Australian Politics Forum - Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #75 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:25pm

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

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

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

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

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

Such hypocrisy from both sides. Roll Eyes

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

Isn't it obvious?

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

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

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

She said no carbon tax, then introduced one.

It's as simple as that.

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #76 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:26pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longie, are you referring to this blog?

Quote:

It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”.

There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office.

It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96.

Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer.

When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election. In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election.

Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle.

Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government.

So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

john_g

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1549
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #77 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:28pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such hypocrisy from both sides. Roll Eyes

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

Isn't it obvious?

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

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

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

She said no carbon tax, then introduced one.

It's as simple as that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

IP Logged

john_g Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1549 Gender:	Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility Reply #78 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:29pm I don't support what Abbott has said at all. To the contrary, I believe that it ain't right at all, and my point is that it doesn't matter, he can get away with anything because the public just want Labor gone.
Back to top	IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #79 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:31pm

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

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

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

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

Cake & eating again

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #80 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:32pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such hypocrisy from both sides. Roll Eyes

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

Isn't it obvious?

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

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

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

She said no carbon tax, then introduced one.

It's as simple as that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #81 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:33pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such hypocrisy from both sides. Roll Eyes

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

Isn't it obvious?

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

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

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

She said no carbon tax, then introduced one.

It's as simple as that.

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #82 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:36pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Such hypocrisy from both sides. Roll Eyes

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

Isn't it obvious?

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

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

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

She said no carbon tax, then introduced one.

It's as simple as that.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #83 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:39pm

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

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

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

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

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

Cake & eating again

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

Save that garbage argument for someone else.

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

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

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

Back to top

REBELLION is not what most people think it is.
REBELLION is when you turn off the TV & start educating & thinking for yourself.
Gavin Nascimento

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #84 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:40pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Longie, are you referring to this blog?

Quote:

It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”.

There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office.

It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96.

Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer.

When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election. In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election.

Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle.

Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government.

So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983.

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

here.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75191
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #85 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:41pm

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

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

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

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

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

Cake & eating again

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

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

Back to top

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #86 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:50pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #87 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:57pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cake & eating again

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

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

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

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #88 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 2:59pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

dont give up your day job and become a banker.

Back to top

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Tony's wrecking ball takes out his own credibility
Reply #89 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 3:00pm

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cake & eating again

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

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

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

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

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

Back to top

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged