533 days since the last election, and Labor are still blaming things on Howard.

Yesterday the Treasurer added Mr Howard to his list of villains, insisting he faced the "double whammy" of paring down an unsustainable budget while also dealing with a recession.

"In the middle of a global recession, we are being asked to deal with things that the previous government wouldn't deal with," Mr Swan said.

From The Australian - "Swan makes Howard the fall guy"

I'll admit that Rudd has done some interesting, and popular things...

• 2020 Summit


• Sorry


• RuddBux

A couple of discussion points for you...

• 533 days on from the last election, is your opinion of Rudd as Prime Minister better or worse?


• What has been the most significant policy / decision that the Rudd Government has come up with?


• Do you think that the Rudd Government will be returned?


• Do you think that the Rudd Government have a right to blame the Howard Government for the coming budget defecit?


• Do you think that the Rudd Government have handled the GFC well?

Hi infi :D

Wow has it been that long already? I don't really know much about politics or economics, but I think that it's fair to blame a party that was in power for ~12 years for a few more years.

What good came out of the 2020 summit? (genuine question)

I think we'll have to wait to see how "sorry" has affected Australia as a whole.

Ruddbux will hopefully work out in the short - medium term, but again we'll have to wait and see.

TBH, I'm extremely ambivalent towards Rudd.

What good came out of the 2020 summit? (genuine question)

none... You'll note i described it as "Interesting, and popular" not useful.

Maybe just doing "interesting and popular" things is useful.

Maybe...

I still don't like him.

1) Rudd... as bad as I thought he'd be.
2) They've come up with anything? Other than blowing massive amounts of money?
3) I hope not.
4) Hell no. They've got themselves to blame (plus worldwide pressures, of course)
5) No. I think they've slapped a quick fix on the economy. I wish Howard and Costello were running the show through this mess.

blaming the opposition for stuff they did while in power is standard politics... every federal government does it. as is bigging themselves up & mud-slinging at the other guy... it's all a bit childish really.

Well I suppose the Libs blamed Keating for a long time after the 1996 election. So what's good for the goose is good for the gander :p The difference is that Costello slashed expenditure in 1997 across the entire budget to reinstate a surplus.

This time around, Swan posted a large surplus in 2008 riding off the "resources boom" but failed to anticipate the approaching tsunami Costello warned him of. He didn't curtail expenditure and instead persisted with the very same Howard government policies he criticised.

And now we see Swan instigating new expenditure along with short shighted get back at the rich grabs (cutting private health rebate, childcare rebate, baby bonus, super contributions). Now is not a time for new recurrent expenditure (like paid maternity leave, and defence expansion). Now is a time for pay freezes, slashing of expenditure and labour market deregulation.

It is negligent of government to think they can defy gravity. You simply cannot maintain expenditure in a time of dwindling revenue. The US and UK are cases in point 5 years ahead of Australia, both with blowouts in bond yields and devalued currency.

As for the expected deficit of $60b, well if they hadn't handed out $20b of cash for absolutely no discernable benefit, already that deficit would have been $40b.

This mob are a joke running up a deficit bigger than Keating could ever have imagined. Heavy on symbolism and light on any sort of producitity based reform, compared to the Hawke/Keating government they are a disgrace. Luckily under the safe stewardship of John Howard (Tampa, Iraq, Workchoices!!1) we have been delivered an extremely well-financed Commonwealth which should be able to handle molestation at the hands of the Labor government for maybe 1 term (hopefully not 2).

last edited by infi at 10:31:54 11/May/09

Looking forward to the infrastructure spending, its long overdue.

popular things...
..

* Sorry

popular? you're on drugs

i don't think a rudd or a howard government would make a bee's dick of difference in these times. We're going into deficit no matter what.

Pretty sure it was popular... Personally, I don't really care... but it was a widely publicised event... which was the general point I was trying to make.

I guess I should comment on the things I mentioned...

I still can't believe we voted Labor back in. I'm continually disapointed by the lack of action from the Government. I see Kevin Rudd as a bit of a Peter Beatie, but with a twist. Peter Beatie was a well known media-whore... the difference though is that Peter Beatie actually got some things done. I'm trying to think of anything big that Rudd has actually put into place other than these stimulus packages. As Infi says - while giving $900 to everyone is popular, it doesn't appear to have done much.

Can anyone actually remind me of something that Labor has done... I'm talking thing on the scale of Work Choices, major tax reform, etc.

It seems to me that while Rudd has been amazingly popular to this point, the worsenening economy will do him no favours leading into the next election. I guess his chances of relection will depend on how well we ride out this downturn. Personally, I'm hoping that Labor is not returned.

I think that its reasonable for a Government to blame the previous Government for some time... After the election, I remember hearing various comentators talking about "Oh yeah - 6 months in now, and there are no excuses for Labor" etc. Now we're at around 18 months in, and Labor have already delivered 1 budget, and are about to deliver their second... and they're still blaming the previous Government. I draw the line at that - I don't see how they can blame anyone but themselves... If they didn't do anything about the impending GFC 1 year ago, how can they expect Howard to have made an impact 2 years ago? I think the stimulus packages have been generally ineffective... and while popular, I don't think they are worthwhile or a valid use of tax payers money.

i don't think a rudd or a howard government would make a bee's dick of difference in these times. We're going into deficit no matter what.

I do... Howard / Costello would have cut expenditure, not maintained / increased it and gone into massive debt.

Problem is for Rudd, he hasn't delivered on some of his key election promises... so now that their funds are drying up fast, he has to go into debt so he doesn't look like too much of a c*******.

Costello warned him of

Care to source ? I doubt Costello would do anything for the betterment of the country, he appears to focus on the betterment of Costello. Sitting in the shadows of the liberal party disrupting them permanently but being to cowardly to just raise his hand say yes I want the top job.

Only person I saw predicting it was Keating some 3 years before it happened, and he was even moderately accurate on the timeline.

imo Rudd's biggest failing is, he spends too much time worrying about the 24 hour news cycle.
Joh controlled the media (he was the master of chook feeding), Keating and Hawke largely ignored them, Howard ignored them for unimportant stuff and used them when it suited his agenda.

What good came out of the 2020 summit?

Hmm wasn't the bionic eye part of 2020 ? and remember 2020 is 11 years away. The goal wasn't to finish them today.

I'm very skeptical of the bionic eye.

Hmm wasn't the bionic eye part of 2020 ? and remember 2020 is 11 years away. The goal wasn't to finish them today.

Urr, what? Was the Bionic Eye invented at the 2020 summit?

last edited by mongie at 11:56:21 11/May/09

1. Worse, definitely.

2. The stimulus response. It's going to have the longest lasting effect on the Australian taxpayer.

3. Bloody well hope not. However the Liberals aren't exactly offering a viable alternative at the moment. We need Petey/Joe!

4. That's a hard question. Sure, Howard did instigate "middle-class welfare", however he also paid off the massive debt inherited from Keating and handed Rudd a substantial surplus that the Rudd has blown in 554 days via spin/ideological spending. As infi points out, if Rudd doesn't hand out the $900 the deficit is already $20bn less. So no, Rudd must take some responsibility. Although that's not the labor way.

