FEDERAL Treasurer Joe Hockey says without deep cuts to spending in the budget Australia is heading for the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history. 
 
Treasury analysis predicts the country's deficits will stretch out to at least 2024 because of continued spending increases.

The warning provides a case for drastic cuts in the May budget, as the government on Monday received the final report from its Commission of Audit.

Mr Hockey said the government had to reduce expenditure, as well as try to increase revenue at the same time.

"Without changes to government spending the budget is in deficit for at least a decade," Mr Hockey told ABC radio.

"It would be the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history."

Asked if that meant the budget cuts had to be hard and deep, Mr Hockey said: "They've got to be fair, too".

"It is about making sure that everyone, everyone in the community helps to do the heavy lifting on repairing the budget," he said.

"This is not an ideological drive. This is about whether we want to simply sustain our quality of living, not even improve our quality of living.

"We have to make sure we live within our means."

Mr Hockey complained that Labor had left the government with "massive" spending increases in foreign aid and defence, and a poorly introduced National Disability Insurance Scheme.

"If we don't get on top of the proper management of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, not only would it not be sustainable, but it could end up as big a farce as the pink batts program or the $900 cheques program," he said.

The treasurer said the ageing population was also putting pressure on the budget.

When asked if it was sustainable to give a part pension to those with assets of more than a million dollars, Mr Hockey said "that's something that obviously needs to be taken into account".

"The aged pension is growing at a massive rate," he said.

"But also it's about our ageing population, and the fact is that we're living longer.

"The question is how do we sustain these sorts of payments, and ensure that they are sustainable in 10, 20 and 30 years time."

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-faces-decade-of-deficits-hockey/story-fni0xqi3-1226869485940

This is what happens when you have an economic illiterate like Swan running the country's finances. Swan's attempt to spend his way out of trouble has just created more problems that Abbott/Hockey now have to try to deal with. Thanks for the massive debt, Wayne! >:(

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 9:15am:

When asked if it was sustainable to give a part pension to those with assets of more than a million dollars, Mr Hockey said "that's something that obviously needs to be taken into account".

Given the prices of Australian real estate, that would probably mean at least half of the population living in capital cities....

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 9:16am:

This is what happens when you have an economic illiterate like Swan running the country's finances. Swan's attempt to spend his way out of trouble has just created more problems that Abbott/Hockey now have to try to deal with. Thanks for the massive debt, Wayne! >:(

why? because Hockey says so? .... does he even know how to turn on his calculator?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 9:25am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:16am: This is what happens when you have an economic illiterate like Swan running the country's finances. Swan's attempt to spend his way out of trouble has just created more problems that Abbott/Hockey now have to try to deal with. Thanks for the massive debt, Wayne! >:( why? because Hockey says so? .... does he even know how to turn on his calculator?  ;D ;D ;D ;D

How many times do this clown's BS claims about Swan, Labor and the economy
have to be refuted before it sinks in that he is dead wrong?

He is not posting a fact, or even an opinion, he is posting a proven, demonstrable
and acknowledged (world-wide, by experts) lie.

And he does so on an almost daily basis.

It may not be trolling, but in my book it's definitely spamming.

Kat wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 9:43am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:16am: This is what happens when you have an economic illiterate like Swan running the country's finances. Swan's attempt to spend his way out of trouble has just created more problems that Abbott/Hockey now have to try to deal with. Thanks for the massive debt, Wayne! >:( why? because Hockey says so? .... does he even know how to turn on his calculator?  ;D ;D ;D ;D How many times do this clown's BS claims about Swan, Labor and the economy have to be refuted before it sinks in that he is dead wrong? He is not posting a fact, or even an opinion, he is posting a proven, demonstrable and acknowledged (world-wide, by experts) lie. And he does so on an almost daily basis. It may not be trolling, but in my book it's definitely spamming.

I agree with you Kat.

After all, we all know that Swan came good on his promise of a budget surplus.

Kat wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 9:43am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:16am: This is what happens when you have an economic illiterate like Swan running the country's finances. Swan's attempt to spend his way out of trouble has just created more problems that Abbott/Hockey now have to try to deal with. Thanks for the massive debt, Wayne! >:( why? because Hockey says so? .... does he even know how to turn on his calculator?  ;D ;D ;D ;D How many times do this clown's BS claims about Swan, Labor and the economy have to be refuted before it sinks in that he is dead wrong? He is not posting a fact, or even an opinion, he is posting a proven, demonstrable and acknowledged (world-wide, by experts) lie. And he does so on an almost daily basis. It may not be trolling, but in my book it's definitely spamming.

Wow, talk about delusional! What about Swan's $300bn+ debt? What about his numerous/record deficits? What about his wasteful spending? Swan is never going to be talked about in good terms as a former Treasurer, only the damage he did will be remembered - and there's plenty of that to be seen and felt even now!

While I agree that Labor had some very poor economic management at times, you need to realise that a healthy economy is NOT measured by the surplus or defecit.  Unfortunately, largely through the media, it is often presented this way, and people with a lack of understanding of macro economics see it as an irresponsible spender living beyond their means, while when it comes to a large economy, often the opposite is needed in times of hardship.

Pollies need to show some nerve and:

A) Stop caving in to pressure from the media regarding the actual importance of a defecit or surplus

B) Stop using these things as political point scoring mechanisms and break the cycle.

Spending money on wasteful things doesn't help much, as Labor has done in the past, but if you think cutting programs and spending, taking billions out of the economy is going to help, you are wrong indeed.

To get out of debt takes hard work for a long time.

There is no easy way to do it

Kat wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 9:43am:

John Smith wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:16am: This is what happens when you have an economic illiterate like Swan running the country's finances. Swan's attempt to spend his way out of trouble has just created more problems that Abbott/Hockey now have to try to deal with. Thanks for the massive debt, Wayne! >:( why? because Hockey says so? .... does he even know how to turn on his calculator?  ;D ;D ;D ;D How many times do this clown's BS claims about Swan, Labor and the economy have to be refuted before it sinks in that he is dead wrong? He is not posting a fact, or even an opinion, he is posting a proven, demonstrable and acknowledged (world-wide, by experts) lie. And he does so on an almost daily basis. It may not be trolling, but in my book it's definitely spamming.

Are you disputing Labor's track history with budget deficits? :-?

When was the last time a federal Labor Govt delivered a surplus  budget? :-?

A decade of deficits is also a decade of defacto tax increases.

What was there last effort.  $300 Billion or so?  $300 billion in tax increases.

Look at that WA when you vote on Sat.  Labor's 300 Billion in tax increases..........enjoy.... >:(

....and that's just the Federal mob.... ::)

How Howard's last budget planted the seeds of deficit

8 May 2013



http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/15/newshowardcostello_wideweb__470x319,0.jpg





Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey promises major cuts to spending and welfare if the coalition is elected while the government, having been forced to walk away from its budget surplus promise, is now cutting previously guaranteed benefits like increases in family benefit payments.


The focus on these sorts of welfare cuts begins the dismantling of policies that were central to John Howard and Peter Costello’s budgets, especially the pair’s final big-spending 2007 budget, which bestowed generous tax concessions – in areas such as superannuation – and transferred income to families that came to be dubbed “middle class welfare”.


In my comment piece on last year’s federal budget for The Conversation, I began with the proposition that “good policy should be free of surprises”.

Although governments need to pay for additional expenditure promises – like Gonski and the NDIS in this case – there is also the need to address the underlying structural problem of reducing existing expenditure when revenues fall.

All this is at a time when the carbon tax, the mining tax – and just about every tax – is not raising the expected revenue, and Treasury's forecasting performance is not looking good.

The point is that fiscal policy should be made in the context of a long-term vision for the economy.

This includes getting everyone who wants to into work, providing the public infrastructure needed to increase productivity, the right mix of private and government healthcare and education; and reform of the regulatory environment. We should see clear lines being drawn between the major parties with regard to their philosophy. However, in recent decades we haven’t seen much of this.

Under John Howard, the Liberal-National Party coalition government sought to position itself as good economic managers in contrast to Labor. It recorded budget surpluses after 1997-98 in every year except one (2001-02), with surpluses reaching around 1 per cent of GDP during its fourth term. The record economic growth led to huge windfalls in receipts from company income tax.

Falls in unemployment, jobs growth and wages growth greatly increased personal income tax receipts. While government expenditure as a proportion of GDP was fairly stable, albeit rising slightly, this has to be seen in the context of a switch from public provision of services to private provision. Consequently, there was less provision of government services but increasing government expenditure.

In the 2004-05 federal budget, treasurer Peter Costello announced the baby bonus, a lump sum payment of $3000 to parents receivable after the birth of each child. It has since risen from $3000 on commencement on July 1, 2004, to $4000 in 2005 and to $5000 on July 1, 2008, and is indexed to inflation. Wayne Swan subsequently reduced the baby bonus to $5000 from September 1, 2012, and to $3000 for second and subsequent children from mid-2013.

In the same budget there were other significant increases in benefits to families with children as well as tax cuts for all Australians. As more than one commentator pointed out, there was an incredible degree of giving with one hand and taking away with the other with inevitable administrative cost and waste.

The biggest single item of government expenditure is on social welfare. The majority of the recipients are middle income households due to the generosity of family payments. In 2007, even families with $100,000 in income were eligible for child support. In effect, what the Howard government built up is a system of massive transfers from middle income taxpayers back to middle income consumers. It might well have been more efficient to let these middle class households keep the money instead of paying extra tax.

In 2007, during the election campaign, further planned personal income tax cuts of $34 billion over five years were promised by both the Howard government and matched by Labor, with the latter firmly in its policy-copying “me too” election mode.

The result of policy-matching meant that the Howard government effectively locked  the next government into its tax reforms including raising tax thresholds and reducing the top tax rate of 45 cents per dollar, ultimately lowered to 40 cents per dollar.

https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/8/federal-budget/how-howards-last-budget-planted-seeds-deficit

If budget surpluses are the only metric that indicates sound economic management why is Gough Whitlam not put up high on a pedestal.

We now have an infrastructure deficit.....Who was in charge when the coffers where bulging and blew it on buying votes instead of building infrastructure???

:-? :-? :-?

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 5:07pm:

How Howard's last budget planted the seeds of deficit 8 May 2013 http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/15/newshowardcostello_wideweb__470x319,0.jpg Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey promises major cuts to spending and welfare if the coalition is elected while the government, having been forced to walk away from its budget surplus promise, is now cutting previously guaranteed benefits like increases in family benefit payments. The focus on these sorts of welfare cuts begins the dismantling of policies that were central to John Howard and Peter Costello’s budgets, especially the pair’s final big-spending 2007 budget, which bestowed generous tax concessions – in areas such as superannuation – and transferred income to families that came to be dubbed “middle class welfare”. In my comment piece on last year’s federal budget for The Conversation, I began with the proposition that “good policy should be free of surprises”. Although governments need to pay for additional expenditure promises – like Gonski and the NDIS in this case – there is also the need to address the underlying structural problem of reducing existing expenditure when revenues fall. All this is at a time when the carbon tax, the mining tax – and just about every tax – is not raising the expected revenue, and Treasury's forecasting performance is not looking good. The point is that fiscal policy should be made in the context of a long-term vision for the economy. This includes getting everyone who wants to into work, providing the public infrastructure needed to increase productivity, the right mix of private and government healthcare and education; and reform of the regulatory environment. We should see clear lines being drawn between the major parties with regard to their philosophy. However, in recent decades we haven’t seen much of this. Under John Howard, the Liberal-National Party coalition government sought to position itself as good economic managers in contrast to Labor. It recorded budget surpluses after 1997-98 in every year except one (2001-02), with surpluses reaching around 1 per cent of GDP during its fourth term. The record economic growth led to huge windfalls in receipts from company income tax. Falls in unemployment, jobs growth and wages growth greatly increased personal income tax receipts. While government expenditure as a proportion of GDP was fairly stable, albeit rising slightly, this has to be seen in the context of a switch from public provision of services to private provision. Consequently, there was less provision of government services but increasing government expenditure. In the 2004-05 federal budget, treasurer Peter Costello announced the baby bonus, a lump sum payment of $3000 to parents receivable after the birth of each child. It has since risen from $3000 on commencement on July 1, 2004, to $4000 in 2005 and to $5000 on July 1, 2008, and is indexed to inflation. Wayne Swan subsequently reduced the baby bonus to $5000 from September 1, 2012, and to $3000 for second and subsequent children from mid-2013. In the same budget there were other significant increases in benefits to families with children as well as tax cuts for all Australians. As more than one commentator pointed out, there was an incredible degree of giving with one hand and taking away with the other with inevitable administrative cost and waste. The biggest single item of government expenditure is on social welfare. The majority of the recipients are middle income households due to the generosity of family payments. In 2007, even families with $100,000 in income were eligible for child support. In effect, what the Howard government built up is a system of massive transfers from middle income taxpayers back to middle income consumers. It might well have been more efficient to let these middle class households keep the money instead of paying extra tax. In 2007, during the election campaign, further planned personal income tax cuts of $34 billion over five years were promised by both the Howard government and matched by Labor, with the latter firmly in its policy-copying “me too” election mode. The result of policy-matching meant that the Howard government effectively locked  the next government into its tax reforms including raising tax thresholds and reducing the top tax rate of 45 cents per dollar, ultimately lowered to 40 cents per dollar. https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/8/federal-budget/how-howards-last-budget-planted-seeds-deficit

What an absolute load of utter crap! Howard/Costello left office with the budget in surplus, the debt paid off and a multi-billion dollar Future Fund set up. Rudd couldn't possibly have taken over an economy in better shape if it had been run by a dictator. To blame the current fiscal situation on the last budget of Howard/Costello is absurd in the extreme due to the fact that it's been seven years since Rudd became PM! By the way, how much revenue was lost by Labor increasing the tax-free threshold by around double? How much revenue was lost due to dodgy estimates such as the mining tax? It took in next to nothing, but Labor still spent as if it already had the money in the bank!!!  ;D ;D ;D

crocodile wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:28pm:

If budget surpluses are the only metric that indicates sound economic management why is Gough Whitlam not put up high on a pedestal.

Good point.

The Whitlam government was the first government since the Second World War to make the delivery of surpluses a stated aim, in stark contrast to the previous Coalition government of Menzies/Holt/Gorton/McMahon that routinely ran deficits in almost every one of the 23 budgets that they handed down. Which government delivered more surpluses - Whitlam or Menzies/Holt/Gorton/McMahon? Which government delivered more deficits?

Bam wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 7:03pm:

crocodile wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:28pm: If budget surpluses are the only metric that indicates sound economic management why is Gough Whitlam not put up high on a pedestal. Good point. The Whitlam government was the first government since the Second World War to make the delivery of surpluses a stated aim, in stark contrast to the previous Coalition government of Menzies/Holt/Gorton/McMahon that routinely ran deficits in almost every one of the 23 budgets that they handed down. Which government delivered more surpluses - Whitlam or Menzies/Holt/Gorton/McMahon? Which government delivered more deficits?

The point is not really that good. It just highlights the folly of using budget surpluses as some kind of barometer for economic performance. The thread title is nothing more than a flag waving exercise akin to cheering on one's favourite footy team.

You can delve back into history way, way back and find that the Howard years were about the only period where long term sustained surpluses prevailed. And this was really only helped by soaring commodity prices and the wholesale divestment of public assets.

Now that Joe has his hands on the tiller, through all his bluster he is quickly realising that the problems his predecessor faced are not too different to what lies ahead of him as well. On top of that, his methods of restoration aren't a whole lot different either.

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:33pm:

We now have an infrastructure deficit.....Who was in charge when the coffers where bulging and blew it on buying votes instead of building infrastructure??? :-? :-? :-?

If that's the case why, pray tell, did Swan promise us a cast iron surplus in 2013 for 2 years......

crocodile wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 6:28pm:

If budget surpluses are the only metric that indicates sound economic management why is Gough Whitlam not put up high on a pedestal.

To MANY of us - E.G. "Gough" Whitlam AC QC and "comrade" - is immortalised on the HIGHEST of pedestal

The highlights of my recent - and first in 43 years - trip to Canberra, was being photographed by the official portrait of the great man, in the new Parliament House - and my first look at the Whitlam purchase - and "cultural sledge-hammer" - that delivered us from an "Appalachian wilderness"


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/2d/Blue_Poles_(Jackson_Pollock_painting).jpg




( ... there's NOT much else THERE - though I might try AGAIN, in ANOTHER 43 years)

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:16am:

To MANY of us - E.G. "Gough" Whitlam AC QC and "comrade" - is immortalised on the HIGHEST of pedestal

That pretty much sums you up.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 11:33pm:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 6:33pm: We now have an infrastructure deficit.....Who was in charge when the coffers where bulging and blew it on buying votes instead of building infrastructure??? :-? :-? :-? If that's the case why, pray tell, did Swan promise us a cast iron surplus in 2013 for 2 years......

