week (from May 2012 to November 2012) with an annualised increase of $2035. – The value of retail sales has risen by just 0.1 per cent (annualised rate 0.3 per cent). – The number of new motor vehicle registrations has risen by 4.7 per cent with the six largest monthly number of new car sales ever recorded being registered in the last six months. – The number of dwelling building approvals has fallen 10.1 per cent since June and the number of new housing loans for owner occupation has fallen 0.1 per cent over the same period. – The NAB measure of business conditions has fallen from -1 points in June to -2 points in January, but business confidence has risen from -3 points to +3 points over the same timeframe. – The Westpac measure of consumer sentiment has risen by 13.3 per cent since June to be at a 38-month high. – The RBA index of commodity prices has fallen 5.4 per cent in Australian dollar terms since June and has fallen 2.1 per cent in US dollar terms. – The RBA has cut the official cash rate from 3.5 per cent to 3 per cent. – The 10-year government bond yield has risen a net 35 basis points to 3.40 per cent as of yesterday’s close. – The Australian dollar has risen around 0.9 per cent as strong foreign inflows into Australia continue. At the same time, Australia’s triple-A credit rating from all three ratings agencies remains unchallenged. So a wrecking ball? Catastrophic? Wiped off the map? The disconcerting thing is that all of those dire predictions from above were made by Tony Abbott, the man who studied economics at university and the man likely to be prime minister in a little over six months. Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/7/national-affairs/australias-cotton-wool-wrecking-ball#ixzz2PzgL5uZx bump. In case you are too lazy to go to page one.

The current government is incompetant, You need to learn how to believe the Daily Telegraph and ignore the facts. I am afraid that you just don't get it do you.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 8:26pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 8:09pm: MOTR wrote on Apr 10th, 2013 at 4:57am: Quote: Australia has now had a price on carbon for a little over eight months. Some people in positions of power and influence were expecting the carbon tax, as it has colloquially become known, to either "act as a wrecking ball across the economy” or be "absolutely catastrophic", "wipe out jobs big-time" while towns like Whyalla would be "wiped off the map" because of it. Further, it would create "ghost towns” and "discourage investment” in mining. Get the drift? There were forecasts that the carbon tax would completely undermine economic growth and market conditions. How accurate have these projections been? With economic data flowing in and financial markets trading over those eight months, it is possible to test the validity of forecasts of "wrecking balls” and catastrophe. The facts below are all based on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics or Reserve Bank data, unless otherwise indicated. Since the carbon price was introduced: – Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent). – Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000. – The unemployment rate has edged up to 5.4 per cent in January 2013 from 5.3 per cent in June 2012, just before carbon was priced. – The stock market (All Ordinaries Index) has risen 25 per cent, adding approximately $296 billion to the value of Australian shares. A further $30 billion or so of dividends have been paid to shareholders since June 30, 2012. – According to RP Data, house prices have risen 2.8 per cent since June 30, 2012, adding approximately $110 billion to the wealth of owners of houses. At this point I might pause. Have a think about those last two points: the gains in stock market values and house prices alone have been nearly $410 billion in just over eight months. That is just under $50,000 per Australian household, on average. – In terms of inflation, the CPI has risen by 1.6 per cent in six months, a figure which includes the boost to prices from the carbon price driven lift in electricity and gas prices. Underlying inflation has risen 1.3 per cent in the six months (annualised pace of 2.7 per cent) and this figure has also been inflated by the carbon price. – The wages price index has risen by 1.5 per cent in six months (annualised pace of 3.1 per cent), locking in a period of moderate wage increases. – Average weekly earnings have risen by $39.10 a week (from May 2012 to November 2012) with an annualised increase of $2035. – The value of retail sales has risen by just 0.1 per cent (annualised rate 0.3 per cent). – The number of new motor vehicle registrations has risen by 4.7 per cent with the six largest monthly number of new car sales ever recorded being registered in the last six months. – The number of dwelling building approvals has fallen 10.1 per cent since June and the number of new housing loans for owner occupation has fallen 0.1 per cent over the same period. – The NAB measure of business conditions has fallen from -1 points in June to -2 points in January, but business confidence has risen from -3 points to +3 points over the same timeframe. – The Westpac measure of consumer sentiment has risen by 13.3 per cent since June to be at a 38-month high. – The RBA index of commodity prices has fallen 5.4 per cent in Australian dollar terms since June and has fallen 2.1 per cent in US dollar terms. – The RBA has cut the official cash rate from 3.5 per cent to 3 per cent. – The 10-year government bond yield has risen a net 35 basis points to 3.40 per cent as of yesterday’s close. – The Australian dollar has risen around 0.9 per cent as strong foreign inflows into Australia continue. At the same time, Australia’s triple-A credit rating from all three ratings agencies remains unchallenged. So a wrecking ball? Catastrophic? Wiped off the map? The disconcerting thing is that all of those dire predictions from above were made by Tony Abbott, the man who studied economics at university and the man likely to be prime minister in a little over six months. Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/7/national-affairs/australias-cotton-wool-wrecking-ball#ixzz2PzgL5uZx bump. In case you are too lazy to go to page one. The current government is incompetant, You need to learn how to believe the Daily Telegraph and ignore the facts. I am afraid that you just don't get it do you.

I'm still waiting for Longy to come here and claim the economic conditions are just another union hack job and the carbon tax has destroyed everything.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 5:49pm:

If Tony Abbott were to become PM it would be interesting with his 4 year Chicken Little act - "the sky is falling" to see if he is going to govern Australia from under his bed.

Nah!!

Too many reds under there....

:)

Bump. Really interesting to see that None of the usual suspects have uttered a word. Wonder if they will tomorrow claim, "CARBON TAX DESTROYED MY LIVLIHOOD?" without offering any evidence, of course.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:24am:

Bump. Really interesting to see that None of the usual suspects have uttered a word. Wonder if they will tomorrow claim, "CARBON TAX DESTROYED MY LIVLIHOOD?" without offering any evidence, of course.

maybe the liberal supporters are all at work? I know I am. I am interstate running a training course.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:28am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:24am: Bump. Really interesting to see that None of the usual suspects have uttered a word. Wonder if they will tomorrow claim, "CARBON TAX DESTROYED MY LIVLIHOOD?" without offering any evidence, of course. maybe the liberal supporters are all at work? I know I am. I am interstate running a training course.

I do find it quite funny, that during my evening and what would be the middle of the workday in Australia - there is an abundance of working-age people spending hours on here....

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:28am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:24am: Bump. Really interesting to see that None of the usual suspects have uttered a word. Wonder if they will tomorrow claim, "CARBON TAX DESTROYED MY LIVLIHOOD?" without offering any evidence, of course. maybe the liberal supporters are all at work? I know I am. I am interstate running a training course.

;D  Sure, that's what it is.

What's the training course about? How to be a dimwit?

Why spend the time telling us you are too busy to write on the forum to offer your 2 cents on this thread?  Why not spend the same time giving us your 2 cents?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:30am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:28am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:24am: Bump. Really interesting to see that None of the usual suspects have uttered a word. Wonder if they will tomorrow claim, "CARBON TAX DESTROYED MY LIVLIHOOD?" without offering any evidence, of course. maybe the liberal supporters are all at work? I know I am. I am interstate running a training course. I do find it quite funny, that during my evening and what would be the middle of the workday in Australia - there is an abundance of working-age people spending hours on here....

You finish work at 4:30 do you? Bit lazy?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:32am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:28am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 9:24am: Bump. Really interesting to see that None of the usual suspects have uttered a word. Wonder if they will tomorrow claim, "CARBON TAX DESTROYED MY LIVLIHOOD?" without offering any evidence, of course. maybe the liberal supporters are all at work? I know I am. I am interstate running a training course. ;D  Sure, that's what it is. What's the training course about? How to be a dimwit? Why spend the time telling us you are too busy to write on the forum to offer your 2 cents on this thread?  Why not spend the same time giving us your 2 cents?

A) Im not presenting at this course. I am managing it.
B) I dont post on every thread and nor do you
C) most threads are variations on existing themes this one being the never-ending 'I hate tony'. after a awhile, it just gets old.

and most important

D) The coalition is leading by a country mile so suck it up, girls. Abbott will be PM in 6 months or less if the govt collapses early.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

A) Im not presenting at this course. I am managing it. B) I dont post on every thread and nor do you C) most threads are variations on existing themes this one being the never-ending 'I hate tony'. after a awhile, it just gets old. and most important D) The coalition is leading by a country mile so suck it up, girls. Abbott will be PM in 6 months or less if the govt collapses early.

This is a Hate Tony OP?


Quote:

Australia has now had a price on carbon for a little over eight months. Some people in positions of power and influence were expecting the carbon tax, as it has colloquially become known, to either "act as a wrecking ball across the economy” or be "absolutely catastrophic", "wipe out jobs big-time" while towns like Whyalla would be "wiped off the map" because of it. Further, it would create "ghost towns” and "discourage investment” in mining. Get the drift? There were forecasts that the carbon tax would completely undermine economic growth and market conditions. How accurate have these projections been? With economic data flowing in and financial markets trading over those eight months, it is possible to test the validity of forecasts of "wrecking balls” and catastrophe. The facts below are all based on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics or Reserve Bank data, unless otherwise indicated. Since the carbon price was introduced: – Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent). – Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000. – The unemployment rate has edged up to 5.4 per cent in January 2013 from 5.3 per cent in June 2012, just before carbon was priced. – The stock market (All Ordinaries Index) has risen 25 per cent, adding approximately $296 billion to the value of Australian shares. A further $30 billion or so of dividends have been paid to shareholders since June 30, 2012. – According to RP Data, house prices have risen 2.8 per cent since June 30, 2012, adding approximately $110 billion to the wealth of owners of houses. At this point I might pause. Have a think about those last two points: the gains in stock market values and house prices alone have been nearly $410 billion in just over eight months. That is just under $50,000 per Australian household, on average. – In terms of inflation, the CPI has risen by 1.6 per cent in six months, a figure which includes the boost to prices from the carbon price driven lift in electricity and gas prices. Underlying inflation has risen 1.3 per cent in the six months (annualised pace of 2.7 per cent) and this figure has also been inflated by the carbon price. – The wages price index has risen by 1.5 per cent in six months (annualised pace of 3.1 per cent), locking in a period of moderate wage increases. – Average weekly earnings have risen by $39.10 a week (from May 2012 to November 2012) with an annualised increase of $2035. – The value of retail sales has risen by just 0.1 per cent (annualised rate 0.3 per cent). – The number of new motor vehicle registrations has risen by 4.7 per cent with the six largest monthly number of new car sales ever recorded being registered in the last six months. – The number of dwelling building approvals has fallen 10.1 per cent since June and the number of new housing loans for owner occupation has fallen 0.1 per cent over the same period. – The NAB measure of business conditions has fallen from -1 points in June to -2 points in January, but business confidence has risen from -3 points to +3 points over the same timeframe. – The Westpac measure of consumer sentiment has risen by 13.3 per cent since June to be at a 38-month high. – The RBA index of commodity prices has fallen 5.4 per cent in Australian dollar terms since June and has fallen 2.1 per cent in US dollar terms. – The RBA has cut the official cash rate from 3.5 per cent to 3 per cent. – The 10-year government bond yield has risen a net 35 basis points to 3.40 per cent as of yesterday’s close. – The Australian dollar has risen around 0.9 per cent as strong foreign inflows into Australia continue. At the same time, Australia’s triple-A credit rating from all three ratings agencies remains unchallenged. So a wrecking ball? Catastrophic? Wiped off the map? The disconcerting thing is that all of those dire predictions from above were made by Tony Abbott, the man who studied economics at university and the man likely to be prime minister in a little over six months. Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/7/national-affairs/australias...

The author of that article is a former Labor staffer and has frewuently posted anti-liberal articles that are at best one-sided and often factually incorrect. for example, this is the same fool that happily posts in his blog that Fraser left a $40B debt while treasury - the actual holders of the facts - says it was $9B. So articles by this jerk are to be taken with a grain of salt. he is your version of Andrew Bolt so dont expect me to take him seriously.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

The author of that article is a former Labor staffer and has frewuently posted anti-liberal articles that are at best one-sided and often factually incorrect. for example, this is the same fool that happily posts in his blog that Fraser left a $40B debt while treasury - the actual holders of the facts - says it was $9B. So articles by this jerk are to be taken with a grain of salt. he is your version of Andrew Bolt so dont expect me to take him seriously.