5. No. I think Rudd is obsessed with himself and the media. He thinks he HAS to be on the front page, he HAS to be doing something and he HAS to be popular. artificial inflation of market values by stimulus, or market regulation isn't going to be sustainable. The Market is a set of scales and self correcting. It determines the price/value of something/someone. For example, if your bathroom scales say you're 110kg, you can't just legislate to make youself weigh 80kg. It's something leftists can't grasp. You're only cheating yourself rather than addressing the issue.

last edited by fade at 12:52:22 11/May/09

4. That's a hard question. Sure, Howard did instigate "middle-class welfare", however he also paid off the massive debt inherited from Keating and handed Rudd a substantial surplus that the Rudd has blown in 554 days via spin/ideological spending. As infi points out, if Rudd doesn't hand out the $900 the deficit is already $20bn less. So no, Rudd must take some responsibility. Although that's not the labor way.

My thinking on that is that howard managed to sustain "middle-class welfare" and make tidy surpluses so why can't Rudd... obviously there is the GFC to contend with, so sure - you can cut out some of that welfare, but don't go $60bn into debt!

Read this article first before you make your next post.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Swans-high-and-dry-pd20090511-RWST4?OpenDocument&src=sph

Does anyone understand why they are still giving the tax cuts proposed by the Howard government? I would usually be all for tax breaks, and I realise that it was a Rudd election promise not to change them.... but it seems incredibly counter productive to cut income tax when we are in the midst of the financial crisis, the budget is going to be in a massive deficit, and the Government has had huge revenue shortfalls.

Read this article first before you make your next post.

I see - so I was right... The Rudd Government are spending more than they are receiving... What was your point again?

PS: Alan Kohler is a c*******.

Does anyone understand why they are still giving the tax cuts proposed by the Howard government?

It's before my time as a vote but look up Keating's L.A.W. tax cuts which he then reneged on.

Didn't go down too well with the voters.

Looking forward to the infrastructure spending, its long overdue.

This.

I do... Howard / Costello would have cut expenditure, not maintained / increased it and gone into massive debt.

You've got to be kidding. Costello was laughing all the way out the door. I picture the backroom meetings going something like this "Hey Johnny, let's promise massive tax cuts that Labor are going to have to come close to meeting if they think they have any chance of getting into power" "Yeah go for it Peta, hahahaha, that'll f*** 'em".

Half the reason we're in 'massive' debt is due to the outlandish promises the Libs where making either clinging to last hopes of getting back in or making Labor have to meet them so they could fall on their face and look bad.

Personally I reckon we would've been in probably about the same position we are now no matter what party was in. 12 years is a lot to turn around/undo (for better or worse) in just over a year and a half.

My thinking on that is that howard managed to sustain "middle-class welfare" and make tidy surpluses so why can't Rudd... obviously there is the GFC to contend with, so sure - you can cut out some of that welfare, but don't go $60bn into debt!

Resources industry/mining boom has contracted substantially since then.

As Infi says - while giving $900 to everyone is popular, it doesn't appear to have done much.

Australia is set to have a far softer recession than the majority of other developed nations.

The latest statistics I saw on the news show our economy is contracting less than most others.

Unemployment was largely stable in March.


Governments love to take credit for booms and blame everyone else for busts, but the bottom line for me is we're doing pretty well compared to most other countries. Certainly, the government's actions do not appear to be hurting us when you compare us to other nations.

12 years is a lot to turn around/undo (for better or worse) in just over a year and a half.

Total bulls***. If the government didn't like those policies they should have changed the laws, like they did for WorkChoices.

Swan presented a surplus budget last year. So what 12 years of neglect do you actually speak of? 13 years of labour generates a 96b public debt now Rudd and Swan are bracing us for $200b+!

The Government knows that to change the middle class welfare laws would be electoral suicide so they need to cut elsewhere. You can't have your cake and eat it too. That is the US syndrome where instead of cutting they have elected to keep spending. It just doesn't work and now Swan is about to find out too.

i am looking forward to more free s*** in the budget for me, that my kids will have to pay for:

personally, id like to see us get the baby bonus, and paid maternity leave, plus additional stimulus for having maor kids;

Apart from the $20bn in debt.

Howard / Costello would have cut expenditure, not maintained / increased it

Cut it from where? Hospitals? Education? Defense?

Also, cutting expenditure massively sure did work wonders during the Great Depression.

I'm no fan of either major political party, but to suggest that one party could avoid recession or whatever is just a laughable notion.

last edited by orbitor at 14:38:07 11/May/09

i think that depends on your level of rampant fanboyism orbs:

How about across the board cuts. Every department is cut 5%. Everyone just sucks it in a little. f*** it sounds so complex.

it's gotta be better than putting it on a giant Mastercard ffs

It's before my time as a vote but look up Keating's L.A.W. tax cuts which he then reneged on.

Yeah.. well a responsible goverment should have the balls to make unpopular decisions for the benefit of the nation.

The waste of government is mind boggling.
Take a look at this from West Australia.

THE West Australian government will strip more than 1100 cars from its public servants in a bid to save over $10 million a year.
WA Premier Colin Barnett said the target to reduce the state's 11,700-car fleet would save $42 million over four years for the state budget.

Mr Barnett said the 10 per cent cutback was necessary because the previous Labor government had been too generous.
http://tinyurl.com/q73dhu

10 x 1100 = 11 000+ taxpayer funded cars.

If the government wants trim the fat they should start with the bloated government Com-Cars fleet.


last edited by FaceMan at 15:01:01 11/May/09

i got a heap of mates that work in various government departments:

it always boggles my mind, how little work they do, and even the ambitious ones get frustrated at how little work their departments/superiors/co-workers do:

When I worked in government I was constantly told to slow down by the old timers.

So I went in there and fired some of them just to shake things up.

What about the NSW state government lunch thing thats just been going on... leader of the nationals racking up something like $17000 bill on "entertainment" and someone in Labor with like a $12000 bill.

Orbitor... I'm not saying that the Libs would have avioided the recession, but I am saying that the wouldn't be spending money as freely and easily as Labor seem to be.

I don't agree with the $900 stimulus package. I do however completely agree with the funding for school infrastructure etc.

As per usual, nothing is simple. The budget is a tough gig.

However, from my critical and somewhat superficial perspective I think Wayne Swan is a joke as Treasurer.

I think the predicted deficit (~$40-60bil) is just a ridiculous position to put our country in. Unfortunately it's a long-term plan, so we won't see how the *investment* it pans out for years to come.

As for Nathan's comments above. I think it's too early to tell what the effect of at least the $12bil hand-outs part of the stimulus package will be. Our economy was contracting less than comparable countries anyway before the hand-outs. You would hope that the stimulus will be noticeable as a bump on some consumer-spending chart somewhere - but I don't think it'll stand-out until 3rd quarter.

I think the government needs to make the economy slightly more attractive for business in this budget. It's increased business activity that will get us out of this trouble, after all.

Total bulls***. If the government didn't like those policies they should have changed the laws, like they did for WorkChoices.

Swan presented a surplus budget last year. So what 12 years of neglect do you actually speak of? 13 years of labour generates a 96b public debt now Rudd and Swan are bracing us for $200b+!

Please don't put words into my mouth. Just because you assume you're having an argument with some left-wing pinko on an internet forum doesn't mean you actually are.

I simply stated that I *believe* that we wouldn't be in much of a different position right now if the government hadn't have changed due to the promises made by the previous government that had to be met by the (then) opposition if they wanted any chance to get elected and that 12 years of another government is hard to change/reverse (*for better or worse*) in a little over a year and a half.

Edit: To expand on this, I never said anything about how the previous government had run the country. You assumed that I think it was bad.

PS. I think I've asked you this before, but are you "Informer/Infi" from le olde BBS days?


last edited by Syco at 16:35:58 11/May/09

Pinky; I agree its hard to say whether the govt's actions have been beneficial - I really dont think we'll be able to know that for several years.

