Australian Politics Forum - Why Labor is in deficit.

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

Why Labor is in deficit.
Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:18pm

To quote Alan Kohler...

"Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year."

The drop in revenue excuse is false. The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom. Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue. Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates. But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do? Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%.

the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending.

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

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #1 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:33pm

Tony's stuffed then

Quote:

The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments.

It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion.

It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money.

Quote:

By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor.

It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super.

Quote:

In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion,

yet its

proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion.

That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFz...

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: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #2 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:01pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Tony's stuffed then

Quote:

The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments.

It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion.

It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money.

Quote:

By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor.

It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super.

Quote:

In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion,

yet its

proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion.

That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFz...

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist? you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott. as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any?

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY. Stop expecting Abbott to do something you don't expect Labor to do.

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

skippy. Gold Member Offline Posts: 20882 Gender:	Re: Why Labor is in deficit. Reply #3 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:02pm Why did you lie about voting preferences longlyingfool?
Back to top	freedivers other forum- POLITICAL ANIMAL Click onWWW below IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #4 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:05pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

To quote Alan Kohler...

"Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year."

The drop in revenue excuse is false. The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom. Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue. Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates. But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do? Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%.

the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending.

What's tony going to cut?

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: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #5 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:09pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

To quote Alan Kohler...

"Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year."

The drop in revenue excuse is false. The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom. Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue. Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates. But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do? Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%.

the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending.

What's tony going to cut?

dunno. but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote?

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

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #6 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:14pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Tony's stuffed then

Quote:

The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments.

It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion.

It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money.

Quote:

By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor.

It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super.

Quote:

In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion,

yet its

proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion.

That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFz...

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist? you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott. as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any?

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY. Stop expecting Abbott to do something you don't expect Labor to do.

Labor has produced their policies & they are costed.
They are the ones Abbott's opposes & its called a budget

I (or more to the point Laura) seem to have hit a nerve.

And YES I attack Abbott because I do not want him or 99% of his front bench leading my country, not that Rudd is that much better but its the devil you know.

And why aren't you concerned about the very apparent budget deficit?
You are if Rudd falls short, well Tony's well short.
25 Billion to be generous Angry

so is it 25 plus Labors 31 making it 56, or do we cancel Labors & 25 is OK but the extra 6 tips us over?

And right back at you, why don't you ever bash Abbott ESPECIALLY when the above VERY REAL discrepancy is presented to you?
At least When I don't like what Labor are doing I say so, it just happens that I agree with a lot of it.

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

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 96614

Re: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #7 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:14pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Tony's stuffed then

Quote:

The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments.

It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion.

It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money.

Quote:

By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor.

It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super.

Quote:

In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion,

yet its

proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion.

That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFz...

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist? you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott. as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any?

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY.

I could equally ask when you became a Lib apologist, but that's all in the past.

We all know THERE AREN'T ANY Liberal election promises or policies. Smithy's post exposes Abbott's position entirely: vote Coalition and the deficit will be in a worst state than it is today. It has to be - the numbers don't add up. They're billions out.

The Libs are stalling, pretending they have a team of accountants working around the clock to get us the numbers before election day.

They don't, and they won't. Abbott and Hockey have no experience managing a budget, and are in exactly the same position as Labor with falling revenues. They can only but run a deficit, and when they do they'll simply blame Labor.

The next election is entirely predictable - look at the mess Labor left the economy in: Pink batts, school halls. Only the Libs can be trusted to manage the tough economic times we find ourselves in thanks to Labor's mismanagement, etc, etc, etc.

This is why the Libs won't release their costings. They don't add up, they won't add up, and they'll simply blame Labor when they're inevitably in the red.

And this is GOOD economic management?

Back to top

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

Re: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #8 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:20pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

To quote Alan Kohler...

"Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year."

The drop in revenue excuse is false. The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom. Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue. Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates. But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do? Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%.

the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending.

What's tony going to cut?

dunno. but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote?

. So labor offers cuts. Liberals refuse to support. Offer nothing in return. And don't tell us anything. But you claim they will do more cuts and will have a better budget outcome. You really have become a complete fool whilst following the wankjob and his merrry band of morons. The tea party consists of people with more reality than you.

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: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #9 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Tony's stuffed then

Quote:

The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments.

It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion.

It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money.

Quote:

By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor.

It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super.

Quote:

In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion,

yet its

proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion.

That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFz...

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist? you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott. as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any?

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY. Stop expecting Abbott to do something you don't expect Labor to do.

Labor has produced their policies & they are costed.
They are the ones Abbott's opposes & its called a budget

I (or more to the point Laura) seem to have hit a nerve.

And YES I attack Abbott because I do not want him or 99% of his front bench leading my country, not that Rudd is that much better but its the devil you know.

And why aren't you concerned about the very apparent budget deficit?
You are if Rudd falls short, well Tony's well short.
25 Billion to be generous Angry

so is it 25 plus Labors 31 making it 56, or do we cancel Labors & 25 is OK but the extra 6 tips us over?

