Australian Politics Forum - The myth of Coalition economic management

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26632
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #15 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:01pm

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

But what did Labor do about this?

Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs.

Yes, pay off Keatings' $96bn debt and leave office with a string of budget surpluses plus more than $20bn in the bank. Shame Howard, shame! I'd call you an idiot, but you're too stupid to even understand what that means.

Back to top

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26632
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #16 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:05pm

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Quote:

there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.

The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses.

If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things...

Either they are not spending enough

OR

They are over-taxing.

Or both.

A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics.

FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation.

But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!".

Back to top

IP Logged

Kat

Gold Member

Offline

Socialism IS the answer.

Posts: 17709
Everywhere and no-where
Gender: female

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #17 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:13pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Quote:

there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.

The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses.

If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things...

Either they are not spending enough

OR

They are over-taxing.

Or both.

A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics.

FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation.

But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!".

Government is NOT a business, nor can it be run like one.

Nor does a govt budget bear ANY similarity to a household
or business budget in the way it works.

I stand by what I said, because it is correct.

Back to top

IP Logged

Vuk11 Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 1797 QLD Gender:	Re: The myth of Coalition economic management Reply #18 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:25pm A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate)
Back to top	IP Logged

PZ547

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9282
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #19 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:30pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Quote:

there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.

The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses.

If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things...

Either they are not spending enough

OR

They are over-taxing.

Or both.

A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics.

FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation.

But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!".

Wow, that was pretty impressive !

Smiley

Back to top

All my comments, posts & opinions are to be regarded as satire & humour

IP Logged

Fit of Absent Mindeness Gold Member Offline We need more fits of absent mindedness Posts: 1622 Brisbane Gender:	Re: The myth of Coalition economic management Reply #20 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:37pm Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:44am: Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:12am: http://i1379.photobucket.com/albums/ah121/mcbellettecbellette/headdesk_zpspgpwjn... http://s3-ec.buzzfed.com/static/2015-03/10/22/enhanced/webdr13/enhanced-10235-14... You win the internet!
Back to top	Putting the n in cuts IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #21 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:39pm

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Quote:

there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.

The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses.

I did say "If you want a budget surplus". I'm not asserting that it's desirable. My point is that surpluses aren't free but come at a price. Your point is similar. Howard's government only got surpluses because they were the highest-taxing government we've had in the past 30 years.

My view is the budget should be balanced. No massive surplus, no massive deficit.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Armchair_Politician

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 26632
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #22 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:41pm

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Quote:

there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.

The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses.

If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things...

Either they are not spending enough

OR

They are over-taxing.

Or both.

A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics.

FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation.

But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!".

Government is NOT a business, nor can it be run like one.

Nor does a govt budget bear ANY similarity to a household
or business budget in the way it works.

I stand by what I said, because it is correct.

Sure it was petal, sure it was. Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

PZ547

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9282
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #23 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:44pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:41pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Quote:

there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.

The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses.

If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things...

Either they are not spending enough

OR

They are over-taxing.

Or both.

A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics.

FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation.

But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!".

Government is NOT a business, nor can it be run like one.

Nor does a govt budget bear ANY similarity to a household
or business budget in the way it works.

I stand by what I said, because it is correct.

Sure it was petal, sure it was. Grin

Well I'm sorry. I thought it was. Now you're dissing your own comment ? Too sophisticated for me, then

Back to top

All my comments, posts & opinions are to be regarded as satire & humour

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #24 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:53pm

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate)

An obsession with "tax cuts" is a blinkered view that is often driven by personal greed. A surplus is also an indicator that it is safe for the government to spend more money.

Tax cuts are not warranted even if a surplus was available. Not until the government addressed shortfalls in spending.

I would rather have new or upgraded infrastructure. Even better - nationalise all the toll roads. No more private taxation for driving on a road I also paid for with my government taxes!

I would rather see the government address the decades of miserable mistreatment of the unemployed. Nobody can survive for long on $260 a week, and the abolition of the CES has not worked. Increase the dole, bring back the CES, and address the criminal corruption within the JSA, VET providers and the like. Even better ... create some government-guaranteed employment.

I would rather the government invested more in health and dental care. Three words: BULK BILLING DENTIST.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

PZ547

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 9282
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #25 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:57pm

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:53pm:

Vuk11 wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:25pm:

A surplus is a good catalyst/indicator for reducing taxes or at least admit that it's safe to do so. (Although many taxes can be reduced even when in debt - ie as the laffer curve can indicate)

An obsession with "tax cuts" is a blinkered view that is often driven by personal greed. A surplus is also an indicator that it is safe for the government to spend more money.