Most people educated in this area certainly agree that a deficit is required, the magnitude is certainly up for debate.

Where that money goes is what politics is all about really, so if you are right leaning you aren't going to like it regardless of the current economic climate.

What sickens me is that it's clear that all these a******s care about is getting into power first then running the country, instead of the other way around.

Rudd a substantial surplus that the Rudd has blown in 554 days via spin/ideological spending

Notional surplus, based on continuing revenue.
So mining revenue "blown" has little to do with our globally tiny government.

Syco: no relation. From Q2 days on the UQ servers - I was infiNex back then.

Obes: your dementia is getting worse. Link.

infi the liberal wonder kid...

If he saw it coming why was he on the same ticket as Howard that had an even bigger set of promises ?

Political parties are such an unproductive thing. No real problem solving just block voting.

what i don't get about rudd though is that although he is massively popular he won't make unpopular decisions. howard definately became a populist, but he made quite a few big potentially suicidal decisions that sometimes polarised the people and nearly paid the price more than once.

the gun buyback for one. that happened in, what, the first year? that nearly split the coalition. the huge cut backs in welfare, which while it might have been popular with some, how many uni students in the late 1990s voted liberal? the GST, nearly cost them government. workchoices, which did cost them government. but arguably set up australia better for a recession than anyone in government is willing to admit.

i didn't particularly like howard (out of 4 federal elections i've voted in, i only voted for him twice - 2004, 2007), but at least the guy had balls. rudd might be likeable, but hes no leader. swan is even worse. gillard has the most balls of anyone on the front bench, and probably the only one i'd vote for, but then again i think shes a complete moron policy wise.

GILLARD HAHAHAHAHA. good one

although he is massively popular he won't make unpopular decisions

nope, absolutely no connection there whatsoever

I find it realy hard to take you seriously infi, you just sound like u listen to what Malcolm turnball says, write it down and repeat it on here. The truth is that both sides of politics do good and bad things, but your constant labor bashing just makes you seem childish like all the politicians do when they just constanly bad mouth the other side.

Howard and costello probably did make some good decisions, but in the end if they hadnt have had the recources boom, anything they did would have make f*** all difference, they rode the wave.

Now labor are in, the economic climate has changed a f***load (nothing to do with them), and obviously we arent going to see those big surplusses becuase they just dont have the cash coming in. If the liberals were in, i very much doubt they would be posting a surpluss, and infi would be on here saying how good the liberals are.

Remember, the liberals proposed the huge tax cuts, dont see u bad mouthing that decision, but its spending a f***load of money, that we probably shouldnt in these "tough" times. Payed Maternity leave, not sure I agree with but other countrys like the UK have it so its not like its that crazy an idea. Cash bonuses, I reckon they make a difference, I hear heaps of stories about people using the money on local business, but its realy hard to prove, and realy easy to say "oh look it made no difference, unemployment still went up", didnt it just go down slightly?

Isnt the majority of money they are spending going on infrastructure?, like 30-40 billion?, only 12 billion was for cash bonuses. Didnt the IMF agree that direct cash bonuses were a good idea?

Your just to predicatable infi, its like your malcolm turnballs little puppet.

FYI, im a labour supporter, but see how I can say good and bad things about both sides, u should try it sometime.

VIPER it's predictable that you would support a hopeless media obsessed Treasurer and Prime Minister, who was given a budget in surplus and wasted it all.

In their first year in Government the Coalition hacked the s*** out of the budget, whereas Swan has done nothing but spend spend spend and complained about "Where did the money go!!?!? WAHHHHH."

Here's a novel idea. Got less money? Spend less!

As for tax cuts. We are taxed to s*** and taxes should be far lower. Raise the GST instead. Tax cuts are good for an economy they increase incentive to invest, work harder and take risks. Not like the ridiculous $900 handouts which just encourages to people to expect more free handout while they do jack s***.

You sound like a typical labor stooge standing up for every do-nothing lay about that ever collected a handout.

given a budget in surplus and wasted it all.

See thats what im talking about, thats a malcom turnball line, you sure u arent him?

Im pretty sure the GFC had a little impact on the budget(f***en huge), do you at least admit that? Also you comparing completly different ecomonic times.

I dont support everything labor do, dont realy support the payed maternity leave, definatly dont support the internt filtering thing.

Dont realy like wayne swan, he seems like a bit of a wesel, I reckon Rudds ok though, seems like he is a decently smart guy, Malcom turnball's a loser, who just talks negative crap all the time and never answers a hard question when asked, just says what labour is doing and how they shouldnt be doing it, craps on about how howard bought surplus and now its gone, ignoring all the other things going on.

Here's a novel idea. Got less money? Spend less!

im no economist, but isnt everyone saying we should do the opposite and spend money to stimulate the economy, throught infrasture spending?. Yeah Yeah, they gave cashout it didnt do a thing bla bla, but they are also spending a f***load more than that on infructure.

EVERYTHING THE LIBERALS HAVE EVER DONE AND WILL DO IN THE FUTURE IS WRONG!!, is that what im meant to say?

It's doesn't stimulate the economy. Please stop perpetrating that blatant lie. A large portion of these handout recipients simply saved the money because psychologically they are not confident enough to spend it.

If the GFC has slashed income then f***ing slash expenditure. Our previous tax revenue levels will not be returning to Australian for some time so is Mr Swan proposing maintaining all this expenditure for the next 3 years on credit card?

If you dont have money you can't have wacky do defense and health care and welfare. If you dont have proper tax revenue then you end cut back and go lean.

It's almost like Australian taxpayers have never had to go without, oh yeah that's right because for the last 10 years while unions were complaining about eveil John Howard's workplace relations laws they were enjoying record low unemployment and real wage rises larger than they had ever imagined.

All Kevin Rudd has managed to do is reregulate and reunionise the workplace, while spending this country into hock for the next 20 years. Oh yeah it's the cool thing to do because UK and US are doing it.

Have a look at Germany they're not gonna have a bar of this deficit spending.

last edited by infi at 22:19:31 11/May/09

It wsa inevitable under any Gorvernment.

Have a look around, Australia is one of many countries in deficit. Different Government and we would be in different s***.

We aren't going about it too badly, have a look around once in a while.

it took them 12 years to pay back Labor's $96 billion black hole, so by my maths - Turnbull will be PM for 24 years to pay off the new and improved $200 billion super duper black hole

It wsa inevitable under any Gorvernment.

Have a look around, Australia is one of many countries in deficit. Different Government and we would be in different s***.

We aren't going about it too badly, have a look around once in a while.

Sure, but from surplus to $70 billion defecit in 12 months?

this aint 'just a defecit' and can't be blamed purely on the GFC

Few more fixed speed cameras here and there and we'll be back to surplus in no time.

Sell Telstra.

Papa Smirk - Next Liberal Leader.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25461556-601,00.html

last edited by sLaps_Forehead at 00:35:39 12/May/09

it took them 12 years to pay back Labor's $96 billion black hole, so by my maths - Turnbull will be PM for 24 years to pay off the new and improved $200 billion super duper black hole

lols, asif turnbull will ever be pm, he'll be lucky to be oposition leader in 6 months time

Have a look at Germany they're not gonna have a bar of this deficit spending.

LIBERALS SUPPORT GERMANY, AND THERE FORE HITLER!!! THEY WANT TO KILL ALL THE JEWS!!.

thats pretty much what a liberal supported would say.

LOL skitza... I hope you were joking.