The impressive part of the post is the listing of facts?

Bolt never uses this type of misleading tactic, imagine the nerve - posting factual material to support your case.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:15am:

The author of that article is a former Labor staffer and has frewuently posted anti-liberal articles that are at best one-sided and often factually incorrect. for example, this is the same fool that happily posts in his blog that Fraser left a $40B debt while treasury - the actual holders of the facts - says it was $9B. So articles by this jerk are to be taken with a grain of salt. he is your version of Andrew Bolt so dont expect me to take him seriously.

Do you deny the stats he presents?

Longie, are you referring to this blog?


Quote:

It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”. There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office. It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96. Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer. When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election. Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle. Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government. So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983.

Tony wouldn't be getting away with his porkies so well if Labor hadn't told the carbon tax lie in the first place.

Dnarever wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:45am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:15am: The author of that article is a former Labor staffer and has frewuently posted anti-liberal articles that are at best one-sided and often factually incorrect. for example, this is the same fool that happily posts in his blog that Fraser left a $40B debt while treasury - the actual holders of the facts - says it was $9B. So articles by this jerk are to be taken with a grain of salt. he is your version of Andrew Bolt so dont expect me to take him seriously. The impressive part of the post is the listing of facts? Bolt never uses this type of misleading tactic, imagine the nerve - posting factual material to support your case.

this same clown posts 'facts' that are fraudulent as in the above example. I have no reason to trust that his facts are even correct. And you can certainly tell thathe will slant the article pro-labor. That is his right but it does however turn his supposedly factual article into something closer to an OPINION article

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:55am:

Longie, are you referring to this blog? Quote: It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”. There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office. It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96. Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer. When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election. Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle. Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government. So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983.

that looks like the one. it is blatantly biased and chooses to redefine debt conveniently to support a political ideology. The actual and indisputable facts is that Fraser left $9B in debt.

This is an example of the writers blatant and significant bias and why the OP is so discredited. now if it were written by someone with a record for balance and non-partisan writing then perahsp it woudl be worthy of discussion. But you refuse to debate a Bolt article so it is the same thing here.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:55am: Longie, are you referring to this blog? Quote: It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”. There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office. It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96. Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer. When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election. Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle. Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government. So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983. that looks like the one. it is blatantly biased and chooses to redefine debt conveniently to support a political ideology. The actual and indisputable facts is that Fraser left $9B in debt. This is an example of the writers blatant and significant bias and why the OP is so discredited. now if it were written by someone with a record for balance and non-partisan writing then perahsp it woudl be worthy of discussion. But you refuse to debate a Bolt article so it is the same thing here.

He did, in 1983.  The blog talks about real terms in 1996, which is comparing the 96 Billion in 1996.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:55am: Longie, are you referring to this blog? Quote: It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”. There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office. It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96. Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer. When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election. Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle. Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government. So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983. that looks like the one. it is blatantly biased and chooses to redefine debt conveniently to support a political ideology. The actual and indisputable facts is that Fraser left $9B in debt. This is an example of the writers blatant and significant bias and why the OP is so discredited. now if it were written by someone with a record for balance and non-partisan writing then perahsp it woudl be worthy of discussion. But you refuse to debate a Bolt article so it is the same thing here.

I don't refuse to debate Bolt when he offers ACTUAL stats. Unfortunately, that's yet to happen.

Do you DISPUTE the stats offered in the article?

Such hypocrisy from both sides.  ::)

john_g wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:34am:

Such hypocrisy from both sides.  ::)

Oh? How so? More of your "swinging" position?

How about debating Abbott's complete misreading of our economy. He's clearly an economic innumerate. But don't take my word for it. Those closest to him say exactly the same thing.

His former colleagues are on the record saying “he has no interest in economics – he has no feeling for it”, he is “innumerate” and that his future “was not in economics”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABtlI2Wk3Ws&sns=em

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:34am: Such hypocrisy from both sides.  ::) Oh? How so? More of your "swinging" position?

Isn't it obvious?

Labor supporters take issue with Abbott telling porkies about the carbon tax, but no problem with Labor's lie in the first place, and the reverse for Coalition supportees.

I suppose it is more of my swingimg position, I am smart enough to not blindly support any one party.

john_g wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:41am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:36am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:34am: Such hypocrisy from both sides.  ::) Oh? How so? More of your "swinging" position? Isn't it obvious? Labor supporters take issue with Abbott telling porkies about the carbon tax, but no problem with Labor's lie in the first place, and the reverse for Coalition supportees. I suppose it is more of my swingimg position, I am smart enough to not blindly support any one party.

There's no problem with Labor's lie because some of us actually have the smarts to recognise it is nothign more than a lack of political gamesmanship from Gillard by calling her pricing mechanism a "carbon tax".  So to you, my friend, I say you aren't really smart at all. 

And the reason Labor are about to be smashed in a landslide by the Australian people is because........

:)

Howard reduced debt by selling off assets

How is that considered good economic management ?


Sure, I could remove my debt by selling my house, but I value having a house over having debt so I dont.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

And the reason Labor are about to be smashed in a landslide by the Australian people is because........ :)

Of their lack of political gamesmanship, dill.  It's already been mentioned to you.

Want to also try to DISPUTE the stats in the OP? You're an "economist"...at least a try hard one. Go on, tell us.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

And the reason Labor are about to be smashed in a landslide by the Australian people is because........ :)

I think you rightards claimed that last time.

No one has "been smashed in a landslide" until it has actually happened.

Based on Tony's first policy release, the fraudband, I wouldnt be banking on him unless there is significant improvement.  ... And remember he still has that lemon "direct action" to release yet.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:50am:

And the reason Labor are about to be smashed in a landslide by the Australian people is because........ :)

People want to return to the boom times.

They want to be told by real estate agents their property has risen in value 10 grand over the last 6 months which will be immediately redrawn.
They love getting those letters from the bank that tells them they are "Pre Approved" to increase the credit card limit.

They are simple enough to think voting the party fortunate enough to be in government during those golden times back in will achieve this.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:26am:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:55am: Longie, are you referring to this blog? Quote: It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”. There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office. It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96. Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer. When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election. Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle. Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government. So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983. that looks like the one. it is blatantly biased and chooses to redefine debt conveniently to support a political ideology. The actual and indisputable facts is that Fraser left $9B in debt. This is an example of the writers blatant and significant bias and why the OP is so discredited. now if it were written by someone with a record for balance and non-partisan writing then perahsp it woudl be worthy of discussion. But you refuse to debate a Bolt article so it is the same thing here. He did, in 1983.  The blog talks about real terms in 1996, which is comparing the 96 Billion in 1996.

no the blog doesnt use 'real' terms. real terms would be the CPI increase making it $19B - still not $40B. he uses a convenient GDP argument which he would use if the argument went the other way - the sure sign of an invalid argument.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 1:21pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:55am: Longie, are you referring to this blog? Quote: It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”. There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office. It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96. Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer. When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election. Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle. Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government. So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983. that looks like the one. it is blatantly biased and chooses to redefine debt conveniently to support a political ideology. The actual and indisputable facts is that Fraser left $9B in debt. This is an example of the writers blatant and significant bias and why the OP is so discredited. now if it were written by someone with a record for balance and non-partisan writing then perahsp it woudl be worthy of discussion. But you refuse to debate a Bolt article so it is the same thing here. He did, in 1983.  The blog talks about real terms in 1996, which is comparing the 96 Billion in 1996. no the blog doesnt use 'real' terms. real terms would be the CPI increase making it $19B - still not $40B. he uses a convenient GDP argument which he would use if the argument went the other way - the sure sign of an invalid argument.

His argument is that $40B of the debt can very well be attributed to the state of the economy left by Fraser in 1983, with a $9B debt.  One could argue that Keating and Hawke had to take on the extra debt in order to fix up the stuff ups of the Howard treasury.  And look at the outcome in GDP growth as a result. But had Howard been a better treasurer, would we really have needed to take on that $40B worth of debt in the first place? Who knows, I'm not a story teller, all I can say is that his argument makes sense and doesn't say that Fraser left $40B, it's saying that 7.5% of GDp in debt in 1996 is the direct result of Howard's inadequacies as treasurer in 1983.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 1:28pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 1:21pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:55am: Longie, are you referring to this blog? Quote: It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”. There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office. It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96. Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer. When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election. Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle. Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government. So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983. that looks like the one. it is blatantly biased and chooses to redefine debt conveniently to support a political ideology. The actual and indisputable facts is that Fraser left $9B in debt. This is an example of the writers blatant and significant bias and why the OP is so discredited. now if it were written by someone with a record for balance and non-partisan writing then perahsp it woudl be worthy of discussion. But you refuse to debate a Bolt article so it is the same thing here. He did, in 1983.  The blog talks about real terms in 1996, which is comparing the 96 Billion in 1996. no the blog doesnt use 'real' terms. real terms would be the CPI increase making it $19B - still not $40B. he uses a convenient GDP argument which he would use if the argument went the other way - the sure sign of an invalid argument. His argument is that $40B of the debt can very well be attributed to the state of the economy left by Fraser in 1983, with a $9B debt.  One could argue that Keating and Hawke had to take on the extra debt in order to fix up the stuff ups of the Howard treasury.  And look at the outcome in GDP growth as a result. But had Howard been a better treasurer, would we really have needed to take on that $40B worth of debt in the first place? Who knows, I'm not a story teller, all I can say is that his argument makes sense and doesn't say that Fraser left $40B, it's saying that 7.5% of GDp in debt in 1996 is the direct result of Howard's inadequacies as treasurer in 1983.

its a bogus argument that is used in this manner because it suits a purpose. of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 11:49am:

john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:41am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:36am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:34am: Such hypocrisy from both sides.  ::) Oh? How so? More of your "swinging" position? Isn't it obvious? Labor supporters take issue with Abbott telling porkies about the carbon tax, but no problem with Labor's lie in the first place, and the reverse for Coalition supportees. I suppose it is more of my swingimg position, I am smart enough to not blindly support any one party. There's no problem with Labor's lie because some of us actually have the smarts to recognise it is nothign more than a lack of political gamesmanship from Gillard by calling her pricing mechanism a "carbon tax".  So to you, my friend, I say you aren't really smart at all.

She said no carbon tax, then introduced one.

It's as simple as that.

Tony wouldn't be getting away with his porkies if people weren't so desperate to get rid of Labor.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:16pm:

of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens.

I might give that some credence if you hadn't been ignoring the biggest global collapse since the great depression for the last 6 years.

Cake & eating  again

john_g wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:17pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:49am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:41am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:36am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:34am: Such hypocrisy from both sides.  ::) Oh? How so? More of your "swinging" position? Isn't it obvious? Labor supporters take issue with Abbott telling porkies about the carbon tax, but no problem with Labor's lie in the first place, and the reverse for Coalition supportees. I suppose it is more of my swingimg position, I am smart enough to not blindly support any one party. There's no problem with Labor's lie because some of us actually have the smarts to recognise it is nothign more than a lack of political gamesmanship from Gillard by calling her pricing mechanism a "carbon tax".  So to you, my friend, I say you aren't really smart at all.  She said no carbon tax, then introduced one. It's as simple as that. Tony wouldn't be getting away with his porkies if people weren't so desperate to get rid of Labor.

The imbecile continues I see. She said, "no carbon tax but we're determined to price carbon"  Hence why I said her political gamesmanship is retarded as all she had to do was call it anything other than a carbon tax and we'd never have tony running around yelling liar liar. especially when the thing is a pricing mechanism almost identical to the original ETS, and not a carbon tax of any sort.

And the fact that Tony is getting away with porkies only shows how uninformed the public is. Some are dumb of course, who tear at the sight of the biggest loser.  And others have to put up with the nonsense media.