And right back at you, why don't you ever bash Abbott ESPECIALLY when the above VERY REAL discrepancy is presented to you?
At least When I don't like what Labor are doing I say so, it just happens that I agree with a lot of it.

rubbish. the budget is NOT Labors election policies unless you want to believe that labor has no new ideas or new plans for the future?

What is Rudd going to do with his campaign speech? just talk about his trips overseas or how good he is at taking selfies (epic embarrassment!) This is where policies and plans are announced. And sitting governments do the same. Don't you recall Gillard doing this or Howard?

Rudd has NOT made public his election promises or polices and obviously not his costings either.

You are happy to vote on the devil you know? I expected more critical assessment than that from you. Rudd - the epic failure in any and every policy. Rudd the overspender on just about everything and now we have Rudd - the one with no new ideas.

and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote???

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: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #10 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:31pm

Karnal wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Tony's stuffed then

Quote:

The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments.

It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion.

It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money.

Quote:

By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor.

It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super.

Quote:

In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion,

yet its

proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion.

That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFz...

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist? you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott. as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any?

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY.

I could equally ask when you became a Lib apologist, but that's all in the past.

We all know THERE AREN'T ANY Liberal election promises or policies. Smithy's post exposes Abbott's position entirely: vote Coalition and the deficit will be in a worst state than it is today. It has to be - the numbers don't add up. They're billions out.

The Libs are stalling, pretending they have a team of accountants working around the clock to get us the numbers before election day.

They don't, and they won't. Abbott and Hockey have no experience managing a budget, and are in exactly the same position as Labor with falling revenues. They can only but run a deficit, and when they do they'll simply blame Labor.

The next election is entirely predictable - look at the mess Labor left the economy in: Pink batts, school halls. Only the Libs can be trusted to manage the tough economic times we find ourselves in thanks to Labor's mismanagement, etc, etc, etc.

This is why the Libs won't release their costings. They don't add up, they won't add up, and they'll simply blame Labor when they're inevitably in the red.

And this is GOOD economic management?

hey, you cant have it both ways. You are saying the coalitions numbers don't add up and then complain that they haven't released their numbers. You need to find a consistent theme there.

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: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #11 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:34pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

To quote Alan Kohler...

"Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year."

The drop in revenue excuse is false. The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom. Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue. Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates. But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do? Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%.

the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending.

What's tony going to cut?

dunno. but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote?

. So labor offers cuts. Liberals refuse to support. Offer nothing in return. And don't tell us anything. But you claim they will do more cuts and will have a better budget outcome. You really have become a complete fool whilst following the wankjob and his merrry band of morons. The tea party consists of people with more reality than you.

I think you could make a case that Abbott couldn't possibly manage things worse than Rudd. After all Rudd has presided over the biggest debt, the worst 6 deficits and the largest number of epic policy failures EVER. Abbott however has served in australias most successful govt.

I think without any other details - such as policy and costings - (which we don't have from either side), Abbott is clearly the better choice. Abbott might not have any runs on the board but Rudd is out for a duck as well as running out his partner. why do you want to give him another innings?

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

Dsmithy70

Gold Member

Offline

ire futuis vobismetipsis

Posts: 13147
Newy
Gender: male

Re: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #12 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:40pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote???

No I do not

I wanted to vote for Gillard

Someone who truly gave a sh!t about Australia, not just Corporate Australia.

Frankly if I'm honest my ballot will read bugger you, & I'll vote Pirate Party in the Senate just to niggle you Wink

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

Sprintcyclist

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 40773
Gender: male

Re: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #13 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:45pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:34pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

To quote Alan Kohler...

"Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year."

The drop in revenue excuse is false. The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom. Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue. Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates. But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do? Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%.

the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending.

What's tony going to cut?

dunno. but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote?

. So labor offers cuts. Liberals refuse to support. Offer nothing in return. And don't tell us anything. But you claim they will do more cuts and will have a better budget outcome. You really have become a complete fool whilst following the wankjob and his merrry band of morons. The tea party consists of people with more reality than you.

I think you could make a case that Abbott couldn't possibly manage things worse than Rudd. After all Rudd has presided over the biggest debt, the worst 6 deficits and the largest number of epic policy failures EVER. Abbott however has served in australias most successful govt.

I think without any other details - such as policy and costings - (which we don't have from either side), Abbott is clearly the better choice. Abbott might not have any runs on the board but Rudd is out for a duck as well as running out his partner. why do you want to give him another innings?

rudds a proven loser, I don't back losers

Back to top

Modern Classic Right Wing

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75183
Gender: male

Re: Why Labor is in deficit.
Reply #14 - Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

To quote Alan Kohler...

"Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year."

The drop in revenue excuse is false. The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom. Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue. Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates. But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do? Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%.

the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending.

What's tony going to cut?

dunno. but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote?

If you 'dunno'... how can you say it will be more than Rudds? Your really are an idiot ....

Still blowing smoke out of your arse I see Longy ....

Back to top

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

IP Logged