Karnal wrote on Apr 2
nd, 2014 at 4:13pm:
Any leftard doesn't like it, they can take it up with Mr Abbott.
What?
No slong?
Your going soft
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2
nd, 2014 at 4:38pm:
Challenge?
We've been over it a million times and if your not who I suspect here it is in a nutshell.
Howard(treasurer) commissioned a review and started the process of reform with the easy decision to deregulate the banks
I.E not political captial spent with the electorate but still a good start to the process
Keating applied the heavy lifting of reccommended reforms.
I.E Plenty of political captital spent with the electorate which is why his still despised today by a lot of people.
Costello keept a steady hand on the tiller with a few good additions such as APRA.
And he benefited from the largest boom in a century, which along with asset sales and virtually no spending on infrastructure, that made surpluses virtually impossible not to achieve
The rest is opinion, Keating claims had Costello done nothing the budget wpuld have returned to surplus within 5 years on it's own.
Who knows unless we can run exactly the same circumstances we'll never know.
Bread and Butter wrote on Apr 2
nd, 2014 at 4:40pm:
I said
a) budget was in substantial surplus.
b) debt was gone (net debt obviously in case of an attack of pedantry)
c) money was in the bank
d) prior to 96 the country was heavily in debt
e) prior to 96 the country was running a high deficit.
Please tell me any of the above that was incorrect.
Yes when you look at these facts alone, but that leaves out sooo many variables it's almost ludicious.
Life is never a yes or no question, black or white, it's grey and a but
A) Yes it was, but that just ignores the last 7 years, & as with Keatings claim the same is true for the Liberal assertion that tax cuts would have seen the GFC off and we'd either still have surplus or very little debt.
What if Costello didn't introduce APRA and our banks were in the same boat as a lot of councils?
B) But would it have been the same regardless as Keating claims? Howard(PM) was allowed to spend up big? China's still a rural based economy today?
C) for the 3rd time yes the sky is blue
D & E Just ignore the Howard/Keating treasury years
If as I said I'm wrong on you then here I also am in a nutshell,
Although I seem to favour Labor that is ONLY because their ideas seem more egalitarion than Liberals.
Yes they require money but the idea thats in vogue that if you are lucky enough to do well than you deserve a reward from the public purse baffles me.
I am Keating fan hardly a socialist.
Your reward is a great life full of the PERSONAL reward of doing well, and being comfortable whilst living in a country that allows you to do it.
Most of the entitlements ragarding super taxation are at the end of the scale of intergenerational feather bedding, why else cant someone earning OVER 200K in super returns pay a minimal tax of 15 cents in every $ OVER that 200k if not to increase inheritience or the decadence is boardering...no IS obscene.
Just as 1 example of how we are becoming complacent in our society,skewed in values.
Why is Somalia such a sh!thole, partly if not holely because only the strong prosper, if you think you'd be as comfortable over there than your kidding yourself or a psycopath.
Forum
Pages: 