A true swing voter who saw that Tony was not fit to lead would never vote for him. Only a pretend swing voter, who thinks it makes their nonsense points more credibility, would constantly try and assure people they are a swinger.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:16pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 1:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 1:21pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:55am: Longie, are you referring to this blog? Quote: It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”. There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office. It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96. Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer. When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election. Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle. Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government. So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983. that looks like the one. it is blatantly biased and chooses to redefine debt conveniently to support a political ideology. The actual and indisputable facts is that Fraser left $9B in debt. This is an example of the writers blatant and significant bias and why the OP is so discredited. now if it were written by someone with a record for balance and non-partisan writing then perahsp it woudl be worthy of discussion. But you refuse to debate a Bolt article so it is the same thing here. He did, in 1983.  The blog talks about real terms in 1996, which is comparing the 96 Billion in 1996. no the blog doesnt use 'real' terms. real terms would be the CPI increase making it $19B - still not $40B. he uses a convenient GDP argument which he would use if the argument went the other way - the sure sign of an invalid argument. His argument is that $40B of the debt can very well be attributed to the state of the economy left by Fraser in 1983, with a $9B debt.  One could argue that Keating and Hawke had to take on the extra debt in order to fix up the stuff ups of the Howard treasury.  And look at the outcome in GDP growth as a result. But had Howard been a better treasurer, would we really have needed to take on that $40B worth of debt in the first place? Who knows, I'm not a story teller, all I can say is that his argument makes sense and doesn't say that Fraser left $40B, it's saying that 7.5% of GDp in debt in 1996 is the direct result of Howard's inadequacies as treasurer in 1983. its a bogus argument that is used in this manner because it suits a purpose. of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens.

as dsmithy says, nothing one can do - if we're going to ignore economic conditions when arguing about debt and surpluses then you're going to have to put up with it. That's the nature of the debate these days, thanks to the likes of Howard and Tony I might add.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:25pm:

john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:49am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:41am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:36am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:34am: Such hypocrisy from both sides.  ::) Oh? How so? More of your "swinging" position? Isn't it obvious? Labor supporters take issue with Abbott telling porkies about the carbon tax, but no problem with Labor's lie in the first place, and the reverse for Coalition supportees. I suppose it is more of my swingimg position, I am smart enough to not blindly support any one party. There's no problem with Labor's lie because some of us actually have the smarts to recognise it is nothign more than a lack of political gamesmanship from Gillard by calling her pricing mechanism a "carbon tax".  So to you, my friend, I say you aren't really smart at all.  She said no carbon tax, then introduced one. It's as simple as that. Tony wouldn't be getting away with his porkies if people weren't so desperate to get rid of Labor. The imbecile continues I see. She said, "no carbon tax but we're determined to price carbon"  Hence why I said her political gamesmanship is retarded as all she had to do was call it anything other than a carbon tax and we'd never have tony running around yelling liar liar. especially when the thing is a pricing mechanism almost identical to the original ETS, and not a carbon tax of any sort. And the fact that Tony is getting away with porkies only shows how uninformed the public is. Some are dumb of course, who tear at the sight of the biggest loser.  And others have to put up with the nonsense media. A true swing voter who saw that Tony was not fit to lead would never vote for him. Only a pretend swing voter, who thinks it makes their nonsense points more credibility, would constantly try and assure people they are a swinger.

First of all, what is the difference? The way it works is effectively like a tax.

I think that problem you have is that you, like many others, can't image the idea of someone not being for or against you. It's all black and white to you.

I don't support what Abbott has said at all.

To the contrary, I believe that it ain't right at all, and my point is that it doesn't matter, he can get away with anything because the public just want Labor gone.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:16pm: of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens. I might give that some credence if you hadn't been ignoring the biggest global collapse since the great depression for the last 6 years. Cake & eating  again

gfc didnt last 6 years nor did it start in 2007. it went for no more than a year in mosyt places and never even arrived here. If that were not the case then there would have at least been a recession. you listen to too many northern hemispshere commentators who forget the rest of the world which were largely unaffected other than by the dip in trade from the economic dunderheads up north. we are not stil lin the GFC now. Or how long are you going to use that argument?

john_g wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:28pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:25pm: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:49am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:41am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:36am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:34am: Such hypocrisy from both sides.  ::) Oh? How so? More of your "swinging" position? Isn't it obvious? Labor supporters take issue with Abbott telling porkies about the carbon tax, but no problem with Labor's lie in the first place, and the reverse for Coalition supportees. I suppose it is more of my swingimg position, I am smart enough to not blindly support any one party. There's no problem with Labor's lie because some of us actually have the smarts to recognise it is nothign more than a lack of political gamesmanship from Gillard by calling her pricing mechanism a "carbon tax".  So to you, my friend, I say you aren't really smart at all.  She said no carbon tax, then introduced one. It's as simple as that. Tony wouldn't be getting away with his porkies if people weren't so desperate to get rid of Labor. The imbecile continues I see. She said, "no carbon tax but we're determined to price carbon"  Hence why I said her political gamesmanship is retarded as all she had to do was call it anything other than a carbon tax and we'd never have tony running around yelling liar liar. especially when the thing is a pricing mechanism almost identical to the original ETS, and not a carbon tax of any sort. And the fact that Tony is getting away with porkies only shows how uninformed the public is. Some are dumb of course, who tear at the sight of the biggest loser.  And others have to put up with the nonsense media. A true swing voter who saw that Tony was not fit to lead would never vote for him. Only a pretend swing voter, who thinks it makes their nonsense points more credibility, would constantly try and assure people they are a swinger. First of all, what is the difference? The way it works is effectively like a tax. I think that problem you have is that you, like many others, can't image the idea of someone not being for or against you. It's all black and white to you.

Like a tax is not a tax. It's an introductory price that will then transition into a market mechanism. It's really not that difficult and if you had bothered to edumacate yourself somewhat perhaps you'd understand how something with the word, "tax", in it is not necessarily an actual tax.

The very fact that you don't understand that something "effectively like a tax" is not a tax shows that it is you who deals with black and white only. Probably because of your lack of intelligence. And your desire to prove to us all that you are a swing voter. Even though it's utter rubbish, and it's best get a new sock already because this one has become ever so dull.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:25pm:

john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:49am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:41am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:36am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:34am: Such hypocrisy from both sides.  ::) Oh? How so? More of your "swinging" position? Isn't it obvious? Labor supporters take issue with Abbott telling porkies about the carbon tax, but no problem with Labor's lie in the first place, and the reverse for Coalition supportees. I suppose it is more of my swingimg position, I am smart enough to not blindly support any one party. There's no problem with Labor's lie because some of us actually have the smarts to recognise it is nothign more than a lack of political gamesmanship from Gillard by calling her pricing mechanism a "carbon tax".  So to you, my friend, I say you aren't really smart at all.  She said no carbon tax, then introduced one. It's as simple as that. Tony wouldn't be getting away with his porkies if people weren't so desperate to get rid of Labor. The imbecile continues I see. She said, "no carbon tax but we're determined to price carbon"  Hence why I said her political gamesmanship is retarded as all she had to do was call it anything other than a carbon tax and we'd never have tony running around yelling liar liar. especially when the thing is a pricing mechanism almost identical to the original ETS, and not a carbon tax of any sort. And the fact that Tony is getting away with porkies only shows how uninformed the public is. Some are dumb of course, who tear at the sight of the biggest loser.  And others have to put up with the nonsense media. A true swing voter who saw that Tony was not fit to lead would never vote for him. Only a pretend swing voter, who thinks it makes their nonsense points more credibility, would constantly try and assure people they are a swinger.

that's just denial in action. she dais no carbon tax and then implemented one. as far as voters are concerned, she lied. you can argue until you are blue int he face but the voters have already decided. she lied. she broke her promise . now it is time to punish her for it.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:33pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:25pm: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:49am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:41am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:36am: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:34am: Such hypocrisy from both sides.  ::) Oh? How so? More of your "swinging" position? Isn't it obvious? Labor supporters take issue with Abbott telling porkies about the carbon tax, but no problem with Labor's lie in the first place, and the reverse for Coalition supportees. I suppose it is more of my swingimg position, I am smart enough to not blindly support any one party. There's no problem with Labor's lie because some of us actually have the smarts to recognise it is nothign more than a lack of political gamesmanship from Gillard by calling her pricing mechanism a "carbon tax".  So to you, my friend, I say you aren't really smart at all.  She said no carbon tax, then introduced one. It's as simple as that. Tony wouldn't be getting away with his porkies if people weren't so desperate to get rid of Labor. The imbecile continues I see. She said, "no carbon tax but we're determined to price carbon"  Hence why I said her political gamesmanship is retarded as all she had to do was call it anything other than a carbon tax and we'd never have tony running around yelling liar liar. especially when the thing is a pricing mechanism almost identical to the original ETS, and not a carbon tax of any sort. And the fact that Tony is getting away with porkies only shows how uninformed the public is. Some are dumb of course, who tear at the sight of the biggest loser.  And others have to put up with the nonsense media. A true swing voter who saw that Tony was not fit to lead would never vote for him. Only a pretend swing voter, who thinks it makes their nonsense points more credibility, would constantly try and assure people they are a swinger. that's just denial in action. she dais no carbon tax and then impleented one. as far as voters are concenred, she lied. you can argue until you are blue int he face but the voters have already decided. she lied. she broke her promise . now it is time to punish her for it.

I'm not arguing that shedidn't "lie in the face of the voter". I'm arguing that in reality she didn't lie, and the only reason one might think so is because she is a sh1t politician who didn't think about the name.  Rodent wouldn't have made the same mistake. As crap as a PM he was, he was a very astute politician.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:16pm: of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens. I might give that some credence if you hadn't been ignoring the biggest global collapse since the great depression for the last 6 years. Cake & eating  again gfc didnt last 6 years nor did it start in 2007. it went for no more than a year in mosyt places and never even arrived here. If that were not the case then there would have at least been a recession. you listen to too many northern hemispshere commentators who forget the rest of the world which were largely unaffected other than by the dip in trade from the economic dunderheads up north. we are not stil lin the GFC now. Or how long are you going to use that argument?

Save that garbage argument for someone else.

I never said it lasted 6 years I said YOU HAVE BEEN IGNORING for 6 years.

Company tax receipts fell substantially & haven't recovered yet.

The tax cuts you gloat about were covered by those same Company tax receipts without effecting services, money now needs to come from elsewhere to cover the shortfall in revenue to cover services as well as the middle class handouts Howard also told us we were entitled too.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:26pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:16pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 1:28pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 1:21pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 11:24am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 10:55am: Longie, are you referring to this blog? Quote: It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”. There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office. It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96. Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer. When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election. Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle. Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government. So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983. that looks like the one. it is blatantly biased and chooses to redefine debt conveniently to support a political ideology. The actual and indisputable facts is that Fraser left $9B in debt. here. He did, in 1983.  The blog talks about real terms in 1996, which is comparing the 96 Billion in 1996. no the blog doesnt use 'real' terms. real terms would be the CPI increase making it $19B - still not $40B. he uses a convenient GDP argument which he would use if the argument went the other way - the sure sign of an invalid argument. His argument is that $40B of the debt can very well be attributed to the state of the economy left by Fraser in 1983, with a $9B debt.  One could argue that Keating and Hawke had to take on the extra debt in order to fix up the stuff ups of the Howard treasury.  And look at the outcome in GDP growth as a result. But had Howard been a better treasurer, would we really have needed to take on that $40B worth of debt in the first place? Who knows, I'm not a story teller, all I can say is that his argument makes sense and doesn't say that Fraser left $40B, it's saying that 7.5% of GDp in debt in 1996 is the direct result of Howard's inadequacies as treasurer in 1983. its a bogus argument that is used in this manner because it suits a purpose. of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens. as dsmithy says, nothing one can do - if we're going to ignore economic conditions when arguing about debt and surpluses then you're going to have to put up with it. That's the nature of the debate these days, thanks to the likes of Howard and Tony I might add.

then I await the day when my mortage is reassed as a percent of GDP. it would of course only be fair to increase my mortage right? that is the argument you are making and we cna all be very sure that if GDP had grown less than CPI then you WOUldnt use this argument.

