John Smith wrote on Feb 1
st, 2015 at 8:06am:
Dnarever wrote on Feb 1
st, 2015 at 7:54am:
Why do you think that Labor can turn it around in 3 years or less ?
abbott can take as long as he needs, even if that 11 yrs blows out to 20, they will never complain
labor needs to bring a surplus in 12 months or its proof that they are bad economic managers
the logic of the rightards
All this 'surplus' idiocy is a bad joke, and a serious misrepresentation.
Debt is not a bad thing if it results in something positive (pink batts, BER, Snowy
Scheme, birth of the Holden etc), and is a sustainable debt (meaning we have the
ability to service it).
It is bad if it is frittered away on trivialities, bribes to vested interests, wasted on
ideologically-driven witch-hunts against previous governments and their achieve-
ments, or added-to by poor decisions like cutting-off revenue streams (carbon tax
and MRRT, throwing people out of work by bad free-trade deals etc).
Yes, we seem to usually be in debt under Labor. But things get done, things get
built, the needy are catered for. And we always have a good gredit-rating (AAA,
the best you can get - thanks, Wayne!).
Once the Libs get in, expenditure on 'good works' and infrastructure come to a
screaming halt, welfare gets slashed, unemployment rises. Yes, there MAY be a
surplus, but it's not guaranteed because Libs tend to 'leak' money to their backers
and others (ICAC, anyone?).
They'll then claim that their surplus is some kind of 'future fund' for a 'rainy day'
then spend years vilifying their opponents for actually using it when that rainy day
(the GFC) actually arrives.
What matters is not whether you are in surplus or debt, but the kind of debt, the
ability to service it, and the reason for incurring the debt in the first place.
I'd rather move forward under Labor, and carry a bit of debt, than stagnate or
regress under the coservatives while they hoard and sit on a surplus.
Only a total fool wouldn't.