Sure way to surplus: tax the people as Howard did    

    by: Craig Emerson
    From: The Australian
    May 18, 2013

 

YOU could see this one coming: the opposition claiming the budget's economic projections are unreliable and it will therefore wait until the release of the pre-election economic and fiscal outlook 10 days into the election campaign before setting out its costed policies and savings decisions.      :-?

Better still, why tell the Australian people of your true intentions before an election when you can establish a post-election audit commission and unleash the full array of cuts to an unsuspecting public?      

In his budget reply, Tony Abbott confirmed he would go down the same path as the Newman government's audit commission that is chaired by former federal treasurer Peter Costello. It is a device to declare all bets are off, justifying the repudiation of any and all pre-election promises.

As foreshadowed by the Prime Minister at her Press Club speech in January, this week's budget sets out the structural savings decisions needed to ensure long-term fiscal sustainability while making room for major new investments in schools and disability services.


These savings decisions include paring back middle-class welfare, an efficiency dividend for universities and reductions in compensation for carbon pricing now the Australian emissions trading scheme is to be linked to the European scheme.

None of these decisions is popular but they are necessary in the face of an unusually high dollar and associated squeeze on company profits.

To dispel the myth Labor is a big-spending government, average growth in spending under Labor - which includes necessary stimulus spending during the global financial crisis - is almost identical to that of the previous Coalition government.

Over several budgets the Labor government has unwound the middle-class welfare extended during the first mining boom by the previous government. The real income levels at which family payments are phased out have been reduced, the private health insurance rebate has been means-tested and the Baby Bonus abolished and replaced with a more modest means-tested payment.      :)

The Coalition is complaining the budget was not brought into surplus this year. There was, in fact, a straightforward way of delivering a surplus in 2012-13: apply the same tax burden as the previous Coalition government did. The budget papers show the present tax burden is 21.5 per cent of GDP, sharply down from the 23.7 per cent in the last year of the previous government.

If the Gillard government were to impose the Coalition's tax burden on Australian businesses and households, revenue this year would be more than $32 billion greater and the budget would be in surplus by more than $12bn.

The Abbott-led opposition has voted against most of Labor's attempts to rein in middle-class welfare. This should not be surprising, since Abbott continues to condemn Labor's reductions in middle-class welfare as "attacking the middle class", describing the private health insurance rebate and family payments as "tax justice".

But the mother of all middle-class welfare policies is Abbott's paid parental leave scheme. Compared with Labor's affordable scheme, Abbott's gold-plated policy is targeted directly at higher income earners.    

It would be funded by a 1.5 percentage point increase in company tax for the 3200 businesses with incomes greater than $5 million. Many of those businesses already have their own paid parental leave schemes. They would neither want nor be able to scrap them, since they have been negotiated with employees through enterprise-bargaining rounds.

Based on costings from the Parliamentary Budget Office, Abbott's paid parental leave scheme would be a $5bn annual slug on business - or $20bn over a full budget period. Some major business groups have been remarkably sanguine about such an impost, having argued for years for a reduction in the company tax rate and now seemingly accepting a $20bn company tax hike.

They know, as Abbott does, that they can pass on most of the company tax rate increase to customers through higher checkout prices, higher interest rates for home buyers, consumers and small businesses, higher fuel prices and higher insurance premiums.      :(

To the extent that the Abbott cost impost could not be passed on, its burden would be felt by shareholders, including superannuation funds, through reduced dividends and capital gains.

Either way, major business organisations such as the Business Council of Australia and the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry seem relaxed and comfortable about the prospect of a hefty increase in the tax burden on the companies they purport to represent.

Craig Emerson is the Minister for Trade and Competitiveness.

Better still, why tell the Australian people of your true intentions before an election when you can establish a post-election audit commission and unleash the full array of cuts to an unsuspecting public?      :o

Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench.

What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor.

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 7:37am:

Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor.

The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until they reform themselves economically.

Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them

RightSadFred wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 7:43am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them

The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently.

Howard delivered surpluses through economic success

Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century.

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:13am:

RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL I GATHER? I WOULD GET RID OF IT IF I WERE YOU IT DIDNT DO WELL OVER THIS 6 YEARS DID IT? Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century.

DONT YOU THINK ITS TIME YOU WERE JUST A TINY BIT FAIR.... SWAN INHERITED FAR MORE THAN COSTELLO DID..HE HAD A SURPLUS TO START WITH.. PERHAPS HAD HE BEEN A BIT MORE PRUDENT HE WOULDNT BE WHERE HE IS NOW...44% IN THE POLLS....THE ECONOMY YOU KEEP GIVING COSTELLO CREDIT FOR INCREASED 3 FOLD DURING THE RUDD/GILLARD YEARS.... SWAN UPPED THE BABY BONUS WHY????? PAID MATERNITY LEAVE...WHY????? ITS ALL WELFARE THATS WHY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOATS....NUFF SAID..

JUST A LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE LIBS WOULDNT GO AMISS IT WASNT ALL GOOD FORTUNE FOR THEM AND LOUSY FORTUNE FOR LABOR  AND YOU KNOW IT.

Sure way to surplus: tax the people as Howard did    

    by: Craig Emerson
    From: The Australian
    May 18, 2013





does Mr Emmerson have another way of paying off the

BIGGEST DEBT IN AUSTRALIAS HISTORY.


why doesnt he tell us what he would do????? :-? :-?

Under the Howard Government the treasury underestimated the revenue intake providing Howard with a surplus he did not account for.....Howard promptly used this windfall to pork barrel and buy votes from a public that was ignorant to the fact Australia was living a lie about the true state of the economy.....Howard should have used the surplus to fund education and social reforms much like the Gillard Government has tried to do with Gonski the NDIS and Infrastructure spending to address the back log left by the Howard Government.....Tony Abbott has said he will not fund rail and will not embrace Gonski.....Tony Abbott is not the solution to a sustainable future for Australia and his constant referral to the Howard Government shows he will be another do nothing Prime Minister if elected.....Australia cannot afford another decade of doing nothing!!!

>:( >:( >:(

The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past.
Robertson Davies, "A Voice from the Attic", 1960

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:33am:

Under the Howard Government the treasury underestimated the revenue intake providing Howard with a surplus he did not account for.....Howard promptly used this windfall to pork barrel and buy votes from a public that was ignorant to the fact Australia was living a lie about the true state of the economy.....Howard should have used the surplus to fund education and social reforms much like the Gillard Government has tried to do with Gonski the NDIS and Infrastructure spending to address the back log left by the Howard Government.....Tony Abbott has said he will not fund rail and will not embrace Gonski.....Tony Abbott is not the solution to a sustainable future for Australia and his constant referral to the Howard Government shows he will be another do nothing Prime Minister if elected.....Australia cannot afford another decade of doing nothing!!! >:( >:( >:( The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past. Robertson Davies, "A Voice from the Attic", 1960

what did this last 6 years do???.. dont talk about NDIS that hasnt left the paper yet...

dont talk about baby bonus that they almost doubled or maternity leave...in the news everyone wants them GONE....they are both killers and you know it... what roads did they build... we kn ow we got a lot of fancy shades at schools..pity about gonski...how much did that report cost??? and again much ado about nothing......nothing changes phil....I am one of those that seeing is believing...bugger all this promising for 5 years hence..you can live on that I cant,.

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:33am:

Under the Howard Government the treasury underestimated the revenue intake providing Howard with a surplus he did not account for.....Howard promptly used this windfall to pork barrel and buy votes from a public that was ignorant to the fact Australia was living a lie about the true state of the economy.....Howard should have used the surplus to fund education and social reforms much like the Gillard Government has tried to do with Gonski the NDIS and Infrastructure spending to address the back log left by the Howard Government.....Tony Abbott has said he will not fund rail and will not embrace Gonski.....Tony Abbott is not the solution to a sustainable future for Australia and his constant referral to the Howard Government shows he will be another do nothing Prime Minister if elected.....Australia cannot afford another decade of doing nothing!!! >:( >:( >:( The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past. Robertson Davies, "A Voice from the Attic", 1960

Australia survived and functioned just fine under Howard thank you very much.

Under labor, Australia is a basket case of debt and poor policy.

Ill have the former thanks and Abbott can say he will get a surplus atleast another 250 times before we even bother to worry bout if he will get there.

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:33am:

Under the Howard Government the treasury underestimated the revenue intake providing Howard with a surplus he did not account for.....Howard promptly used this windfall to pork barrel and buy votes from a public that was ignorant to the fact Australia was living a lie about the true state of the economy.....Howard should have used the surplus to fund education and social reforms much like the Gillard Government has tried to do with Gonski the NDIS and Infrastructure spending to address the back log left by the Howard Government.....Tony Abbott has said he will not fund rail and will not embrace Gonski.....Tony Abbott is not the solution to a sustainable future for Australia and his constant referral to the Howard Government shows he will be another do nothing Prime Minister if elected.....Australia cannot afford another decade of doing nothing!!! >:( >:( >:( The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past. Robertson Davies, "A Voice from the Attic", 1960

philperth2010

I think he should have toned down the pork, but its a political reality ..... he used it very well to keep them in power for so long.

He did leave the nation with a surplus, the ALP could have started much of what you said back in 2007 but they blew it all on political motives as well.

So why does the ALP have a secret 400 million dollar election stash again ?

This supports my comments on the ALP, they have acted like an opposition since 2007 ..... its only just now they hae realised they are in government, just before they get booted out.

cods wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:24am:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:13am: RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL I GATHER? I WOULD GET RID OF IT IF I WERE YOU IT DIDNT DO WELL OVER THIS 6 YEARS DID IT? Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century. DONT YOU THINK ITS TIME YOU WERE JUST A TINY BIT FAIR.... SWAN INHERITED FAR MORE THAN COSTELLO DID..HE HAD A SURPLUS TO START WITH.. PERHAPS HAD HE BEEN A BIT MORE PRUDENT HE WOULDNT BE WHERE HE IS NOW...44% IN THE POLLS....THE ECONOMY YOU KEEP GIVING COSTELLO CREDIT FOR INCREASED 3 FOLD DURING THE RUDD/GILLARD YEARS.... SWAN UPPED THE BABY BONUS WHY????? PAID MATERNITY LEAVE...WHY????? ITS ALL WELFARE THATS WHY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOATS....NUFF SAID.. JUST A LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE LIBS WOULDNT GO AMISS IT WASNT ALL GOOD FORTUNE FOR THEM AND LOUSY FORTUNE FOR LABOR  AND YOU KNOW IT.

I have given Costello a lot of credit for the things he got right as Treasurer, Many times I have rated him in the top 2 treasurers we have had. It is however a fact that some of his success was due to the period he had but nothing he could have done about a bit of good luck, its not his fault Cods so don't feel too bad for him.

In my view Keating and Costello are the two best treasurers in my life time by a country mile. However they both did make mistakes and Costello was never really tested by bad conditions. (as I said that wasn't his fault).

cods

This is just a political non argument, without pork you don't get into government (or stay in it), look at the ALP during the Howard years ..... they played MeToo on everything Howard threw up during an election. For the part of the electorate that counts (swinging voters) their attention span is not the biggest so you need simple binary messages of what's in it for me.

Usually this is about 5-10% of the population, but with the ALP irrelevancy it looks more like 10-15%, FYI this presents a big risk to the Libs also.

The very reason most ignored Swan's abstract piece of work as the cupboard is bare. Why would a swinging voter be interested in a budget that offers them nothing ?

RightSadFred wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:43am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:33am: Under the Howard Government the treasury underestimated the revenue intake providing Howard with a surplus he did not account for.....Howard promptly used this windfall to pork barrel and buy votes from a public that was ignorant to the fact Australia was living a lie about the true state of the economy.....Howard should have used the surplus to fund education and social reforms much like the Gillard Government has tried to do with Gonski the NDIS and Infrastructure spending to address the back log left by the Howard Government.....Tony Abbott has said he will not fund rail and will not embrace Gonski.....Tony Abbott is not the solution to a sustainable future for Australia and his constant referral to the Howard Government shows he will be another do nothing Prime Minister if elected.....Australia cannot afford another decade of doing nothing!!! >:( >:( >:( The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past. Robertson Davies, "A Voice from the Attic", 1960 philperth2010 I think he should have toned down the pork, but its a political reality ..... he used it very well to keep them in power for so long. He did leave the nation with a surplus, the ALP could have started much of what you said back in 2007 but they blew it all on political motives as well. So why does the ALP have a secret 400 million dollar election stash again ? This supports my comments on the ALP, they have acted like an opposition since 2007 ..... its only just now they hae realised they are in government, just before they get booted out.

He did leave the nation with a surplus And an economy geared to fail.

He left a time bomb for Labor to wear.

cods wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:28am:

Sure way to surplus: tax the people as Howard did         by: Craig Emerson     From: The Australian     May 18, 2013 does Mr Emmerson have another way of paying off the BIGGEST DEBT IN AUSTRALIAS HISTORY. why doesnt he tell us what he would do????? :-? :-?

The Australian economy although robust is still being hit by a Global downturn that only the stupid or ignorant would dispute.....Australia has been able to maintain steady growth whilst most other nations have fallen into recession and will take many years to recover.....Australia needs to take advantage of our economic position and drive reform to boost our market share and forge ahead of our competitors.....Our debt is modest and can be sustained whilst the reforms needed are put in place to build the social and economic backbone that will ensure Australia is able to take advantage of our economic position.....Now is not the time to talk down the Australian economy and fall back to the pack with AUSTERITY.....Australia has a once in a lifetime opportunity to really become the smart country!!!

8-) 8-) 8-)

The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger - but recognize the opportunity.
John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963), Speech in Indianapolis, April 12, 1959

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:45am:

cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:13am: RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL I GATHER? I WOULD GET RID OF IT IF I WERE YOU IT DIDNT DO WELL OVER THIS 6 YEARS DID IT? Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century. DONT YOU THINK ITS TIME YOU WERE JUST A TINY BIT FAIR.... SWAN INHERITED FAR MORE THAN COSTELLO DID..HE HAD A SURPLUS TO START WITH.. PERHAPS HAD HE BEEN A BIT MORE PRUDENT HE WOULDNT BE WHERE HE IS NOW...44% IN THE POLLS....THE ECONOMY YOU KEEP GIVING COSTELLO CREDIT FOR INCREASED 3 FOLD DURING THE RUDD/GILLARD YEARS.... SWAN UPPED THE BABY BONUS WHY????? PAID MATERNITY LEAVE...WHY????? ITS ALL WELFARE THATS WHY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOATS....NUFF SAID.. JUST A LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE LIBS WOULDNT GO AMISS IT WASNT ALL GOOD FORTUNE FOR THEM AND LOUSY FORTUNE FOR LABOR  AND YOU KNOW IT. I have given Costello a lot of credit for the things he got right as Treasurer, Many times I have rated him in the top 2 treasurers we have had. It is however a fact that some of his success was due to the period he had but nothing he could have done about a bit of good luck, its not his fault Cods so don't feel too bad for him. In my view Keating and Costello are the two best treasurers in my life time by a country mile. However they both did make mistakes and Costello was never really tested by bad conditions. (as I said that wasn't his fault).

SORRY MATE I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN YOU GIVE ONE WORD OF CREDIT.. NOT ONE...AND I DOUBT VERY MUCH YOU WILL PROVIDE A LINK...SORRY MATE... AND YOU CLAIM IT WAS ALL EASY PEASY GOING FOR COSTELLO.. LOL....THE FACT THAT SWAN HAD TREB LE THE INCOME DOESNT EQUATE WITH YOU DOES IT?? DONT YOU THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE HELPED HIM OV ER THE MINI HUMP....

WE WERENT AFFECTED BY THE GFC REMEMBER? WE SAILED THROUGH IT...at least thats the message I kept getting.. ;)

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:03am:

cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:28am: Sure way to surplus: tax the people as Howard did         by: Craig Emerson     From: The Australian     May 18, 2013 does Mr Emmerson have another way of paying off the BIGGEST DEBT IN AUSTRALIAS HISTORY. why doesnt he tell us what he would do????? :-? :-? The Australian economy although robust is still being hit by a Global downturn that only the stupid or ignorant would dispute.....Australia has been able to maintain steady growth whilst most other nations have fallen into recession and will take many years to recover.....Australia needs to take advantage of our economic position and drive reform to boost our market share and forge ahead of our competitors.....Our debt is modest and can be sustained whilst the reforms needed are put in place to build the social and economic backbone that will ensure Australia is able to take advantage of our economic position.....Now is not the time to talk down the Australian economy and fall back to the pack with AUSTERITY.....Australia has a once in a lifetime opportunity to really become the smart country!!! 8-) 8-) 8-) The Chinese use two brush strokes to write the word 'crisis.' One brush stroke stands for danger; the other for opportunity. In a crisis, be aware of the danger - but recognize the opportunity. John F. Kennedy (1917 - 1963), Speech in Indianapolis, April 12, 1959

how interesting that swan has told us over and over we are sailing through this we are the envy of the world.. I am the greatest....

I will have a surplus... just you watch,..

I could not understand how we would escape the European crisis.......and I think I mentioned it a couple of years ago...same with employment business after business closing or culling yet the unemployment figures never changed...

I never could understand what this govt was saying it didnt add up at all...

yet now we are being told the reason for the debt is b ecause of the crisis.............


so why were we not more prepared???  we do after all have the resources

our debt is not modest.. phil we are a modest country,.... its huge for us....millions a week in interest....and we can t afford to give our unemployed a pay increase...

cods wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:04am:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:45am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:13am: RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL I GATHER? I WOULD GET RID OF IT IF I WERE YOU IT DIDNT DO WELL OVER THIS 6 YEARS DID IT? Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century. DONT YOU THINK ITS TIME YOU WERE JUST A TINY BIT FAIR.... SWAN INHERITED FAR MORE THAN COSTELLO DID..HE HAD A SURPLUS TO START WITH.. PERHAPS HAD HE BEEN A BIT MORE PRUDENT HE WOULDNT BE WHERE HE IS NOW...44% IN THE POLLS....THE ECONOMY YOU KEEP GIVING COSTELLO CREDIT FOR INCREASED 3 FOLD DURING THE RUDD/GILLARD YEARS.... SWAN UPPED THE BABY BONUS WHY????? PAID MATERNITY LEAVE...WHY????? ITS ALL WELFARE THATS WHY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOATS....NUFF SAID.. JUST A LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE LIBS WOULDNT GO AMISS IT WASNT ALL GOOD FORTUNE FOR THEM AND LOUSY FORTUNE FOR LABOR  AND YOU KNOW IT. I have given Costello a lot of credit for the things he got right as Treasurer, Many times I have rated him in the top 2 treasurers we have had. It is however a fact that some of his success was due to the period he had but nothing he could have done about a bit of good luck, its not his fault Cods so don't feel too bad for him. In my view Keating and Costello are the two best treasurers in my life time by a country mile. However they both did make mistakes and Costello was never really tested by bad conditions. (as I said that wasn't his fault). SORRY MATE I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN YOU GIVE ONE WORD OF CREDIT.. NOT ONE...AND I DOUBT VERY MUCH YOU WILL PROVIDE A LINK...SORRY MATE... AND YOU CLAIM IT WAS ALL EASY PEASY GOING FOR COSTELLO.. LOL....THE FACT THAT SWAN HAD TREB LE THE INCOME DOESNT EQUATE WITH YOU DOES IT?? DONT YOU THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE HELPED HIM OV ER THE MINI HUMP.... WE WERENT AFFECTED BY THE GFC REMEMBER? WE SAILED THROUGH IT...at least thats the message I kept getting.. ;)

Australia did better than most during the GFC because we did not embrace AUSTRITY like those nations that are now in recession.....Australia could reduce its debt and cut services to the bone to do so.....Do you think that would help or hurt our economy in the long term???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:12am:

cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:04am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:45am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:13am: RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL I GATHER? I WOULD GET RID OF IT IF I WERE YOU IT DIDNT DO WELL OVER THIS 6 YEARS DID IT? Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century. DONT YOU THINK ITS TIME YOU WERE JUST A TINY BIT FAIR.... SWAN INHERITED FAR MORE THAN COSTELLO DID..HE HAD A SURPLUS TO START WITH.. PERHAPS HAD HE BEEN A BIT MORE PRUDENT HE WOULDNT BE WHERE HE IS NOW...44% IN THE POLLS....THE ECONOMY YOU KEEP GIVING COSTELLO CREDIT FOR INCREASED 3 FOLD DURING THE RUDD/GILLARD YEARS.... SWAN UPPED THE BABY BONUS WHY????? PAID MATERNITY LEAVE...WHY????? ITS ALL WELFARE THATS WHY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOATS....NUFF SAID.. JUST A LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE LIBS WOULDNT GO AMISS IT WASNT ALL GOOD FORTUNE FOR THEM AND LOUSY FORTUNE FOR LABOR  AND YOU KNOW IT. I have given Costello a lot of credit for the things he got right as Treasurer, Many times I have rated him in the top 2 treasurers we have had. It is however a fact that some of his success was due to the period he had but nothing he could have done about a bit of good luck, its not his fault Cods so don't feel too bad for him. In my view Keating and Costello are the two best treasurers in my life time by a country mile. However they both did make mistakes and Costello was never really tested by bad conditions. (as I said that wasn't his fault). SORRY MATE I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN YOU GIVE ONE WORD OF CREDIT.. NOT ONE...AND I DOUBT VERY MUCH YOU WILL PROVIDE A LINK...SORRY MATE... AND YOU CLAIM IT WAS ALL EASY PEASY GOING FOR COSTELLO.. LOL....THE FACT THAT SWAN HAD TREB LE THE INCOME DOESNT EQUATE WITH YOU DOES IT?? DONT YOU THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE HELPED HIM OV ER THE MINI HUMP.... WE WERENT AFFECTED BY THE GFC REMEMBER? WE SAILED THROUGH IT...at least thats the message I kept getting.. ;) Australia did better than most during the GFC because we did not embrace AUSTRITY like those nations that are now in recession.....Australia could reduce its debt and cut services to the bone to do so.....Do you think that would help or hurt our economy in the long term??? :-? :-? :-?

Treat people like idiots as labor does, but just putting the brakes on spending increases would have been enough.

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:15am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:12am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:04am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:45am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:13am: RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL I GATHER? I WOULD GET RID OF IT IF I WERE YOU IT DIDNT DO WELL OVER THIS 6 YEARS DID IT? Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century. DONT YOU THINK ITS TIME YOU WERE JUST A TINY BIT FAIR.... SWAN INHERITED FAR MORE THAN COSTELLO DID..HE HAD A SURPLUS TO START WITH.. PERHAPS HAD HE BEEN A BIT MORE PRUDENT HE WOULDNT BE WHERE HE IS NOW...44% IN THE POLLS....THE ECONOMY YOU KEEP GIVING COSTELLO CREDIT FOR INCREASED 3 FOLD DURING THE RUDD/GILLARD YEARS.... SWAN UPPED THE BABY BONUS WHY????? PAID MATERNITY LEAVE...WHY????? ITS ALL WELFARE THATS WHY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOATS....NUFF SAID.. JUST A LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE LIBS WOULDNT GO AMISS IT WASNT ALL GOOD FORTUNE FOR THEM AND LOUSY FORTUNE FOR LABOR  AND YOU KNOW IT. I have given Costello a lot of credit for the things he got right as Treasurer, Many times I have rated him in the top 2 treasurers we have had. It is however a fact that some of his success was due to the period he had but nothing he could have done about a bit of good luck, its not his fault Cods so don't feel too bad for him. In my view Keating and Costello are the two best treasurers in my life time by a country mile. However they both did make mistakes and Costello was never really tested by bad conditions. (as I said that wasn't his fault). SORRY MATE I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN YOU GIVE ONE WORD OF CREDIT.. NOT ONE...AND I DOUBT VERY MUCH YOU WILL PROVIDE A LINK...SORRY MATE... AND YOU CLAIM IT WAS ALL EASY PEASY GOING FOR COSTELLO.. LOL....THE FACT THAT SWAN HAD TREB LE THE INCOME DOESNT EQUATE WITH YOU DOES IT?? DONT YOU THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE HELPED HIM OV ER THE MINI HUMP.... WE WERENT AFFECTED BY THE GFC REMEMBER? WE SAILED THROUGH IT...at least thats the message I kept getting.. ;) Australia did better than most during the GFC because we did not embrace AUSTRITY like those nations that are now in recession.....Australia could reduce its debt and cut services to the bone to do so.....Do you think that would help or hurt our economy in the long term??? :-? :-? :-? Treat people like idiots as labor does, but just putting the brakes on spending increases would have been enough.

Enough to drive our economy into recession.....The IMF does not agree with you.....The stimulus package saved Australia from a recession.....Feel free to post a link to refute my argument....Your opinion is worthless!!!

http://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-in-good-shape-if-another-crisis-hits-says-imf-20110807-1ihre.html

http://www.theage.com.au/business/in-praise-of-stimulus-20100808-11q8e.html

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:15am:

just putting the brakes on spending increases would have been enough.

The spending to cope with the GFC was necessart and achieved its goal.

Other than that Labor have been very significantly cutting back on spending for about 5 consecutive budgets - trying to increase income all opposed by the opposition.

Pulling back on middle class welthfair etc has not been about class war it has been about affordability.

Same IMF that lost $22.6bn in Russia and admitted they don't know where it went?

Same IMF that put a rapist at its Head?

Same IMF that backed the accounting that allowed Enron to book a $550m profit on a deal that lost money?

Get some better sources Phil.

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:34am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:15am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:12am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:04am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:45am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:13am: RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL I GATHER? I WOULD GET RID OF IT IF I WERE YOU IT DIDNT DO WELL OVER THIS 6 YEARS DID IT? Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century. DONT YOU THINK ITS TIME YOU WERE JUST A TINY BIT FAIR.... SWAN INHERITED FAR MORE THAN COSTELLO DID..HE HAD A SURPLUS TO START WITH.. PERHAPS HAD HE BEEN A BIT MORE PRUDENT HE WOULDNT BE WHERE HE IS NOW...44% IN THE POLLS....THE ECONOMY YOU KEEP GIVING COSTELLO CREDIT FOR INCREASED 3 FOLD DURING THE RUDD/GILLARD YEARS.... SWAN UPPED THE BABY BONUS WHY????? PAID MATERNITY LEAVE...WHY????? ITS ALL WELFARE THATS WHY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOATS....NUFF SAID.. JUST A LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE LIBS WOULDNT GO AMISS IT WASNT ALL GOOD FORTUNE FOR THEM AND LOUSY FORTUNE FOR LABOR  AND YOU KNOW IT. I have given Costello a lot of credit for the things he got right as Treasurer, Many times I have rated him in the top 2 treasurers we have had. It is however a fact that some of his success was due to the period he had but nothing he could have done about a bit of good luck, its not his fault Cods so don't feel too bad for him. In my view Keating and Costello are the two best treasurers in my life time by a country mile. However they both did make mistakes and Costello was never really tested by bad conditions. (as I said that wasn't his fault). SORRY MATE I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN YOU GIVE ONE WORD OF CREDIT.. NOT ONE...AND I DOUBT VERY MUCH YOU WILL PROVIDE A LINK...SORRY MATE... AND YOU CLAIM IT WAS ALL EASY PEASY GOING FOR COSTELLO.. LOL....THE FACT THAT SWAN HAD TREB LE THE INCOME DOESNT EQUATE WITH YOU DOES IT?? DONT YOU THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE HELPED HIM OV ER THE MINI HUMP.... WE WERENT AFFECTED BY THE GFC REMEMBER? WE SAILED THROUGH IT...at least thats the message I kept getting.. ;) Australia did better than most during the GFC because we did not embrace AUSTRITY like those nations that are now in recession.....Australia could reduce its debt and cut services to the bone to do so.....Do you think that would help or hurt our economy in the long term??? :-? :-? :-? Treat people like idiots as labor does, but just putting the brakes on spending increases would have been enough. Enough to drive our economy into recession.....The IMF does not agree with you.....The stimulus package saved Australia from a recession.....Feel free to post a link to refute my argument....Your opinion is worthless!!! http://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-in-good-shape-if-another-crisis-hits-says-imf-20110807-1ihre.html http://www.theage.com.au/business/in-praise-of-stimulus-20100808-11q8e.html

The IMF???   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:15am: just putting the brakes on spending increases would have been enough. The spending to cope with the GFC was necessart and achieved its goal. Other than that Labor have been very significantly cutting back on spending for about 5 consecutive budgets - trying to increase income all opposed by the opposition. Pulling back on middle class welthfair etc has not been about class war it has been about affordability.

Billions on illegal boat people.

Hundreds of millions in overseas aid.

Billions on the BER that benefited a few large companies, one of which went bankrupt with a large number of subbies going broke.

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:34am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:15am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:12am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:04am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:45am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:13am: RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL I GATHER? I WOULD GET RID OF IT IF I WERE YOU IT DIDNT DO WELL OVER THIS 6 YEARS DID IT? Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century. DONT YOU THINK ITS TIME YOU WERE JUST A TINY BIT FAIR.... SWAN INHERITED FAR MORE THAN COSTELLO DID..HE HAD A SURPLUS TO START WITH.. PERHAPS HAD HE BEEN A BIT MORE PRUDENT HE WOULDNT BE WHERE HE IS NOW...44% IN THE POLLS....THE ECONOMY YOU KEEP GIVING COSTELLO CREDIT FOR INCREASED 3 FOLD DURING THE RUDD/GILLARD YEARS.... SWAN UPPED THE BABY BONUS WHY????? PAID MATERNITY LEAVE...WHY????? ITS ALL WELFARE THATS WHY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOATS....NUFF SAID.. JUST A LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE LIBS WOULDNT GO AMISS IT WASNT ALL GOOD FORTUNE FOR THEM AND LOUSY FORTUNE FOR LABOR  AND YOU KNOW IT. I have given Costello a lot of credit for the things he got right as Treasurer, Many times I have rated him in the top 2 treasurers we have had. It is however a fact that some of his success was due to the period he had but nothing he could have done about a bit of good luck, its not his fault Cods so don't feel too bad for him. In my view Keating and Costello are the two best treasurers in my life time by a country mile. However they both did make mistakes and Costello was never really tested by bad conditions. (as I said that wasn't his fault). SORRY MATE I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN YOU GIVE ONE WORD OF CREDIT.. NOT ONE...AND I DOUBT VERY MUCH YOU WILL PROVIDE A LINK...SORRY MATE... AND YOU CLAIM IT WAS ALL EASY PEASY GOING FOR COSTELLO.. LOL....THE FACT THAT SWAN HAD TREB LE THE INCOME DOESNT EQUATE WITH YOU DOES IT?? DONT YOU THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE HELPED HIM OV ER THE MINI HUMP.... WE WERENT AFFECTED BY THE GFC REMEMBER? WE SAILED THROUGH IT...at least thats the message I kept getting.. ;) Australia did better than most during the GFC because we did not embrace AUSTRITY like those nations that are now in recession.....Australia could reduce its debt and cut services to the bone to do so.....Do you think that would help or hurt our economy in the long term??? :-? :-? :-? Treat people like idiots as labor does, but just putting the brakes on spending increases would have been enough. Enough to drive our economy into recession.....The IMF does not agree with you.....The stimulus package saved Australia from a recession.....Feel free to post a link to refute my argument....Your opinion is worthless!!! http://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-in-good-shape-if-another-crisis-hits-says-imf-20110807-1ihre.html http://www.theage.com.au/business/in-praise-of-stimulus-20100808-11q8e.html

I am talking about at any time after the stimulus. You still got excuses?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

Same IMF that lost $22.6bn in Russia and admitted they don't know where it went? Same IMF that put a rapist at its Head? Same IMF that backed the accounting that allowed Enron to book a $550m profit on a deal that lost money? Get some better sources Phil.

The IMF are an Independent organisation Andre that has no vested interest in its assessment of the Australian economy....Feel free to post any alternative assessment that contradicts the IMF and most economists who agree the stimulus was the main reason Australia did not go into recession.....I am prepared to accept a valid argument that is supported with facts.....Opinions are worthless without substance!!!

:-? :-? :-?

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:34am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:15am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:12am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:04am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:45am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:13am: RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL I GATHER? I WOULD GET RID OF IT IF I WERE YOU IT DIDNT DO WELL OVER THIS 6 YEARS DID IT? Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century. DONT YOU THINK ITS TIME YOU WERE JUST A TINY BIT FAIR.... SWAN INHERITED FAR MORE THAN COSTELLO DID..HE HAD A SURPLUS TO START WITH.. PERHAPS HAD HE BEEN A BIT MORE PRUDENT HE WOULDNT BE WHERE HE IS NOW...44% IN THE POLLS....THE ECONOMY YOU KEEP GIVING COSTELLO CREDIT FOR INCREASED 3 FOLD DURING THE RUDD/GILLARD YEARS.... SWAN UPPED THE BABY BONUS WHY????? PAID MATERNITY LEAVE...WHY????? ITS ALL WELFARE THATS WHY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOATS....NUFF SAID.. JUST A LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE LIBS WOULDNT GO AMISS IT WASNT ALL GOOD FORTUNE FOR THEM AND LOUSY FORTUNE FOR LABOR  AND YOU KNOW IT. I have given Costello a lot of credit for the things he got right as Treasurer, Many times I have rated him in the top 2 treasurers we have had. It is however a fact that some of his success was due to the period he had but nothing he could have done about a bit of good luck, its not his fault Cods so don't feel too bad for him. In my view Keating and Costello are the two best treasurers in my life time by a country mile. However they both did make mistakes and Costello was never really tested by bad conditions. (as I said that wasn't his fault). SORRY MATE I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN YOU GIVE ONE WORD OF CREDIT.. NOT ONE...AND I DOUBT VERY MUCH YOU WILL PROVIDE A LINK...SORRY MATE... AND YOU CLAIM IT WAS ALL EASY PEASY GOING FOR COSTELLO.. LOL....THE FACT THAT SWAN HAD TREB LE THE INCOME DOESNT EQUATE WITH YOU DOES IT?? DONT YOU THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE HELPED HIM OV ER THE MINI HUMP.... WE WERENT AFFECTED BY THE GFC REMEMBER? WE SAILED THROUGH IT...at least thats the message I kept getting.. ;) Australia did better than most during the GFC because we did not embrace AUSTRITY like those nations that are now in recession.....Australia could reduce its debt and cut services to the bone to do so.....Do you think that would help or hurt our economy in the long term??? :-? :-? :-? Treat people like idiots as labor does, but just putting the brakes on spending increases would have been enough. Enough to drive our economy into recession.....The IMF does not agree with you.....The stimulus package saved Australia from a recession.....Feel free to post a link to refute my argument....Your opinion is worthless!!! http://www.theage.com.au/national/australia-in-good-shape-if-another-crisis-hits-says-imf-20110807-1ihre.html http://www.theage.com.au/business/in-praise-of-stimulus-20100808-11q8e.html I am talking about at any time after the stimulus. You still got excuses?

You have still not provided any independent critique apart from your own opinion....I will accept a balanced argument supported by facts but I will not accept someone's opinion without supporting evidence!!!

:-? :-? :-?

http://www.josephstiglitz.com/

Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off.

That's why he acts like a girl.

Strangely my father grew up in a house of women.
Him mother died young, he had a father who was a builder who went from the site to the pub and he grew up in one of the hardest council estates around....with 4 sisters.