Actually this is the kind of bigus crap that labor supporters and govt spew up as further evidence of their unsuitability to manage a modern economy. First there were the 'record mortgage interest rates (which werent)' then there was the 'structural deficit' aka 'the deficit you have when you arent having a deficit'. now we have the 'new maths' where 9=40. bbut then there is always the wonderful 'debt is good' gospel promoted by the same bozos that in 5 years increased the debt by more than anyone in history.  The rest of the world is hanging off a 1000 ft cliff and you crazy buffoons think it is fine to hang off a 100ft cliff. Howard however preferred that we stay miles away from the cliff.

the 'new economics' - excuses wrapped up in lies.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:31pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:16pm: of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens. I might give that some credence if you hadn't been ignoring the biggest global collapse since the great depression for the last 6 years. Cake & eating  again gfc didnt last 6 years nor did it start in 2007. it went for no more than a year in mosyt places and never even arrived here. If that were not the case then there would have at least been a recession. you listen to too many northern hemispshere commentators who forget the rest of the world which were largely unaffected other than by the dip in trade from the economic dunderheads up north. we are not stil lin the GFC now. Or how long are you going to use that argument?

It lasted a year? most countries still have not recovered , it wasn't a party or a conference you know? It didn't affect all of the world but it DID affect most of our trading partners. ... we went from a strong market for our goods to no market , if it was a business and it was able to incur a little debt but set itself up to recover you'd be praising the manager as very competant ... the only reason you b1tch is because it's labor ........

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:40pm:

then I await the day when my mortage is reassed as a percent of GDP. it would of course only be fair to increase my mortage right? that is the argument you are making and we cna all be very sure that if GDP had grown less than CPI then you WOUldnt use this argument. Actually this is the kind of bigus crap that labor supporters and govt spew up as further evidence of their unsuitability to manage a modern economy. First there were the 'record mortgage interest rates (which werent)' then there was the 'structural deficit' aka 'the deficit you have when you arent having a deficit'. now we have the 'new maths' where 9=40. bbut then there is always the wonderful 'debt is good' gospel promoted by the same bozos that in 5 years increased the debt by more than anyone in history.  The rest of the world is hanging off a 1000 ft cliff and you crazy buffoons think it is fine to hang off a 100ft cliff. Howard however preferred that we stay miles away from the cliff. the 'new economics' - excuses wrapped up in lies.

Many people do increase their mortgage as time goes on, to buy more things, primarily because they see an increase in their own wages. And somehow, that increase and wage ratio ... stays the same... woooowwww.

As for the rest of your spew, what a dingbat you are.  You argue that you don't like "political speak" from governments and yet where were you when your rodent love child was trying to sell us that he was responsible for "record low interest rates" and was trying to sell us the message that "only he could keep interest rates low"?   Where were you when your rodent tried to convince us that debt is always bad, and we must always have surplus; that it is simply non-negotiable? And where are you when your other lovechild, the arsewipe Tony is standing around telling us the world is caving in because of the carbon tax, and yet as the statistics you are STILL AVOIDING from the OP prove otherwise? Where are you when the economics of this country are being poured down the drain by your lot? Enough of your rubbish. Time you either started to comprehend what others are saying, or stop debating. Because it's utterly dull to see you try to go over the same ponit over and over and ignore everything around you. Especiall when others have moved on.

Oh, and on a side note, by suggesting your metaphor when trying to explain the current economic conditions around the world you only prove how much of an idiot you really are. The western world is going through significant turbulence. No one is denying that around the world - not even the conservatives who you would every other day bow down to.  Yet, you seem to think that the rest of the world plunging into trouble is somehow not going to impact us, and as a result we should try to continue as business as usual? Austerity perhaps? That's what we need whe nthe economy is on a downturn? Go get economics 101.  Do something with your brain to gather better understanding, and then come back to us. You're just whinging and whigning and I tell you, it's nothign but an irritating headache. And, after all the whigning, you're still to address the stats being discussed within the OP. Still can't? Still trying to sell the picture of the sky falling in becuase of the carbon tax? 

John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:31pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:16pm: of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens. I might give that some credence if you hadn't been ignoring the biggest global collapse since the great depression for the last 6 years. Cake & eating  again gfc didnt last 6 years nor did it start in 2007. it went for no more than a year in mosyt places and never even arrived here. If that were not the case then there would have at least been a recession. you listen to too many northern hemispshere commentators who forget the rest of the world which were largely unaffected other than by the dip in trade from the economic dunderheads up north. we are not stil lin the GFC now. Or how long are you going to use that argument? It lasted a year? most countries still have not recovered , it wasn't a party or a conference you know? It didn't affect all of the world but it DID affect most of our trading partners. ... we went from a strong market for our goods to no market , if it was a business and it was able to incur a little debt but set itself up to recover you'd be praising the manager as very competant ... the only reason you b1tch is because it's labor ........

the 2004 tsunami didnt last 9 years but they are still recovering. the GFC is well and truly over and has been for years now.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:40pm: then I await the day when my mortage is reassed as a percent of GDP. it would of course only be fair to increase my mortage right? that is the argument you are making and we cna all be very sure that if GDP had grown less than CPI then you WOUldnt use this argument. Actually this is the kind of bigus crap that labor supporters and govt spew up as further evidence of their unsuitability to manage a modern economy. First there were the 'record mortgage interest rates (which werent)' then there was the 'structural deficit' aka 'the deficit you have when you arent having a deficit'. now we have the 'new maths' where 9=40. bbut then there is always the wonderful 'debt is good' gospel promoted by the same bozos that in 5 years increased the debt by more than anyone in history.  The rest of the world is hanging off a 1000 ft cliff and you crazy buffoons think it is fine to hang off a 100ft cliff. Howard however preferred that we stay miles away from the cliff. the 'new economics' - excuses wrapped up in lies. Many people do increase their mortgage as time goes on, to buy more things, primarily because they see an increase in their own wages. And somehow, that increase and wage ratio ... stays the same... woooowwww. As for the rest of your spew, what a dingbat you are.  You argue that you don't like "political speak" from governments and yet where were you when your rodent love child was trying to sell us that he was responsible for "record low interest rates" and was trying to sell us the message that "only he could keep interest rates low"?   Where were you when your rodent tried to convince us that debt is always bad, and we must always have surplus; that it is simply non-negotiable? And where are you when your other lovechild, the arsewipe Tony is standing around telling us the world is caving in because of the carbon tax, and yet as the statistics you are STILL AVOIDING from the OP prove otherwise? Where are you when the economics of this country are being poured down the drain by your lot? Enough of your rubbish. Time you either started to comprehend what others are saying, or stop debating. Because it's utterly dull to see you try to go over the same ponit over and over and ignore everything around you. Especiall when others have moved on. Oh, and on a side note, by suggesting your metaphor when trying to explain the current economic conditions around the world you only prove how much of an idiot you really are. The western world is going through significant turbulence. No one is denying that around the world - not even the conservatives who you would every other day bow down to.  Yet, you seem to think that the rest of the world plunging into trouble is somehow not going to impact us, and as a result we should try to continue as business as usual? Austerity perhaps? That's what we need whe nthe economy is on a downturn? Go get economics 101.  Do something with your brain to gather better understanding, and then come back to us. You're just whinging and whigning and I tell you, it's nothign but an irritating headache. And, after all the whigning, you're still to address the stats being discussed within the OP. Still can't? Still trying to sell the picture of the sky falling in becuase of the carbon tax?

but they actually GET THE MONEY when they increase theur debt. your ludicrous example is that fraser debt went from $9B to $40B but nobody actually got the extra $31B!!! 

dont give up your day job and become a banker.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:31pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:16pm: of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens. I might give that some credence if you hadn't been ignoring the biggest global collapse since the great depression for the last 6 years. Cake & eating  again gfc didnt last 6 years nor did it start in 2007. it went for no more than a year in mosyt places and never even arrived here. If that were not the case then there would have at least been a recession. you listen to too many northern hemispshere commentators who forget the rest of the world which were largely unaffected other than by the dip in trade from the economic dunderheads up north. we are not stil lin the GFC now. Or how long are you going to use that argument? It lasted a year? most countries still have not recovered , it wasn't a party or a conference you know? It didn't affect all of the world but it DID affect most of our trading partners. ... we went from a strong market for our goods to no market , if it was a business and it was able to incur a little debt but set itself up to recover you'd be praising the manager as very competant ... the only reason you b1tch is because it's labor ........ the 2004 tsunami didnt last 9 years but they are still recovering. the GFC is well and truly over and has been for years now.

Yep .. they are still recovering *sigh*  Right after another few of the european countries fall over.

But in the meantime, I guess given there is "recovery" within the world economic conditions, we need to drastically increase massive Austrerity measures? Especially when inflation is low, the aussie dollar is high, unemployment is on the rise, and government services are already feeling the stress from dumbf*** state governments?

Its Really very simple Mr Weekend.

If as you say the author is bias & cannot be trusted then do this


Quote:

– Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent).

This is a load of crap, & here is a link which proves the falsehood of above


Quote:

– Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000.

Again false, here is a quote from XXX speaking in this article[url][/url]which proves it

ETC ETC

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:40pm: then I await the day when my mortage is reassed as a percent of GDP. it would of course only be fair to increase my mortage right? that is the argument you are making and we cna all be very sure that if GDP had grown less than CPI then you WOUldnt use this argument. Actually this is the kind of bigus crap that labor supporters and govt spew up as further evidence of their unsuitability to manage a modern economy. First there were the 'record mortgage interest rates (which werent)' then there was the 'structural deficit' aka 'the deficit you have when you arent having a deficit'. now we have the 'new maths' where 9=40. bbut then there is always the wonderful 'debt is good' gospel promoted by the same bozos that in 5 years increased the debt by more than anyone in history.  The rest of the world is hanging off a 1000 ft cliff and you crazy buffoons think it is fine to hang off a 100ft cliff. Howard however preferred that we stay miles away from the cliff. the 'new economics' - excuses wrapped up in lies. Many people do increase their mortgage as time goes on, to buy more things, primarily because they see an increase in their own wages. And somehow, that increase and wage ratio ... stays the same... woooowwww. As for the rest of your spew, what a dingbat you are.  You argue that you don't like "political speak" from governments and yet where were you when your rodent love child was trying to sell us that he was responsible for "record low interest rates" and was trying to sell us the message that "only he could keep interest rates low"?   Where were you when your rodent tried to convince us that debt is always bad, and we must always have surplus; that it is simply non-negotiable? And where are you when your other lovechild, the arsewipe Tony is standing around telling us the world is caving in because of the carbon tax, and yet as the statistics you are STILL AVOIDING from the OP prove otherwise? Where are you when the economics of this country are being poured down the drain by your lot? Enough of your rubbish. Time you either started to comprehend what others are saying, or stop debating. Because it's utterly dull to see you try to go over the same ponit over and over and ignore everything around you. Especiall when others have moved on. Oh, and on a side note, by suggesting your metaphor when trying to explain the current economic conditions around the world you only prove how much of an idiot you really are. The western world is going through significant turbulence. No one is denying that around the world - not even the conservatives who you would every other day bow down to.  Yet, you seem to think that the rest of the world plunging into trouble is somehow not going to impact us, and as a result we should try to continue as business as usual? Austerity perhaps? That's what we need whe nthe economy is on a downturn? Go get economics 101.  Do something with your brain to gather better understanding, and then come back to us. You're just whinging and whigning and I tell you, it's nothign but an irritating headache. And, after all the whigning, you're still to address the stats being discussed within the OP. Still can't? Still trying to sell the picture of the sky falling in becuase of the carbon tax?

howard had record low interst rates in a BOOM. that was an acheivement Labors only acheivement in interest rates is to crash them down low to prevent a recession. it was the right decision but is hardly something to be praised for: a slumping economy and low interest rates are EASY. try doing it when the economy is booming that is real skill