Viper, whilst I find it very hard to address someone seriously when they make as many basic grammar and spelling mistakes, and analogising modern day Germany to the Nazis. But, I'll make an exception.

Go ask your grandparents about saving. Their generation didn't live on credit. If they needed something, they saved and bought it with cash. Now lets look at the current generation, and government, who can't handle the fact that their savings can't cover their wishlist. So instead of taking the prudent road, and cutting their wish list, they are borrowing against the tax revenues of future taxpayers.

Please tell me you can understand that indebting the future taxpayers is grossly unfair.

Secondly, I'm right-leaning and I support the paid maternity leave. We needed to get rid of the baby bonus. The wrong parents were the ones having kids. We also need to maintain a steady fertility rate to maintain competitive labour prices in the future.


last edited by fade at 08:39:54 12/May/09

I'm right-leaning and I support the paid maternity leave. We needed to get rid of the baby bonus. The wrong parents were the ones having kids. We also need to maintain a steady fertility rate to maintain competitive labour prices in the future.

WOW, a liberal supporter not just saying everything the government does is bad, it gives you instant credibility.

Viper, whilst I find it very hard to address someone seriously when they make as many basic grammar and spelling mistakes, and analogising modern day Germany to the Nazis. But, I'll make an exception.

Its called a joke Fade, I was just trying to get across the point that the liberals and supporters jump on anything the government say and instantly say they would do the opposite. and those stupid little names they come up with for things the government do, like "smash and grab" etc that they repeat over and over, it makes me want to punch them in the face, labor people do it as well though ill admit, but not as much as malcolm turnball. Seriously guys (liberals) ditch malcolm, he may be a smart guy but he's not a likeable guy and he isnt going to win you the next election, you need a new guy, or costello.

Please tell me you can understand that indebting the future taxpayers is grossly unfair.

It probably is, are u saying though that the government shouldnt build any infrastructure unless they can pay for it in cash? don't think we would get much built that way. I though it was pretty common consensus that we should be pouring money into infrastructure in these times, like i said earlier, i'm no economist, but even the IMF are saying thats what we should do.

I'd probably even vote liberal if they ditched malcolm and never bought in that bulls*** that was work choices again, we all know that was just for big business.

As for tax cuts. We are taxed to s*** and taxes should be far lower. Raise the GST instead.

Now that's an *awesome* idea! Raise the GST at a point in the business cycle where consumers are least able to absorb price increases and going to be the most effective in dampening economic activity.

At least it'll make it simpler for a whole bunch of small businesses trying to decide whether they can afford to keep on that 3rd staff member! The centrelink line is already starting to get long, a little longer can't hurt.

Didnt the IMF agree that direct cash bonuses were a good idea?

the IMF have been severely critisised for many years for coming up with 'one size fits all' policy prescriptions to economic problems. google 'the washington consensus' or a book called 'Globalisation and its Discontents' by nobel prize winning economist Joseph Stiglitz. debt-fuelled stimulus payments may have been warranted in places like the UK or the US who were in a far worse position than we and were being hit far worse than we are - many would argue that they were simply not needed in Australia.

edit: also

I'm right-leaning...

WOW, a liberal supporter...

right leaning =/= liberal supporter.

last edited by taggs at 09:31:02 12/May/09

Viper you constantly fight with strawman arguments go and look at a essay or book about critical thinking. I don't like labour as there answer to a surplus budget was SPEND, SPEND, SPEND. I don't necessarily like any party at all but at least the liberals could watch what they spent.

The other thing is, this whole recession thing, you can't stimulate an economy, it's like taking a pill for a headache its not any real solution.

The truth is things will have a certain value, the value never really alters only superficially visa ve the inflation system, you will get minor fluctuations in what people are buying and this can be broken down into 2 categories wants and needs.

The other thing is if the rate of replacement for birthrates goes down then there will almost gauranteed be a recession, because society is dependent on those replacements because everyone of them will become a consumer. In the grand sense of things that means (food, house/unit rented or bought, electricty, water, sewage, healthcare etc) They will all be consumers of those things and others thus inputting into the economy.

last edited by Corrupt at 09:34:30 12/May/09

Not replying to anyone, but my thoughts are some deficit is good and perhaps unavoidable and infrastructure building is also good (it's needed anyway really). But $60b is a bit f***ing much. Why not just cut spending across the board even by a little bit like Infi suggested?

I could build a school cheaper than any goverment ever could, and the quality of the education would be the same if not better.

Secondly, I'm right-leaning and I support the paid maternity leave. We needed to get rid of the baby bonus. The wrong parents were the ones having kids. We also need to maintain a steady fertility rate to maintain competitive labour prices in the future.

As someone rightly pointed out to me yesterday, the baby bonus will remain for non-working mothers, and that pretty much encompases a lot of the unsuitable recipients of the bonus anyway.

The percentage of baby-bonus abusers that do not work, would be much higher than the number who are having babies for cash, but do work.

"labor"

Swan really is a dickhed if he thinks we're all going to by his bulls*** that it was Howard's over-spending. If that was the case why didnt he wind back spending last budget.

hypocrisy++

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25465429-5013871,00.html

I don't like labour as there answer to a surplus budget was SPEND, SPEND, SPEND

It was? What major spending from the last budget were you against? Apart from the stuff that happened after the GFC hit, what major spending did they do? The tax cuts were the liberals idea.

I don't necessarily like any party at all but at least the liberals could watch what they spent.

And they didnt have any else helping them along the way, like the massive resources boom.

Im not stuck on either party either, but lean towards labor cause they seem like they dont have the mission of screw the workers, more money for business that liberals do.

Why did the liberals vote against the alcopop tax? because they had some great disagreement with it?, thats what they say, but they realy did it to just go agaisnt the government, cause thats what they do.I'd have more respect for liberals if they just didnt say EVERYTHING that labor does is wrong.

you say you're unbaised yet your posts seem to indicate otherwise.

i don't think anyone can claim to know why the liberals didn't support the alcopops tax like you claim to, but if i had to guess i'd say it probably has something to do with a large proportion of the population disagreeing the the tax.

i don't think anyone can claim to know why the liberals didn't support the alcopops tax like you claim to, but if i had to guess i'd say it probably has something to do with a large proportion of the population disagreeing the the tax.

Are you fo rizzle?

Of course we know, they wrote it on their f***ing website: The story

I am unbiased, its just that I cant believe anything malcolm turnball says, its always just negative negative bla bla "smash and grab" bla bla. At least howard spoke his mind.

If our debt gets too bad the IMF will bail us out with some of their pretend money.
Of course That money would come with strings attatched.

Are you fo rizzle?

Of course we know, they wrote it on their f***ing website: The story

you stupid twat. viper is saying that there is a difference between the reasons the libs give the public for not supporting it and the reasons that actually motivate them to not support it.

Edited

533 days on from the last election, is your opinion of Rudd as Prime Minister better or worse?

It's a bit hard for me to judge Rudd since he got in as PM. I was always a student under Howard and I was getting owned by things like the Nelson education reforms, study payments lower than the dole, high cost of houses, and high inflation. So time under Rudd has been good. Thanks to the GFC, Rudd has delivered on several important issues:
1) Lower fuel prices - check
2) Lower interest rates - check
3) Lower housing prices - on the way there

The above issues affect me directly in everyday life, where as a budget deficit wont affect me directly. I dont know why so many ppl are getting their nickers in a twist over it, its sound fiscal policy afik.

who was given a budget in surplus and wasted it all.

They where given a budget predicted to be in surplus and predicted the same thing. You or anyone else can't say that if the Libs where re-elected we'd have 100% have a big surplus.

