https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-TV_QN0GrVJ8/VCiGm6SGzTI/AAAAAAAA8hw/xzinaC9nXmA/s949/9-213.jpg
Despite all their rhetoric and hyperbole, both debt and deficit has blown out under the Abbott Government

THE ABBOTT GOVERNMENT HAS ABANDONED all pre-election commitments to reduce the nation’s ‘skyrocketing debt’. Borrowings have increased dramatically since the last election.

Now we know by how much.

Debt has increased by 13.7% over Labor’s levels. Interest payments have risen a staggering 28.6% to more than thirty million dollars per day — in just the first nine months.

The Final Budget Outcome 2013-14 was released this week by Treasurer Joe Hockey and Finance Minister Mathias Cormann. Buried in the long-awaited document is confirmation that net government debt at the end of June, nine months after the Coalition took office, has risen to $202.46 billion.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/_lib/slir/w500/http://independentaustralia.net/sc/business/img/Table11.jpg

That’s quite a blow-out.

The last monthly Finance Department report prepared under the previous Labor Government, for 31 August 2013, showed forecast end of year net debt at $178.10 billion.

The following monthly report, September 2013, prepared after the Coalition had taken charge, also showed projected year-end debt steady at $178.10 bn. So did the October and November reports.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/_lib/slir/w500/http://independentaustralia.net/sc/business/img/Sept2013.jpg

In December, however, following several decisions by the incoming treasurer, including abolishing the debt ceiling, the debt projection jumped to $191.52 billion.

This number was reaffirmed in January, February, March and April 2014. In May, it was increased to $197.85 billion. Then, without notice, monthly reports ceased.

Clearly, the actual outcome under the Coalition is a cool $24.36 billion more debt than forecast had Labor stayed on. Up 13.7%.

Hockey has, of course, attempted to blame Labor:

‘The Final Budget Outcome for the 2013-14 financial year is a budget report card on the previous Government’s irresponsible fiscal and economic management.’

Hardly. Mr Hockey has had more than 42 weeks – and a clear mandate – to reverse anything ‘irresponsible’. Instead, wasteful spending has increased, including dubious travel for ministers and their entourages, costly royal visits and expensive politically-motivated royal commissions.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/_lib/slir/w500/http://independentaustralia.net/sc/business/img/Table5a.jpg

Table 5 of this week’s Treasury document shows that in just seven weeks between the May budget and June 30, expenditure on ‘legislative and executive affairs’ blew out by a staggering $68 million.

That was not Labor’s doing.

Other unjustifiable spending by the Abbott Government includes its punitive border protection regime and an $8.8 billion grant paid to the Reserve Bank that it didn’t ask for and doesn’t need. On the revenue side, equally damaging failures include abolishing the carbon and mining taxes without adequate replacement income. Those were not Labor decisions.

This week’s proof of the debt expansion follows confirmation after the May budget that Abbott and Hockey had more than doubled the projected budget deficits over Labor’s levels.

ABC Fact Check unit showed in June that government decisions increased the deficits for the four-year forward estimates period by more than $68 billion.

http://youtu.be/NkPSKqmLJ08

Clearly, there is no commitment whatsoever to

‘… balance the books, live within our means and return the budget to surplus as quickly as possible.’
Gone are the dire warnings before the last election of debt ‘spiralling out of control’.

continue

So if the debt was more than $202 billion in June and rising rapidly, what is it now, three months later? Well, we just don’t know. The debt reports produced monthly since December 1999 have suddenly stopped.

Independent Australia asked the Finance Department why this was and when the next statement would be released.

They replied:

‘The last Australian Government Monthly Financial Statements were published in May 2014. The June data is incorporated in the Final Budget Outcome document. Under the Charter of Budget Honesty Act 1998 the final date for the release of the Final Budget Outcome is 30 September.... The July and August 2014 Australian Government Monthly Financial Statements are prepared and published after the release of the Final Budget Outcome.’

How long after? We shall see.

Meanwhile, we now know what the extra debt is costing. A year ago, the Final Budget Outcome for 2012-13, released by incoming treasurer Hockey, showed net interest payments on the debt were $8.3 billion for that year – the last full year Labor managed the economy. Labor’s projected interest bill for 2013-14 was then $8.4 billion, according to Treasury and Finance’s Pre-election Economic and Fiscal Outlook.

The actual interest costs incurred for 2013-14, we discovered this week, was a thumping $10.8 billion. That’s up 28.6%.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/_lib/slir/w500/http://independentaustralia.net/sc/business/img/Table9.jpg

So Hockey is not just borrowing more money, but borrowing more expensive money.

Of course, this debt increase is of no immediate economic concern provided the investments are well-managed. There are compelling arguments that Australia’s debt has been too low given negative real interest rates and the opportunity for investments in productive infrastructure.

Australia’s debt to GDP ratio is a mere 12.8% — even with the recent Hockey blow-out. If that were doubled Australia’s debt would still be less than Switzerland’s. If tripled it would be less than Canada’s. It could be multiplied by six and remain lower than Germany’s and the UK’s.

All these countries have a triple A credit rating and hence no discernible debt problem. And, of course, neither does Australia.

Australia does have, however, a surplus of government hypocrisy and a deficit in truthfulness and competence.


http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/abbott-and-hockeys-debt-and-deficit-disaster,6943

So even if people are stupid enough to vote back in a Labor Govt, it won't have a cashed up Treasury in which to pork barrel with for a change.  ;D

Economic messiahs

Pigs ARSE :D

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 8:57am:

So even if people are stupid enough to vote back in a Labor Govt, it won't have a cashed up Treasury in which to pork barrel with for a change.  ;D

They're both pretty adept at vote buying practices. I suspect you already know that.

The worst treasurer in Australia history = Liberal (Hockey)

The best treasurer in Australia history = Labor (Keating)

What is more concerning is the recession the shambles are causing, deliberately or by incompetence. That is really going to blow out the deficit.

John S wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 9:31am:

The worst treasurer in Australia history = Liberal (Hockey) The best treasurer in Australia history = Labor (Keating)

I won't deny Hockey is crap.  :-?

Costello was the best Treasury by a country mile.....

Keating was ok.... but he was still under the thumb of the faceless collective.


crocodile wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 9:27am:

They're both pretty adept at vote buying practices. I suspect you already know that.

Very perceptive as usual Crock.

"Lesser of two weevils" comes to mind though. :P

St George of the Garden wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 9:40am:

What is more concerning is the recession the shambles are causing, deliberately or by incompetence. that is really going to blow out the deficit.

The Senate has blown out the deficit by blocking the majority of the Budget's savings measures.

Effectively Aust is still running on Labor's overspending.

That's the line Hockey should be spruiking.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 9:56am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 9:40am: What is more concerning is the recession the shambles are causing, deliberately or by incompetence. that is really going to blow out the deficit. The Senate has blown out the deficit by blocking the majority of the Budget's savings measures. Effectively Aust is still running on Labor's overspending. That's the line Hockey should be spruiking.

He is, but nobody is buying it, MAY i repeat MAY, was a long time ago, one would think he would 2 and 2 together to see his budget was a failure back then and it still is. Hockey like Tony is an epic failure.

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 10:00am:

but nobody is buying it

Not nobody, those net-taxpayers with an ounce of perception.......

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 10:05am:

Its time wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:00am: but nobody is buying it Not nobody, those net-taxpayers with an ounce of perception.......

Think you have been using the taxpayer line about as long as LNP still trying to blame Labor for their incompetence. May come as a revelation to you, but we all pay tax on our incomes, and it's quiet obvious the senate has some sort of moral compass by not supporting sloppies budget.

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 10:22am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:05am: Its time wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:00am: but nobody is buying it Not nobody, those net-taxpayers with an ounce of perception....... Think you have been using the taxpayer line about as long as LNP still trying to blame Labor for their incompetence. May come as a revelation to you, but we all pay tax on our incomes, and it's quiet obvious the senate has some sort of moral compass by not supporting sloppies budget.

It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax.  It's no friggin wonder they don't give a rat's bum about Govt debt because it's the 'net' tax-payer that ends up meeting the commitment.

The Senate has no moral compass.  It's political or megalomaniacal.
 
What is wrong with the Senate is that it is unrepresentative.  Drop-kicks with a smidgeon of the vote has disproportionate voting power.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 10:43am:

It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax.

Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits.

Stratos wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 10:47am:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits.

Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax.

Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 10:54am:

Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax.

Yes, and the data I believe you are referring to adds up the average overall, which includes a per person cost of childcare, healthcare, the old age and disability pension, and unemployment benefits which obviously not everyone is being paid, and only includes income tax and not the plethora of other taxes paid.

Your data is incomplete.

an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 11:09am:

an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information.

S.O.P when you can't refute facts.

The article post facts & figures & dates of expenditure, if the Independent Australian or whatever it's called has made these figures up it should take you all of 1 google search & 2 minutes to post the truth.

I await your post proving you're accusation.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 8:57am:

So even if people are stupid enough to vote back in a Labor Govt, it won't have a cashed up Treasury in which to pork barrel with for a change.  ;D

Never happened before either.

The closest was at the demise of the Awful Howard government where there was a little left but also inherited was a crashing world economy.

The previous change over to Labor was the removal of the Fraser government where Labor had to clean up the dreadful mess left as a result of Howard being the treasurer. In the 80's Labor had turned around a floundering economy stagflation and years of miserable results.

Historically Liberals governments have always left office as the result of economic disaster.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 9:56am:

St George of the Garden wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 9:40am: What is more concerning is the recession the shambles are causing, deliberately or by incompetence. that is really going to blow out the deficit. The Senate has blown out the deficit by blocking the majority of the Budget's savings measures. Effectively Aust is still running on Labor's overspending. That's the line Hockey should be spruiking.

The conservatives around here where dancing on their computer desks when the Liberal opposition was blocking Labor saving measures - then it was called holding them to account.

Labor do still have to hold the current incompetents to account - If they produce good policy it will be supported.

Still it wasn't Labor throwing many billions to the RBA and it isn't Labor spending on all sorts of rubbish and removing policy that was producing government income ?

John S wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 9:31am:

The worst treasurer in Australia history = Liberal (Hockey) The best treasurer in Australia history = Labor (Keating)

I think Hockey has a way to go to catch up with Howard as worst treasurer.

On the other side I agree with Keating being the best but Costello was pretty close almost a bracket selection in my view.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 11:09am:

an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information.

Your logical fallacy is genetic

Quote:

You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 10:54am:

Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats.

No, it would simply refute your argument.

You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 11:20am:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. S.O.P when you can't refute facts. The article post facts & figures & dates of expenditure, if the Independent Australian or whatever it's called has made these figures up it should take you all of 1 google search & 2 minutes to post the truth. I await your post proving you're accusation.

I ignore ANYTHING from that travesty of a site.  They lie, make stuff up and engage in 'analysis and opinion' that would make even most of the crazies on here blush.  I reject ANYTHING they say.  If anyone cares to find a balanced article with facts then go for it. But not this trash.

Bam wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 2:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit.

its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand.

or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you.

Bam wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation.

please support this with reputable facts.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:27pm:

I ignore ANYTHING from that travesty of a site.  They lie, make stuff up and engage in 'analysis and opinion' that would make even most of the crazies on here blush.  I reject ANYTHING they say.  If anyone cares to find a balanced article with facts then go for it. But not this trash.

Your opinion of something does not change facts, are the number quoted wrong or skewed?


longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:30pm:

its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand.

I don't know about Bam but if you did, as always I'd look at the context of the article, google a few major points then offer my opinion.
If your Lib website or Heartland could actually produce something truthful,  backed by facts & documentation then well you either don't comment or address the facts

As I told you, the fact you don't like the messenger does not nullify any facts in the message.

Bam wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:04pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation.

Wealth has naught to do with it.  They are taxed on income not wealth.

I could win Lotto and be fortunately wealthy for 5 minutes.  Doesn't mean that I'll be a high income earner next year but I will still have the wealth (one would hope)

If you have a high income you will naturally accrue wealth.  You have already been taxed on that income.  If you off load your wealth for a capital gain the good old blood sucking government will be leaching off you yet again for their pound of flesh.

The FACT remains that it is a small percentage of the Collective that pays for everyone else. F A C T

They pay a sheet-load more tax than the vast majority of others.  They (most) do it under duress (threat of prosecution).

Being made to hand over close to half your income (valuables) under threat is robbery.

Handing over half your income is effectively working near half your time for nothing.  Being made to work for nothing is slavery.

Progressive taxation is therefore slavery.  :o

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:30pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. its not a fallacy at all.

Not true. You're not even bothering to refute the points raised in the article.

"This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins."

You did this. Fallacy proven.


Quote:

IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you.

This is more fallacious nonsense that is irrelevant to the points raised in the article.

Why don't you refute the points made in the article, rather than posting fallacious crap?

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:52pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. Wealth has naught to do with it.  They are taxed on income not wealth. I could win Lotto and be fortunately wealthy for 5 minutes.  Doesn't mean that I'll be a high income earner next year but I will still have the wealth (one would hope) If you have a high income you will naturally accrue wealth.  You have already been taxed on that income.  If you off load your wealth for a capital gain the good old blood sucking government will be leaching off you yet again for their pound of flesh. The FACT remains that it is a small percentage of the Collective that pays for everyone else. F A C T They pay a sheet-load more tax than the vast majority of others.  They (most) do it under duress (threat of prosecution). Being made to hand over close to half your income (valuables) under threat is robbery. Handing over half your income is effectively working near half your time for nothing.  Being made to work for nothing is slavery. Progressive taxation is therefore slavery.  :o

Would you rather the wealth hogs accumulate more and more of the nation's wealth until they have it all? What happens then?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. please support this with reputable facts.

Reputable? Have you got  Bolts, Ackerman or Jones personal numbers?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:27pm: I ignore ANYTHING from that travesty of a site.  They lie, make stuff up and engage in 'analysis and opinion' that would make even most of the crazies on here blush.  I reject ANYTHING they say.  If anyone cares to find a balanced article with facts then go for it. But not this trash. Your opinion of something does not change facts, are the number quoted wrong or skewed? longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:30pm: its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. I don't know about Bam but if you did, as always I'd look at the context of the article, google a few major points then offer my opinion. If your Lib website or Heartland could actually produce something truthful,  backed by facts & documentation then well you either don't comment or address the facts As I told you, the fact you don't like the messenger does not nullify any facts in the message.

its not about LIKING the messenger but rather that the messenger is a psychotic liar. I am sure there are people you know who you believe nothing of what they say. there are good sources, biased sources (but factual) and then there are the sites which are basically mental illness or rage in HTML.  I utterly ignore the later.

Bam wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:30pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. its not a fallacy at all. Not true. You're not even bothering to refute the points raised in the article. "This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins." You did this. Fallacy proven. [quote]IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you.

This is more fallacious nonsense that is irrelevant to the points raised in the article.

Why don't you refute the points made in the article, rather than posting fallacious crap?
[/quote]

so you want to maintain that IA is a RELIABLE source of information and commentary?  Are you really that silly as to make that claim?  Some sites do not deserve the right for intelligent people to even consider them. nevermind refute them.  now when you want to find this information on a reliable site then I will happily join the debate.  I will not however debate on information that might as well have come from Wharfys little voices for all the credibility that IA has.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. please support this with reputable facts.

WHERE'S THE PROOF???

Swagman wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:52pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. Wealth has naught to do with it.  They are taxed on income not wealth.

Rubbish. Wealth generates income.


Quote:

I could win Lotto and be fortunately wealthy for 5 minutes.  Doesn't mean that I'll be a high income earner next year but I will still have the wealth (one would hope) If you have a high income you will naturally accrue wealth.  You have already been taxed on that income.  If you off load your wealth for a capital gain the good old blood sucking government will be leaching off you yet again for their pound of flesh.

As opposed to how many of the wealthy acquired their wealth in the first place - coercion, threats, theft and intimidation?


Quote:

The FACT remains that it is a small percentage of the Collective that pays for everyone else. F A C T

Because they have stolen and hoarded the wealth of the nation. FACT. Ever wonder why the Liberals always seek to privatise things, and always for private profit? They seek to steal the commonwealth, a bit at a time.


Quote:

They pay a sheet-load more tax than the vast majority of others.  They (most) do it under duress (threat of prosecution).

And how did many of them accumulate their wealth? By taking it from others under duress, by stealing it for less than its full value.


Quote:

Being made to hand over close to half your income (valuables) under threat is robbery.

Being made to keep only 20% of the value of your labour is robbery. No capitalist ever employs someone unless they can make more profit from that labour than they pay out in wages and overheads.


Quote:

Handing over half your income is effectively working near half your time for nothing.  Being made to work for nothing is slavery.

Like the workers do, once their bills are paid?


Quote:

Progressive taxation is therefore slavery.  :o

Working for subsistence wages is slavery.