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:59pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:50pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:40pm: then I await the day when my mortage is reassed as a percent of GDP. it would of course only be fair to increase my mortage right? that is the argument you are making and we cna all be very sure that if GDP had grown less than CPI then you WOUldnt use this argument. Actually this is the kind of bigus crap that labor supporters and govt spew up as further evidence of their unsuitability to manage a modern economy. First there were the 'record mortgage interest rates (which werent)' then there was the 'structural deficit' aka 'the deficit you have when you arent having a deficit'. now we have the 'new maths' where 9=40. bbut then there is always the wonderful 'debt is good' gospel promoted by the same bozos that in 5 years increased the debt by more than anyone in history.  The rest of the world is hanging off a 1000 ft cliff and you crazy buffoons think it is fine to hang off a 100ft cliff. Howard however preferred that we stay miles away from the cliff. the 'new economics' - excuses wrapped up in lies. Many people do increase their mortgage as time goes on, to buy more things, primarily because they see an increase in their own wages. And somehow, that increase and wage ratio ... stays the same... woooowwww. As for the rest of your spew, what a dingbat you are.  You argue that you don't like "political speak" from governments and yet where were you when your rodent love child was trying to sell us that he was responsible for "record low interest rates" and was trying to sell us the message that "only he could keep interest rates low"?   Where were you when your rodent tried to convince us that debt is always bad, and we must always have surplus; that it is simply non-negotiable? And where are you when your other lovechild, the arsewipe Tony is standing around telling us the world is caving in because of the carbon tax, and yet as the statistics you are STILL AVOIDING from the OP prove otherwise? Where are you when the economics of this country are being poured down the drain by your lot? Enough of your rubbish. Time you either started to comprehend what others are saying, or stop debating. Because it's utterly dull to see you try to go over the same ponit over and over and ignore everything around you. Especiall when others have moved on. Oh, and on a side note, by suggesting your metaphor when trying to explain the current economic conditions around the world you only prove how much of an idiot you really are. The western world is going through significant turbulence. No one is denying that around the world - not even the conservatives who you would every other day bow down to.  Yet, you seem to think that the rest of the world plunging into trouble is somehow not going to impact us, and as a result we should try to continue as business as usual? Austerity perhaps? That's what we need whe nthe economy is on a downturn? Go get economics 101.  Do something with your brain to gather better understanding, and then come back to us. You're just whinging and whigning and I tell you, it's nothign but an irritating headache. And, after all the whigning, you're still to address the stats being discussed within the OP. Still can't? Still trying to sell the picture of the sky falling in becuase of the carbon tax?  but they actually GET THE MONEY when they increase theur debt. your ludicrous example is that fraser debt went from $9B to $40B but nobody actually got the extra $31B!!!  dont give up your day job and become a banker.

the more you argue this point the more you fail to understand the ACTUAL point of the comparison made within the blog post.  Where does it say the Fraser government debt went from $9B to $40B?It's saying, "IN EFFECT if translated to 1996 terms the 9B translates to $40B."  It's arguing that by inheriting the economy as it was (thanks to the rodent, of course), the 7.5% of GDP in 1983 stayed as 7.5% of GDP in 1996.

Anyway, like I said, stop trying to sway the topic. You might not liek the writer of the article - whatever. But the stats are not his own in the making. They are the stats of our economic condition - CAN YOU DISPUTE THEM?

John Smith wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:31pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:16pm: of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens. I might give that some credence if you hadn't been ignoring the biggest global collapse since the great depression for the last 6 years. Cake & eating  again gfc didnt last 6 years nor did it start in 2007. it went for no more than a year in mosyt places and never even arrived here. If that were not the case then there would have at least been a recession. you listen to too many northern hemispshere commentators who forget the rest of the world which were largely unaffected other than by the dip in trade from the economic dunderheads up north. we are not stil lin the GFC now. Or how long are you going to use that argument? It lasted a year? most countries still have not recovered , it wasn't a party or a conference you know? It didn't affect all of the world but it DID affect most of our trading partners. ... we went from a strong market for our goods to no market , if it was a business and it was able to incur a little debt but set itself up to recover you'd be praising the manager as very competant ... the only reason you b1tch is because it's labor ........

ive managed businesses for decades. I have borrow money in slumps too so I know what it means. the difference is I only borrowed what i needed and demanded a proper return fot he money AND I had pans to pay it off. Sound familiar? no it doesnt. labor never repays its debts or even seeks value for money. it only wants to SPEND.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:01pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:50pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:40pm: then I await the day when my mortage is reassed as a percent of GDP. it would of course only be fair to increase my mortage right? that is the argument you are making and we cna all be very sure that if GDP had grown less than CPI then you WOUldnt use this argument. Actually this is the kind of bigus crap that labor supporters and govt spew up as further evidence of their unsuitability to manage a modern economy. First there were the 'record mortgage interest rates (which werent)' then there was the 'structural deficit' aka 'the deficit you have when you arent having a deficit'. now we have the 'new maths' where 9=40. bbut then there is always the wonderful 'debt is good' gospel promoted by the same bozos that in 5 years increased the debt by more than anyone in history.  The rest of the world is hanging off a 1000 ft cliff and you crazy buffoons think it is fine to hang off a 100ft cliff. Howard however preferred that we stay miles away from the cliff. the 'new economics' - excuses wrapped up in lies. Many people do increase their mortgage as time goes on, to buy more things, primarily because they see an increase in their own wages. And somehow, that increase and wage ratio ... stays the same... woooowwww. As for the rest of your spew, what a dingbat you are.  You argue that you don't like "political speak" from governments and yet where were you when your rodent love child was trying to sell us that he was responsible for "record low interest rates" and was trying to sell us the message that "only he could keep interest rates low"?   Where were you when your rodent tried to convince us that debt is always bad, and we must always have surplus; that it is simply non-negotiable? And where are you when your other lovechild, the arsewipe Tony is standing around telling us the world is caving in because of the carbon tax, and yet as the statistics you are STILL AVOIDING from the OP prove otherwise? Where are you when the economics of this country are being poured down the drain by your lot? Enough of your rubbish. Time you either started to comprehend what others are saying, or stop debating. Because it's utterly dull to see you try to go over the same ponit over and over and ignore everything around you. Especiall when others have moved on. Oh, and on a side note, by suggesting your metaphor when trying to explain the current economic conditions around the world you only prove how much of an idiot you really are. The western world is going through significant turbulence. No one is denying that around the world - not even the conservatives who you would every other day bow down to.  Yet, you seem to think that the rest of the world plunging into trouble is somehow not going to impact us, and as a result we should try to continue as business as usual? Austerity perhaps? That's what we need whe nthe economy is on a downturn? Go get economics 101.  Do something with your brain to gather better understanding, and then come back to us. You're just whinging and whigning and I tell you, it's nothign but an irritating headache. And, after all the whigning, you're still to address the stats being discussed within the OP. Still can't? Still trying to sell the picture of the sky falling in becuase of the carbon tax?  howard had record low interst rates in a BOOM. that was an acheivement Labors only acheivement in interest rates is to crash them down low to prevent a recession. it was the right decision but is hardly something to be praised for: a slumping economy and low interest rates are EASY. try doing it when the economy is booming that is real skill

So now it's a slumping economy accoridng to you? I thought it was all fine just a few moments before, and we have unnecessary debt and must implement massive austerity measures.  WHICH IS IT? FFS!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:00pm:

Its Really very simple Mr Weekend. If as you say the author is bias & cannot be trusted then do this Quote: – Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent). This is a load of crap, & here is a link which proves the falsehood of above [quote]– Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000.

Again false, here is a quote from XXX speaking in this article[url][/url]which proves it

ETC ETC
[/quote]

it is the rewriting of history I am objecting to. Fraser left $9B debt. that is indisputable and not even soemthing to argue... well you'd think  anyhow. Somehow, in the mind of the buffoon that semes to so often be a pro-labor writer, $9B becomes $40B. if you want to use the CPI adjusted figure then it was $19B out of the $96B.

it is just this remarkable and frankly dangerous rewriting of history that shoudl be of some concern to everyone. just like keating had the highest mortage rates (not Howard). keating left $96B of debt. But apparently, there is a new desire to change all those facts to somehow make the ALP look better.

To be non-partisan then I would now quote an example of a liberal rewriting labor past history. Only problem is I cant find one. If there is one I would condemn it just as much. We only have history once but apparently it is no longer considered static. history is free to be rewritten.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:00pm: Its Really very simple Mr Weekend. If as you say the author is bias & cannot be trusted then do this Quote: – Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent). This is a load of crap, & here is a link which proves the falsehood of above [quote]– Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000. Again false, here is a quote from XXX speaking in this article[url][/url]which proves it ETC ETC

it is the rewriting of history I am objecting to. Fraser left $9B debt. that is indisputable and not even soemthing to argue... well you'd think  anyhow. Somehow, in the mind of the buffoon that semes to so often be a pro-labor writer, $9B becomes $40B. if you want to use the CPI adjusted figure then it was $19B out of the $96B.

it is just this remarkable and frankly dangerous rewriting of history that shoudl be of some concern to everyone. just like keating had the highest mortage rates (not Howard). keating left $96B of debt. But apparently, there is a new desire to change all those facts to somehow make the ALP look better.

To be non-partisan then I would now quote an example of a liberal rewriting labor past history. Only problem is I cant find one. If there is one I would condemn it just as much. We only have history once but apparently it is no longer considered static. history is free to be rewritten.[/quote]

Yes, yes, very nice, and as explained before, you're missing the point.
BUt let's leave it at that. You're too stubborn to try and actually READ what others are saying. INstead, how about you move away from the man who wrote the article, AND MOVE TOWARDS THE STATS BEING PRESENTED. Do you a) agree with them or b) disagree with them, and if so, what valid reason do you have?

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

it is the rewriting of history I am objecting to. Fraser left $9B debt. that is indisputable and not even soemthing to argue... well you'd think  anyhow. Somehow, in the mind of the buffoon that semes to so often be a pro-labor writer, $9B becomes $40B. if you want to use the CPI adjusted figure then it was $19B out of the $96B.

Fair enough, at least you now seem to understand it is a comparison rather than fact, which I was starting to think reading through previous posts.
We need to see how he gets 40 yet you only get 19, his either adding something or your leaving something out.


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

it is just this remarkable and frankly dangerous rewriting of history that shoudl be of some concern to everyone. just like keating had the highest mortage rates (not Howard). keating left $96B of debt. But apparently, there is a new desire to change all those facts to somehow make the ALP look better.

Well I'll adress the re-writing in the next point, but to be clear
Keating has that record because he totally remodelled the Australian economy FOR THE BETTER.
You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs & interest rates just happened to be those eggs.
BTW in 96 when Howard took over those rates were back down to 12/13 % & only fell the same amount again in Howard's 11 years.

Oh and of course you leave out the fact that during Treasurer Howards rein mortgage interest rates were capped at 12 something % a milestone he did achieve.


longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

To be non-partisan then I would now quote an example of a liberal rewriting labor past history. Only problem is I cant find one. If there is one I would condemn it just as much. We only have history once but apparently it is no longer considered static. history is free to be rewritten.

Let me help


Quote:

REWRITING HISTORY John Howard gave a speech this week about his decision to go to war in Iraq. Refusing any of the criticism of the decision, he said the belief in weapons of mass destruction was the government's main justification for war. It may seem like a distant, irrelevant historical detail now, but it cannot be left unchallenged. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the allied invasion was ''unexpected," according to Howard. The belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's was ''near universal'' at the time. In speeches at the time he cited "recent production of chemical and biological weapons," and said that all key aspects of the program were larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War in 1991. Howard and Downer asserted that the threat to the world from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was both great and immediate. In this morning's Age, former secretary to the Intelligence Committee (2002-2007), Margaret Swieringa, calls him out. "None of these arguments were true," writes Swierenga. "None of the government's arguments were supported by the intelligence presented to it by its own agencies." Her analysis is clinical. Australian intelligence saw the same overseas reports that Howard did, and incorporated them into their assessments (as Andrew Wilkie explained when he first blew the whistle). Howard ignored the advice of his own agencies to send Australia to an illegal war. Now he is engaged in a mendacious and dangerous attempt to rewrite history. Nick Feik, EDITOR

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/howard-ignored-official-advice-on-iraqs-weapons-and-chose-war-20130411-2hogn.html

Not economics but something in reality much worse.

You may now commence in smearing the author.

Quote:

Well I'll adress the re-writing in the next point, but to be clear Keating has that record because he totally remodelled the Australian economy FOR THE BETTER. You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs & interest rates just happened to be those eggs. BTW in 96 when Howard took over those rates were back down to 12/13 % & only feel the same amount again in Howard's 11 years.

but you arent pretending to rewrite history and so that is fine. keating did a reasonably good job. he did have the highest interest rates.

I dont mind debating facts but it it nice of facts remain consistent.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

Quote: Well I'll adress the re-writing in the next point, but to be clear Keating has that record because he totally remodelled the Australian economy FOR THE BETTER. You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs & interest rates just happened to be those eggs. BTW in 96 when Howard took over those rates were back down to 12/13 % & only feel the same amount again in Howard's 11 years. but you arent pretending to rewrite history and so that is fine. keating did a reasonably good job. he did have the highest interest rates. I dont mind debating facts but it it nice of facts remain consistent.