Tax cuts are not warranted even if a surplus was available. Not until the government addressed shortfalls in spending.

I would rather have new or upgraded infrastructure. Even better - nationalise all the toll roads. No more private taxation for driving on a road I also paid for with my government taxes!

I would rather see the government address the decades of miserable mistreatment of the unemployed. Nobody can survive for long on $260 a week, and the abolition of the CES has not worked. Increase the dole, bring back the CES, and address the criminal corruption within the JSA, VET providers and the like. Even better ... create some government-guaranteed employment.

I would rather the government invested more in health and dental care. Three words: BULK BILLING DENTIST

I'd vote for you

Back to top

All my comments, posts & opinions are to be regarded as satire & humour

IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #26 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 1:01pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

But what did Labor do about this?

Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs.

Yes, pay off Keatings' $96bn debt and leave office with a string of budget surpluses plus more than $20bn in the bank. Shame Howard, shame! I'd call you an idiot, but you're too stupid to even understand what that means.

You don't get it.

The Howard government only got surpluses thanks to HIGH TAXES.

Quote:

The budget papers ... show that
the Howard government was the highest taxing government in Australia's history
.
In 2004-05 and 2005-06, the tax to GDP ratio reached a record high 24.2 per cent.

In addition, there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and

all seven were under the Howard government.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

Karnal

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 97195

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #27 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 1:13pm

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 1:01pm:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

But what did Labor do about this?

Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs.

Yes, pay off Keatings' $96bn debt and leave office with a string of budget surpluses plus more than $20bn in the bank. Shame Howard, shame! I'd call you an idiot, but you're too stupid to even understand what that means.

You don't get it.

The Howard government only got surpluses thanks to HIGH TAXES.

And two mining booms. If Howard had inherited the economy Keating had, he would never have gotten those surpluses.

The economy during Howard's time was a success due to the reforms made by Keating.

All economic intervention by governments takes years to take effect. Keating's "recession we had to have" signalled an end to inflation and the economic bubble of the late 1980s - brought down by the 1987 Wall Street crash and the collapse of the Bonds, Skases, Warwick Fairfaxes, etc.

Howard was left with green shoots and good times.

Back to top

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75658
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #28 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 1:41pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 9:56am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 6:55am:

But what did Labor do about this?

Labor had other problems to deal with first. As always, it's easier to stuff something up then it is to fix it. Every attempt by labor to cut spending was blocked by the libs.

Yes, pay off Keatings' $96bn debt and leave office with a string of budget surpluses plus more than $20bn in the bank. Shame Howard, shame! I'd call you an idiot, but you're too stupid to even understand what that means.

when you grow up you might learn how the real world works, until then, keep up the good work, your title of village idiot is all you have.

Back to top

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

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 75658
Gender: male

Re: The myth of Coalition economic management
Reply #29 - Mar 13^th, 2015 at 1:43pm

Armchair_Politician wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 12:05pm:

Kat wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 11:55am:

Bam wrote on Mar 13^th, 2015 at 8:46am:

Quote:

there have been only seven occasions where the tax to GDP ratio has been in excess of 23.5 per cent of GDP and all seven were under the Howard government.

The answer is obvious ... If you want a budget surplus, do what Howard do and RAISE TAXES.

Sick of this bullsh1t about surpluses.

If a government (ANY government) has a surplus, it means one of only two things...

Either they are not spending enough

OR

They are over-taxing.

Or both.

A surplus is not, nor was it ever, the be-all and end-all of economics.

FAR better to have a serviceable debt and real spending on building the nation.

But conservatives, as always, know the price of everything, and the value of nothing.

This is why you'd be a miserable failure as a business owner. How many credit cards do you have? I bet there's half a dozen and you pay off one with the other. Idiot. A surplus is always preferable to a deficit because it means you're not spending more revenue than you've received. No debt means repayments aren't wasted lining someone else's pockets and taxpayer funds can instead be spent on - you know - taxpayers! Anyone who thinks that debt is or can be a good thing for government needs a lobotomy. Anyone who thinks deficit is a good thing needs to be made to write out on paper about 250 billion times, "Deficit = bad, surplus = good!".

tell me again why your business failed? Howard sold the income producing sections of the business, whilst signing up long term debt. How do you pay the debt when the income is no longer there?

Back to top

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

IP Logged