Bam wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:59pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:52pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. Wealth has naught to do with it.  They are taxed on income not wealth. I could win Lotto and be fortunately wealthy for 5 minutes.  Doesn't mean that I'll be a high income earner next year but I will still have the wealth (one would hope) If you have a high income you will naturally accrue wealth.  You have already been taxed on that income.  If you off load your wealth for a capital gain the good old blood sucking government will be leaching off you yet again for their pound of flesh. The FACT remains that it is a small percentage of the Collective that pays for everyone else. F A C T They pay a sheet-load more tax than the vast majority of others.  They (most) do it under duress (threat of prosecution). Being made to hand over close to half your income (valuables) under threat is robbery. Handing over half your income is effectively working near half your time for nothing.  Being made to work for nothing is slavery. Progressive taxation is therefore slavery.  :o Would you rather the wealth hogs accumulate more and more of the nation's wealth until they have it all? What happens then?

The have nots might have to use some enterprise and innovation to earn  some wealth instead of relying on handouts

John S wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 9:31am:

The worst treasurer in Australia history = Liberal (Hockey) The best treasurer in Australia history = Labor (Keating)

Got that that a bit wrong old mate.

Hockey is not the worst YET, but should be moved elsewhere.

Costello as the best ever in history of nation.
Keating did us lots of favours but also some disastrous things like tacking us onto Singapore petrol prices for one and super when we had a pension fund for two and so on.
But why argue?
today is when we need action - let them stop playing politics and lets not encourage them.
Not a footy team as too many follow politics seem to behave as if.   ::) ::) ::)
Oh the rolling eyes of a Brian Ross. ha ha.

Bam wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 4:11pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:52pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. Wealth has naught to do with it.  They are taxed on income not wealth. Rubbish. Wealth generates income. Quote: I could win Lotto and be fortunately wealthy for 5 minutes.  Doesn't mean that I'll be a high income earner next year but I will still have the wealth (one would hope) If you have a high income you will naturally accrue wealth.  You have already been taxed on that income.  If you off load your wealth for a capital gain the good old blood sucking government will be leaching off you yet again for their pound of flesh. As opposed to how many of the wealthy acquired their wealth in the first place - coercion, threats, theft and intimidation? [quote]The FACT remains that it is a small percentage of the Collective that pays for everyone else. F A C T

Because they have stolen and hoarded the wealth of the nation. FACT. Ever wonder why the Liberals always seek to privatise things, and always for private profit? They seek to steal the commonwealth, a bit at a time.


Quote:

They pay a sheet-load more tax than the vast majority of others.  They (most) do it under duress (threat of prosecution).

And how did many of them accumulate their wealth? By taking it from others under duress, by stealing it for less than its full value.


Quote:

Being made to hand over close to half your income (valuables) under threat is robbery.

Being made to keep only 20% of the value of your labour is robbery. No capitalist ever employs someone unless they can make more profit from that labour than they pay out in wages and overheads.


Quote:

Handing over half your income is effectively working near half your time for nothing.  Being made to work for nothing is slavery.

Like the workers do, once their bills are paid?


Quote:

Progressive taxation is therefore slavery.  :o

Working for subsistence wages is slavery.
[/quote]

VERY FEW... unless you want to back that up with RELIABLE stats??? hmmm????

Bam wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 4:11pm:

Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:52pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. Wealth has naught to do with it.  They are taxed on income not wealth. Rubbish. Wealth generates income. Quote: I could win Lotto and be fortunately wealthy for 5 minutes.  Doesn't mean that I'll be a high income earner next year but I will still have the wealth (one would hope) If you have a high income you will naturally accrue wealth.  You have already been taxed on that income.  If you off load your wealth for a capital gain the good old blood sucking government will be leaching off you yet again for their pound of flesh. As opposed to how many of the wealthy acquired their wealth in the first place - coercion, threats, theft and intimidation? [quote]The FACT remains that it is a small percentage of the Collective that pays for everyone else. F A C T

Because they have stolen and hoarded the wealth of the nation. FACT. Ever wonder why the Liberals always seek to privatise things, and always for private profit? They seek to steal the commonwealth, a bit at a time.


Quote:

They pay a sheet-load more tax than the vast majority of others.  They (most) do it under duress (threat of prosecution).

And how did many of them accumulate their wealth? By taking it from others under duress, by stealing it for less than its full value.


Quote:

Being made to hand over close to half your income (valuables) under threat is robbery.

Being made to keep only 20% of the value of your labour is robbery. No capitalist ever employs someone unless they can make more profit from that labour than they pay out in wages and overheads.


Quote:

Handing over half your income is effectively working near half your time for nothing.  Being made to work for nothing is slavery.

Like the workers do, once their bills are paid?


Quote:

Progressive taxation is therefore slavery.  :o

Working for subsistence wages is slavery.
[/quote]

are you stupid or something???  you expect employers to pay people for MORE than they produce????

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:30pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you.

Quote:

Hockey's debt & deficit

Quote:

its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant

Are you trying to say that Hockey is looking after the finances of IA ?

No its the Australian economy he is stuffing up ?

I also note that you seem to have no issue with the Fella who posts almost every article printed by Bolt who is infinitely more biased than IA.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 5:43pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:30pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you. [quote]Hockey's debt & deficit

Quote:

its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant

Are you trying to say that Hockey is looking after the finances of IA ?

No its the Australian economy he is stuffing up ?

I also note that you seem to have no issue with the Fella who posts almost every article printed by Bolt who is infinitely more biased than IA.[/quote]

it is statements like that that make you look like such a mental midget. IA isn't just biased.  It is well beyond that.  AS I said before, I DEFY you to post a pro-abbott comment to IA and watch NONE of them get published.  and look for the balanced article that has anything less than abuse an criticism of Abbott.  I enjoyed reading IA during the last election for the entertainment of them claiming every poll was wrong except the handful that said Labor were going to win (mostly online and disreputable ones).  They were claiming Newspoll were fabricating their polls criminally.

and we all know how that worked out for them, don't we???

Let's hear it from those who claim the poor  boys are just paying off 'Labor's debt'....

Please explain?  Exactly where is this 'massive Labor debt'?  All those overpaid pensioners? All the non-borrowings for all the 'privatised' government utilities?  Defence? 

Where IS this money and all this debt in real facts and figures?