:( I was looking forward to seein you try to get your self out of explaining howard's iraq comments posted by dsmithy. Oh well. You always run away when it gets too hard :(

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:34pm:

Quote: Well I'll adress the re-writing in the next point, but to be clear Keating has that record because he totally remodelled the Australian economy FOR THE BETTER. You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs & interest rates just happened to be those eggs. BTW in 96 when Howard took over those rates were back down to 12/13 % & only feel the same amount again in Howard's 11 years. but you arent pretending to rewrite history and so that is fine. keating did a reasonably good job. he did have the highest interest rates. I dont mind debating facts but it it nice of facts remain consistent.

Which brings us full circle

Do you agree with the facts contained in the article?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:34pm: Quote: Well I'll adress the re-writing in the next point, but to be clear Keating has that record because he totally remodelled the Australian economy FOR THE BETTER. You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs & interest rates just happened to be those eggs. BTW in 96 when Howard took over those rates were back down to 12/13 % & only feel the same amount again in Howard's 11 years. but you arent pretending to rewrite history and so that is fine. keating did a reasonably good job. he did have the highest interest rates. I dont mind debating facts but it it nice of facts remain consistent. :( I was looking forward to seein you try to get your self out of explaining howard's iraq comments posted by dsmithy. Oh well. You always run away when it gets too hard :(

you might also find i take one topic at a time. Howard messed up with iraq in the rationale. Whether he was right or wrong is a different matter. But apparently voter opinion only matters to labor supporters when it suits them. When they discover pricnipled positions then politics might change for the better.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:34pm: Quote: Well I'll adress the re-writing in the next point, but to be clear Keating has that record because he totally remodelled the Australian economy FOR THE BETTER. You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs & interest rates just happened to be those eggs. BTW in 96 when Howard took over those rates were back down to 12/13 % & only feel the same amount again in Howard's 11 years. but you arent pretending to rewrite history and so that is fine. keating did a reasonably good job. he did have the highest interest rates. I dont mind debating facts but it it nice of facts remain consistent. Which brings us full circle Do you agree with the facts contained in the article?

Interest rates under Thatcher were 17% and yet the neo cons hold her up as the rolled gold standard to judge all govts by.
World interest rates were high during that period and Australia was no different.
Interest rates were plummeting in Keatings last yr in govt so we can thank Keatings changes for the falling rates.
The high interest rates peaked when Hawke was PM just as they did in the same period under Thatcher and Reagan

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:34pm: Quote: Well I'll adress the re-writing in the next point, but to be clear Keating has that record because he totally remodelled the Australian economy FOR THE BETTER. You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs & interest rates just happened to be those eggs. BTW in 96 when Howard took over those rates were back down to 12/13 % & only feel the same amount again in Howard's 11 years. but you arent pretending to rewrite history and so that is fine. keating did a reasonably good job. he did have the highest interest rates. I dont mind debating facts but it it nice of facts remain consistent. :( I was looking forward to seein you try to get your self out of explaining howard's iraq comments posted by dsmithy. Oh well. You always run away when it gets too hard :( you might also find i take one topic at a time. Howard messed up with iraq in the rationale. Whether he was right or wrong is a different matter. But apparently voter opinion only matters to labor supporters when it suits them. When they discover pricnipled positions then politics might change for the better.

Smithy was more referring to this, which is what you were asked to comment on:


Quote:

REWRITING HISTORY John Howard gave a speech this week about his decision to go to war in Iraq. Refusing any of the criticism of the decision, he said the belief in weapons of mass destruction was the government's main justification for war. It may seem like a distant, irrelevant historical detail now, but it cannot be left unchallenged. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the allied invasion was ''unexpected," according to Howard. The belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's was ''near universal'' at the time. In speeches at the time he cited "recent production of chemical and biological weapons," and said that all key aspects of the program were larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War in 1991. Howard and Downer asserted that the threat to the world from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was both great and immediate. In this morning's Age, former secretary to the Intelligence Committee (2002-2007), Margaret Swieringa, calls him out. "None of these arguments were true," writes Swierenga. "None of the government's arguments were supported by the intelligence presented to it by its own agencies." Her analysis is clinical. Australian intelligence saw the same overseas reports that Howard did, and incorporated them into their assessments (as Andrew Wilkie explained when he first blew the whistle). Howard ignored the advice of his own agencies to send Australia to an illegal war. Now he is engaged in a mendacious and dangerous attempt to rewrite history. Nick Feik, EDITOR

Now, please, care to offer 2 cents on the article and its substance? Your previous attempt steered far from it.

Also, while you're at it, care to comments on the stats presented in the OP?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:34pm: Quote: Well I'll adress the re-writing in the next point, but to be clear Keating has that record because he totally remodelled the Australian economy FOR THE BETTER. You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs & interest rates just happened to be those eggs. BTW in 96 when Howard took over those rates were back down to 12/13 % & only feel the same amount again in Howard's 11 years. but you arent pretending to rewrite history and so that is fine. keating did a reasonably good job. he did have the highest interest rates. I dont mind debating facts but it it nice of facts remain consistent. :( I was looking forward to seein you try to get your self out of explaining howard's iraq comments posted by dsmithy. Oh well. You always run away when it gets too hard :( you might also find i take one topic at a time. Howard messed up with iraq in the rationale. Whether he was right or wrong is a different matter. But apparently voter opinion only matters to labor supporters when it suits them. When they discover pricnipled positions then politics might change for the better. Smithy was more referring to this, which is what you were asked to comment on: [quote]REWRITING HISTORY John Howard gave a speech this week about his decision to go to war in Iraq. Refusing any of the criticism of the decision, he said the belief in weapons of mass destruction was the government's main justification for war. It may seem like a distant, irrelevant historical detail now, but it cannot be left unchallenged. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the allied invasion was ''unexpected," according to Howard. The belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's was ''near universal'' at the time. In speeches at the time he cited "recent production of chemical and biological weapons," and said that all key aspects of the program were larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War in 1991. Howard and Downer asserted that the threat to the world from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was both great and immediate. In this morning's Age, former secretary to the Intelligence Committee (2002-2007), Margaret Swieringa, calls him out. "None of these arguments were true," writes Swierenga. "None of the government's arguments were supported by the intelligence presented to it by its own agencies." Her analysis is clinical. Australian intelligence saw the same overseas reports that Howard did, and incorporated them into their assessments (as Andrew Wilkie explained when he first blew the whistle). Howard ignored the advice of his own agencies to send Australia to an illegal war. Now he is engaged in a mendacious and dangerous attempt to rewrite history. Nick Feik, EDITOR

Now, please, care to offer 2 cents on the article and its substance? Your previous attempt steered far from it.

Also, while you're at it, care to comments on the stats presented in the OP?
[/quote]


I think Longy is right here Al
Lets keep this thread on the OP, I really want to see either the OP shredded, which shouldn't be too hard as the economy is ruined(apparently according to Tone)
Or I look forward to those honest enough doing a Mea Culpa on Tony rhetoric.

start up an Iraq one it would also be fun to watch the dancing around those FACTS as well. ;)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:55pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:47pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:34pm: Quote: Well I'll adress the re-writing in the next point, but to be clear Keating has that record because he totally remodelled the Australian economy FOR THE BETTER. You cannot make an omelet without breaking a few eggs & interest rates just happened to be those eggs. BTW in 96 when Howard took over those rates were back down to 12/13 % & only feel the same amount again in Howard's 11 years. but you arent pretending to rewrite history and so that is fine. keating did a reasonably good job. he did have the highest interest rates. I dont mind debating facts but it it nice of facts remain consistent. :( I was looking forward to seein you try to get your self out of explaining howard's iraq comments posted by dsmithy. Oh well. You always run away when it gets too hard :( you might also find i take one topic at a time. Howard messed up with iraq in the rationale. Whether he was right or wrong is a different matter. But apparently voter opinion only matters to labor supporters when it suits them. When they discover pricnipled positions then politics might change for the better. Smithy was more referring to this, which is what you were asked to comment on: [quote]REWRITING HISTORY John Howard gave a speech this week about his decision to go to war in Iraq. Refusing any of the criticism of the decision, he said the belief in weapons of mass destruction was the government's main justification for war. It may seem like a distant, irrelevant historical detail now, but it cannot be left unchallenged. The failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq after the allied invasion was ''unexpected," according to Howard. The belief that Saddam Hussein possessed WMD's was ''near universal'' at the time. In speeches at the time he cited "recent production of chemical and biological weapons," and said that all key aspects of the program were larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War in 1991. Howard and Downer asserted that the threat to the world from Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was both great and immediate. In this morning's Age, former secretary to the Intelligence Committee (2002-2007), Margaret Swieringa, calls him out. "None of these arguments were true," writes Swierenga. "None of the government's arguments were supported by the intelligence presented to it by its own agencies." Her analysis is clinical. Australian intelligence saw the same overseas reports that Howard did, and incorporated them into their assessments (as Andrew Wilkie explained when he first blew the whistle). Howard ignored the advice of his own agencies to send Australia to an illegal war. Now he is engaged in a mendacious and dangerous attempt to rewrite history. Nick Feik, EDITOR Now, please, care to offer 2 cents on the article and its substance? Your previous attempt steered far from it. Also, while you're at it, care to comments on the stats presented in the OP?

I think Longy is right here Al
Lets keep this thread on the OP, I really want to see either the OP shredded, which shouldn't be too hard as the economy is ruined(apparently according to Tone)
Or I look forward to those honest enough doing a Mea Culpa on Tony rhetoric.

start up an Iraq one it would also be fun to watch the dancing around those FACTS as well. ;)[/quote]

you're right, in the interest of this thread, I'll leave Iraq as is, but the OP should definitely be kept bumped at the top. I just find it very interesting that when presented with stats they seem to steer as far away from here as possible. Longy makes an attempt, but only to try to discredit the author who had nothing to do with the stats.

Another busy day at work I see....

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:08pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 3:00pm: Its Really very simple Mr Weekend. If as you say the author is bias & cannot be trusted then do this Quote: – Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent). This is a load of crap, & here is a link which proves the falsehood of above [quote]– Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000. Again false, here is a quote from XXX speaking in this article[url][/url]which proves it ETC ETC

it is the rewriting of history I am objecting to. Fraser left $9B debt. that is indisputable and not even soemthing to argue... well you'd think  anyhow. Somehow, in the mind of the buffoon that semes to so often be a pro-labor writer, $9B becomes $40B. if you want to use the CPI adjusted figure then it was $19B out of the $96B.

it is just this remarkable and frankly dangerous rewriting of history that shoudl be of some concern to everyone. just like keating had the highest mortage rates (not Howard). keating left $96B of debt. But apparently, there is a new desire to change all those facts to somehow make the ALP look better.

To be non-partisan then I would now quote an example of a liberal rewriting labor past history. Only problem is I cant find one. If there is one I would condemn it just as much. We only have history once but apparently it is no longer considered static. history is free to be rewritten.[/quote]

Where is debt mentioned in this article, longy.

So MOTR label Tony's "COMMENTS" as wrecking ball

But fails to label the carbon tax as a wrecking ball?

You mean Tony is THAT powerful that his comment is a wrecking ball to the economy

But yet MOTR cannot bring himself/herself to label Labor's disastrous 6 years in government as a wrecking ball?

Over to you MOTR

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:16pm:

Another busy day at work I see....