You go two ways I guess, you act like a girl and cry or you realise you're on your fking own and you pull yourself up.

I'm fortunate he was a man of the second option.....

Just to highlight I can't think of a bloke more different to Phil in outlook than my old man.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

Just to highlight I can't think of a bloke more different to Phil in outlook than my old man.

Aahh, but your old man didn't have a dictionary of quotations...

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 7:37am:

Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor.

Craig Emmerson has a doctorate in economics, so why Swan with a bloody arts degree is Treasurer is anybody's guess. . You've got to think it's either because he's a dill (Emmerson...we know Swan is) or his affair with Gillard put him out of the running.........no...wasn't it because Swan helped Gillard stab Rudd in the back.  Emmerson spouts repetitive bunkum and sings worse than Lurch the other fool on the front bench.  He's basically a civil servant who gets a massive salary for going through reference books.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:03am:

Just to highlight I can't think of a bloke more different to Phil in outlook than my old man.

Judging by your self serving attitude I will take that as a compliment.....Thank you!!!

;) ;) ;)

KJT1981 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:59am:

Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl.

Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument.

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:19am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:03am: Just to highlight I can't think of a bloke more different to Phil in outlook than my old man. Judging by your self serving attitude I will take that as a compliment.....Thank you!!! ;) ;) ;)

I would too.

I seems to me that Andrei has been pounded into an image of his daddy.

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument.

There was no argument. Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures.

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:19am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:03am: Just to highlight I can't think of a bloke more different to Phil in outlook than my old man. Judging by your self serving attitude I will take that as a compliment.....Thank you!!! ;) ;) ;) I would too. I seems to me that Andrei has been pounded into an image of his daddy.

When the argument lacks substance the week resort to personal attacks.....Anyone who is confident in there beliefs would debate the issue without resorting to petty insults!!!

::) ::) ::)

The Argument from Intimidation is a confession of intellectual impotence.
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982), The Virtue of Selfishness, 1964

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:23am: KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument. There was no argument. Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures.

If it can be shown to be BS that is the easiest to refute my guess is the failure to do so is based on the fact that it probably isn't BS at all.

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:29am:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:23am: KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument. There was no argument. Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures.

I agree.....You have been unable to refute any argument I have made with anything apart from your own opinion.....Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures!!!

::) ::) ::)

It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument.
William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:23am:

KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument.

Do not feed the troll DNA.....Ignore it!!!

The way to procure insults is to submit to them: a man meets with no more respect than he exacts.
William Hazlitt (1778 - 1830)

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:24am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:19am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:03am: Just to highlight I can't think of a bloke more different to Phil in outlook than my old man. Judging by your self serving attitude I will take that as a compliment.....Thank you!!! ;) ;) ;) I would too. I seems to me that Andrei has been pounded into an image of his daddy.

At least Andrei knows who  and where his father is.

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:36am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:29am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:23am: KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument. There was no argument. Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures. I agree.....You have been unable to refute any argument I have made with anything apart from your own opinion.....Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures!!! ::) ::) ::) It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941)

It is not BS that labor over estimated their future revenue. The revenue is actually up, not down and there is new spending to which they could have held back for better times.

It doesn't matter how you would like to spin it. A surplus was very doable even for a half competent govern, yet labor, the most incompetent get the surplus to a $20 billion deficit.

There isn't even a need to argue whether a surplus was good now economically or not, because labor actually wanted a surplus and couldn't even deliver it in a time when it was doable.

Bloody hopeless and unforgivable.

He who strikes the first blow admits he's lost the argument.
Chinese Proverb

KJT1981 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:39am:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:24am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:19am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:03am: Just to highlight I can't think of a bloke more different to Phil in outlook than my old man. Judging by your self serving attitude I will take that as a compliment.....Thank you!!! ;) ;) ;) I would too. I seems to me that Andrei has been pounded into an image of his daddy. At least Andrei knows who  and where his father is.

It seems about as far away from Andrei as he could be.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/in-praise-of-stimulus-20100808-11q8e.html


The above Phil is an opinion.

The ALP's spending is all "GREEK" to me.

There comes a time where we have to become "AUSTRALIAN" again.

I'd much rather see cuts to spending and pay high taxes now under the LIB's, than pay no tax under the ALP in a recession if not depression in the next few years.

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:42am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:36am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:29am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:23am: KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument. There was no argument. Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures. I agree.....You have been unable to refute any argument I have made with anything apart from your own opinion.....Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures!!! ::) ::) ::) It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941) It is not BS that labor over estimated their future revenue. The revenue is actually up, not down and there is new spending to which they could have held back for better times. It doesn't matter how you would like to spin it. A surplus was very doable even for a half competent govern, yet labor, the most incompetent get the surplus to a $20 billion deficit. Bloody hopeless and unforgivable.

Revenue was down on projections.....Do you understand anything about forward estimates.....Treasury provides Government with estimates which Government then use to balance the budget over that period.....Revenue was down on those forward estimates......Just as treasury got it wrong during the Howard years when revenue was underestimated bringing in more than was predicted.....At least you gave it a go but you do not understand economics and the way the system works!!!

::) ::) ::)

It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them.
Pierre Beaumarchais (1732 - 1799)

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:50am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:42am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:36am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:29am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:23am: KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument. There was no argument. Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures. I agree.....You have been unable to refute any argument I have made with anything apart from your own opinion.....Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures!!! ::) ::) ::) It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941) It is not BS that labor over estimated their future revenue. The revenue is actually up, not down and there is new spending to which they could have held back for better times. It doesn't matter how you would like to spin it. A surplus was very doable even for a half competent govern, yet labor, the most incompetent get the surplus to a $20 billion deficit. Bloody hopeless and unforgivable. Revenue was down on projections.....Do you understand anything about forward estimates.....Treasury provides Government with estimates which Government then use to balance the budget over that period.....Revenue was down on those forward estimates......Just as treasury got it wrong during the Howard years when revenue was underestimated bringing in more than was predicted.....At least you gave it a go but you do not understand economics and the way the system works!!! ::) ::) ::) It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them. Pierre Beaumarchais (1732 - 1799)

I am glad to see your answer agrees that a surplus was doable but labor over spent, not taking in risk factors on forward estimates.

How many large deficits is it now against forward estimates not having proper risk factors taken into account? What was the largest for labor no risk factor budget. $40 billion wasn't it?

Hopeless. You should or must work for labor. In fact, you may even be swan's advisor.

We are all so glad you are so smart in this area.

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:42am:

He who strikes the first blow admits he's lost the argument. Chinese Proverb

Confucius say reactive kick in the gonads usually makes opponent speak with squeaky voice...... Grow up!

Quote:

The Sure Way To A Surplus, Tax The People says DOC Craig Emmerson.

;D

Ha this is what Labor has already done and it still cannot deliver a surplus... :-/

Budget deficits from overspending and accumulated debt ARE in reality TAX INCREASES.


Quote:

To dispel the myth Labor is a big-spending government,  ;D average growth in spending under Labor - which includes necessary stimulus spending during the global financial crisis - is almost identical to that of the previous Coalition government.

Myth?  F A C T

Yes Labor is a big spending Govt that's why the Labor Govt has delivered 5 consecutive deficit budgets accumulating around $290 Billion in overspending and have failed to not overspend for over 20 years.

This $290 Billion represents future tax increases and / or spending cuts to the same amount.  That's the reality.

What's left of Labor in opposition will lambast the Coalition for making cuts but in reality the responsibility for any austerity can be laid at the feet of this irresponsible Labor Govt.....the same fact is true in QLD, VIC and NSW.

De-registered User wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:49am:

The ALP's spending is all "GREEK" to me. There comes a time where we have to become "AUSTRALIAN" again. I'd much rather see cuts to spending and pay high taxes now under the LIB's, than pay no tax under the ALP in a recession if not depression in the next few years.

Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact).

KJT1981 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:43am:

http://www.theage.com.au/business/in-praise-of-stimulus-20100808-11q8e.html The above Phil is an opinion.

A very good one....Feel free to post any Independent opinion from any economist of your choosing to refute my argument!!!


Quote:

Joseph Stiglitz is a professor at Columbia University and a Nobel laureate in economics

Socrates wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:54am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:42am: He who strikes the first blow admits he's lost the argument. Chinese Proverb Confucius say reactive kick in the gonads usually makes opponent speak with squeaky voice...... Grow up!

What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others. 
Confucius

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact).

Low debt and the Costello banking reforms were why Australia avoided the worst of the GFC.

Labor's future tax increases (AKA 'stimulus') did next to effall.

The only FACT concerning Labor is that its attack on the mining industry wound up the mining boom much quicker than its own analysts predicted.... ;D

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:00am:

Socrates wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:54am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:42am: He who strikes the first blow admits he's lost the argument. Chinese Proverb Confucius say reactive kick in the gonads usually makes opponent speak with squeaky voice...... Grow up! What the superior man seeks is in himself; what the small man seeks is in others.  Confucius

Jeez, why did I feed the monkey nuts?

Swagman wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:57am: Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact). Low debt and the Costello banking reforms were why Australia avoided the worst of the GFC. Labor's future tax increases (AKA 'stimulus') did next to effall. The only FACT concerning Labor is that its attack on the mining industry wound up the mining boom much quicker than its own analysts predicted.... ;D

100% agree.

:-X :-X :-X

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

De-registered User wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:49am: The ALP's spending is all "GREEK" to me. There comes a time where we have to become "AUSTRALIAN" again. I'd much rather see cuts to spending and pay high taxes now under the LIB's, than pay no tax under the ALP in a recession if not depression in the next few years. Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact).

That being the case, it would most definitely be as a result of Labor's incompetence.

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:53am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:50am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:42am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:36am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:29am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:23am: KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument. There was no argument. Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures. I agree.....You have been unable to refute any argument I have made with anything apart from your own opinion.....Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures!!! ::) ::) ::) It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941) It is not BS that labor over estimated their future revenue. The revenue is actually up, not down and there is new spending to which they could have held back for better times. It doesn't matter how you would like to spin it. A surplus was very doable even for a half competent govern, yet labor, the most incompetent get the surplus to a $20 billion deficit. Bloody hopeless and unforgivable. Revenue was down on projections.....Do you understand anything about forward estimates.....Treasury provides Government with estimates which Government then use to balance the budget over that period.....Revenue was down on those forward estimates......Just as treasury got it wrong during the Howard years when revenue was underestimated bringing in more than was predicted.....At least you gave it a go but you do not understand economics and the way the system works!!! ::) ::) ::) It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them. Pierre Beaumarchais (1732 - 1799) I am glad to see your answer agrees that a surplus was doable but labor over spent, not taking in risk factors on forward estimates. How many large deficits is it now against forward estimates not having proper risk factors taken into account? What was the largest for labor no risk factor budget. $40 billion wasn't it? Hopeless. You should or must work for labor. In fact, you may even be swan's advisor. We are all so glad you are so smart in this area.

What you fail to understand is the stimulus prevented Australia from going into recession and saved 200 000 jobs.....If Australia had not stimulated the economy we would be is a far worse position than we are now......This is confirmed by the IMF and Independent economists who have no vested interest in talking down the Australian economy.....Australia has also been given a AAA credit rating by rating agencies for the first time in our history.....The facts do not support your rhetoric.....Feel free to dispute my argument with independent analysis.....I am prepared to accept any informed argument supported by independent sources!!!

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:12am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:53am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:50am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:42am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:36am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:29am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:23am: KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument. There was no argument. Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures. I agree.....You have been unable to refute any argument I have made with anything apart from your own opinion.....Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures!!! ::) ::) ::) It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941) It is not BS that labor over estimated their future revenue. The revenue is actually up, not down and there is new spending to which they could have held back for better times. It doesn't matter how you would like to spin it. A surplus was very doable even for a half competent govern, yet labor, the most incompetent get the surplus to a $20 billion deficit. Bloody hopeless and unforgivable. Revenue was down on projections.....Do you understand anything about forward estimates.....Treasury provides Government with estimates which Government then use to balance the budget over that period.....Revenue was down on those forward estimates......Just as treasury got it wrong during the Howard years when revenue was underestimated bringing in more than was predicted.....At least you gave it a go but you do not understand economics and the way the system works!!! ::) ::) ::) It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them. Pierre Beaumarchais (1732 - 1799) I am glad to see your answer agrees that a surplus was doable but labor over spent, not taking in risk factors on forward estimates. How many large deficits is it now against forward estimates not having proper risk factors taken into account? What was the largest for labor no risk factor budget. $40 billion wasn't it? Hopeless. You should or must work for labor. In fact, you may even be swan's advisor. We are all so glad you are so smart in this area. What you fail to understand is the stimulus prevented Australia from going into recession and saved 200 000 jobs.....If Australia had not stimulated the economy we would be is a far worse position than we are now......This is confirmed by the IMF and Independent economists who have no vested interest in talking down the Australian economy.....Australia has also been given a AAA credit rating by rating agencies for the first time in our history.....The facts do not support your rhetoric.....Feel free to dispute my argument with independent analysis.....I am prepared to accept any informed argument supported by independent sources!!! :-? :-? :-?

I have already told you that I am concentrating on after the stimulus. The stimulus is a whole other debate....

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

De-registered User wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:49am: The ALP's spending is all "GREEK" to me. There comes a time where we have to become "AUSTRALIAN" again. I'd much rather see cuts to spending and pay high taxes now under the LIB's, than pay no tax under the ALP in a recession if not depression in the next few years. Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact).

That depends on who's dinner table you are sitting at...........FACT

De-registered User wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:57am: De-registered User wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:49am: The ALP's spending is all "GREEK" to me. There comes a time where we have to become "AUSTRALIAN" again. I'd much rather see cuts to spending and pay high taxes now under the LIB's, than pay no tax under the ALP in a recession if not depression in the next few years. Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact). That depends on who's dinner table you are sitting at...........FACT

Looks like Dnarever has been sitting at the little girls tea party table for discussion.

Swagman wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:04am:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:57am: Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact). Low debt and the Costello banking reforms were why Australia avoided the worst of the GFC. Labor's future tax increases (AKA 'stimulus') did next to effall. The only FACT concerning Labor is that its attack on the mining industry wound up the mining boom much quicker than its own analysts predicted.... ;D

Unless you can post an Independent analysis to support your claim you have nothing.....If you claim you are correct prove it with something other than your own opinion!!!

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:21am:

Swagman wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 11:04am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:57am: Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact). Low debt and the Costello banking reforms were why Australia avoided the worst of the GFC. Labor's future tax increases (AKA 'stimulus') did next to effall. The only FACT concerning Labor is that its attack on the mining industry wound up the mining boom much quicker than its own analysts predicted.... ;D Unless you can post an Independent analysis to support your claim you have nothing.....If you claim you are correct prove it with something other than your own opinion!!! :-? :-? :-?

What did you think the GFC was about if it was not about the Banking system phil?

Remember Swan stood on the international stage pontificating the greatness of our Banking and Corporate System

The Corporations Act 2001

Notice the year??!!

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:15am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 11:12am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:53am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:50am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:42am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:36am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:29am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:23am: KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument. There was no argument. Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures. I agree.....You have been unable to refute any argument I have made with anything apart from your own opinion.....Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures!!! ::) ::) ::) It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941) It is not BS that labor over estimated their future revenue. The revenue is actually up, not down and there is new spending to which they could have held back for better times. It doesn't matter how you would like to spin it. A surplus was very doable even for a half competent govern, yet labor, the most incompetent get the surplus to a $20 billion deficit. Bloody hopeless and unforgivable. Revenue was down on projections.....Do you understand anything about forward estimates.....Treasury provides Government with estimates which Government then use to balance the budget over that period.....Revenue was down on those forward estimates......Just as treasury got it wrong during the Howard years when revenue was underestimated bringing in more than was predicted.....At least you gave it a go but you do not understand economics and the way the system works!!! ::) ::) ::) It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them. Pierre Beaumarchais (1732 - 1799) I am glad to see your answer agrees that a surplus was doable but labor over spent, not taking in risk factors on forward estimates. How many large deficits is it now against forward estimates not having proper risk factors taken into account? What was the largest for labor no risk factor budget. $40 billion wasn't it? Hopeless. You should or must work for labor. In fact, you may even be swan's advisor. We are all so glad you are so smart in this area. What you fail to understand is the stimulus prevented Australia from going into recession and saved 200 000 jobs.....If Australia had not stimulated the economy we would be is a far worse position than we are now......This is confirmed by the IMF and Independent economists who have no vested interest in talking down the Australian economy.....Australia has also been given a AAA credit rating by rating agencies for the first time in our history.....The facts do not support your rhetoric.....Feel free to dispute my argument with independent analysis.....I am prepared to accept any informed argument supported by independent sources!!! :-? :-? :-? I have already told you that I am concentrating on after the stimulus. The stimulus is a whole other debate....

Cutting spending can still see Australia go into recession.....When the private sector is in a downturn the Government needs to support the economy to avoid an even greater downturn that will cause even less revenue being collected....Australia needs to ease out of the downturn and ensure the least adverse impact on our economy due to needless Austerity.....Australia needs to take advantage of our economic position not pander to Tony Abbott scare campaign that will see thousands of Australians lose there job trying to chase a surplus....Australia can easily handle our modest debt and now is not the time to chase a surplus.....Support jobs and growth whilst our competitors are still in recession.....To cut spending now will see us fall back to the pack!!!

::) ::) ::)

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:31am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 11:15am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 11:12am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:53am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:50am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:42am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:36am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:29am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:23am: KJT1981 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:59am: Progs, Phil grew up in a house full of women after his father took off. That's why he acts like a girl. Gone to stage 2 so obviously you can't refute his argument. There was no argument. Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures. I agree.....You have been unable to refute any argument I have made with anything apart from your own opinion.....Just BS rhetoric with zero substance on the figures!!! ::) ::) ::) It is impossible to defeat an ignorant man in argument. William G. McAdoo (1863 - 1941) It is not BS that labor over estimated their future revenue. The revenue is actually up, not down and there is new spending to which they could have held back for better times. It doesn't matter how you would like to spin it. A surplus was very doable even for a half competent govern, yet labor, the most incompetent get the surplus to a $20 billion deficit. Bloody hopeless and unforgivable. Revenue was down on projections.....Do you understand anything about forward estimates.....Treasury provides Government with estimates which Government then use to balance the budget over that period.....Revenue was down on those forward estimates......Just as treasury got it wrong during the Howard years when revenue was underestimated bringing in more than was predicted.....At least you gave it a go but you do not understand economics and the way the system works!!! ::) ::) ::) It is not necessary to understand things in order to argue about them. Pierre Beaumarchais (1732 - 1799) I am glad to see your answer agrees that a surplus was doable but labor over spent, not taking in risk factors on forward estimates. How many large deficits is it now against forward estimates not having proper risk factors taken into account? What was the largest for labor no risk factor budget. $40 billion wasn't it? Hopeless. You should or must work for labor. In fact, you may even be swan's advisor. We are all so glad you are so smart in this area. What you fail to understand is the stimulus prevented Australia from going into recession and saved 200 000 jobs.....If Australia had not stimulated the economy we would be is a far worse position than we are now......This is confirmed by the IMF and Independent economists who have no vested interest in talking down the Australian economy.....Australia has also been given a AAA credit rating by rating agencies for the first time in our history.....The facts do not support your rhetoric.....Feel free to dispute my argument with independent analysis.....I am prepared to accept any informed argument supported by independent sources!!! :-? :-? :-? I have already told you that I am concentrating on after the stimulus. The stimulus is a whole other debate.... Cutting spending can still see Australia go into recession.....When the private sector is in a downturn the Government needs to support the economy to avoid an even greater downturn that will cause even less revenue being collected....Australia needs to ease out of the downturn and ensure the least adverse impact on our economy due to needless Austerity.....Australia needs to take advantage of our economic position not pander to Tony Abbott scare campaign that will see thousands of Australians lose there job trying to chase a surplus....Australia can easily handle our modest debt and now is not the time to chase a surplus.....Support jobs and growth whilst our competitors are still in recession.....To cut spending now will see us fall back to the pack!!! ::) ::) ::)

We are talking about what labor have said, what labor wanted, what labor actually delivered, not your opinion.

Labor said, it is a responsible position to have a surplus. They said 300 times "we promise that surplus". They wanted a surplus (all the former to that affect). They had revenue grow. They didn't factor in proper risks to the forward estimates. They failed and history shows they are economic illiterates and economic vandals.

Yet how come the Government don't seem to be spending any money on the middle incomes Phil?

As usual they are all about spending on the losers aren't they?

Makka wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:30am:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 11:21am: Swagman wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 11:04am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:57am: Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact). Low debt and the Costello banking reforms were why Australia avoided the worst of the GFC. Labor's future tax increases (AKA 'stimulus') did next to effall. The only FACT concerning Labor is that its attack on the mining industry wound up the mining boom much quicker than its own analysts predicted.... ;D Unless you can post an Independent analysis to support your claim you have nothing.....If you claim you are correct prove it with something other than your own opinion!!! :-? :-? :-? What did you think the GFC was about if it was not about the Banking system phil? Remember Swan stood on the international stage pontificating the greatness of our Banking and Corporate System The Corporations Act 2001 Notice the year??!!

Costello was not completely useless however he was far from perfect....He sold off our gold assets at bargain basement prices and lost billions in the process.....He sold off assets that returned revenue to the Government and created private monopolies that are now reluctant to allow competition a level playing field.....There where many reasons Australia survived the GFC including not having a massive debt.....However the stimulus and reluctance of the ALP to submit to Austerity have proven to be a formula for success.....The facts do not support an argument that our resilience to the GFC was all due to Costello!!!

::) ::) ::)

Hawke / Keating was responsible for floating the Aus $ and reforming the Labour market with productivity gains linked to Labour reform!!!

From the Australian.....

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/consensus-between-government-business-and-labour-paved-road-to-reform/story-fnbcok0h-1226617735496

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Yet how come the Government don't seem to be spending any money on the middle incomes Phil? As usual they are all about spending on the losers aren't they?

So in your opinion the more people in poverty the better.....The best way to lift the living standards of ALL Australian's is to support those on the lowest rung of the ladder to promote a society where everyone has a chance to succeed.....Your formula is about increasing the gap between rich and poor - The haves and have nots.....True class warfare in its lowest form.....Your argument is all about it is mine and I want it all.....I have no problem helping those less fortunate to make my future more secure!!!

Class warfare?

Phil my father is as working class as you'll find.

He comes from an estate where half of his class are most likely dead by now.

You can't take the class warfare route with me mate.

However, I am a 100% supporter of helping those who help themselves and also rewarding those who put into the country.

Labor have always seemed to me to be about helping deadbeats and sod the middle incomes - who if we are honest drive Australia forward.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:57am:

Class warfare? Phil my father is as working class as you'll find. He comes from an estate where half of his class are most likely dead by now. You can't take the class warfare route with me mate. However, I am a 100% supporter of helping those who help themselves and also rewarding those who put into the country. Labor have always seemed to me to be about helping deadbeats and sod the middle incomes - who if we are honest drive Australia forward.

Yet you call low income earners losers.....China has an emerging middle class that is driving their growth.....Where do you think this new middle class is coming from Andre.....The gutter???

>:( >:( >:(

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:57am:

Class warfare? Phil my father is as working class as you'll find. He comes from an estate where half of his class are most likely dead by now. You can't take the class warfare route with me mate. However, I am a 100% supporter of helping those who help themselves and also rewarding those who put into the country. Labor have always seemed to me to be about helping deadbeats and sod the middle incomes - who if we are honest drive Australia forward.

Andrei.Hicks

I grew up in a working class area, my father was a carpenter by trade, went to public school and I worked many part time jobs to get through uni.