As for tax cuts. We are taxed to s*** and taxes should be far lower. Raise the GST instead.

Actually, for the population and what the Government spends on us we're not taxed all that poorly vs most other first world countrys.

The relationship between tax vs welfare is redundant as the ones paying the tax are not receiving the welfare.

The relationship between tax vs welfare is redundant as the ones paying the tax are not receiving the welfare.

And?

It's not just welfare I was talking about though.

Thanks to the GFC, Rudd has delivered on several important issues:
1) Lower fuel prices - check
2) Lower interest rates - check
3) Lower housing prices - on the way there

This doesnt make sense.

1. Fuel is cheaper because of the GFC. Rudd started a now defunct fuelwatch program.

2. The RBA controls interest rates. 11 yrs of Howards Brainwashing on this subject may hve caused you to be a bit confused.

3. The Australian Housing Market is still one of the most severely unaffordable in the OECD and will get worse. This is due to alot of factors that neither the previous or present governments are willing to adequately address.

Im just wondering if the liberals will support the proposed $30 a week increase for pensioners, its alot of money to spend, and if they follow there own advice, we shouldnt be spending, so they must oppose it.

2. The RBA controls interest rates. 11 yrs of Howards Brainwashing on this subject may hve caused you to be a bit confused.

Government policy *can* and does (in a round about way) effect the RBA's decisions. Obviously it's not as straight forward as a phone call though completely denying the government having anything to do with the leadup to interest rate changes is a little short sighted.

Im just wondering if the liberals will support the proposed $30 a week increase for pensioners, its alot of money to spend, and if they follow there own advice, we shouldnt be spending, so they must oppose it.

I think they'll be torn. On the one hand THOSE NO GOOD DIRTBAG DOLE BLUDGERS WHO ACTIVELY DECIDE TO JUST SIT ON THE DOLE AND NOT WORK LIKE A REAL PERSON LIKE ME may be getting less, but on the other hand some welfare (pension) recipients will be getting more.


last edited by Syco at 12:34:22 12/May/09

And?

It's not just welfare I was talking about though.

Because the taxpayers aren't receiving any measurable benefit from their taxed income. Are you saying those in the 46/47c tax bracket are receiving twice as much benefit as those in the 15c bracket?

Im just wondering if the liberals will support the proposed $30 a week increase for pensioners, its alot of money to spend, and if they follow there own advice, we shouldnt be spending, so they must oppose it.

If spending was reduced/shifted then the government could easily afford this. However, they aren't shifting, they are just adding to the overall deficit.

Personally, I don't mind paying for the pension increase. However, I would like to see the money diverted from another program to pay for this.

last edited by fade at 12:41:37 12/May/09

Syco - I believe this is only an elderly pension increase. (If hope so anyway)

I wouldn't support a dole increase.

I think giving the pensioners an extra little cash would be an excellent idea.
However I don't think the MP's need any more money at all. Government departments also need to be turned over and ruthlessly made more efficient.

whats this i hear about my boy krudd selling off mines to the chinese? (selling the cow, not the milk)

i saw an ad from my old mates barnarby and nick and they said krudd was doing a bad thing

i aint heard nothing much about it!?

Government departments also need to be turned over and ruthlessly made more efficient.

f***en oath, why do they get way more super? its a government job, when did we agree to give people who work for the government more super?

Syco - I believe this is only an elderly pension increase. (If hope so anyway)

I wouldn't support a dole increase.

I wasn't suggesting a dole increase. From what I read they are buckling down on dole collectors, tighter means testing and possibly lower payments to make up the extra $30 for the pensioners. My comment was meant in jest using a stereotypical right wing viewpoint on welfare.

Because the taxpayers aren't receiving any measurable benefit from their taxed income. Are you saying those in the 46/47c tax bracket are receiving twice as much benefit as those in the 15c bracket?

So how do you propose the system works? Those who need the payments from the government have to pay enough tax to cover their entitlements and the higher income earners pay nothing as they don't need what is apparently the only thing our government spends money on, welfare? Not really sure what you're getting at here.

MEMEME Mentality is great. Never mind the rest of our countrymen, I shouldn't have to pay tax to help keep the country going, f***em. Now, I'm off to go buy a heap of crap on credit then purchase a few more investment properties to help shut those bastards out of the market, brb.

last edited by Syco at 13:15:15 12/May/09

* 533 days on from the last election, is your opinion of Rudd as Prime Minister better or worse?

* What has been the most significant policy / decision that the Rudd Government has come up with?

* Do you think that the Rudd Government will be returned?

* Do you think that the Rudd Government have a right to blame the Howard Government for the coming budget defecit?

* Do you think that the Rudd Government have handled the GFC well?

- Worse
- None
- I sure hope not
- Yes they do. It's politic the first rule is to blame the predecessors for all things that are wrong and claimed credit for all things that are right.
- Not well

Couldn't be f***ed expanded on my answers but I cannot wait until next federal election and hoping to see these the current government out.

last edited by Opec at 13:23:09 12/May/09

Anyone else laugh at the fanboyism and the same arguments being twisted to support either party right after the Libs have been voted out?

Shortly after Liberal rule was changed to labor the last two times we've experienced economic issues.

Labor supporters say that the economic downturn must be due to the 10+ years of Liberal rule.

Liberal supporters say that the economic downturn must be due to the 1 year or so of Labor rule.

Of course generally both sides seem to forget the rest of the world is having problems also around the same time and desperately need to believe that whatever side they subscribe to would've done it better.

Its not that Labor have caused the issue, but their reaction could have been better.

How can you stand there trotting out those cute one liners Syco when we are staring a $60b deficit (%5 of GDP)? This is a goddamn outrage.

I don't care if money was falling out of the sky but at least under Howard the books were balanced. I expect any Prime Minister to do the same.

All politicians should run the country in a business-like manner instead of treating it like their play thing.

I expect any Prime Minister to do the same.

If u have all the answers, maybe u should go into politics, or become an economist, because everyone, in the whole world is loosing money, and your saying that labor should somehow be able to not have a deficit, maybe you should go tell them and the rest of the world how to do it and become a billionaire.

All politicians should run the country in a business-like manner instead of treating it like their play thing

Yeah thats a great idea, except business are run to benefit the people on top and f*** everybody underneath.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have ANY deficit. Profits and losses of any organisation whether it be a company, a not for profit, a sporting club or a government go up and down.

But for crying in the mud how does a government go from being $20b in the black one year to $60b in the red the next? And if this is the case why are they incurring new recurring expenditure on top of the collapse in revenues which they have not redressed.

I don't have the answers but some of these obersvations are stating the bleeding obvious.

Spook: KRudd is selling off the geese that lay the golden eggs because well he is infatuated with Chinese and wants to show how pro-Chinese he is.

except business are run to benefit the people on top and f*** everybody underneath.

"Business-like manner" - ViPER did you even get past grade 5 at school?

It means to run something efficiently with a sense of urgency and prioritising problems in a sensible manner. Hospitals should be run in a business-like manner, as should schools, charities and any other do-gooder handout organisation which seeks to get the best bang for the donor's buck. So should government.

Get over your business hates workers paranoia ffs.

ViPER did you even get past grade 5 at school

Mades it all the way to gradey 12's i did.

"Business-like manner"

I'd say that quote would be up for interpretation. Some business work on the shaft the customer as much as they can get away with, while making as much money as posibble approach, you'd like your hospitals run like telstra?, the hospitals have the monopoly, so they can do whatever they want, that would work well.