You'll notice my contributions don't start until about 2.45pm
my pressing work is done & I've delegated the rest.
Perks that come with seniority ;)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:27pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:16pm: Another busy day at work I see.... You'll notice my contributions don't start until about 2.45pm my pressing work is done & I've delegated the rest. Perks that come with seniority ;)

;D  ;D Or driving taxi's  ;D

woody2014 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:32pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:27pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:16pm: Another busy day at work I see.... You'll notice my contributions don't start until about 2.45pm my pressing work is done & I've delegated the rest. Perks that come with seniority ;) ;D  ;D Or driving taxi's  ;D

What ever helps you get through ;)

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:57pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:31pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:16pm: of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens. I might give that some credence if you hadn't been ignoring the biggest global collapse since the great depression for the last 6 years. Cake & eating  again gfc didnt last 6 years nor did it start in 2007. it went for no more than a year in mosyt places and never even arrived here. If that were not the case then there would have at least been a recession. you listen to too many northern hemispshere commentators who forget the rest of the world which were largely unaffected other than by the dip in trade from the economic dunderheads up north. we are not stil lin the GFC now. Or how long are you going to use that argument? It lasted a year? most countries still have not recovered , it wasn't a party or a conference you know? It didn't affect all of the world but it DID affect most of our trading partners. ... we went from a strong market for our goods to no market , if it was a business and it was able to incur a little debt but set itself up to recover you'd be praising the manager as very competant ... the only reason you b1tch is because it's labor ........ the 2004 tsunami didnt last 9 years but they are still recovering. the GFC is well and truly over and has been for years now.

pippylonglosser has spoken ... let it be so!

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:35pm:

woody2014 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:32pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:27pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:16pm: Another busy day at work I see.... You'll notice my contributions don't start until about 2.45pm my pressing work is done & I've delegated the rest. Perks that come with seniority ;) ;D  ;D Or driving taxi's  ;D What ever helps you get through ;)

Ah well that's sitting on the veranda ,watching the trees grow and listening to the birds sing .. Retirement's not so bad  ;) ;)

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

John Smith wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:31pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 2:16pm: of course the fact the the worst post war global recession was in 82/83 is ignored just as is the fact that it followed on frmo a decade of global economic stagnation. all that context is conveniently ignored and suddenly $9B becaomes $40B.  pure nonsens. I might give that some credence if you hadn't been ignoring the biggest global collapse since the great depression for the last 6 years. Cake & eating  again gfc didnt last 6 years nor did it start in 2007. it went for no more than a year in mosyt places and never even arrived here. If that were not the case then there would have at least been a recession. you listen to too many northern hemispshere commentators who forget the rest of the world which were largely unaffected other than by the dip in trade from the economic dunderheads up north. we are not stil lin the GFC now. Or how long are you going to use that argument? It lasted a year? most countries still have not recovered , it wasn't a party or a conference you know? It didn't affect all of the world but it DID affect most of our trading partners. ... we went from a strong market for our goods to no market , if it was a business and it was able to incur a little debt but set itself up to recover you'd be praising the manager as very competant ... the only reason you b1tch is because it's labor ........ ive managed businesses for decades. I have borrow money in slumps too so I know what it means. the difference is I only borrowed what i needed and demanded a proper return fot he money AND I had pans to pay it off. Sound familiar? no it doesnt. labor never repays its debts or even seeks value for money. it only wants to SPEND.

leave the political speak out if you ever hope to be taken seriously ... of course they had plans to pay it back ... if you borrowed to help you get through slumps and then your projected turnover for the next period doesn't eventuate, are you able to pay of the loans? or do you shut your doors and cry broke?

It is scheduled to transition to a market mechanism in 2015 - well after the next election.

At the moment it is a tax, and Labor promised to not introduce it.

A swing voter can see it from both sides.

Why the hell would anyone give their undying support to either side?

I take each election on its merits, and neither party will ever get my vote without deserving it.

john_g wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

It is scheduled to transition to a market mechanism in 2015 - well after the next election. At the moment it is a tax, and Labor promised to not introduce it. A swing voter can see it from both sides. Why the hell would anyone give their undying support to either side? I take each election on its merits, and neither party will ever get my vote without deserving it.

Oh FFS its closer to a fine than a tax.

Anyway stop trying to divert, prove the economy is tanking due to it by refuting the facts set out in the OP or admit you really just don't like Gillard, couldn't give a toss about the country & want Abbott as PM.

A little bit of honesty would go a long way >:(

john_g wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:46pm:

It is scheduled to transition to a market mechanism in 2015 - well after the next election. At the moment it is a tax, and Labor promised to not introduce it. A swing voter can see it from both sides. Why the hell would anyone give their undying support to either side? I take each election on its merits, and neither party will ever get my vote without deserving it.

Aha, sure. Tony deserves your vote? ;D

It is a tax only by name. That's all there is to it.

DO you or DO YOU NOT agree with the stats in the OP?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:46pm: It is scheduled to transition to a market mechanism in 2015 - well after the next election. At the moment it is a tax, and Labor promised to not introduce it. A swing voter can see it from both sides. Why the hell would anyone give their undying support to either side? I take each election on its merits, and neither party will ever get my vote without deserving it. Aha, sure. Tony deserves your vote? ;D It is a tax only by name. That's all there is to it. DO you or DO YOU NOT agree with the stats in the OP?

As I have said, I am most likely going to be votimg informally.

That is not all there is to it, it effectively is a tax now, scheduled to transition in 2015.

I already answered that - by and large, I completely agree that Abbott has lied about the effects, but it's too hypocritical coming from someone from Labor.

Abbott and Gillard both take the electorate for mugs, IMO. I see Abbott as the lesser of two evils.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:46pm: It is scheduled to transition to a market mechanism in 2015 - well after the next election. At the moment it is a tax, and Labor promised to not introduce it. A swing voter can see it from both sides. Why the hell would anyone give their undying support to either side? I take each election on its merits, and neither party will ever get my vote without deserving it. Oh FFS its closer to a fine than a tax. Anyway stop trying to divert, prove the economy is tanking due to it by refuting the facts set out in the OP or admit you really just don't like Gillard, couldn't give a toss about the country & want Abbott as PM. A little bit of honesty would go a long way >:(

I already said I agreed with the OP.

john_g wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:51pm: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:46pm: It is scheduled to transition to a market mechanism in 2015 - well after the next election. At the moment it is a tax, and Labor promised to not introduce it. A swing voter can see it from both sides. Why the hell would anyone give their undying support to either side? I take each election on its merits, and neither party will ever get my vote without deserving it. Aha, sure. Tony deserves your vote? ;D It is a tax only by name. That's all there is to it. DO you or DO YOU NOT agree with the stats in the OP? As I have said, I am most likely going to be votimg informally. That is not all there is to it, it effectively is a tax now, scheduled to transition in 2015. I already answered that - by and large, I completely agree that Abbott has lied about the effects, but it's too hypocritical coming from someone from Labor. Abbott and Gillard both take the electorate for mugs, IMO. I see Abbott as the lesser of two evils.

Did you attend the pro carbon rally?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:02pm:

john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 5:00pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:51pm: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:46pm: It is scheduled to transition to a market mechanism in 2015 - well after the next election. At the moment it is a tax, and Labor promised to not introduce it. A swing voter can see it from both sides. Why the hell would anyone give their undying support to either side? I take each election on its merits, and neither party will ever get my vote without deserving it. Aha, sure. Tony deserves your vote? ;D It is a tax only by name. That's all there is to it. DO you or DO YOU NOT agree with the stats in the OP? As I have said, I am most likely going to be votimg informally. That is not all there is to it, it effectively is a tax now, scheduled to transition in 2015. I already answered that - by and large, I completely agree that Abbott has lied about the effects, but it's too hypocritical coming from someone from Labor. Abbott and Gillard both take the electorate for mugs, IMO. I see Abbott as the lesser of two evils. Did you attend the pro carbon rally?

What?

Makka wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 4:24pm:

So MOTR label Tony's "COMMENTS" as wrecking ball But fails to label the carbon tax as a wrecking ball? You mean Tony is THAT powerful that his comment is a wrecking ball to the economy But yet MOTR cannot bring himself/herself to label Labor's disastrous 6 years in government as a wrecking ball? Over to you MOTR

That's the point, Maqqa. The carbon tax hasnt been a wrecking ball, despite Abbott talking down the economy at every opportunity. Now how about you address the facts presented in the article.

Since the GFC our economy has grown by 20%. That's about double the growth experienced by the US, Candada, the UK, New Zealand the European Union and most other countries we are normally compared with. Far from disastrous wouldn't you say.

MOTR wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:04pm:

Makka wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:24pm: So MOTR label Tony's "COMMENTS" as wrecking ball But fails to label the carbon tax as a wrecking ball? You mean Tony is THAT powerful that his comment is a wrecking ball to the economy But yet MOTR cannot bring himself/herself to label Labor's disastrous 6 years in government as a wrecking ball? Over to you MOTR That's the point, Maqqa. The carbon tax hasnt been a wrecking ball, despite Abbott talking down the economy at every opportunity. Now how about you address the facts presented in the article. Since the GFC our economy has grown by 20%. That's about double the growth experienced by the US, Candada, the UK, New Zealand the European Union and most other countries we are normally compared with. Far from disastrous wouldn't you say.

The dummy completely missed the stats that show the results of the carbon tax on the economy. Don't bother with him.

john_g wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:51pm: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:46pm: It is scheduled to transition to a market mechanism in 2015 - well after the next election. At the moment it is a tax, and Labor promised to not introduce it. A swing voter can see it from both sides. Why the hell would anyone give their undying support to either side? I take each election on its merits, and neither party will ever get my vote without deserving it. Oh FFS its closer to a fine than a tax. Anyway stop trying to divert, prove the economy is tanking due to it by refuting the facts set out in the OP or admit you really just don't like Gillard, couldn't give a toss about the country & want Abbott as PM. A little bit of honesty would go a long way >:( I already said I agreed with the OP.

So if I understand correctly,

You acknowledge the economy has been managed very well for the term of both Labor governments(Rudd/Gillard)

You also acknowledge that despite being assured by Tony Abbott that we would be facing massive unemployment & business closures leading to a massive recession.
Business would flee overseas & our resource sector would be worthless, that the posted article staying that the economy has done the exact opposite & provide figures are all true.

But your still upset that Gillard apparently has added to your yearly taxation bill.
She Lied & your pissed.

Do you think Tony lied to you regarding the outcome of the Carbon tax?
Are you just as outraged?

Your never voting Labor because they apparently lied

Are you ever voting Coalition again?

MOTR wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:04pm:

Makka wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:24pm: So MOTR label Tony's "COMMENTS" as wrecking ball But fails to label the carbon tax as a wrecking ball? You mean Tony is THAT powerful that his comment is a wrecking ball to the economy But yet MOTR cannot bring himself/herself to label Labor's disastrous 6 years in government as a wrecking ball? Over to you MOTR That's the point, Maqqa. The carbon tax hasnt been a wrecking ball, despite Abbott talking down the economy at every opportunity. Now how about you address the facts presented in the article. Since the GFC our economy has grown by 20%. That's about double the growth experienced by the US, Candada, the UK, New Zealand the European Union and most other countries we are normally compared with. Far from disastrous wouldn't you say.

Pricing greenhouse gases has created new jobs and industries as well as giving a boost to the profits of farmers and businesses who can claim carbon credits paid for by pricing greenhouse gases.
Its proof that we can do very well without treating our atmosphere as an open sewer and selling off the future of generations to come to the heavy polluters.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:58pm:

john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 5:01pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:51pm: john_g wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:46pm: It is scheduled to transition to a market mechanism in 2015 - well after the next election. At the moment it is a tax, and Labor promised to not introduce it. A swing voter can see it from both sides. Why the hell would anyone give their undying support to either side? I take each election on its merits, and neither party will ever get my vote without deserving it. Oh FFS its closer to a fine than a tax. Anyway stop trying to divert, prove the economy is tanking due to it by refuting the facts set out in the OP or admit you really just don't like Gillard, couldn't give a toss about the country & want Abbott as PM. A little bit of honesty would go a long way >:( I already said I agreed with the OP. So if I understand correctly, You acknowledge the economy has been managed very well for the term of both Labor governments(Rudd/Gillard) You also acknowledge that despite being assured by Tony Abbott that we would be facing massive unemployment & business closures leading to a massive recession. Business would flee overseas & our resource sector would be worthless, that the posted article staying that the economy has done the exact opposite & provide figures are all true. But your still upset that Gillard apparently has added to your yearly taxation bill. She Lied & your pissed. Do you think Tony lied to you regarding the outcome of the Carbon tax? Are you just as outraged? Your never voting Labor because they apparently lied Are you ever voting Coalition again?

I meant I agreed aboutAbbott lying about the damage.

I don't rate Gillard and swan at all for their handling of the economy, you have to remember that we have had a mining boom recently, I am not giving them credit for something that they haven't achieved.