What has your comment got to do with the substance of my post....The global downturn has reduced revenue below forecasts and will continue to do so no matter what Hockey does.....Howard had the opportunity to build infrastructure that would have been better than buying votes!!!

::) ::) ::)

Your comment Phil is as if you blame Howard and Costello (shock horror) for the fact that the current situation of budget deficits is ongoing.

Yet superbly seemed to have missed the point that Labor took a budget in surplus and then produced SIX DEFICITS in SIX BUDGETS.

Quite some achievement. Then again the party of the working class are hardly ideal for dealing with economic matters a tad above the level of boozing and pokie machines...  ;)

So - to your point - if it was all the fault of Howard and that things were very bad when ALP took over - then how come idiot Swan promised us all a surplus in 2013...

Then delivered a $23 BILLION DEFICIT!

If it were obvious the budget was in structural deficit when they took over - as you claim - why promise a surplus?????

Labor inherited the GFC, Howard didnt have that to contend with. Howard was in power during the most favourable world  economic circumstances for australia  in history. He squandered the opportunity.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:17am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:16am: To MANY of us - E.G. "Gough" Whitlam AC QC and "comrade" - is immortalised on the HIGHEST of pedestal That pretty much sums you up.

... and how many "pink elephant" stamps do you think FLATTERY will get you, sweet-cheeks ?


( ... and bear in MIND - these events took place LONG before you were a wet dream fed in with a chicken baster)

ian wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:42am:

Labor inherited the GFC, Howard didnt have that to contend with. Howard was in power during the most favourable world  economic circumstances for australia  in history. He squandered the opportunity.

Hardly.
A country running to surplus.
A decent reward system for middle income families to get on in life.
An adherence to workplace relations reforms that were needed.
A strong border control policy.

Nope. I know I did pretty well in Australia partly as a result of Howard's policies and I know many that did.
I can't say the same for the disaster that followed it.
In fact I was glad to leave if I am honest.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:31am:

Your comment Phil is as if you blame Howard and Costello (shock horror) for the fact that the current situation of budget deficits is ongoing.

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 5:07pm:

How Howard's last budget planted the seeds of deficit 8 May 2013 Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey promises major cuts to spending and welfare if the coalition is elected while the government, having been forced to walk away from its budget surplus promise, is now cutting previously guaranteed benefits like increases in family benefit payments. The focus on these sorts of welfare cuts begins the dismantling of policies that were central to John Howard and Peter Costello’s budgets, especially the pair’s final big-spending 2007 budget, which bestowed generous tax concessions – in areas such as superannuation – and transferred income to families that came to be dubbed “middle class welfare”. In my comment piece on last year’s federal budget for The Conversation, I began with the proposition that “good policy should be free of surprises”. Although governments need to pay for additional expenditure promises – like Gonski and the NDIS in this case – there is also the need to address the underlying structural problem of reducing existing expenditure when revenues fall. All this is at a time when the carbon tax, the mining tax – and just about every tax – is not raising the expected revenue, and Treasury's forecasting performance is not looking good. The point is that fiscal policy should be made in the context of a long-term vision for the economy. This includes getting everyone who wants to into work, providing the public infrastructure needed to increase productivity, the right mix of private and government healthcare and education; and reform of the regulatory environment. We should see clear lines being drawn between the major parties with regard to their philosophy. However, in recent decades we haven’t seen much of this. Under John Howard, the Liberal-National Party coalition government sought to position itself as good economic managers in contrast to Labor. It recorded budget surpluses after 1997-98 in every year except one (2001-02), with surpluses reaching around 1 per cent of GDP during its fourth term. The record economic growth led to huge windfalls in receipts from company income tax. Falls in unemployment, jobs growth and wages growth greatly increased personal income tax receipts. While government expenditure as a proportion of GDP was fairly stable, albeit rising slightly, this has to be seen in the context of a switch from public provision of services to private provision. Consequently, there was less provision of government services but increasing government expenditure. In the 2004-05 federal budget, treasurer Peter Costello announced the baby bonus, a lump sum payment of $3000 to parents receivable after the birth of each child. It has since risen from $3000 on commencement on July 1, 2004, to $4000 in 2005 and to $5000 on July 1, 2008, and is indexed to inflation. Wayne Swan subsequently reduced the baby bonus to $5000 from September 1, 2012, and to $3000 for second and subsequent children from mid-2013. In the same budget there were other significant increases in benefits to families with children as well as tax cuts for all Australians. As more than one commentator pointed out, there was an incredible degree of giving with one hand and taking away with the other with inevitable administrative cost and waste. The biggest single item of government expenditure is on social welfare. The majority of the recipients are middle income households due to the generosity of family payments. In 2007, even families with $100,000 in income were eligible for child support. In effect, what the Howard government built up is a system of massive transfers from middle income taxpayers back to middle income consumers. It might well have been more efficient to let these middle class households keep the money instead of paying extra tax. In 2007, during the election campaign, further planned personal income tax cuts of $34 billion over five years were promised by both the Howard government and matched by Labor, with the latter firmly in its policy-copying “me too” election mode. The result of policy-matching meant that the Howard government effectively locked  the next government into its tax reforms including raising tax thresholds and reducing the top tax rate of 45 cents per dollar, ultimately lowered to 40 cents per dollar. https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/8/federal-budget/how-howards-last-budget-planted-seeds-deficit

http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/15/newshowardcostello_wideweb__470x319,0.jpg





http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/15/newshowardcostello_wideweb__470x319,0.jpg





http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/15/newshowardcostello_wideweb__470x319,0.jpg

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:55am:

ian wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:42am: Labor inherited the GFC, Howard didnt have that to contend with. Howard was in power during the most favourable world  economic circumstances for australia  in history. He squandered the opportunity. I did pretty well in Australia partly as a result of Howard's policies . I was glad to leave if I am honest.

Is THAT why you're still here ?

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 12:58am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:31am: Your comment Phil is as if you blame Howard and Costello (shock horror) for the fact that the current situation of budget deficits is ongoing. [quote author=buzzanddidj link=1396221316/10#10 date=1396249662]How Howard's last budget planted the seeds of deficit

Question still stands - why in 2011 and a further 2 years did Wayne Swan promise categorically a budget surplus then?

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:01am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:55am: ian wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:42am: Labor inherited the GFC, Howard didnt have that to contend with. Howard was in power during the most favourable world  economic circumstances for australia  in history. He squandered the opportunity. I did pretty well in Australia partly as a result of Howard's policies . I was glad to leave if I am honest. Is THAT why you're still here ?

Because I am an Australian citizen by birth interested in the country's well being.

The "middle class" wealthfare is what should be cut - not the money for the poorest ppl . . . and they should stop selling the geese so they have some eggs. This government is ridiculous as was the howard government.

SOB

Howard got rid of the $96 billion debt Keating left by cutting government services and privatising anything he could get his hands on. Yes he left with a surplus, but he also left just as the GFC hit and thousands of Australians lost everything.

Labor began reinstating most of the government services - not a cheap exercise and by the end of their term Australians had the healthiest savings we had seen in decades.

Labor brought back means testing and on a couple of occasions tried to reduce middle class welfare, but the screams of outrage were deafening.

And Hockey has the hide to blame Labor. Let's see how popular he's going to be if these promised harsh cuts affect those on middle and higher incomes, but they won't because Hockey won't start at the top. He'll work his way up from the bottom.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:07am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:58am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:31am: Your comment Phil is as if you blame Howard and Costello (shock horror) for the fact that the current situation of budget deficits is ongoing. [quote author=buzzanddidj link=1396221316/10#10 date=1396249662]How Howard's last budget planted the seeds of deficit Question still stands - why in 2011 and a further 2 years did Wayne Swan promise categorically a budget surplus then?

Just a quick look at the 2011 budget papers.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/myefo/html/02_part_2-03.htm

It appears that the forward estimates from treasury were way off. Take a look at projected nominal GDP growth for 2012 and 2013 and you will see that treasury forecasts were 6.25% and 5% respectively.