Can anyone provide me with a list.. or jsut more rhetoric?

Now - I hold no brief for either 'side' of The Tag Team - as you all know by now - but I surely resent being told a pack of porkies about debts and stuff, when I know full well this is all in the hype and not the reality.

I predicted twelve months ago that LNP would borrow more than Labor did... seems so today...after all - why else would they abandon the debt ceiling?

Now - what are We The People going to see for all this borrowed cash that those who borrowed it don't have to pay back?

I think we need a People's Commission of Audit right here and now....

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 5:20pm:

are you stupid or something???  you expect employers to pay people for MORE than they produce????

If you are in a business where you pay more for your product than you recoup from selling it - it is YOU who are in the wrong business.

Hardly the fault of the workers who operate within the systems YOU set up.

It's like the argument about public servants - if a group of PS are told to do a certain job etc - it is hardly their fault that it is not considered to be productive.

Similarly to the production of warplanes for WWII - many more made the drawing boards than actually made it into combat.... so your PS project may be the exact one ordered by the political masters... but it may not make the fighting front.... not the fault of those who did the work.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 3:32pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. please support this with reputable facts.

Your hypocrisy is breathtaking.

I asked you first. Hundreds of times. You refused. You want to ask others for links? You comply first. You've got a lot of catching up to do, so I suggest you get started. Go now! Chop chop!

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 4:09pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:30pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. its not a fallacy at all. Not true. You're not even bothering to refute the points raised in the article. "This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins." You did this. Fallacy proven. [quote]IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you. This is more fallacious nonsense that is irrelevant to the points raised in the article. Why don't you refute the points made in the article, rather than posting fallacious crap?

so you want to maintain that IA is a RELIABLE source of information and commentary?  Are you really that silly as to make that claim?[/quote]
I never said that; that's a straw man. You still persist with fallacies.


Quote:

Some sites do not deserve the right for intelligent people to even consider them. nevermind refute them.  now when you want to find this information on a reliable site then I will happily join the debate.  I will not however debate on information that might as well have come from Wharfys little voices for all the credibility that IA has.

What on earth makes you think that repeating the same fallacious crap over and over makes it a valid argument when it's already been refuted? Fallacious crap just doesn't cut it.

You've clearly demonstrated that you're not able to refute any of the points raised. Come back when you've got a real point to make.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 5:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:30pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you. [quote]Hockey's debt & deficit [quote]its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant

Are you trying to say that Hockey is looking after the finances of IA ?

No its the Australian economy he is stuffing up ?

I also note that you seem to have no issue with the Fella who posts almost every article printed by Bolt who is infinitely more biased than IA.[/quote]

it is statements like that that make you look like such a mental midget. IA isn't just biased.  It is well beyond that.  AS I said before, I DEFY you to post a pro-abbott comment to IA and watch NONE of them get published.  and look for the balanced article that has anything less than abuse an criticism of Abbott.  I enjoyed reading IA during the last election for the entertainment of them claiming every poll was wrong except the handful that said Labor were going to win (mostly online and disreputable ones).  They were claiming Newspoll were fabricating their polls criminally.

and we all know how that worked out for them, don't we???[/quote]

Bolt is worse is the point - I have never particularly supported IA but some of their articles are on the mark.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 6:37pm:

Let's hear it from those who claim the poor  boys are just paying off 'Labor's debt'.... Please explain?  Exactly where is this 'massive Labor debt'?  All those overpaid pensioners? All the non-borrowings for all the 'privatised' government utilities?  Defence?  Where IS this money and all this debt in real facts and figures? Can anyone provide me with a list.. or jsut more rhetoric? Now - I hold no brief for either 'side' of The Tag Team - as you all know by now - but I surely resent being told a pack of porkies about debts and stuff, when I know full well this is all in the hype and not the reality. I predicted twelve months ago that LNP would borrow more than Labor did... seems so today...after all - why else would they abandon the debt ceiling? Now - what are We The People going to see for all this borrowed cash that those who borrowed it don't have to pay back? I think we need a People's Commission of Audit right here and now....

so let me get this straight (since nothing you say is every really clear. Are you actually saying there is no Labor debt?

Dnarever wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:49pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:30pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you. [quote]Hockey's debt & deficit [quote]its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant Are you trying to say that Hockey is looking after the finances of IA ? No its the Australian economy he is stuffing up ? I also note that you seem to have no issue with the Fella who posts almost every article printed by Bolt who is infinitely more biased than IA.

it is statements like that that make you look like such a mental midget. IA isn't just biased.  It is well beyond that.  AS I said before, I DEFY you to post a pro-abbott comment to IA and watch NONE of them get published.  and look for the balanced article that has anything less than abuse an criticism of Abbott.  I enjoyed reading IA during the last election for the entertainment of them claiming every poll was wrong except the handful that said Labor were going to win (mostly online and disreputable ones).  They were claiming Newspoll were fabricating their polls criminally.

and we all know how that worked out for them, don't we???[/quote]

Bolt is worse is the point - I have never particularly supported IA but some of their articles are on the mark.
[/quote]

what drivel.  it is no more simple than that you are a leftie and therefore like IA and hate Bolt.  at no point does fact or context ever enter into the equation. This makes your position on any topic 100% predictable and 100% worthless.

Bam wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 6:58pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:32pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. please support this with reputable facts. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. I asked you first. Hundreds of times. You refused. You want to ask others for links? You comply first. You've got a lot of catching up to do, so I suggest you get started. Go now! Chop chop!

YOU claimed this supposed gap is increasing and YOU are the one who has proferred zero evidence to support it.  You are wrong and your refusal to support your silliness is further evidence of that.

Bam wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 7:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 4:09pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:30pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. its not a fallacy at all. Not true. You're not even bothering to refute the points raised in the article. "This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins." You did this. Fallacy proven. [quote]IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you. This is more fallacious nonsense that is irrelevant to the points raised in the article. Why don't you refute the points made in the article, rather than posting fallacious crap? so you want to maintain that IA is a RELIABLE source of information and commentary?  Are you really that silly as to make that claim?