Quote:

However, I am a 100% supporter of helping those who help themselves and also rewarding those who put into the country.

I would add helping those who can't, but the those vast majority of lazy ar$e abled bodied welfare recipients not doing charity work ..... could not care less.

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:18am:

De-registered User wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 11:15am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:57am: De-registered User wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:49am: The ALP's spending is all "GREEK" to me. There comes a time where we have to become "AUSTRALIAN" again. I'd much rather see cuts to spending and pay high taxes now under the LIB's, than pay no tax under the ALP in a recession if not depression in the next few years. Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact). That depends on who's dinner table you are sitting at...........FACT Looks like Dnarever has been sitting at the little girls tea party table for discussion.

I don't know about that, I would think an economy led by the Hockey Abbott clown show going in with about $100 Billion of additional unfunded spending would be easily the best chance to drive a recession we have ever had, certainly no chance of producing a surplus.

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 3:11pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 11:18am: De-registered User wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 11:15am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:57am: De-registered User wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:49am: The ALP's spending is all "GREEK" to me. There comes a time where we have to become "AUSTRALIAN" again. I'd much rather see cuts to spending and pay high taxes now under the LIB's, than pay no tax under the ALP in a recession if not depression in the next few years. Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact). That depends on who's dinner table you are sitting at...........FACT Looks like Dnarever has been sitting at the little girls tea party table for discussion. I don't know about that, I would think an economy led by the Hockey Abbott clown show going in with about $100 Billion of additional unfunded spending would be easily the best chance to drive a recession we have ever had, certainly no chance of producing a surplus.

Either has labor while promising it 300 times. So you are screwed and I am happy to give liberals a go.

progressiveslol wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 3:46pm:

Either has labor while promising it 300 times. So you are screwed and I am happy to give liberals a go.

Just as they will be happy to laugh their heads off at you while screwing you.

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:33am:

Under the Howard Government the treasury underestimated the revenue intake providing Howard with a surplus he did not account for.....Howard promptly used this windfall to pork barrel and buy votes from a public that was ignorant to the fact Australia was living a lie about the true state of the economy.....Howard should have used the surplus to fund education and social reforms much like the Gillard Government has tried to do with Gonski the NDIS and Infrastructure spending to address the back log left by the Howard Government.....Tony Abbott has said he will not fund rail and will not embrace Gonski.....Tony Abbott is not the solution to a sustainable future for Australia and his constant referral to the Howard Government shows he will be another do nothing Prime Minister if elected.....Australia cannot afford another decade of doing nothing!!! >:( >:( >:( The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past. Robertson Davies, "A Voice from the Attic", 1960

and the highlighted bit I the fundamental difference between labor and liberal.  Costello took the prudent and almost pessimistic revenue projections and worked on those. He banked the difference. Swan banked on the most optimistic and frankly. ludicrous predictions of revenue and spent even more than that.  Costello waiting until the money came in while Swan spent it before it came in and was burned when it didn't. The carbon tax revnue is way below target - but the money was all spent before it even started. The mining tax revenue  - all$9B of it - was spent long before it came in and then it was only $122M.

Labor spends money it doesn't have and wont have. Costello spent what he HAD.

RightSadFred wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 7:43am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until they reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them This reform would be most equitable: The Australian social system is constructed in a way, where retirees just above the allowed income scale for a full old-age pension are punished by the means test of the pension, losing $0.50 for every dollar extra income, and if the combined income of a pensioner couple exceed approximately $50,000 per annum they may pay $0.30 in the dollar tax plus medicare levy. Now consider the self-funded retiree couple with 2million $ worth of assets can have an income of $100,000 plus, and if the income is from a taxed fund, they will not have to pay a cent of tax, which would be close or  above the full age pension. Should their assets fall below $1,086,000, they can apply for a part age-pension. As the government provides a safety net of the basic age-pension for every person eligible, why provide such huge tax concessions for the top 10% of retirees?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 11:36am:

Yet how come the Government don't seem to be spending any money on the middle incomes Phil? As usual they are all about spending on the losers aren't they?

That is because people on what you call a middle income are earning enough to look after themselves and do not require unsustainable government hand outs.

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:55am:

RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:43am: philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:33am: Under the Howard Government the treasury underestimated the revenue intake providing Howard with a surplus he did not account for.....Howard promptly used this windfall to pork barrel and buy votes from a public that was ignorant to the fact Australia was living a lie about the true state of the economy.....Howard should have used the surplus to fund education and social reforms much like the Gillard Government has tried to do with Gonski the NDIS and Infrastructure spending to address the back log left by the Howard Government.....Tony Abbott has said he will not fund rail and will not embrace Gonski.....Tony Abbott is not the solution to a sustainable future for Australia and his constant referral to the Howard Government shows he will be another do nothing Prime Minister if elected.....Australia cannot afford another decade of doing nothing!!! >:( >:( >:( The world is full of people whose notion of a satisfactory future is, in fact, a return to the idealised past. Robertson Davies, "A Voice from the Attic", 1960 philperth2010 I think he should have toned down the pork, but its a political reality ..... he used it very well to keep them in power for so long. He did leave the nation with a surplus, the ALP could have started much of what you said back in 2007 but they blew it all on political motives as well. So why does the ALP have a secret 400 million dollar election stash again ? This supports my comments on the ALP, they have acted like an opposition since 2007 ..... its only just now they hae realised they are in government, just before they get booted out. He did leave the nation with a surplus And an economy geared to fail. He left a time bomb for Labor to wear.

garbage. it is up to the CURRENT govt of the day to adapt to the circumstances that exists at the time and not to constantly blame predecessors. it is in fact astonishing to hear idiots blame howard for no debt, surpluses and $80B put aside in savings.

if only all govts could 'fail' so well.

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:12am:

cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:04am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:45am: cods wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:24am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:13am: RightSadFred wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:43am: progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 7:37am: Emmerson is the dumbest and most extreme member of gillards fabian front bench. What he says is even more worthy of ignoring but taking the lies to fuel your rage at labor. The best way to a surplus is to get rid of the ALP and never elect them again until the reform themselves economically. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success, on tax you don't increase them you reform them The conservatives $100 Billion of unfunded spending will ensure that the coalition can not hope to produce a surplus inside a decade.  Abbott and Hockey will never produce a surplus, you would need to be crackers to think differently. Howard delivered surpluses through economic success YOU HAVE A CRYSTAL BALL I GATHER? I WOULD GET RID OF IT IF I WERE YOU IT DIDNT DO WELL OVER THIS 6 YEARS DID IT? Costello produced surpluses based on the strong economic position he inherited coupled with the strongest world economic growth in over a century. DONT YOU THINK ITS TIME YOU WERE JUST A TINY BIT FAIR.... SWAN INHERITED FAR MORE THAN COSTELLO DID..HE HAD A SURPLUS TO START WITH.. PERHAPS HAD HE BEEN A BIT MORE PRUDENT HE WOULDNT BE WHERE HE IS NOW...44% IN THE POLLS....THE ECONOMY YOU KEEP GIVING COSTELLO CREDIT FOR INCREASED 3 FOLD DURING THE RUDD/GILLARD YEARS.... SWAN UPPED THE BABY BONUS WHY????? PAID MATERNITY LEAVE...WHY????? ITS ALL WELFARE THATS WHY. AND THEN WE HAVE THE BOATS....NUFF SAID.. JUST A LITTLE CREDIT FOR THE LIBS WOULDNT GO AMISS IT WASNT ALL GOOD FORTUNE FOR THEM AND LOUSY FORTUNE FOR LABOR  AND YOU KNOW IT. I have given Costello a lot of credit for the things he got right as Treasurer, Many times I have rated him in the top 2 treasurers we have had. It is however a fact that some of his success was due to the period he had but nothing he could have done about a bit of good luck, its not his fault Cods so don't feel too bad for him. In my view Keating and Costello are the two best treasurers in my life time by a country mile. However they both did make mistakes and Costello was never really tested by bad conditions. (as I said that wasn't his fault). SORRY MATE I HAVE NEVER EVER SEEN YOU GIVE ONE WORD OF CREDIT.. NOT ONE...AND I DOUBT VERY MUCH YOU WILL PROVIDE A LINK...SORRY MATE... AND YOU CLAIM IT WAS ALL EASY PEASY GOING FOR COSTELLO.. LOL....THE FACT THAT SWAN HAD TREB LE THE INCOME DOESNT EQUATE WITH YOU DOES IT?? DONT YOU THINK THAT SHOULD HAVE HELPED HIM OV ER THE MINI HUMP.... WE WERENT AFFECTED BY THE GFC REMEMBER? WE SAILED THROUGH IT...at least thats the message I kept getting.. ;) Australia did better than most during the GFC because we did not embrace AUSTRITY like those nations that are now in recession.....Australia could reduce its debt and cut services to the bone to do so.....Do you think that would help or hurt our economy in the long term??? :-? :-? :-?

and we didn't need to embrace harsh austerity because we had NO DEBT AND MONEY INTHE BANK. the very things you criticise howard for are the very tools that kept us out of recession.

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:40am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:15am: just putting the brakes on spending increases would have been enough. The spending to cope with the GFC was necessart and achieved its goal. Other than that Labor have been very significantly cutting back on spending for about 5 consecutive budgets - trying to increase income all opposed by the opposition. Pulling back on middle class welthfair etc has not been about class war it has been about affordability.

cutting spending???  with a 30% increase in spending in REAL TERMS??????

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:48am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:40am: Same IMF that lost $22.6bn in Russia and admitted they don't know where it went? Same IMF that put a rapist at its Head? Same IMF that backed the accounting that allowed Enron to book a $550m profit on a deal that lost money? Get some better sources Phil. The IMF are an Independent organisation Andre that has no vested interest in its assessment of the Australian economy....Feel free to post any alternative assessment that contradicts the IMF and most economists who agree the stimulus was the main reason Australia did not go into recession.....I am prepared to accept a valid argument that is supported with facts.....Opinions are worthless without substance!!! :-? :-? :-?

the IMF have repeatedly gotten their own assessments and predictions wrong. An endorsement from them isn't necessarily worth that much since they endorsed the European economy up until the GFC.

Global economic conditions are vastly different today to what they were during Howards years. Howard had the best possible conditions in recent history, whereas today, we have some of the worst conditions since the great depression. Anyone who thinks the libs are going to come in and bring us into surplus alla Costello style is an idiot who is going to be mightilly dissapointed in about 3 years time.  (hi progs)

All Abbott is going to do, if he wins office, is drive us into recession. However, that in itself won't be a bad thing, it at least means I won't have to hear the libs going on for the next 20 yrs about how they are the greatest economic managers. Libs have always had one modus operandi ... cut spending on the public service, sell everything, and cut services ... and yet despite they having used the same rule book since inception, Costello is the only time they've ever managed a surplus ... that should tell you one thing, it wasn't the libs rules that bought about a surplus, but more the fact that they got in during a time the whole world is booming.

longweekend58 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:22pm:

philperth2010 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:48am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:40am: Same IMF that lost $22.6bn in Russia and admitted they don't know where it went? Same IMF that put a rapist at its Head? Same IMF that backed the accounting that allowed Enron to book a $550m profit on a deal that lost money? Get some better sources Phil. The IMF are an Independent organisation Andre that has no vested interest in its assessment of the Australian economy....Feel free to post any alternative assessment that contradicts the IMF and most economists who agree the stimulus was the main reason Australia did not go into recession.....I am prepared to accept a valid argument that is supported with facts.....Opinions are worthless without substance!!! :-? :-? :-? the IMF have repeatedly gotten their own assessments and predictions wrong. An endorsement from them isn't necessarily worth that much since they endorsed the European economy up until the GFC.

it's still worth a lot more than your opinion ......

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 10:57am:

De-registered User wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:49am: The ALP's spending is all "GREEK" to me. There comes a time where we have to become "AUSTRALIAN" again. I'd much rather see cuts to spending and pay high taxes now under the LIB's, than pay no tax under the ALP in a recession if not depression in the next few years. Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact).

how do you define a future event as fact?

PS Howard didn't have a recession either for 12 years.

John Smith wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 6:33pm:

Global economic conditions are vastly different today to what they were during Howards years. Howard had the best possible conditions in recent history, whereas today, we have some of the worst conditions since the great depression. Anyone who thinks the libs are going to come in and bring us into surplus alla Costello style is an idiot who is going to be mightilly dissapointed in about 3 years time.  (hi progs) All Abbott is going to do, if he wins office, is drive us into recession. However, that in itself won't be a bad thing, it at least means I won't have to hear the libs going on for the next 20 yrs about how they are the greatest economic managers. Libs have always had one modus operandi ... cut spending on the public service, sell everything, and cut services ... and yet despite they having used the same rule book since inception, Costello is the only time they've ever managed a surplus ... that should tell you one thing, it wasn't the libs rules that bought about a surplus, but more the fact that they got in during a time the whole world is booming.

yes, howard had better global conditions. nobody is ignoring it. However in these good times Howard made an impressive improvement in our fiscal position ie he saved for a rainy day. In more difficult times labor have done an utterly crap job. massive debt, massive deficit, higher unemployment. it hardly stands up as an impressive record. A truly impressive outcome would be if the economy was growing stronger and stronger, unemployment was still down and our debt was at a low level.  Labo have done a lousy job in poor circumstances.

longweekend58 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:27pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:57am: De-registered User wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:49am: The ALP's spending is all "GREEK" to me. There comes a time where we have to become "AUSTRALIAN" again. I'd much rather see cuts to spending and pay high taxes now under the LIB's, than pay no tax under the ALP in a recession if not depression in the next few years. Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact). how do you define a future event as fact? PS Howard didn't have a recession either for 12 years.

how do you define a future event as fact?

best chance

I would think that putting 2 dim wits in charge going in with $100 Billion of additional spending commitments would be one of the obvious outcomes in a tough economic position.

The Labor performance clearly shows that a recession under their leadership is very unlikely.

So the fact is that one way (labor) it is proven unlikely on known performance the other option (Libs) it is a reasonable outcome to expect.

It is clear obvious and reasonable to say that it is a fact that the known performance V the known poor economic expectation with high spending and known lack of ability means that the most likely recession would come from the libs.

longweekend58 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:32pm:

John Smith wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Global economic conditions are vastly different today to what they were during Howards years. Howard had the best possible conditions in recent history, whereas today, we have some of the worst conditions since the great depression. Anyone who thinks the libs are going to come in and bring us into surplus alla Costello style is an idiot who is going to be mightilly dissapointed in about 3 years time.  (hi progs) All Abbott is going to do, if he wins office, is drive us into recession. However, that in itself won't be a bad thing, it at least means I won't have to hear the libs going on for the next 20 yrs about how they are the greatest economic managers. Libs have always had one modus operandi ... cut spending on the public service, sell everything, and cut services ... and yet despite they having used the same rule book since inception, Costello is the only time they've ever managed a surplus ... that should tell you one thing, it wasn't the libs rules that bought about a surplus, but more the fact that they got in during a time the whole world is booming. yes, howard had better global conditions. nobody is ignoring it. However in these good times Howard made an impressive improvement in our fiscal position ie he saved for a rainy day. In more difficult times labor have done an utterly crap job. massive debt, massive deficit, higher unemployment. it hardly stands up as an impressive record. A truly impressive outcome would be if the economy was growing stronger and stronger, unemployment was still down and our debt was at a low level.  Labo have done a lousy job in poor circumstances.

The economy is growing and has done throughout Labor's tenure.....Unemployment is low compared to Howards early years as PM.....The period of 1998 to 2003 saw higher unemployment that we have today.....Our debt is low compared to every other comparable country who envy Australia's economy.....Howard did a crap job in the most favourable circumstances......Over a decade of record growth and the sale of over $100 billion in assets with nothing to show for it.....Your idea of good management does not stack up against the facts!!!

::) ::) ::)

longweekend58 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:32pm:

John Smith wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Global economic conditions are vastly different today to what they were during Howards years. Howard had the best possible conditions in recent history, whereas today, we have some of the worst conditions since the great depression. Anyone who thinks the libs are going to come in and bring us into surplus alla Costello style is an idiot who is going to be mightilly dissapointed in about 3 years time.  (hi progs) All Abbott is going to do, if he wins office, is drive us into recession. However, that in itself won't be a bad thing, it at least means I won't have to hear the libs going on for the next 20 yrs about how they are the greatest economic managers. Libs have always had one modus operandi ... cut spending on the public service, sell everything, and cut services ... and yet despite they having used the same rule book since inception, Costello is the only time they've ever managed a surplus ... that should tell you one thing, it wasn't the libs rules that bought about a surplus, but more the fact that they got in during a time the whole world is booming. yes, howard had better global conditions. nobody is ignoring it. However in these good times Howard made an impressive improvement in our fiscal position ie he saved for a rainy day. In more difficult times labor have done an utterly crap job. massive debt, massive deficit, higher unemployment. it hardly stands up as an impressive record. A truly impressive outcome would be if the economy was growing stronger and stronger, unemployment was still down and our debt was at a low level.  Labo have done a lousy job in poor circumstances.

Howard made an impresivce improvement into our financial position by selling whatever he could get his hands on . Labor has had steady growth throughout a time when just about all our trading partners hit a wall. Our economy is stronger and unemployment is down. The only thing you have is the debt argument but thats thats just blowing smoke. Abbotts own plans at the last elections would have seen us in even more debt.  Admit it longloser, despite all the rhetoric, labor has done alright. Sure, they could have done better, but that can be said about anyone. Where labor has rally struggled is in their ability to sell an idea .... absolutely woeful, I wonder how much of that was because of the hung parliament and the fact that they were forced to have to water down their ideas to get anything to happen ..  it's always hard to sell someone else's policy.

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 3:56pm:

progressiveslol wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 3:46pm: Either has labor while promising it 300 times. So you are screwed and I am happy to give liberals a go. Just as they will be happy to laugh their heads off at you while screwing you.

Been there with labor, so your point is...  :D :D :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:32pm: John Smith wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Global economic conditions are vastly different today to what they were during Howards years. Howard had the best possible conditions in recent history, whereas today, we have some of the worst conditions since the great depression. Anyone who thinks the libs are going to come in and bring us into surplus alla Costello style is an idiot who is going to be mightilly dissapointed in about 3 years time.  (hi progs) All Abbott is going to do, if he wins office, is drive us into recession. However, that in itself won't be a bad thing, it at least means I won't have to hear the libs going on for the next 20 yrs about how they are the greatest economic managers. Libs have always had one modus operandi ... cut spending on the public service, sell everything, and cut services ... and yet despite they having used the same rule book since inception, Costello is the only time they've ever managed a surplus ... that should tell you one thing, it wasn't the libs rules that bought about a surplus, but more the fact that they got in during a time the whole world is booming. yes, howard had better global conditions. nobody is ignoring it. However in these good times Howard made an impressive improvement in our fiscal position ie he saved for a rainy day. In more difficult times labor have done an utterly crap job. massive debt, massive deficit, higher unemployment. it hardly stands up as an impressive record. A truly impressive outcome would be if the economy was growing stronger and stronger, unemployment was still down and our debt was at a low level.  Labo have done a lousy job in poor circumstances. Howard made an impresivce improvement into our financial position by selling whatever he could get his hands on . Labor has had steady growth throughout a time when just about all our trading partners hit a wall. Our economy is stronger and unemployment is down. The only thing you have is the debt argument but thats thats just blowing smoke. Abbotts own plans at the last elections would have seen us in even more debt.  Admit it longloser, despite all the rhetoric, labor has done alright. Sure, they could have done better, but that can be said about anyone. Where labor has rally struggled is in their ability to sell an idea .... absolutely woeful, I wonder how much of that was because of the hung parliament and the fact that they were forced to have to water down their ideas to get anything to happen ..  it's always hard to sell someone else's policy.

Well Labor better is Not good enough JOHN

Put the country into more debt by giving more handouts to the greedy in this country.

warrigal wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 7:54am:

John Smith wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 9:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:32pm: John Smith wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Global economic conditions are vastly different today to what they were during Howards years. Howard had the best possible conditions in recent history, whereas today, we have some of the worst conditions since the great depression. Anyone who thinks the libs are going to come in and bring us into surplus alla Costello style is an idiot who is going to be mightilly dissapointed in about 3 years time.  (hi progs) All Abbott is going to do, if he wins office, is drive us into recession. However, that in itself won't be a bad thing, it at least means I won't have to hear the libs going on for the next 20 yrs about how they are the greatest economic managers. Libs have always had one modus operandi ... cut spending on the public service, sell everything, and cut services ... and yet despite they having used the same rule book since inception, Costello is the only time they've ever managed a surplus ... that should tell you one thing, it wasn't the libs rules that bought about a surplus, but more the fact that they got in during a time the whole world is booming. yes, howard had better global conditions. nobody is ignoring it. However in these good times Howard made an impressive improvement in our fiscal position ie he saved for a rainy day. In more difficult times labor have done an utterly crap job. massive debt, massive deficit, higher unemployment. it hardly stands up as an impressive record. A truly impressive outcome would be if the economy was growing stronger and stronger, unemployment was still down and our debt was at a low level.  Labo have done a lousy job in poor circumstances. Howard made an impresivce improvement into our financial position by selling whatever he could get his hands on . Labor has had steady growth throughout a time when just about all our trading partners hit a wall. Our economy is stronger and unemployment is down. The only thing you have is the debt argument but thats thats just blowing smoke. Abbotts own plans at the last elections would have seen us in even more debt.  Admit it longloser, despite all the rhetoric, labor has done alright. Sure, they could have done better, but that can be said about anyone. Where labor has rally struggled is in their ability to sell an idea .... absolutely woeful, I wonder how much of that was because of the hung parliament and the fact that they were forced to have to water down their ideas to get anything to happen ..  it's always hard to sell someone else's policy. Well Labor better is Not good enough JOHN Put the country into more debt by giving more handouts to the greedy in this country.

just more rhetoric warrigal ... does the liberal party website have all these saying listed somewhere so you can all copy paste them when ever you want?  What more handouts? nothing more wasteful than some of Howards handouts but you weren't concerned about them. The fact that he was wasting money we had doesn't make it any less wasteful. Sure labor has got some things wrong, but which government hasn't?