History tells us that it was actually less than half these figures. Like it or not, that is the reason for the promised surpluses and their respective deterioration into deficits.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 9:15am:

FEDERAL Treasurer Joe Hockey says without deep cuts to spending in the budget Australia is heading for the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history.    Treasury analysis predicts the country's deficits will stretch out to at least 2024 because of continued spending increases. The warning provides a case for drastic cuts in the May budget, as the government on Monday received the final report from its Commission of Audit. Mr Hockey said the government had to reduce expenditure, as well as try to increase revenue at the same time. "Without changes to government spending the budget is in deficit for at least a decade," Mr Hockey told ABC radio. "It would be the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history." Asked if that meant the budget cuts had to be hard and deep, Mr Hockey said: "They've got to be fair, too". "It is about making sure that everyone, everyone in the community helps to do the heavy lifting on repairing the budget," he said. "This is not an ideological drive. This is about whether we want to simply sustain our quality of living, not even improve our quality of living. "We have to make sure we live within our means." Mr Hockey complained that Labor had left the government with "massive" spending increases in foreign aid and defence, and a poorly introduced National Disability Insurance Scheme. "If we don't get on top of the proper management of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, not only would it not be sustainable, but it could end up as big a farce as the pink batts program or the $900 cheques program," he said. The treasurer said the ageing population was also putting pressure on the budget. When asked if it was sustainable to give a part pension to those with assets of more than a million dollars, Mr Hockey said "that's something that obviously needs to be taken into account". "The aged pension is growing at a massive rate," he said. "But also it's about our ageing population, and the fact is that we're living longer. "The question is how do we sustain these sorts of payments, and ensure that they are sustainable in 10, 20 and 30 years time." http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-faces-decade-of-deficits-hockey/story-fni0xqi3-1226869485940

With OR without changes to government spending, IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THE OZ BUDGET WILL BE IN DEFICIT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT DECADE & QUITE POSSIBLY MORE, MUCH MORE!

AND, before anyone gets OVER-EXCITED, this calamity has arisen not just from OZ Labor, but also from OZ Liberals/Nationals AND from Labor/Liberal counterparts in many other countries, over many decades AND because WE/ THE PUBLIC swallowed to much -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes
for far too long, from Politicians of all persuasions!

Good to hear from you again Perc.....I agree the Coalition, ALP and Greens have all contributed to this problem.....However the problem is mostly because of a Global downturn that cannot be fixed by tinkering with the Australian budget.....No one can fix what is out of their control!!!

:-? :-? :-?

mantra wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 5:22am:

Howard got rid of the $96 billion debt Keating left by cutting government services and privatising anything he could get his hands on. Yes he left with a surplus, but he also left just as the GFC hit and thousands of Australians lost everything. Labor began reinstating most of the government services - not a cheap exercise and by the end of their term Australians had the healthiest savings we had seen in decades. Labor brought back means testing and on a couple of occasions tried to reduce middle class welfare, but the screams of outrage were deafening. And Hockey has the hide to blame Labor. Let's see how popular he's going to be if these promised harsh cuts affect those on middle and higher incomes, but they won't because Hockey won't start at the top. He'll work his way up from the bottom.

so single parents  were middle class welfare... I didnt know that. ::) ::) ::)

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 11:18pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:15am: FEDERAL Treasurer Joe Hockey says without deep cuts to spending in the budget Australia is heading for the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history.    Treasury analysis predicts the country's deficits will stretch out to at least 2024 because of continued spending increases. The warning provides a case for drastic cuts in the May budget, as the government on Monday received the final report from its Commission of Audit. Mr Hockey said the government had to reduce expenditure, as well as try to increase revenue at the same time. "Without changes to government spending the budget is in deficit for at least a decade," Mr Hockey told ABC radio. "It would be the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history." Asked if that meant the budget cuts had to be hard and deep, Mr Hockey said: "They've got to be fair, too". "It is about making sure that everyone, everyone in the community helps to do the heavy lifting on repairing the budget," he said. "This is not an ideological drive. This is about whether we want to simply sustain our quality of living, not even improve our quality of living. "We have to make sure we live within our means." Mr Hockey complained that Labor had left the government with "massive" spending increases in foreign aid and defence, and a poorly introduced National Disability Insurance Scheme. "If we don't get on top of the proper management of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, not only would it not be sustainable, but it could end up as big a farce as the pink batts program or the $900 cheques program," he said. The treasurer said the ageing population was also putting pressure on the budget. When asked if it was sustainable to give a part pension to those with assets of more than a million dollars, Mr Hockey said "that's something that obviously needs to be taken into account". "The aged pension is growing at a massive rate," he said. "But also it's about our ageing population, and the fact is that we're living longer. "The question is how do we sustain these sorts of payments, and ensure that they are sustainable in 10, 20 and 30 years time." http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-faces-decade-of-deficits-hockey/story-fni0xqi3-1226869485940 With OR without changes to government spending, IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THE OZ BUDGET WILL BE IN DEFICIT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT DECADE & QUITE POSSIBLY MORE, MUCH MORE! AND, before anyone gets OVER-EXCITED, this calamity has arisen not just from OZ Labor, but also from OZ Liberals/Nationals AND from Labor/Liberal counterparts in many other countries, over many decades AND because WE/ THE PUBLIC swallowed to much - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes for far too long, from Politicians of all persuasions!

Oh, I forgot that you have a Masters in Economics and worked for decades in the finance industry that gives you such credibility to overrule the advice given to Hockey. Swan couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map. Unlike Swan, who has zero real-world experience in finance, Hockey was (prior to commencing his political career) a banking and finance lawyer. What qualifications do you have, besides your Masters in Economics???

Stratos wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:17am:

While I agree that Labor had some very poor economic management at times, you need to realise that a healthy economy is NOT measured by the surplus or defecit.  Unfortunately, largely through the media, it is often presented this way, and people with a lack of understanding of macro economics see it as an irresponsible spender living beyond their means, while when it comes to a large economy, often the opposite is needed in times of hardship. Pollies need to show some nerve and: A) Stop caving in to pressure from the media regarding the actual importance of a defecit or surplus B) Stop using these things as political point scoring mechanisms and break the cycle. Spending money on wasteful things doesn't help much, as Labor has done in the past, but if you think cutting programs and spending, taking billions out of the economy is going to help, you are wrong indeed.

Surplus and deficit is not the way to determine health but continued deficits would suggest economic problems.  Likewise with debt, it has its place but if the long-term direction is more debt than it suggest the economic balance is wrong.

buzzanddidj wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 5:07pm:

How Howard's last budget planted the seeds of deficit 8 May 2013 http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/10/15/newshowardcostello_wideweb__470x319,0.jpg Shadow treasurer Joe Hockey promises major cuts to spending and welfare if the coalition is elected while the government, having been forced to walk away from its budget surplus promise, is now cutting previously guaranteed benefits like increases in family benefit payments. The focus on these sorts of welfare cuts begins the dismantling of policies that were central to John Howard and Peter Costello’s budgets, especially the pair’s final big-spending 2007 budget, which bestowed generous tax concessions – in areas such as superannuation – and transferred income to families that came to be dubbed “middle class welfare”. In my comment piece on last year’s federal budget for The Conversation, I began with the proposition that “good policy should be free of surprises”. Although governments need to pay for additional expenditure promises – like Gonski and the NDIS in this case – there is also the need to address the underlying structural problem of reducing existing expenditure when revenues fall. All this is at a time when the carbon tax, the mining tax – and just about every tax – is not raising the expected revenue, and Treasury's forecasting performance is not looking good. The point is that fiscal policy should be made in the context of a long-term vision for the economy. This includes getting everyone who wants to into work, providing the public infrastructure needed to increase productivity, the right mix of private and government healthcare and education; and reform of the regulatory environment. We should see clear lines being drawn between the major parties with regard to their philosophy. However, in recent decades we haven’t seen much of this. Under John Howard, the Liberal-National Party coalition government sought to position itself as good economic managers in contrast to Labor. It recorded budget surpluses after 1997-98 in every year except one (2001-02), with surpluses reaching around 1 per cent of GDP during its fourth term. The record economic growth led to huge windfalls in receipts from company income tax. Falls in unemployment, jobs growth and wages growth greatly increased personal income tax receipts. While government expenditure as a proportion of GDP was fairly stable, albeit rising slightly, this has to be seen in the context of a switch from public provision of services to private provision. Consequently, there was less provision of government services but increasing government expenditure. In the 2004-05 federal budget, treasurer Peter Costello announced the baby bonus, a lump sum payment of $3000 to parents receivable after the birth of each child. It has since risen from $3000 on commencement on July 1, 2004, to $4000 in 2005 and to $5000 on July 1, 2008, and is indexed to inflation. Wayne Swan subsequently reduced the baby bonus to $5000 from September 1, 2012, and to $3000 for second and subsequent children from mid-2013. In the same budget there were other significant increases in benefits to families with children as well as tax cuts for all Australians. As more than one commentator pointed out, there was an incredible degree of giving with one hand and taking away with the other with inevitable administrative cost and waste. The biggest single item of government expenditure is on social welfare. The majority of the recipients are middle income households due to the generosity of family payments. In 2007, even families with $100,000 in income were eligible for child support. In effect, what the Howard government built up is a system of massive transfers from middle income taxpayers back to middle income consumers. It might well have been more efficient to let these middle class households keep the money instead of paying extra tax. In 2007, during the election campaign, further planned personal income tax cuts of $34 billion over five years were promised by both the Howard government and matched by Labor, with the latter firmly in its policy-copying “me too” election mode. The result of policy-matching meant that the Howard government effectively locked  the next government into its tax reforms including raising tax thresholds and reducing the top tax rate of 45 cents per dollar, ultimately lowered to 40 cents per dollar. https://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/5/8/federal-budget/how-howards-last-budget-planted-seeds-deficit

This is the kind of ridiculous nonsense that bugs me about blind labor supporters. Howard took a debt riddled, deficit driven economy and turned it into a debt-free, surplus economy with a large bank balance. Labor takes over and in just 6 years we have the worst debt and deficit in our history and you want to blame Howard??