Labor has delivered the four biggest deficits in the last 4 years, and is borrowing every day.

NDIS? Great idea, but how are they going to pay for it?

I never said I would never vote Labor again. I said that it would be unlikely and would only consider doing so when all of this lot are long gone.

I will reserve judgment on the Coalition when they actually are in power, and assess the job they do.

As it stands, I can't see myself voting for an Abbott government. I would definitely be voting Liberal if Turnbull or Bishop were leading.

So the GFC didn't happen and there was no reason for these deficits, john_g

http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AbbottTheHabbit.jpg

MOTR wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:04pm:

Makka wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:24pm: So MOTR label Tony's "COMMENTS" as wrecking ball But fails to label the carbon tax as a wrecking ball? You mean Tony is THAT powerful that his comment is a wrecking ball to the economy But yet MOTR cannot bring himself/herself to label Labor's disastrous 6 years in government as a wrecking ball? Over to you MOTR That's the point, Maqqa. The carbon tax hasnt been a wrecking ball, despite Abbott talking down the economy at every opportunity. Now how about you address the facts presented in the article. Since the GFC our economy has grown by 20%. That's about double the growth experienced by the US, Candada, the UK, New Zealand the European Union and most other countries we are normally compared with. Far from disastrous wouldn't you say.

Prices = Costs + Profits + Carbon Tax

Due to the carbon tax - Australians did not benefited from lower prices due to the downturn in the business cycle

And who used the term "wrecking ball"

Abbott?

GDP grew by 20% for the 6 years
(1) Australia grew by 100% during the Howard years
(2) There's a difference between countries impacted directly from the GFC and Australia who was not impacted directly
(3) If you compare Australia with the US - it's like comparing someone with an itch (Aust) with someone who has leprosy (US) saying it's the same thing

Quote:

Tony Abbott's backflips in carbon tax claim Under fire over claims he has over-egged the impact of the carbon tax, Mr Abbott yesterday conceded the world had not ended on July 1. "Yes, the initial impact of the carbon tax may not be absolutely catastrophic," he told the Tasmanian Liberal Party State Conference. Mr Abbott has previously suggested the carbon tax would act "as a wrecking ball across the economy", that it would "wipe out jobs big-time" and referred to suggestions Whyalla may be "wiped off the map".

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/tony-abbotts-backflips-in-carbon-tax-claim/story-fndo317g-1226458099559

Well so far we have had longie have a go and completely miss the brief. Anyone else want to explain how the carbon tax has wrecked the economy, as per Tony's predictions? 

Makka wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 8:45am:

MOTR wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 5:04pm: Makka wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:24pm: So MOTR label Tony's "COMMENTS" as wrecking ball But fails to label the carbon tax as a wrecking ball? You mean Tony is THAT powerful that his comment is a wrecking ball to the economy But yet MOTR cannot bring himself/herself to label Labor's disastrous 6 years in government as a wrecking ball? Over to you MOTR That's the point, Maqqa. The carbon tax hasnt been a wrecking ball, despite Abbott talking down the economy at every opportunity. Now how about you address the facts presented in the article. Since the GFC our economy has grown by 20%. That's about double the growth experienced by the US, Candada, the UK, New Zealand the European Union and most other countries we are normally compared with. Far from disastrous wouldn't you say. Prices = Costs + Profits + Carbon Tax Due to the carbon tax - Australians did not benefited from lower prices due to the downturn in the business cycle And who used the term "wrecking ball" Abbott? GDP grew by 20% for the 6 years (1) Australia grew by 100% during the Howard years (2) There's a difference between countries impacted directly from the GFC and Australia who was not impacted directly (3) If you compare Australia with the US - it's like comparing someone with an itch (Aust) with someone who has leprosy (US) saying it's the same thing

but if the person with the itch depends on the person with the leprosy to sell their products, and they cannot because he person has become diseased and can no longer function .... the leprosy has then affected both parties either directly or indirectly. Pull your head out .

John Smith wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 11:45am:

Makka wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 8:45am: MOTR wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 5:04pm: Makka wrote on Apr 12th, 2013 at 4:24pm: So MOTR label Tony's "COMMENTS" as wrecking ball But fails to label the carbon tax as a wrecking ball? You mean Tony is THAT powerful that his comment is a wrecking ball to the economy But yet MOTR cannot bring himself/herself to label Labor's disastrous 6 years in government as a wrecking ball? Over to you MOTR That's the point, Maqqa. The carbon tax hasnt been a wrecking ball, despite Abbott talking down the economy at every opportunity. Now how about you address the facts presented in the article. Since the GFC our economy has grown by 20%. That's about double the growth experienced by the US, Candada, the UK, New Zealand the European Union and most other countries we are normally compared with. Far from disastrous wouldn't you say. Prices = Costs + Profits + Carbon Tax Due to the carbon tax - Australians did not benefited from lower prices due to the downturn in the business cycle And who used the term "wrecking ball" Abbott? GDP grew by 20% for the 6 years (1) Australia grew by 100% during the Howard years (2) There's a difference between countries impacted directly from the GFC and Australia who was not impacted directly (3) If you compare Australia with the US - it's like comparing someone with an itch (Aust) with someone who has leprosy (US) saying it's the same thing but if the person with the itch depends on the person with the leprosy to sell their products, and they cannot because he person has become diseased and can no longer function .... the leprosy has then affected both parties either directly or indirectly. Pull your head out .

Prices = Costs + Profits + Carbon Tax

John, that tells us enough about the moron to know not to bother with him.

Bump

You have a habit of disputing a fact then running away when you can't explain why you dispute it.

Here your chance to play like a grown up.
What specifically do you disagree with the below about to flail your wrists about lisping "don't bother wif him, heeth a morwon"
Prices = Costs + Profits + Carbon Tax

an equation with 3 variables have confounded ale

just to show how stupid you are

Makka wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:01pm:

an equation with 3 variables have confounded ale just to show how stupid you are

Oh I get your dumb ass equation and what your suggesting.  Which is why I'm saying you're a dumb ass, because if howdumb your simplification is.  Only a moron can think the way u do.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

Makka wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:01pm: an equation with 3 variables have confounded ale just to show how stupid you are Oh I get your dumb ass equation and what your suggesting.  Which is why I'm saying you're a dumb ass, because if howdumb your simplification is.  Only a moron can think the way u do.

Explain why you think it is dumb...

Political Animal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:16pm: Makka wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:01pm: an equation with 3 variables have confounded ale just to show how stupid you are Oh I get your dumb ass equation and what your suggesting.  Which is why I'm saying you're a dumb ass, because if howdumb your simplification is.  Only a moron can think the way u do. Explain why you think it is dumb...

because the correct formulae is

Prices = Costs + Profits

trying to embellish for political gain is dumb.

Are you Palewhine or does he just have his fist in your arse?

Political Animal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:17pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:16pm: Makka wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:01pm: an equation with 3 variables have confounded ale just to show how stupid you are Oh I get your dumb ass equation and what your suggesting.  Which is why I'm saying you're a dumb ass, because if howdumb your simplification is.  Only a moron can think the way u do. Explain why you think it is dumb...

Because prices depend on a lot of variables and to sugges that the carbon tax is treated seperately somehow to other costs is just plain dumb.  On top of that if he really wants to demonstrate his point he can add to the equation, "government subsidy.". Tell me, what happens to dumbassses equation when you include subsidy in the equation?  Oh, and there's no such thing as a profit price and businesses don't just increase profit prices as dumbass suggested.

Care to comment on the stats?  Or are you onto the second slab and feeling it a little?

What stats? You haven't provided any.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

Political Animal wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:16pm: Makka wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:01pm: an equation with 3 variables have confounded ale just to show how stupid you are Oh I get your dumb ass equation and what your suggesting.  Which is why I'm saying you're a dumb ass, because if howdumb your simplification is.  Only a moron can think the way u do. Explain why you think it is dumb... Because prices depend on a lot of variables and to sugges that the carbon tax is treated seperately somehow to other costs is just plain dumb.  On top of that if he really wants to demonstrate his point he can add to the equation, "government subsidy.". Tell me, what happens to dumbassses equation when you include subsidy in the equation?  Oh, and there's no such thing as a profit price and businesses don't just increase profit prices as dumbass suggested. Care to comment on the stats?  Or are you onto the second slab and feeling it a little?

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/profit-pricing.html

You're not very bright, are you.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

Or are you onto the second slab and feeling it a little?

He's feeling something "little" alright, but I suspect that has more to do with the kids next door.

That's what 7 years in a cell will do to ya I guess.

:-/

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

[quote author=alevine link=1365533822/141#141 date=1365845736]Or are you onto the second slab and feeling it a little?

*DELETED*

Political Animal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:36pm:

What stats? You haven't provided any.

Read the op dumbass.

Political Animal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:38pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:35pm: Political Animal wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:16pm: Makka wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:01pm: an equation with 3 variables have confounded ale just to show how stupid you are Oh I get your dumb ass equation and what your suggesting.  Which is why I'm saying you're a dumb ass, because if howdumb your simplification is.  Only a moron can think the way u do. Explain why you think it is dumb... Because prices depend on a lot of variables and to sugges that the carbon tax is treated seperately somehow to other costs is just plain dumb.  On top of that if he really wants to demonstrate his point he can add to the equation, "government subsidy.". Tell me, what happens to dumbassses equation when you include subsidy in the equation?  Oh, and there's no such thing as a profit price and businesses don't just increase profit prices as dumbass suggested. Care to comment on the stats?  Or are you onto the second slab and feeling it a little? http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/profit-pricing.html You're not very bright, are you.

Thanks dipstick.  Read what I said and what dumbass suggested and then come back here.

Political Animal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

Are you Palewhine or does he just have his fist in your arse?

Noo... it just helps highlights your stupidity when everyone else can see it but you can't .

Political Animal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:40pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:38pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:35pm: Or are you onto the second slab and feeling it a little? He's feeling something "little" alright, but I suspect that has more to do with the kids next door. That's what 7 years in a cell will do to ya I guess. :-/ *DELETED*

Ah, the old "I Know you are but what am I?" defence.

Nice.  Very mature.

*DELETED*
Sorry.

Quote:

Oh, and there's no such thing as a profit price

Seems pretty clear to me. You have no idea what you are talking about.

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:56pm:

Political Animal wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:40pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:38pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:35pm: Or are you onto the second slab and feeling it a little? He's feeling something "little" alright, but I suspect that has more to do with the kids next door. That's what 7 years in a cell will do to ya I guess. :-/ I'm guessing you'd know more about that than me. You've already pulled out a couple of your kiddy pics and posted them greggerrypeddo Ah, the old "I Know you are but what am I?" defence. Nice.  Very mature. The fact of the matter is I'm not the one who's spent 7 years inside for child sex offences. Sorry.

*DELETED*

Political Animal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:56pm: Political Animal wrote on Apr 13th, 2013 at 7:40pm: [quote author=greggerypeccary link=1365533822/144#144 date=1365845935][quote author=alevine link=1365533822/141#141 date=1365845736]Or are you onto the second slab and feeling it a little? *DELETED* Sorry. *Deleted*

That's a serious direct accusation to make about someone.  I think that will have to be reported.

I never made any such direct accusation about anyone, so I'm not sure why you went there.

Oh well.

Political Animal wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 7:58pm:

Quote: Oh, and there's no such thing as a profit price Seems pretty clear to me. You have no idea what you are talking about.

How dumbass describes it?  There isn't. 

Anyway, dipstick do you wish to explain the stats in the op?

Quote:

Oh well.

Already picked up and actioned. Next time, report it straight away. I'm going to edit the quote from your post and the original post.

Greggerypeddoey wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 8:19pm:

No matter. You're time is coming.

"Your"

'You're' means you are, and that just makes no sense in that sentence.

"Your time is coming" is what you meant to say.

Stop quoting him please

Greggerypeddoey wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 8:26pm:

You're next snailslime

Careful little boy.  That'll give you detention.

wrote on :

Sorry.

How does one put this??

---

Lobo wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 8:55pm:

How does one put this??

Exactly.

muso wrote on Apr 13^th, 2013 at 8:05pm:

Quote: Oh well. Already picked up and actioned. Next time, report it straight away. I'm going to edit the quote from your post and the original post.

Isnt that "winging"?

SOB