All politicians should run the country in a business-like manner instead of treating it like their play thing.

Yeah, I guess selling off assets left right and centre is pretty business like. Maybe Labor can look into doing that too :D

Thanks to the GFC, Rudd has delivered on several important issues:
1) Lower fuel prices - check
2) Lower interest rates - check
3) Lower housing prices - on the way there

my word, kruddler certainly is the man isn't he! every time interest rates, fuel prices and/or house prices get too high we'll just organise a nifty little recession!

by the way, in case no one else has pointed this out yet he has had next to f*** all to do with all of those.

qgl politics threads are getting even more retarded. gg.

I was joking when I said Rudd was responsible for those things happening. But its no different to the Libs claiming they made the global economic boom happen. So in the same way Rudd can claim to have made those things happen.



last edited by FocaL at 17:57:00 12/May/09

is there anyway to watch the budget via the net?

cant see if iview are going to stream it..

is there anyway to watch the budget via the net?

cant see if iview are going to stream it..

I did hear on some news program as I was walking past the telly last night that there will be a way to watch it live online. I didn't pay enough attention to find out where/how though sorry :(

Anyone who thinks the RBA is independent of the Government hasn't been watching for the last 18 months.

is there anyway to watch the budget via the net?

cant see if iview are going to stream it..

Try this: http://www.abc.net.au/streaming/abc-video2.asx

Says live in 19 minutes.

s*** how'd I miss this...

Then again doesn't look like I missed much? I swear you could tack this thread onto the end of the Ruddbux one and nobody would notice?

Would watch it but to be honest it's much more efficient to read the wrap in the various newspapers in the morning!

Watching it at the moment. He is actually speaking very well, though who know who wrote what he is reading.

Im loving the investments, I just hope they pay off. Time for some solid investments.

Yeah, he is speaking well. I hate Wayne Swan, but he is good at presenting - comes across very earnest.

so we have 210billion less in government revenue this year due to the collapse of the mining boom and we are still blaming labor for blowing the cash. they have cut back 150billion $ and people are still complaing about their efforts.

yet during the howard years, we had middle class welfare off the charts, i have a brother earning more then 150,000 a year yet he get rebated childcare, massive tax breaks and ends up paying f***all at the end of the day due to the writing off on his investments.

i dare say that 50,000$ income persons get nothing back on their taxable income, yet someone earning 150k get almost all of it back. i personally paid 25000$ tax last year and got back $600 ffs. for some stupid reason im not a middle class sponge like everyone other glutton that howard was pandering to.

we can blame howard for squandering the good times, we should have had a 200billion$ surplus when labor romped it in, yet in the grand scheme of things, there was a piddly amount considering what they started with. how hard is it to take 10 billion out of education and claim its a surplus.

if you want to look back at how bad keating was, his visionary ability to float the dollar which was extremely unpopular at the time shielded us from the asian financial crisis and its shielding us today from the world financial crisis by making our products cheaper and ourselves more competitive relative to other first world countries.

just remember this howard lovers... he was a fool

Joe Hockey, your a f***ing tool. What a s*** interview on the 7:30 report.

I don't care if money was falling out of the sky but at least under Howard the books were balanced. I expect any Prime Minister to do the same.

Which time under Howard? When Howard was Treasurer Australia was in a shocking state. The best thing Howard's ever done is road the wave of Keating's economic advancements and sell anything that he could.

^
This is a curious thing. History and public opinion has more recently been very kind to Keating - for a long time his name was mud!

Makes me wonder how history will judge Howard and Costello in a decade or so. What legacy did they leave us aside from a new tax and a pretty big resource boom hangover?

I am still confused about the GST. Why the f*** did everyone think it was a good idea to make s*** more expensive. gg liberal voters.

before the GST was in place there was a range of wholesale taxes (some as high as 22%) and other state taxes imposed in goods and services. you didn't see these taxes because they were not displayed as separate line items or invoices or pricing labels but you still paid them.

a consumption tax, where the more you consume/spend the more you pay is a much fair solution to tax policy than income taxes. by implementing a GST the government on the time was able to decrease income tax and fund the state governments at the same time.

last edited by ara at 23:57:59 12/May/09

the gst was designed to redress the fiscal imbalance between the states and the commonwealth. it has been a recognised problem with australian federalism that the federal government raises more money than it needs to fulfil its responsibilities and the states can't raise enough to do theirs. this used to be done pretty much totally through grants which were given by a commission. so the revenue from the gst goes straight to the states in order to try and at least partially adress that problem. it was a meaningful piece of reform imo. but of course politics gayed it up, and there are still some issues about how the distribution is determined.

edit: also what ara said. it got the states to get rid of a bunch of other random taxes

Which time under Howard? When Howard was Treasurer Australia was in a shocking state. The best thing Howard's ever done is road the wave of Keating's economic advancements and sell anything that he could.

lets not stop there. perhaps keating is responsible for this mess too then? surely if his actions can be felt 12 years on, they can be felt 13 years on, right?

yet during the howard years, we had middle class welfare off the charts, i have a brother earning more then 150,000 a year yet he get rebated childcare, massive tax breaks and ends up paying f***all at the end of the day due to the writing off on his investments.

i dare say that 50,000$ income persons get nothing back on their taxable income, yet someone earning 150k get almost all of it back. i personally paid 25000$ tax last year and got back $600 ffs. for some stupid reason im not a middle class sponge like everyone other glutton that howard was pandering to.

Does your Brother have Stock investments or Negatively Geared Property Investments?

Pretty much what cainer said. 200 billion dollars less revenue. So a 20 billion dollar surplus to a 60 billion dollar deficit is 80 billion? Therefore the government CUT 120 billion in spending right? Whats our total budget? 1 trillion? 2 trillion? Lets say 2 trillion, then the govt has cut spending in all sectors (as per infi's request) by 5% (Im assuming a trillion is 1000 billion, though havent checked).

Maybe im completely off, but if im not, i would be inclined to say you liberals pissing and moaning that rudd has completely gone off the rails with his spending is crap.

last edited by straw hat hippie at 00:46:45 13/May/09

Just another thing, it also makes complete sense to me to go into deficit during recessions to keep the economy moving then pay it back with the extra cash earnt in booms? Kinda like what Peter Costello did? We arnt in boom now? We dont want the economy to goto sht?

Makes me wonder how history will judge Howard and Costello in a decade or so. What legacy did they leave us aside from a new tax and a pretty big resource boom hangover?

You forget the search for WMDs in Iraq and the pacific solution...
Actually 1 good thing he did was the gun control reforms. And setting up APRA, that was Howard right ?

I am still confused about the GST. Why the f*** did everyone think it was a good idea to make s*** more expensive. gg liberal voters.

Actually there was tax, it was just made more transparent. GST is just a different way to do what they were already doing.

I don't care if money was falling out of the sky but at least under Howard the books were balanced

This is a serious flaw in your thinking. Governments aren't about making profits. Public education, public health, welfare, infrastructure by their very nature have to run at a loss. Infact attempting to run governments at a profit can lead to those costly services being neglected... Which long term can have a worse effect. But nor is running the wrong side of the ledger for extended periods of time a good idea. These things are cycles, they ebb and flow.

perhaps keating is responsible for this mess too then? surely if his actions can be felt 12 years on, they can be felt 13 years on, right?

Yup sure. But I'd imagine most of the Keating reforms would be classed as having helped protect us even now 13 years on.