One of my big regrets was voting Howard out.  If he had stayed the GFC would have been met and conquered with little deficit and little debt and we would now be powering our way back to economic strength. Instead, we are languishing under the weight of heavy debt and massive unaffordable spending programs.

Hockey could balance the budget today if he increased taxes and cut spending.


Why would he blame labor for a decade of deficits, when he has complete control to deficit or not ?

Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 10:03am:

Hockey could balance the budget today if he increased taxes and cut spending. Why would he blame labor for a decade of deficits, when he has complete control to deficit or not ?

As could have Swan. Perhaps just like your own home budget, spending less than your income is easier said than done when you have been lumbered with massive commitments and debt by your predecessor.

I guess Abbott could cut all welfare or massively increase income tax.  Would that work for you?

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:04am:

Stratos wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 10:17am: While I agree that Labor had some very poor economic management at times, you need to realise that a healthy economy is NOT measured by the surplus or defecit.  Unfortunately, largely through the media, it is often presented this way, and people with a lack of understanding of macro economics see it as an irresponsible spender living beyond their means, while when it comes to a large economy, often the opposite is needed in times of hardship. Pollies need to show some nerve and: A) Stop caving in to pressure from the media regarding the actual importance of a defecit or surplus B) Stop using these things as political point scoring mechanisms and break the cycle. Spending money on wasteful things doesn't help much, as Labor has done in the past, but if you think cutting programs and spending, taking billions out of the economy is going to help, you are wrong indeed. Surplus and deficit is not the way to determine health but continued deficits would suggest economic problems.  Likewise with debt, it has its place but if the long-term direction is more debt than it suggest the economic balance is wrong.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:04am:

Likewise with debt, it has its place but if the long-term direction is more debt than it suggest the economic balance is wrong.

Yep.  The main problem is perception.  Pollies have dug their own grave on this one by focusing on a surplus as the be all and end all of a good economy, despite there being times when a defecit is economically the right thing to do.  If both sides weren't so obsessed with scoring sound bites just maybe we might get somewhere meaningful in discussing the budget.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 9:15am:

FEDERAL Treasurer Joe Hockey says without deep cuts to spending in the budget Australia is heading for the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history.    Treasury analysis predicts the country's deficits will stretch out to at least 2024 because of continued spending increases. The warning provides a case for drastic cuts in the May budget, as the government on Monday received the final report from its Commission of Audit. Mr Hockey said the government had to reduce expenditure, as well as try to increase revenue at the same time. "Without changes to government spending the budget is in deficit for at least a decade," Mr Hockey told ABC radio. "It would be the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history." Asked if that meant the budget cuts had to be hard and deep, Mr Hockey said: "They've got to be fair, too". "It is about making sure that everyone, everyone in the community helps to do the heavy lifting on repairing the budget," he said. "This is not an ideological drive. This is about whether we want to simply sustain our quality of living, not even improve our quality of living. "We have to make sure we live within our means." Mr Hockey complained that Labor had left the government with "massive" spending increases in foreign aid and defence, and a poorly introduced National Disability Insurance Scheme. "If we don't get on top of the proper management of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, not only would it not be sustainable, but it could end up as big a farce as the pink batts program or the $900 cheques program," he said. The treasurer said the ageing population was also putting pressure on the budget. When asked if it was sustainable to give a part pension to those with assets of more than a million dollars, Mr Hockey said "that's something that obviously needs to be taken into account". "The aged pension is growing at a massive rate," he said. "But also it's about our ageing population, and the fact is that we're living longer. "The question is how do we sustain these sorts of payments, and ensure that they are sustainable in 10, 20 and 30 years time." http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-faces-decade-of-deficits-hockey/story-fni0xqi3-1226869485940

So tell me arm_pit why should the government eg country be run like a business all the time.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31^st, 2014 at 10:04am:

Kat wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:43am: John Smith wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:25am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:16am: This is what happens when you have an economic illiterate like Swan running the country's finances. Swan's attempt to spend his way out of trouble has just created more problems that Abbott/Hockey now have to try to deal with. Thanks for the massive debt, Wayne! >:( why? because Hockey says so? .... does he even know how to turn on his calculator?  ;D ;D ;D ;D How many times do this clown's BS claims about Swan, Labor and the economy have to be refuted before it sinks in that he is dead wrong? He is not posting a fact, or even an opinion, he is posting a proven, demonstrable and acknowledged (world-wide, by experts) lie. And he does so on an almost daily basis. It may not be trolling, but in my book it's definitely spamming. Wow, talk about delusional! What about Swan's $300bn+ debt? What about his numerous/record deficits? What about his wasteful spending? Swan is never going to be talked about in good terms as a former Treasurer, only the damage he did will be remembered - and there's plenty of that to be seen and felt even now!

There is a part of every leftoid's brain that is always blocked to fact - they are all the same and there is always a problem when a spouse votes conservatively--  Pity such unions!

crocodile wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 8:41am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 1:07am: buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:58am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:31am: Your comment Phil is as if you blame Howard and Costello (shock horror) for the fact that the current situation of budget deficits is ongoing. [quote author=buzzanddidj link=1396221316/10#10 date=1396249662]How Howard's last budget planted the seeds of deficit Question still stands - why in 2011 and a further 2 years did Wayne Swan promise categorically a budget surplus then? Just a quick look at the 2011 budget papers. http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/myefo/html/02_part_2-03.htm It appears that the forward estimates from treasury were way off. Take a look at projected nominal GDP growth for 2012 and 2013 and you will see that treasury forecasts were 6.25% and 5% respectively. History tells us that it was actually less than half these figures. Like it or not, that is the reason for the promised surpluses and their respective deterioration into deficits.

Leftoids only believe what sits comfortably in their blocked brains.

If you watch Q & A on Channel 2 you'' see all the leftoids always grinning which points to mental derangement.

cods wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 6:01am:

so single parents  were middle class welfare... I didnt know that.

Then perhaps you should stick to pink batts & tommo


Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:10am:

Howard took a debt riddled, deficit driven economy and turned it into a debt-free, surplus economy with a large bank balance.

This is the kind of ridiculous nonsense that bugs me about blind liberal supporters.
Howard took on an economy that had been totally restructured & was still finding its feet.

Howard was gifted an infant modern economy which has grown into a robust teenager.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 3:12pm:

cods wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 6:01am: so single parents  were middle class welfare... I didnt know that. Then perhaps you should stick to pink batts & tommo Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:10am: Howard took a debt riddled, deficit driven economy and turned it into a debt-free, surplus economy with a large bank balance. This is the kind of ridiculous nonsense that bugs me about blind liberal supporters. Howard took on an economy that had been totally restructured & was still finding its feet. Howard was gifted an infant modern economy which has grown into a robust teenager.

I have no doubt that "ridiculous nonsense" is a state you are quite comfortable with. Truth on the other hand seems to confuse you.

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 3:18pm:

I have no doubt that "ridiculous nonsense" is a state you are quite comfortable with. Truth on the other hand seems to confuse you.

Please educate me O Oracle.

Show me where my delusion lies

It will require more than oft quoted "17% interest rates" as if that's enough said.

I want details, I want comparisons

I CRAVE LEARNING & KNOWLEDGE.

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 12:40pm:

Doctor Jolly wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 10:03am: Hockey could balance the budget today if he increased taxes and cut spending. Why would he blame labor for a decade of deficits, when he has complete control to deficit or not ? As could have Swan. Perhaps just like your own home budget, spending less than your income is easier said than done when you have been lumbered with massive commitments and debt by your predecessor. I guess Abbott could cut all welfare or massively increase income tax.  Would that work for you?

He could if he wanted a surplus.  It wouldnt be that big a cut. 
We have a 1 trillion dollar economy. We are talking about balancing that to within a few billion (less than 1%).   With that sort of leverage, in a dynamic world economy, forward estimates are very difficult to predict.

Swan found that out the hard way.  His forward estimates became flawed once tax revenue's dried up by a relatively small amount in the trillion dollars, but big enough to drive a deficit in the billions.

The added problem was Howard (and Swans) move from more stable tax base (income) to a more volatile tax base (trade), so the tax revenue is much more dynamic than it was in the 1980's.

Australia needs to ride out the storms.  Hockey saying he cant get a surplus for 10 years because of labor is rubish.  Hockey not aiming for a surplus for 10 years is because he hasnt got the knackers to ride it out, or is too timid change things too much.

He just ordered enough fighter jets to comfortably bring in a surplus. He's putting in a parental leave program which without it, could deliver a surplus.  You think he really wants a surplus ?

John S wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 2:43pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:15am: FEDERAL Treasurer Joe Hockey says without deep cuts to spending in the budget Australia is heading for the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history.    Treasury analysis predicts the country's deficits will stretch out to at least 2024 because of continued spending increases. The warning provides a case for drastic cuts in the May budget, as the government on Monday received the final report from its Commission of Audit. Mr Hockey said the government had to reduce expenditure, as well as try to increase revenue at the same time. "Without changes to government spending the budget is in deficit for at least a decade," Mr Hockey told ABC radio. "It would be the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history." Asked if that meant the budget cuts had to be hard and deep, Mr Hockey said: "They've got to be fair, too". "It is about making sure that everyone, everyone in the community helps to do the heavy lifting on repairing the budget," he said. "This is not an ideological drive. This is about whether we want to simply sustain our quality of living, not even improve our quality of living. "We have to make sure we live within our means." Mr Hockey complained that Labor had left the government with "massive" spending increases in foreign aid and defence, and a poorly introduced National Disability Insurance Scheme. "If we don't get on top of the proper management of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, not only would it not be sustainable, but it could end up as big a farce as the pink batts program or the $900 cheques program," he said. The treasurer said the ageing population was also putting pressure on the budget. When asked if it was sustainable to give a part pension to those with assets of more than a million dollars, Mr Hockey said "that's something that obviously needs to be taken into account". "The aged pension is growing at a massive rate," he said. "But also it's about our ageing population, and the fact is that we're living longer. "The question is how do we sustain these sorts of payments, and ensure that they are sustainable in 10, 20 and 30 years time." http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-faces-decade-of-deficits-hockey/story-fni0xqi3-1226869485940 So tell me arm_pit why should the government eg country be run like a business all the time.

Good idea, lets run it like Zimbabwe, where in late January 2013, they had an appalling $217 (yes, two hundred and seventeen dollars) in the Treasury and inflation was around the 30% mark not all that long ago. Good thinking!  ::)

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 3:56pm:

Good idea, lets run it like Zimbabwe, where in late January 2013, they had an appalling $217 (yes, two hundred and seventeen dollars) in the Treasury and inflation was around the 30% mark not all that long ago. Good thinking!

That's not the answer to the question teaspoon.

If you don't actually understand & are just parroting what you have heard/read from Newscorp just say so, there's plenty of leeway given to those who admit their ignorance.
Otherwise post up why about 30% of our nation should be thrown onto the scrapheap & left to starve because just like a racehorse who costs more to feed than he wins it would be cheaper to kill them which is exactly what a BUSINESS would do.
Cut losses

How does that sort of thinking advance our society, how does it advance us as individuals?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 3:18pm: I have no doubt that "ridiculous nonsense" is a state you are quite comfortable with. Truth on the other hand seems to confuse you. Please educate me O Oracle. Show me where my delusion lies It will require more than oft quoted "17% interest rates" as if that's enough said. I want details, I want comparisons I CRAVE LEARNING & KNOWLEDGE.

Quote:

“There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn't true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Søren Kierkegaard

Whats that supposed to be?

An answer?

Here's an answer, leftards.

STOP THE LABOR WASTE.

Any leftard doesn't like it, they can take it up with Mr Abbott.

Stratos wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 1:37pm:

Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:04am: Stratos wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 10:17am: While I agree that Labor had some very poor economic management at times, you need to realise that a healthy economy is NOT measured by the surplus or defecit.  Unfortunately, largely through the media, it is often presented this way, and people with a lack of understanding of macro economics see it as an irresponsible spender living beyond their means, while when it comes to a large economy, often the opposite is needed in times of hardship. Pollies need to show some nerve and: A) Stop caving in to pressure from the media regarding the actual importance of a defecit or surplus B) Stop using these things as political point scoring mechanisms and break the cycle. Spending money on wasteful things doesn't help much, as Labor has done in the past, but if you think cutting programs and spending, taking billions out of the economy is going to help, you are wrong indeed. Surplus and deficit is not the way to determine health but continued deficits would suggest economic problems.  Likewise with debt, it has its place but if the long-term direction is more debt than it suggest the economic balance is wrong. Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:04am: Likewise with debt, it has its place but if the long-term direction is more debt than it suggest the economic balance is wrong. Yep.  The main problem is perception.  Pollies have dug their own grave on this one by focusing on a surplus as the be all and end all of a good economy, despite there being times when a defecit is economically the right thing to do.  If both sides weren't so obsessed with scoring sound bites just maybe we might get somewhere meaningful in discussing the budget.

You make a good point, but to be fair there has been the Labor party trying to criticise Howard for surpluses and then pretending that their own record deficits were of no consequence.

Real life teaches any family, group company or govt that there will be times when deficit spending is unavoidable.  But likewise, it cannot be continued for very long or else problems - usually bankruptcy - will emerge.  It is this latter point that Labor seems incapable of understanding. Keating was a vastly better treasurer than Swan and while he left debt and deficit he at least understood why and did not pretend that it was good as the current crop of lightweights do.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 3:12pm:

cods wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 6:01am: so single parents  were middle class welfare... I didnt know that. Then perhaps you should stick to pink batts & tommo Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 9:10am: Howard took a debt riddled, deficit driven economy and turned it into a debt-free, surplus economy with a large bank balance. This is the kind of ridiculous nonsense that bugs me about blind liberal supporters. Howard took on an economy that had been totally restructured & was still finding its feet. Howard was gifted an infant modern economy which has grown into a robust teenager.

and what bugs me is the naivete that infects such limp commentary. You called it 'nonsense' and I invite you to find a single factually incorrect portion of what I said and you quoted. Opinion an comment might vary but facts don't.

Challenge?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 3:28pm:

Rhet-Oracle wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 3:18pm: I have no doubt that "ridiculous nonsense" is a state you are quite comfortable with. Truth on the other hand seems to confuse you. Please educate me O Oracle. Show me where my delusion lies It will require more than oft quoted "17% interest rates" as if that's enough said. I want details, I want comparisons I CRAVE LEARNING & KNOWLEDGE.

I said

a) budget was in substantial surplus.
b) debt was gone (net debt obviously in case of an attack of pedantry)
c) money was in the bank
d) prior to 96 the country was heavily in debt
e) prior to 96 the country was running a high deficit.

Please tell me any of the above that was incorrect.

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 4:13pm:

Here's an answer, leftards. STOP THE LABOR WASTE. Any leftard doesn't like it, they can take it up with Mr Abbott.

Oh, DO sod off.

You're becoming as tiresome as Arm-pit et al.

EDIT: An apology. NO-ONE could be THAT tiresome.

All this Hockey BS and yet no mini Budget to start in the right direction when he took over ???

The Liberals deficits are all their own.

The Libs have opened up unlimited and unaccountable borrowing and have the plans to use it on their spending programs.

Quote:

Labor's legacy: a decade of deficits!

So Abbott's baby bonus for billionaires program and tax cuts for mining magnates and other wealthy folks have nothing to do with the deficit?

If the deficit is so bad why is Abbott putting his foot on the accelerator and driving us over the cliff with his maternity leave scheme and the scrapping of the mining and carbon taxes?

Getting rid of the negative gearing tax rort would help a lot too.