I never said that; that's a straw man. You still persist with fallacies.


Quote:

Some sites do not deserve the right for intelligent people to even consider them. nevermind refute them.  now when you want to find this information on a reliable site then I will happily join the debate.  I will not however debate on information that might as well have come from Wharfys little voices for all the credibility that IA has.

What on earth makes you think that repeating the same fallacious crap over and over makes it a valid argument when it's already been refuted? Fallacious crap just doesn't cut it.

You've clearly demonstrated that you're not able to refute any of the points raised. Come back when you've got a real point to make.
[/quote]

if your point is so valid then you should have no trouble whatsoever in making it from other sources.  the fact that you cant is more than enough evidence that it is rubbish.

MBK wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 5:06pm:

John S wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 9:31am: The worst treasurer in Australia history = Liberal (Hockey) The best treasurer in Australia history = Labor (Keating) Got that that a bit wrong old mate. Hockey is not the worst YET, but should be moved elsewhere. Costello as the best ever in history of nation. Keating did us lots of favours but also some disastrous things like tacking us onto Singapore petrol prices for one and super when we had a pension fund for two and so on. But why argue? today is when we need action - let them stop playing politics and lets not encourage them. Not a footy team as too many follow politics seem to behave as if.   ::) ::) ::) Oh the rolling eyes of a Brian Ross. ha ha.

Just out of curiosity, what parameters does one use when assigning the mantle of best, 2nd, 3rd and worst treasurer ?

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 5:20pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 4:11pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:52pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. Wealth has naught to do with it.  They are taxed on income not wealth. Rubbish. Wealth generates income. Quote: I could win Lotto and be fortunately wealthy for 5 minutes.  Doesn't mean that I'll be a high income earner next year but I will still have the wealth (one would hope) If you have a high income you will naturally accrue wealth.  You have already been taxed on that income.  If you off load your wealth for a capital gain the good old blood sucking government will be leaching off you yet again for their pound of flesh. As opposed to how many of the wealthy acquired their wealth in the first place - coercion, threats, theft and intimidation? [quote]The FACT remains that it is a small percentage of the Collective that pays for everyone else. F A C T Because they have stolen and hoarded the wealth of the nation. FACT. Ever wonder why the Liberals always seek to privatise things, and always for private profit? They seek to steal the commonwealth, a bit at a time. [quote]They pay a sheet-load more tax than the vast majority of others.  They (most) do it under duress (threat of prosecution).

And how did many of them accumulate their wealth? By taking it from others under duress, by stealing it for less than its full value.


Quote:

Being made to hand over close to half your income (valuables) under threat is robbery.

Being made to keep only 20% of the value of your labour is robbery. No capitalist ever employs someone unless they can make more profit from that labour than they pay out in wages and overheads.


Quote:

Handing over half your income is effectively working near half your time for nothing.  Being made to work for nothing is slavery.

Like the workers do, once their bills are paid?


Quote:

Progressive taxation is therefore slavery.  :o

Working for subsistence wages is slavery.
[/quote]

are you stupid or something???  you expect employers to pay people for MORE than they produce????[/quote]
That's a straw man fallacy. Come back when you've got a real argument rather than your usual technique of drive-by shootings.

crocodile wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 7:38pm:

MBK wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:06pm: John S wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 9:31am: The worst treasurer in Australia history = Liberal (Hockey) The best treasurer in Australia history = Labor (Keating) Got that that a bit wrong old mate. Hockey is not the worst YET, but should be moved elsewhere. Costello as the best ever in history of nation. Keating did us lots of favours but also some disastrous things like tacking us onto Singapore petrol prices for one and super when we had a pension fund for two and so on. But why argue? today is when we need action - let them stop playing politics and lets not encourage them. Not a footy team as too many follow politics seem to behave as if.   ::) ::) ::) Oh the rolling eyes of a Brian Ross. ha ha. Just out of curiosity, what parameters does one use when assigning the mantle of best, 2nd, 3rd and worst treasurer ?

When your handed economic reforms in boom times on a platter you certainly don't need to sell 2/3rds of your gold reserves, that alone moves you well past position 7.

Bam wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 7:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:20pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 4:11pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:52pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. Wealth has naught to do with it.  They are taxed on income not wealth. Rubbish. Wealth generates income. Quote: I could win Lotto and be fortunately wealthy for 5 minutes.  Doesn't mean that I'll be a high income earner next year but I will still have the wealth (one would hope) If you have a high income you will naturally accrue wealth.  You have already been taxed on that income.  If you off load your wealth for a capital gain the good old blood sucking government will be leaching off you yet again for their pound of flesh. As opposed to how many of the wealthy acquired their wealth in the first place - coercion, threats, theft and intimidation? [quote]The FACT remains that it is a small percentage of the Collective that pays for everyone else. F A C T Because they have stolen and hoarded the wealth of the nation. FACT. Ever wonder why the Liberals always seek to privatise things, and always for private profit? They seek to steal the commonwealth, a bit at a time. [quote]They pay a sheet-load more tax than the vast majority of others.  They (most) do it under duress (threat of prosecution). And how did many of them accumulate their wealth? By taking it from others under duress, by stealing it for less than its full value. [quote]Being made to hand over close to half your income (valuables) under threat is robbery.

Being made to keep only 20% of the value of your labour is robbery. No capitalist ever employs someone unless they can make more profit from that labour than they pay out in wages and overheads.


Quote:

Handing over half your income is effectively working near half your time for nothing.  Being made to work for nothing is slavery.

Like the workers do, once their bills are paid?