In all of this you have to remember we are still f*** tonnes better off then loads of other countries (I'd say all but the oil producers and they suck because of the car bombs and lack of booze porn and poker). On top of this Australia is one of the few countries in the world where if it all goes to s*** we aren't reliant upon anyone for anything.

imo less tears and crap about s*** none of us really understand/can fix... more bogan flag waving about how f***ing awesome Australia is.

This is a serious flaw in your thinking. Governments aren't about making profits. Public education, public health, welfare, infrastructure by their very nature have to run at a loss.

it isn't about making a profit Obes, it is about incoming money (income tax, company tax, GST etc) being balanced against outgoing costs (Public education, public health, welfare, infrastructure).

your correlation of what was said into each element you listed in your reply being self funding is a serious flaw in your thinking.

i dare say that 50,000$ income persons get nothing back on their taxable income, yet someone earning 150k get almost all of it back. i personally paid 25000$ tax last year and got back $600 ffs. for some stupid reason im not a middle class sponge like everyone other glutton that howard was pandering to.

Everyone's so hard done by because they don't get big refund cheques....yet the rich people get big refunds!

You have to pay it first to get a refund! You're brother is having roughly 50k in taxes taken from his wage. I doubt he has more than 60k in deductions...thus he is still paying more than you. Not to mention the capital gains tax he will have to pay on properties etc when he eventually sells them.

The point is that now we have an absolute clusterf*** of a housing market thats causing a s***load of financial and social problems. negative gearing should be scaled back but I doubt either party has the political courage to do so.
So its business as usual just dont expect the housing affordability crisis to be fixed anytime soon.

200 billion dollars less revenue. So a 20 billion dollar surplus to a 60 billion dollar deficit is 80 billion? Therefore the government CUT 120 billion in spending right? Whats our total budget? 1 trillion? 2 trillion? Lets say 2 trillion, then the govt has cut spending in all sectors (as per infi's request) by 5% (Im assuming a trillion is 1000 billion, though havent checked).

http://www.budget.gov.au/2009-10/content/overview/image/Appendix_I.gif

As per usual I will refer to my trusty historical data table which cannot lie.

What you see is a minor pullback in revenue over the forward estimates matched by a glut of spending at the same time.

Obes: I accepted that deficits are inevitable as part of the ebbs and flows of the fiscal cycle by $58b? C'mon this is a joke.

Like the US and UK governments, Rudd does not want to look like he didn't overlook a single stimulus measure (like any of it is going to make any difference) and so is pulling every lever and pushing every button he can in a hope one of them might work. Meanwhile the taxpayer pays and pays and pays, past 2015 and most likely up to 2035.

It's just an ignorant attempt to cheat the economic crisis by spending the country out of it, and that simply cannot work because debt carries with it a penalty into the future.

Borrowing for lasting infrastructure is a good thing and where Swan has included those measures I applaud him but in general he is just borrowing to finance recurrent expenditure which results in a very sick economy. Sort of like paying your school fees and power bill with a personal loan. There's always more coming next month!

Will admit, confused, on that table there where is this 200 billion dollar dip they keep talking about? Is 200 billion really a minor revenue decrease? Where do i get this table online?

Table is found from the Budget overview.

Swan is predictably hyping up the seriousness of the revenue shortfall to cover the fact that he is responsible for an increase in spending from 24% to 28% of GDP. The original $20b budget surplus he predicted last year was annihilated by lower tax receipts combined with his wasteful handouts and is esimated to be a $32b deficit.

The $200b shortfall of receipts is over the foward estimate period based on original growth estimates. But still in every year of the forward estimates Labor's spending is at least 2% of GDP above spending under the Coalition.

NOW THAT is what you call a structural deficit. Either taxes need to be increased or expenditure cut but it just seems he has gone for option 3: BORROW.

Please note that even if taxes returned to normal levels as a % of GDP, his expenditure would still be higher and have resulted in some form of deficit.

Costello was right. Swan will never run a balanced budget.

i think its good that my boy kruddler is trying things to keep the economy running:

So infi, what things that he announced in spending should be cut? The Aged pension increase? The Green initiative?

f***en joe hockey, on ABC, asked what he would do in the budget, all he answered was what he woulndt do that the government is doing, the chick tryed to pull him up and ask him what he would do, and he still didnt answer, and crapped on about what he wouldnt do, typical.

Also, he is looks like he is actualy sweating like realy bad, pretty funny.

last edited by `ViPER` at 07:19:30 13/May/09

OK, he also said that he wouldnt spend the money in pink batts, I thought that was a f***en great idea, reduces heating and cooling costs for houses (familys have more money), generates alot of work for small business, I have personally witnessed a small business that sells and installs insulation, having work going through the roof, employing more contractors to install the batts. Pretty dumb thing to pick as what he wouldnt spend on.

last edited by `ViPER` at 07:37:18 13/May/09

he's just bittah that he was friends with kevin on sunrise and now he's still stuck doing talk shows and kevin is living large

While a lot of things the Government have implemented are good ideas... When you have less money coming in, sometimes you just can't do everything you want.

I'm a little more concerned with their plan forward than this year's budget. This was always going to be a horror show for the bottom line regardless of party in power.

4.5% growth in just a few years with a shallow 0.5% recession sounds a trifle optimistic. Happy to be proved wrong on that though!

People have bashed them for talking down the economy, I guess they're answering that criticism ... in a way.

Everyone's so hard done by because they don't get big refund cheques....yet the rich people get big refunds! You have to pay it first to get a refund! You're brother is having roughly 50k in taxes taken from his wage. I doubt he has more than 60k in deductions...thus he is still paying more than you. Not to mention the capital gains tax he will have to pay on properties etc when he eventually sells them.

I dare say there are 2 of me's to one of him's out there paying effectively more tax at the end of the day but seeing none of it back, because we simply can't afford to have a thousands different investment.

CGT.... easily avoidable, just say your living there full time for a year before you sell it, get a compliant tenant/friend, easy done nil tax, transfer primary house to wifes name which it would be already and its just another scam thats effectly not spoken about but totally legal at the end of the day.

the f***en financial advisers advise this!

NOW THAT is what you call a structural deficit. Either taxes need to be increased or expenditure cut but it just seems he has gone for option 3: BORROW.

Sounds like what George Bush did in that documentary on the United States current debt situation at the moment. To appease voters he cut taxes and to cover costs borrowed insane amounts of money from China and left the US in a massive hole, at least according to the documentary:)

that doco was good and pretty damning of bush. but it just goes to show, the depth of s*** we're in is nothing compared to the yanks.

he's just bittah that he was friends with kevin on sunrise and now he's still stuck doing talk shows and kevin is living large

reckon:

thing is joe at least has a bit of personality, and would probably make a better opposition leader

im sure he'll get his chance soon:

i doubt anyone in the opposition had any real ideas on what they could do with this budget

i think it was probably best for infi that labor were in power, so that he didnt have to get his feelings massively hurt with a coalition budget in tough times

The point is that now we have an absolute clusterf*** of a housing market thats causing a s***load of financial and social problems. negative gearing should be scaled back but I doubt either party has the political courage to do so.
So its business as usual just dont expect the housing affordability crisis to be fixed anytime soon.

Negative Gearing is a deliberate government policy designed to decrease future pension liabilities. It's not going away.

yet in 20 years time there will be no pension, or you'll need to be 80 years old to qualify for it.

no, negative gearing is a quick and nasty way for the government to get an increase in housing supply for the lower income families who can't afford to buy but can only rent.

what happend though, combined with the government handing out fists of cash was a massive housing bubble ensued, making the rich richer, and the poor unable to ever even think about buying a house, and the next generation of people 25 and under unable to ever afford to live close to the city unless they earn 100k+ and have a partner doing the same.

last edited by cainer at 08:53:42 13/May/09

last edited by cainer at 08:54:05 13/May/09

So infi, what things that he announced in spending should be cut? The Aged pension increase? The Green initiative?