Dnarever wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 8:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:27pm: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:57am: De-registered User wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 10:49am: The ALP's spending is all "GREEK" to me. There comes a time where we have to become "AUSTRALIAN" again. I'd much rather see cuts to spending and pay high taxes now under the LIB's, than pay no tax under the ALP in a recession if not depression in the next few years. Labor avoided recession (fact) the Liberals are our best chance to have one (also a fact). how do you define a future event as fact? PS Howard didn't have a recession either for 12 years. how do you define a future event as fact? best chance I would think that putting 2 dim wits in charge going in with $100 Billion of additional spending commitments would be one of the obvious outcomes in a tough economic position. The Labor performance clearly shows that a recession under their leadership is very unlikely. So the fact is that one way (labor) it is proven unlikely on known performance the other option (Libs) it is a reasonable outcome to expect. It is clear obvious and reasonable to say that it is a fact that the known performance V the known poor economic expectation with high spending and known lack of ability means that the most likely recession would come from the libs.

even your average partisan respondent would not come up with the above nonsense. the Libs have a recent record of 12 years of economic stability growth and debt paydown. to suggest that suddenly this will all change despite the fact that most of the current opposition were part of that former govt, is illogical nonsense.

you do dumb and stupid increasingly well.

philperth2010 wrote on May 19^th, 2013 at 9:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:32pm: John Smith wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 6:33pm: Global economic conditions are vastly different today to what they were during Howards years. Howard had the best possible conditions in recent history, whereas today, we have some of the worst conditions since the great depression. Anyone who thinks the libs are going to come in and bring us into surplus alla Costello style is an idiot who is going to be mightilly dissapointed in about 3 years time.  (hi progs) All Abbott is going to do, if he wins office, is drive us into recession. However, that in itself won't be a bad thing, it at least means I won't have to hear the libs going on for the next 20 yrs about how they are the greatest economic managers. Libs have always had one modus operandi ... cut spending on the public service, sell everything, and cut services ... and yet despite they having used the same rule book since inception, Costello is the only time they've ever managed a surplus ... that should tell you one thing, it wasn't the libs rules that bought about a surplus, but more the fact that they got in during a time the whole world is booming. yes, howard had better global conditions. nobody is ignoring it. However in these good times Howard made an impressive improvement in our fiscal position ie he saved for a rainy day. In more difficult times labor have done an utterly crap job. massive debt, massive deficit, higher unemployment. it hardly stands up as an impressive record. A truly impressive outcome would be if the economy was growing stronger and stronger, unemployment was still down and our debt was at a low level.  Labo have done a lousy job in poor circumstances. The economy is growing and has done throughout Labor's tenure.....Unemployment is low compared to Howards early years as PM.....The period of 1998 to 2003 saw higher unemployment that we have today.....Our debt is low compared to every other comparable country who envy Australia's economy.....Howard did a crap job in the most favourable circumstances......Over a decade of record growth and the sale of over $100 billion in assets with nothing to show for it.....Your idea of good management does not stack up against the facts!!! ::) ::) ::)

oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%

please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron.

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 9:27am:

oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron.

now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again.

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 9:26am:

Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:40pm: how do you define a future event as fact? best chance I would think that putting 2 dim wits in charge going in with $100 Billion of additional spending commitments would be one of the obvious outcomes in a tough economic position. The Labor performance clearly shows that a recession under their leadership is very unlikely. So the fact is that one way (labor) it is proven unlikely on known performance the other option (Libs) it is a reasonable outcome to expect. It is clear obvious and reasonable to say that it is a fact that the known performance V the known poor economic expectation with high spending and known lack of ability means that the most likely recession would come from the libs. even your average partisan respondent would not come up with the above nonsense. the Libs have a recent record of 12 years of economic stability growth and debt paydown. to suggest that suddenly this will all change despite the fact that most of the current opposition were part of that former govt, is illogical nonsense. you do dumb and stupid increasingly well.

the Libs have a recent record of 12 years of economic stability growth and debt paydown.

From memory nongs like Hockey and Abbott had nothing to do with that???

In fact Abbott was specifically and deliberately kept away from economic decision making.

People like Howard and Costello were smart enough to be frightened by the economic threat of Abbott

John Smith wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 10:47am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again.

Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%.

In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%.

Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006.

The rate is currently about 5.5%.

The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now.

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 12:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:26am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:40pm: how do you define a future event as fact? best chance I would think that putting 2 dim wits in charge going in with $100 Billion of additional spending commitments would be one of the obvious outcomes in a tough economic position. The Labor performance clearly shows that a recession under their leadership is very unlikely. So the fact is that one way (labor) it is proven unlikely on known performance the other option (Libs) it is a reasonable outcome to expect. It is clear obvious and reasonable to say that it is a fact that the known performance V the known poor economic expectation with high spending and known lack of ability means that the most likely recession would come from the libs. even your average partisan respondent would not come up with the above nonsense. the Libs have a recent record of 12 years of economic stability growth and debt paydown. to suggest that suddenly this will all change despite the fact that most of the current opposition were part of that former govt, is illogical nonsense. you do dumb and stupid increasingly well. the Libs have a recent record of 12 years of economic stability growth and debt paydown. From memory nongs like Hockey and Abbott had nothing to do with that??? In fact Abbott was specifically and deliberately kept away from economic decision making. People like Howard and Costello were smart enough to be frightened by the economic threat of Abbott

bottom line is that you claim the Libs are economic incompetents despite clear evidence (is extensive history) to the contrary.

Be partisan all you like. Just don't be a johnSmith type fool and just make it up as you go away and make assertions that have no basis.

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again. Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%. In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%. Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006. The rate is currently about 5.5%. The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now.

So in short... unemployment is trending down under Howard and 6 months after Labor is elected it trends UP harshly.  Bit hard to draw any pro-labor conclusions from that! 

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 12:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:26am: Dnarever wrote on May 19th, 2013 at 8:40pm: how do you define a future event as fact? best chance I would think that putting 2 dim wits in charge going in with $100 Billion of additional spending commitments would be one of the obvious outcomes in a tough economic position. The Labor performance clearly shows that a recession under their leadership is very unlikely. So the fact is that one way (labor) it is proven unlikely on known performance the other option (Libs) it is a reasonable outcome to expect. It is clear obvious and reasonable to say that it is a fact that the known performance V the known poor economic expectation with high spending and known lack of ability means that the most likely recession would come from the libs. even your average partisan respondent would not come up with the above nonsense. the Libs have a recent record of 12 years of economic stability growth and debt paydown. to suggest that suddenly this will all change despite the fact that most of the current opposition were part of that former govt, is illogical nonsense. you do dumb and stupid increasingly well. the Libs have a recent record of 12 years of economic stability growth and debt paydown. From memory nongs like Hockey and Abbott had nothing to do with that??? In fact Abbott was specifically and deliberately kept away from economic decision making. People like Howard and Costello were smart enough to be frightened by the economic threat of Abbott bottom line is that you claim the Libs are economic incompetents despite clear evidence (is extensive history) to the contrary. Be partisan all you like. Just don't be a johnSmith type fool and just make it up as you go away and make assertions that have no basis.

you mean like when someone claims that swan inherited unemployment rates of under 4% and current rates are 6%, those sort of 'made up' figures?

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 1:06pm:

John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again. Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%. In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%. Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006. The rate is currently about 5.5%. The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now.

except that unemployment reached 3.9% under howard and  was trending down at the time Rudd was elected.

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again. Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%. In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%. Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006. The rate is currently about 5.5%. The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now. except that unemployment reached 3.9% under howard and  was trending down at the time Rudd was elected.

and what happened shortly after Rudd was elected dopey?

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 1:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again. Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%. In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%. Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006. The rate is currently about 5.5%. The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now. except that unemployment reached 3.9% under howard and  was trending down at the time Rudd was elected.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate

4.2% was the lowest the Libs got and it was 4.6% in November 2007. March 2008 it was 4.0%

If you look at the downward trend you mentioned it goes back to 1992, it was also trending down when Howard came into power.

John Smith wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again. Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%. In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%. Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006. The rate is currently about 5.5%. The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now. except that unemployment reached 3.9% under howard and  was trending down at the time Rudd was elected. and what happened shortly after Rudd was elected dopey?

howards policies still in place kept unemployment low until rudd started changing things.

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 1:25pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again. Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%. In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%. Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006. The rate is currently about 5.5%. The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now. except that unemployment reached 3.9% under howard and  was trending down at the time Rudd was elected. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate 4.2% was the lowest the Libs got and it was 4.6% in November 2007. March 2008 it was 4.0% If you look at the downward trend you mentioned it goes back to 1992, it was also trending down when Howard came into power.

I love how when unemployment goes down it is Swan or Keating but when it goes up it is Howard.

It destroys the wafer-thin credibility you had before.

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 5:18pm:

John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:19pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again. Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%. In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%. Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006. The rate is currently about 5.5%. The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now. except that unemployment reached 3.9% under howard and  was trending down at the time Rudd was elected. and what happened shortly after Rudd was elected dopey? howards policies still in place kept unemployment low until rudd started changing things.

that's what you came up with? hahaha alzeimers kicking in already longloser ...

remember that little thing called the GFC? need me to spell it for you?............  G.F.C.

longweekend58 wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 5:19pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again. Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%. In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%. Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006. The rate is currently about 5.5%. The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now. except that unemployment reached 3.9% under howard and  was trending down at the time Rudd was elected. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate 4.2% was the lowest the Libs got and it was 4.6% in November 2007. March 2008 it was 4.0% If you look at the downward trend you mentioned it goes back to 1992, it was also trending down when Howard came into power. I love how when unemployment goes down it is Swan or Keating but when it goes up it is Howard. It destroys the wafer-thin credibility you had before.

when it goes up it is Howard.

It clearly went down under the Howard government and I never said anything different.

I did however put it into context by showing that it was already trending down when he came into power and it continued to fall after he left. They are just facts.

It is also interesting to look at the growth graphs which show as growth was trending up unemployment was trending down in a virtual mirror image.

Both had commenced following the 1991/2 recession and continued till the GFC in 2008 virtually independant of what either government were doing.

And when we vote the new lib/nats coalition government in, unemployment will go up again probably to 6 or 7%

Dnarever wrote on May 20^th, 2013 at 10:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 5:19pm: Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again. Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%. In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%. Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006. The rate is currently about 5.5%. The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now. except that unemployment reached 3.9% under howard and  was trending down at the time Rudd was elected. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate 4.2% was the lowest the Libs got and it was 4.6% in November 2007. March 2008 it was 4.0% If you look at the downward trend you mentioned it goes back to 1992, it was also trending down when Howard came into power. I love how when unemployment goes down it is Swan or Keating but when it goes up it is Howard. It destroys the wafer-thin credibility you had before. when it goes up it is Howard. It clearly went down under the Howard government and I never said anything different. I did however put it into context by showing that it was already trending down when he came into power and it continued to fall after he left. They are just facts. It is also interesting to look at the growth graphs which show as growth was trending up unemployment was trending down in a virtual mirror image. Both had commenced following the 2001/2 recession and continued till the GFC in 2008 virtually independant of what either government were doing.

there was no 2001/2 recession. in other countries there was but not here.

longweekend58 wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 10:30am:

Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 5:19pm: Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:25pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:16pm: Dnarever wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 1:06pm: John Smith wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 10:47am: longweekend58 wrote on May 20th, 2013 at 9:27am: oh that's a goodie phil...  now you are bringing intellectual dishonesty to the table as  well!!!  Yes, unemployment was higher in the early years of howard because he inherited high rates and then lowered them. Swan inherited record low rats of UNDER 4% and now it is nearly 6%please do not go the way of adelcrow and DNA and resort to being a moron. now who's being dishonest? why not give the real rate instead of saying nearly 6%? tut tut longie ... your hypocrisy is shining through again. Labor inherited Rates over 4.5% and not under 4%. In mid 2008 under Labor rates went under 4%. Around 12 months earlier unemployment was over 5.5% in 2006. The rate is currently about 5.5%. The obvious conclusion from the actual data is that the Lowest was factually under Labor but in general the rate is cycling in about the same levels in 2005 - 2007 as it is now. except that unemployment reached 3.9% under howard and  was trending down at the time Rudd was elected. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/unemployment-rate 4.2% was the lowest the Libs got and it was 4.6% in November 2007. March 2008 it was 4.0% If you look at the downward trend you mentioned it goes back to 1992, it was also trending down when Howard came into power. I love how when unemployment goes down it is Swan or Keating but when it goes up it is Howard. It destroys the wafer-thin credibility you had before. when it goes up it is Howard. It clearly went down under the Howard government and I never said anything different. I did however put it into context by showing that it was already trending down when he came into power and it continued to fall after he left. They are just facts. It is also interesting to look at the growth graphs which show as growth was trending up unemployment was trending down in a virtual mirror image. Both had commenced following the 2001/2 recession and continued till the GFC in 2008 virtually independant of what either government were doing. there was no 2001/2 recession. in other countries there was but not here.

You are right - sorry I meant the 1992 recession - the recession we had to have which is the one that fits in with the context of the post.

20% GST
40% Tax Rate $100,000 - $250,000
50% Tax Rate $250,000+

Cut social spending programs
Cut Foreign Aid

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 21^st, 2013 at 6:35pm:

20% GST 40% Tax Rate $100,000 - $250,000 50% Tax Rate $250,000+ Cut social spending programs Cut Foreign Aid

What else should be cut Andrei?