Quote:

Progressive taxation is therefore slavery.  :o

Working for subsistence wages is slavery.
[/quote]

are you stupid or something???  you expect employers to pay people for MORE than they produce????[/quote]
That's a straw man fallacy. Come back when you've got a real argument rather than your usual technique of drive-by shootings.
[/quote]

not a fallacy at all. you made an astonishingly stupid statement and are clearly embarrassed by it - as you should.  of COURSE employers pay people less that the productivity they generate. but I guess you are opposed in principle to profit or wealth or success or any of those virtues you criticise.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 7:33pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 6:58pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:32pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:04pm: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:54am: Stratos wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:47am: Swagman wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 10:43am: It's pretty difficult for anyone to totally avoid paying tax which is why I specifically refer to 'net' tax.  Roughly 80% of people pay zero or negative 'net' tax. Correct Swaggy, assuming the 80% do not pay rates, GST or any other form of tax other than income tax, have multiple children that they get government support for, recieve the old age pension, the disability pension AND unemployment benefits. Tax paid less additional benefits received = net tax. Is it collated as a Stat.  No.  That would upset the ochlocrats. No, it would simply refute your argument. You never discuss the fact that the top quintile own about 60% of the wealth in Australia and this proportion is increasing. These hogs grow fatter on the wealth of the nation. please support this with reputable facts. Your hypocrisy is breathtaking. I asked you first. Hundreds of times. You refused. You want to ask others for links? You comply first. You've got a lot of catching up to do, so I suggest you get started. Go now! Chop chop! YOU claimed this supposed gap is increasing and YOU are the one who has proferred zero evidence to support it.  You are wrong and your refusal to support your silliness is further evidence of that.

Where's YOUR evidence? I asked first, hundreds of times. You've balked each time.

You've got a lot of catching up to do, so I suggest you get started. Go now! Chop chop!

Its time wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 7:52pm:

crocodile wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 7:38pm: MBK wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:06pm: John S wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 9:31am: The worst treasurer in Australia history = Liberal (Hockey) The best treasurer in Australia history = Labor (Keating) Got that that a bit wrong old mate. Hockey is not the worst YET, but should be moved elsewhere. Costello as the best ever in history of nation. Keating did us lots of favours but also some disastrous things like tacking us onto Singapore petrol prices for one and super when we had a pension fund for two and so on. But why argue? today is when we need action - let them stop playing politics and lets not encourage them. Not a footy team as too many follow politics seem to behave as if.   ::) ::) ::) Oh the rolling eyes of a Brian Ross. ha ha. Just out of curiosity, what parameters does one use when assigning the mantle of best, 2nd, 3rd and worst treasurer ? When your handed economic reforms in boom times on a platter you certainly don't need to sell 2/3rds of your gold reserves, that alone moves you well past position 7.

SoW, There is not much doubt that Costello presided over much less challenging times than most others but it hardly makes him a nuffy. He did suffer a couple of fires to put out, namely, the '97 Asian financial crisis and the '01 Tech wreck.

Doesn't really answer the question though. How does one parameterise individual performance given vastly different operational circumstances that are often beyond the control of the incumbent.

Just on a side note


Quote:

Keating did us lots of favours but also some disastrous things like tacking us onto Singapore petrol prices for one

You will find that there was not much choice. At the time, Australia was a net oil exporter with the Tapis price higher than the local price. Without parity, the producers would simply export their product where the prices were higher rather than sell into the domestic market. The end result would mean that local prices would inevitably rise as supply shortened. Keating just pre-empted the outcome and acted first.

Wasn't it the Fraser Govt (Howard as Treasurer) that introduced oil parity pricing?  :-?

Swagman wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 9:39am:

Wasn't it the Fraser Govt (Howard as Treasurer) that introduced oil parity pricing?  :-?

Yes it was. Keating aligned it to TAPIS rather than OPEC as this was the major export market at the time.

Dnarever wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 7:21pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:49pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:30pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you. [quote]Hockey's debt & deficit [quote]its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant Are you trying to say that Hockey is looking after the finances of IA ? No its the Australian economy he is stuffing up ? I also note that you seem to have no issue with the Fella who posts almost every article printed by Bolt who is infinitely more biased than IA.

it is statements like that that make you look like such a mental midget. IA isn't just biased.  It is well beyond that.  AS I said before, I DEFY you to post a pro-abbott comment to IA and watch NONE of them get published.  and look for the balanced article that has anything less than abuse an criticism of Abbott.  I enjoyed reading IA during the last election for the entertainment of them claiming every poll was wrong except the handful that said Labor were going to win (mostly online and disreputable ones).  They were claiming Newspoll were fabricating their polls criminally.

and we all know how that worked out for them, don't we???[/quote]

Bolt is worse is the point - I have never particularly supported IA but some of their articles are on the mark.
[/quote]

Bolt is bound by law in regard to what he can and cannot say. No such oversight exists for IA, who can say whatever pleases them. I'll take Bolt or any other mainstream media commentator any day over a bunch of tin foil hat wearing nuts from a site like IA who have zero oversight and even less credibility.

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29^th, 2014 at 7:32pm:

Dnarever wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 7:21pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:49pm: Dnarever wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:43pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 3:30pm: Bam wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 2:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 11:09am: an article by independentaustralia and therefore utterly worthless.  bias, fabrication and bitter anti-liberal hatred all render the site worthless for any balanced information. Your logical fallacy is genetic Quote: You judged something as either good or bad on the basis of where it comes from, or from whom it came. This fallacy avoids the argument by shifting focus onto something's or someone's origins. It's similar to an ad hominem fallacy in that it leverages existing negative perceptions to make someone's argument look bad, without actually presenting a case for why the argument itself lacks merit. its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant fabrication that it deserves not even the faintest credibility.  And if you think that is a fallacy then how about I quote from the Liberal marketing team or Heartland?  Compared to IA they are paragons of balance and truthfulness yet you would reject anything they say out of hand. or here is a thought... why don't we start a thread on this website and look at their articles and I DEFY any of you to post a pro-liberal point of view and get it published.  the fact that there are NONE of these should be enough of a hint for you. [quote]Hockey's debt & deficit [quote]its not a fallacy at all.  IA has such an appalling record of lying and one-side reporting along with blatant Are you trying to say that Hockey is looking after the finances of IA ? No its the Australian economy he is stuffing up ? I also note that you seem to have no issue with the Fella who posts almost every article printed by Bolt who is infinitely more biased than IA. it is statements like that that make you look like such a mental midget. IA isn't just biased.  It is well beyond that.  AS I said before, I DEFY you to post a pro-abbott comment to IA and watch NONE of them get published.  and look for the balanced article that has anything less than abuse an criticism of Abbott.  I enjoyed reading IA during the last election for the entertainment of them claiming every poll was wrong except the handful that said Labor were going to win (mostly online and disreputable ones).  They were claiming Newspoll were fabricating their polls criminally. and we all know how that worked out for them, don't we???

Bolt is worse is the point - I have never particularly supported IA but some of their articles are on the mark.
[/quote]

what drivel.  it is no more simple than that you are a leftie and therefore like IA and hate Bolt.  at no point does fact or context ever enter into the equation. This makes your position on any topic 100% predictable and 100% worthless.
[/quote]

at no point does fact or context ever enter into the equation.

You make me sound like Bolt or yourself still.

you are a leftie and therefore like IA and hate Bolt

The only IA articles I see are the occasional one posted here, I would read Bolt much more often and I do not hate Bolt either but his articles are biased and worthless.

He has probably published something like 10,000 consecutive anti Labor articles occasionally dispersed by a pro Liberal article or some other pet hate rant and that just about tells the story.

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 10:03am:

Bolt is bound by law in regard to what he can and cannot say. No such oversight exists for IA

Why?  They are both written by authors, what is the difference for this particular article?

Armchair_Politician wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 10:03am:

Bolt is bound by law in regard to what he can and cannot say. No such oversight exists for IA, who can say whatever pleases them. I'll take Bolt or any other mainstream media commentator any day over a bunch of tin foil hat wearing nuts from a site like IA who have zero oversight and even less credibility.

I think you will find that IA have the same level of legal responsibility but it does seem that they have transgressed their duty less frequently if at all.

I'll take Bolt or any other mainstream media commentator any day over a bunch of tin foil hat wearing nuts from a site like IA

Any commentator who has published thousands of virtually consecutive articles biased to one side of politics and left himself / herself with zero credibility is clearly in a position that you can not get below no matter what preferred head wear style is selected.

I find the major difference between the mentioned opinion writer and IA is that IA tend to base their conclusions on provable fact where the other bases his concluded statements on his own opinions.

crocodile wrote on Sep 30^th, 2014 at 7:59am:

Its time wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 7:52pm: crocodile wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 7:38pm: MBK wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 5:06pm: John S wrote on Sep 29th, 2014 at 9:31am: The worst treasurer in Australia history = Liberal (Hockey) The best treasurer in Australia history = Labor (Keating) Got that that a bit wrong old mate. Hockey is not the worst YET, but should be moved elsewhere. Costello as the best ever in history of nation. Keating did us lots of favours but also some disastrous things like tacking us onto Singapore petrol prices for one and super when we had a pension fund for two and so on. But why argue? today is when we need action - let them stop playing politics and lets not encourage them. Not a footy team as too many follow politics seem to behave as if.   ::) ::) ::) Oh the rolling eyes of a Brian Ross. ha ha. Just out of curiosity, what parameters does one use when assigning the mantle of best, 2nd, 3rd and worst treasurer ? When your handed economic reforms in boom times on a platter you certainly don't need to sell 2/3rds of your gold reserves, that alone moves you well past position 7. SoW, There is not much doubt that Costello presided over much less challenging times than most others but it hardly makes him a nuffy. He did suffer a couple of fires to put out, namely, the '97 Asian financial crisis and the '01 Tech wreck. Doesn't really answer the question though. How does one parameterise individual performance given vastly different operational circumstances that are often beyond the control of the incumbent. Just on a side note Quote: Keating did us lots of favours but also some disastrous things like tacking us onto Singapore petrol prices for one You will find that there was not much choice. At the time, Australia was a net oil exporter with the Tapis price higher than the local price. Without parity, the producers would simply export their product where the prices were higher rather than sell into the domestic market. The end result would mean that local prices would inevitably rise as supply shortened. Keating just pre-empted the outcome and acted first.

I rate Keating just in front of Costello and both very highly as the best I have seen.

They all make mistakes and I forgive one or two foibles from both as Mentioned the Gold thing was a clanger and Keating has a few good ones as well. I put Keating in front mainly because he took a very poor situation and turned it around with reform and he navigated a serious world recession. Costello never faced the same problems so is more difficult to measure, the dot com and Asian problems were in large isolated from us. He did in my view very well but he had a leader who undermined his achievements and in the end we were left with an economy geared to fail in anything but the best conditions.

They gave away the government income in tax reform that they were going to need in a normalised economy, they should have spent on infrastructure instead of vote buying. I suspect that this was Howards error that Costello was stuck with.

This was an easy mistake to make - they thought that the good times would go on forever and didn't understand the consequences of a more normal situation. When the economy is running at about 2% above the overall average economic performance and the budget is set at 0.8% above income then a return to average conditions puts us in deficit, a downturn below average as we faced puts us in trouble.

This was always going to be the outcome of the economic gearing which Costello left in place.

In the end I take a point or two away from Costello for this one even though he got away with it himself, I can not penalise him for being lucky in the time he served, in my view the only Issue I had with Keating was that he was too much like a conservative treasurer. Aspects of the accord and other policy hurt a lot of employees and started the lower level wages squeeze we still see in force today, Labor got control and then the Liberals squeezed real hard.

The actions of Keating left the unions vulnerable to the following Howard government.