Quote:

...Treasurer Joe Hockey has been softening us up for the tough budget he’s preparing for next month...he’s studiously avoiding admitting there’s no way his spending cuts will get the budget back into lasting balance. He’s pretending all the problem is on the spending side (and all caused by Labor), when he knows the problem on the budget’s revenue side is just as big, if not worse. Consider the facts. Collections from company tax – which account for about a fifth of total tax collections – aren’t likely to grow any faster than the economy (gross domestic product). And collections from indirect taxes – which include the goods and services tax and excises on alcohol, tobacco and petrol – are likely to grow a lot more slowly than GDP. Collections from excises are declining relative to the rest of the economy, partly because John Howard abolished the indexation of the petrol excise... http://www.theage.com.au/comment/joe-hockeys-budget-will-hurt-your-hip-pocket-20140401-zqp7v.html

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 7:10am:

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:18pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:15am: FEDERAL Treasurer Joe Hockey says without deep cuts to spending in the budget Australia is heading for the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history.    Treasury analysis predicts the country's deficits will stretch out to at least 2024 because of continued spending increases. The warning provides a case for drastic cuts in the May budget, as the government on Monday received the final report from its Commission of Audit. Mr Hockey said the government had to reduce expenditure, as well as try to increase revenue at the same time. "Without changes to government spending the budget is in deficit for at least a decade," Mr Hockey told ABC radio. "It would be the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history." Asked if that meant the budget cuts had to be hard and deep, Mr Hockey said: "They've got to be fair, too". "It is about making sure that everyone, everyone in the community helps to do the heavy lifting on repairing the budget," he said. "This is not an ideological drive. This is about whether we want to simply sustain our quality of living, not even improve our quality of living. "We have to make sure we live within our means." Mr Hockey complained that Labor had left the government with "massive" spending increases in foreign aid and defence, and a poorly introduced National Disability Insurance Scheme. "If we don't get on top of the proper management of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, not only would it not be sustainable, but it could end up as big a farce as the pink batts program or the $900 cheques program," he said. The treasurer said the ageing population was also putting pressure on the budget. When asked if it was sustainable to give a part pension to those with assets of more than a million dollars, Mr Hockey said "that's something that obviously needs to be taken into account". "The aged pension is growing at a massive rate," he said. "But also it's about our ageing population, and the fact is that we're living longer. "The question is how do we sustain these sorts of payments, and ensure that they are sustainable in 10, 20 and 30 years time." http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-faces-decade-of-deficits-hockey/story-fni0xqi3-1226869485940 With OR without changes to government spending, IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THE OZ BUDGET WILL BE IN DEFICIT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT DECADE & QUITE POSSIBLY MORE, MUCH MORE! AND, before anyone gets OVER-EXCITED, this calamity has arisen not just from OZ Labor, but also from OZ Liberals/Nationals AND from Labor/Liberal counterparts in many other countries, over many decades AND because WE/ THE PUBLIC swallowed to much - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes for far too long, from Politicians of all persuasions! Oh, I forgot that you have a Masters in Economics and worked for decades in the finance industry that gives you such credibility to overrule the advice given to Hockey. Swan couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map. Unlike Swan, who has zero real-world experience in finance, Hockey was (prior to commencing his political career) a banking and finance lawyer. What qualifications do you have, besides your Masters in Economics???

Well, forgetting about my decades in the financial sector, the main thing that is needed is simply not to accept whatever is put to you, but to review the "so called facts", whatever that may be & see if reality matched up with the assertion AND IN MANY INSTANCES, WHAT POLITICIANS FROM ALL PERSUASIONS & ECONOMISTS ARE SAYING & HAVE SAID, IS WRONG!

As I have said previously, the major factors influencing Global & Local Economics are -
1) Demographics
2) Energy Supply
3) Technology
3) Climate Change


Oh & btw, I did spend over 4 decades in the financial sector and I did learn to accept nothing at face value & to question everything!

That said, I accept that Swan (& his lot) did very little right & even though Hockey (& his lot) is of the right, he also is doing very little right!

Karnal wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 4:13pm:

Any leftard doesn't like it, they can take it up with Mr Abbott.

What?
No slong?
Your going soft ;)


Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 4:38pm:

Challenge?

We've been over it a million times and if your not who I suspect here it is in a nutshell.

Howard(treasurer) commissioned a review and started the process of reform with the easy decision to deregulate the banks

I.E not political captial spent with the electorate but still a good start to the process

Keating applied the heavy lifting of reccommended reforms.

I.E Plenty of political captital spent with the electorate which is why his still despised today by a lot of people.

Costello keept a steady hand on the tiller with a few good additions such as APRA.

And he benefited from the largest boom in a century, which along with asset sales and virtually no spending on infrastructure, that made surpluses virtually impossible not to achieve



The rest is opinion, Keating claims had Costello done nothing the budget wpuld have returned to surplus within 5 years on it's own.

Who knows unless we can run exactly the same circumstances we'll never know.


Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 4:40pm:

I said a) budget was in substantial surplus. b) debt was gone (net debt obviously in case of an attack of pedantry) c) money was in the bank d) prior to 96 the country was heavily in debt e) prior to 96 the country was running a high deficit. Please tell me any of the above that was incorrect.

Yes when you look at these facts alone, but that leaves out sooo many variables it's almost ludicious.

Life is never a yes or no question, black or white, it's grey and a but

A) Yes it was, but that just ignores the last 7 years, & as with Keatings claim the same is true for the Liberal assertion that tax cuts would have seen the GFC off and we'd either still have surplus or very little debt.
What if Costello didn't introduce APRA and our banks were in the same boat as a lot of councils?


B) But would it have been the same regardless as Keating claims? Howard(PM) was allowed to spend up big? China's still a rural based economy today?


C) for the 3rd time yes the sky is blue


D & E Just ignore the Howard/Keating treasury years

If as I said I'm wrong on you then here I also am in a nutshell,

Although I seem to favour Labor that is ONLY because their ideas seem more egalitarion than Liberals.
Yes they require money but the idea thats in vogue that if you are lucky enough to do well than you deserve a reward from the public purse baffles me.

I am Keating fan hardly a socialist.

Your reward is a great life full of the PERSONAL reward of doing well, and being comfortable whilst living in a country that allows you to do it.

Most of the entitlements ragarding super taxation are at the end of the scale of intergenerational feather bedding, why else cant someone earning OVER 200K in super returns pay a minimal tax of 15 cents in every $ OVER that 200k if not to increase inheritience or the decadence is boardering...no IS obscene.

Just as 1 example of how we are becoming complacent in our society,skewed in values.


Why is Somalia such a sh!thole, partly if not holely because only the strong prosper, if you think you'd be as comfortable over there than your kidding yourself or a psycopath.

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 8:22pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 7:10am: perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:18pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:15am: FEDERAL Treasurer Joe Hockey says without deep cuts to spending in the budget Australia is heading for the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history.    Treasury analysis predicts the country's deficits will stretch out to at least 2024 because of continued spending increases. The warning provides a case for drastic cuts in the May budget, as the government on Monday received the final report from its Commission of Audit. Mr Hockey said the government had to reduce expenditure, as well as try to increase revenue at the same time. "Without changes to government spending the budget is in deficit for at least a decade," Mr Hockey told ABC radio. "It would be the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history." Asked if that meant the budget cuts had to be hard and deep, Mr Hockey said: "They've got to be fair, too". "It is about making sure that everyone, everyone in the community helps to do the heavy lifting on repairing the budget," he said. "This is not an ideological drive. This is about whether we want to simply sustain our quality of living, not even improve our quality of living. "We have to make sure we live within our means." Mr Hockey complained that Labor had left the government with "massive" spending increases in foreign aid and defence, and a poorly introduced National Disability Insurance Scheme. "If we don't get on top of the proper management of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, not only would it not be sustainable, but it could end up as big a farce as the pink batts program or the $900 cheques program," he said. The treasurer said the ageing population was also putting pressure on the budget. When asked if it was sustainable to give a part pension to those with assets of more than a million dollars, Mr Hockey said "that's something that obviously needs to be taken into account". "The aged pension is growing at a massive rate," he said. "But also it's about our ageing population, and the fact is that we're living longer. "The question is how do we sustain these sorts of payments, and ensure that they are sustainable in 10, 20 and 30 years time." http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-faces-decade-of-deficits-hockey/story-fni0xqi3-1226869485940 With OR without changes to government spending, IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THE OZ BUDGET WILL BE IN DEFICIT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT DECADE & QUITE POSSIBLY MORE, MUCH MORE! AND, before anyone gets OVER-EXCITED, this calamity has arisen not just from OZ Labor, but also from OZ Liberals/Nationals AND from Labor/Liberal counterparts in many other countries, over many decades AND because WE/ THE PUBLIC swallowed to much - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes for far too long, from Politicians of all persuasions! Oh, I forgot that you have a Masters in Economics and worked for decades in the finance industry that gives you such credibility to overrule the advice given to Hockey. Swan couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map. Unlike Swan, who has zero real-world experience in finance, Hockey was (prior to commencing his political career) a banking and finance lawyer. What qualifications do you have, besides your Masters in Economics??? Well, forgetting about my decades in the financial sector, the main thing that is needed is simply not to accept whatever is put to you, but to review the "so called facts", whatever that may be & see if reality matched up with the assertion AND IN MANY INSTANCES, WHAT POLITICIANS FROM ALL PERSUASIONS & ECONOMISTS ARE SAYING & HAVE SAID, IS WRONG! As I have said previously, the major factors influencing Global & Local Economics are - 1) Demographics 2) Energy Supply 3) Technology 3) Climate Change Oh & btw, I did spend over 4 decades in the financial sector and I did learn to accept nothing at face value & to question everything! That said, I accept that Swan (& his lot) did very little right & even though Hockey (& his lot) is of the right, he also is doing very little right!

The latter comment negates the validity of the former.

Because if the former is true, then you MUST KNOW that the latter is not.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1^st, 2014 at 1:08am:

buzzanddidj wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 1:01am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:55am: ian wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 12:42am: Labor inherited the GFC, Howard didnt have that to contend with. Howard was in power during the most favourable world  economic circumstances for australia  in history. He squandered the opportunity. I did pretty well in Australia partly as a result of Howard's policies . I was glad to leave if I am honest. Is THAT why you're still here ? Because I am an Australian citizen

You are an "Australian citizen" - purely on PAPER
You are devoid of ANY Australian values

You're an ECONOMIC REFUGEE - as you've admitted, YOURSELF

Kat wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:48pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 8:22pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 7:10am: perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:18pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:15am: FEDERAL Treasurer Joe Hockey says without deep cuts to spending in the budget Australia is heading for the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history.    Treasury analysis predicts the country's deficits will stretch out to at least 2024 because of continued spending increases. The warning provides a case for drastic cuts in the May budget, as the government on Monday received the final report from its Commission of Audit. Mr Hockey said the government had to reduce expenditure, as well as try to increase revenue at the same time. "Without changes to government spending the budget is in deficit for at least a decade," Mr Hockey told ABC radio. "It would be the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history." Asked if that meant the budget cuts had to be hard and deep, Mr Hockey said: "They've got to be fair, too". "It is about making sure that everyone, everyone in the community helps to do the heavy lifting on repairing the budget," he said. "This is not an ideological drive. This is about whether we want to simply sustain our quality of living, not even improve our quality of living. "We have to make sure we live within our means." Mr Hockey complained that Labor had left the government with "massive" spending increases in foreign aid and defence, and a poorly introduced National Disability Insurance Scheme. "If we don't get on top of the proper management of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, not only would it not be sustainable, but it could end up as big a farce as the pink batts program or the $900 cheques program," he said. The treasurer said the ageing population was also putting pressure on the budget. When asked if it was sustainable to give a part pension to those with assets of more than a million dollars, Mr Hockey said "that's something that obviously needs to be taken into account". "The aged pension is growing at a massive rate," he said. "But also it's about our ageing population, and the fact is that we're living longer. "The question is how do we sustain these sorts of payments, and ensure that they are sustainable in 10, 20 and 30 years time." http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-faces-decade-of-deficits-hockey/story-fni0xqi3-1226869485940 With OR without changes to government spending, IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THE OZ BUDGET WILL BE IN DEFICIT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT DECADE & QUITE POSSIBLY MORE, MUCH MORE! AND, before anyone gets OVER-EXCITED, this calamity has arisen not just from OZ Labor, but also from OZ Liberals/Nationals AND from Labor/Liberal counterparts in many other countries, over many decades AND because WE/ THE PUBLIC swallowed to much - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes for far too long, from Politicians of all persuasions! Oh, I forgot that you have a Masters in Economics and worked for decades in the finance industry that gives you such credibility to overrule the advice given to Hockey. Swan couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map. Unlike Swan, who has zero real-world experience in finance, Hockey was (prior to commencing his political career) a banking and finance lawyer. What qualifications do you have, besides your Masters in Economics??? Well, forgetting about my decades in the financial sector, the main thing that is needed is simply not to accept whatever is put to you, but to review the "so called facts", whatever that may be & see if reality matched up with the assertion AND IN MANY INSTANCES, WHAT POLITICIANS FROM ALL PERSUASIONS & ECONOMISTS ARE SAYING & HAVE SAID, IS WRONG! As I have said previously, the major factors influencing Global & Local Economics are - 1) Demographics 2) Energy Supply 3) Technology 3) Climate Change Oh & btw, I did spend over 4 decades in the financial sector and I did learn to accept nothing at face value & to question everything! That said, I accept that Swan (& his lot) did very little right & even though Hockey (& his lot) is of the right, he also is doing very little right! The latter comment negates the validity of the former. Because if the former is true, then you MUST KNOW that the latter is not.

In fact, it is the former (in part) which confirms the latter to be a correct judgement on both Swan & Labor, as well as Hockey & the Liberals!

Kat wrote on Apr 2^nd, 2014 at 9:48pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 8:22pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Apr 2nd, 2014 at 7:10am: perceptions_now wrote on Apr 1st, 2014 at 11:18pm: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 31st, 2014 at 9:15am: FEDERAL Treasurer Joe Hockey says without deep cuts to spending in the budget Australia is heading for the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history.    Treasury analysis predicts the country's deficits will stretch out to at least 2024 because of continued spending increases. The warning provides a case for drastic cuts in the May budget, as the government on Monday received the final report from its Commission of Audit. Mr Hockey said the government had to reduce expenditure, as well as try to increase revenue at the same time. "Without changes to government spending the budget is in deficit for at least a decade," Mr Hockey told ABC radio. "It would be the longest period of continuing deficits in modern history." Asked if that meant the budget cuts had to be hard and deep, Mr Hockey said: "They've got to be fair, too". "It is about making sure that everyone, everyone in the community helps to do the heavy lifting on repairing the budget," he said. "This is not an ideological drive. This is about whether we want to simply sustain our quality of living, not even improve our quality of living. "We have to make sure we live within our means." Mr Hockey complained that Labor had left the government with "massive" spending increases in foreign aid and defence, and a poorly introduced National Disability Insurance Scheme. "If we don't get on top of the proper management of the National Disability Insurance Scheme, not only would it not be sustainable, but it could end up as big a farce as the pink batts program or the $900 cheques program," he said. The treasurer said the ageing population was also putting pressure on the budget. When asked if it was sustainable to give a part pension to those with assets of more than a million dollars, Mr Hockey said "that's something that obviously needs to be taken into account". "The aged pension is growing at a massive rate," he said. "But also it's about our ageing population, and the fact is that we're living longer. "The question is how do we sustain these sorts of payments, and ensure that they are sustainable in 10, 20 and 30 years time." http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/breaking-news/australia-faces-decade-of-deficits-hockey/story-fni0xqi3-1226869485940 With OR without changes to government spending, IT IS VERY LIKELY THAT THE OZ BUDGET WILL BE IN DEFICIT FOR AT LEAST THE NEXT DECADE & QUITE POSSIBLY MORE, MUCH MORE! AND, before anyone gets OVER-EXCITED, this calamity has arisen not just from OZ Labor, but also from OZ Liberals/Nationals AND from Labor/Liberal counterparts in many other countries, over many decades AND because WE/ THE PUBLIC swallowed to much - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes for far too long, from Politicians of all persuasions! Oh, I forgot that you have a Masters in Economics and worked for decades in the finance industry that gives you such credibility to overrule the advice given to Hockey. Swan couldn't find his ass with both hands and a map. Unlike Swan, who has zero real-world experience in finance, Hockey was (prior to commencing his political career) a banking and finance lawyer. What qualifications do you have, besides your Masters in Economics??? Well, forgetting about my decades in the financial sector, the main thing that is needed is simply not to accept whatever is put to you, but to review the "so called facts", whatever that may be & see if reality matched up with the assertion AND IN MANY INSTANCES, WHAT POLITICIANS FROM ALL PERSUASIONS & ECONOMISTS ARE SAYING & HAVE SAID, IS WRONG! As I have said previously, the major factors influencing Global & Local Economics are - 1) Demographics 2) Energy Supply 3) Technology 3) Climate Change Oh & btw, I did spend over 4 decades in the financial sector and I did learn to accept nothing at face value & to question everything! That said, I accept that Swan (& his lot) did very little right & even though Hockey (& his lot) is of the right, he also is doing very little right! The latter comment negates the validity of the former. Because if the former is true, then you MUST KNOW that the latter is not.

Sorry Kat, but everyone (except you) knows deep down that Swan screwed up and screwed up BIG TIME!