Borrowing for infrastructure is like borrowing for a house. Long-term it's going to be worth the interest. However, borrowing to fund welfare, arts grants, etcetera, is unsustainable. This might be hard for the pinko lefties, or the greens to accept, but if you don't have the money you can't maintain welfare. This will only lead to structural deficit and if you don't understand how this can f*** your economy, go watch IOUSA.

Personally, I'd like to see social securities fall by a further 10%, strategically targeted cutting middle class welfare further and reducing our refugee intakes. Education spending has increase by 60%!, that should have been maintained at its existing level. Public housing funding has doubled, again, that should have been kept stationary. I also don't support the rise in defence spending at this time.

A lot of these cash splashes are designed to garner public support. Unfortunately the public are too short-sighted to consider the long-term ramifications of structural deficit.

last edited by fade at 09:01:24 13/May/09

defence spending is a strange one.

i know people who used to work in the defence force, their departments were of the opinion that, they had been allocated $x million this year, if they didnt spend it all, it would be reduced next year.

the money could be made to go a lot further if it were overseen properly, and thats what they are missing

That's the way with the public service in general. We spend $80.4bn on them. Surely we could find massive efficiency gains in there.

And setting up APRA, that was Howard right ?

yeah, setting up the tripartate regulatory system for the financial sector with APRA, ASIC and the RBA each having defined and separate roles was done under Howard around 1998 or so from memory. many would argue that if that system wasn't in place we could be in a far worse situation right now like the US or UK.

howard wasn't too bad overall imo. GST, financial system reform and workchoices were all good imo. he made himself seem like a real f***wit over refugees which i didn't like. and i would have liked to see some meaningful welfare reform because our system is utterly f***ed, but i'd be willing to bet most politicians wouldn't be game to touch that one. did you know 40 years ago 3% of working age australians were on welfare, now it is around 17%. something structural's gotta give once the baby boomers really hit old age

A lot of these cash splashes

I was taking u seriously until this line, jesus christ what is it with u liberals, ive heard joe hockey and malcolm turnball use that exact phrase this morning, it makes u seem like u were all given a piece of paper with little sledges like that to incorporate into all statements u make.

arts grants

Did they realy spend that much on arts grants, I dont remember any big announcment?

Education spending has increase by 60%!, that should have been maintained at its existing level.

Now thats forward thinking.

calling anyone who doesn't agree with you a liberal just makes you seem like even more of a biased f***wit. plenty of politicially unaffiliated people have refered to those payments as 'cash splashes'. have you even read a newspaper in the last few months? even Crikey who could hardly be accused of supporting the liberals has called them that.

get over your petty partisanship and you might learn a thing or two.

last edited by taggs at 09:20:43 13/May/09

Now thats forward thinking.

Where's the forward thinking in a structural deficit?

Education spending has increase by 60%!, that should have been maintained at its existing level.

Just based on the number of people on this forum that can't work out "your" from "you're" and "their" from "there" or "they're" - I tend to disagree with you.

Where's the forward thinking in a structural deficit?

Whats the point of any company ever going into deficit? The point is the short term you may go into deficit, in order to be positioned for maximum gain during a specific time in the future. IE: If I'm a company and I need more money, I borrow a tonn of money to buy equipment to do a job. I then pay back the money when returns come in and hope the returns are higher then the interest.

I'm not sure on the details, but I think there is a strong belief that we will go through "Good times" again, so we are trying to downplay our short-term problems by buying peoples approval by giving them what they want. I don't exactly think this is a good idea but in the long term it may work out just fine on paper.

If it was my preference, I'd think up a really f***ing good speach to say to the nation and instill them with the patriotism and talk about the future and whatever. Tell them "These are the hard times. This is when a good leader tells his workers, this is the hard times. I'm not going to lie, over the next couple of years we will have to work hard to position ourselves for recovery. We cant expect to ride on the back of the rest of the world, this time we will have to do it ourselves." and up some taxes on luxury items, up some taxes on alcohol and tobacco and the kinds of things that aren't a neccessary. Keep living expenses roughly the same but get a little more from the people who can afford a little luxury.

And in 2 years time we would be well positioned globally to be able to be a strong economic player. Not another debt ridden country surviving.

EDIT: Got to fix spelling mistakes or else people get distracted from the point.

last edited by skythra at 10:27:24 13/May/09

watch IOUSA

+1

Skythra, that's not a structural deficit.

Also - speech, luxury. Maybe we do need that increase in education spending.

I had a big list of stuff but yeah I won't bother. Needless to say that skythra's comments about investment decisions whilst correct do not apply to this Budget. The Nation building spending is on top of the recurrent consumption which Swan has enlarged not reduced.

It is not a tough budget. It is a soft lazy budget that takes the easy way out in every area. As one doorstop put it this morning, it's a soft as butter.

I was assuming that structural deficit was used wrongly in the original sentence, because I don't see a structural deficit in the current budget, or in previous budgets.. I see a cyclical deficit. We remain in that deficit until 2015.. Unless I've missed the point?

In which case point me in the right direction? Am I reading the wrong budget entirely?

What a joke - Labour for years criticize Liberal for not giving low-income earners a break, and then what do they do? 40%@75k becomes 38@80, and 45% goes from 150k to 180k. Someone please explain to me how students are winners in this, when it goes from 30%@30k to 30%@35k? Oh yay. I a whole $750 in tax cuts if you earn between on 35k and 80k.

They've basically only passed on any benefit to upper-middle class and high income earners.

I had a big list of stuff but yeah I won't bother.

come on infi, I actually do want to hear what you would have done in this budget, what things wouldn't you have spent the money on?, where would you have redirected it? What would you have reduced?

We are taxed to s*** and taxes should be far lower.

We pay less tax as a portion of GDP than most developed countries. Developed countries who pay less: Turkey, Mexico.
OECD, Wikipedia

Raise the GST instead.

The GST revenues are paid to the states, the federal government doesn't take any of it.
Budget Paper #3

Tax cuts are good for an economy they increase incentive to invest, work harder and take risks. Not like the ridiculous $900 handouts which just encourages to people to expect more free handout while they do jack s***.

These are functionally the same thing, unless you are calling for permanent tax cuts. In which case you are still increasing the budget deficit and therefore the amount of debt needed to cover it.

Tax cuts go to people who earn income Trog. And people who earn more money benefit proportionately more from them. As such it encourages the aspirational section of society to work more.

Handouts go to any person with a hand (and to those who don't have hands possibly due to a congenital birth defect or misadventure). To state that tax cuts and handouts are functionally the same is blatantly false.

GST revenues will not affect the federal budget but if they are going to cut the private health rebate and force more people into the public system then they need to fund the state health system accordingly.

As for tax rates, Australia is not at the top and not at the bottom. Me personally, I am a low tax low spend kind of person. Others are a "tax and spend" type. It's personal preference I guess but my view is always that the taxpayer knows better how to spend their own money than the government and tax should be for essential government services and not for wealth redistribution.

last edited by infi at 12:09:45 13/May/09

yet in 20 years time there will be no pension, or you'll need to be 80 years old to qualify for it.

no, negative gearing is a quick and nasty way for the government to get an increase in housing supply for the lower income families who can't afford to buy but can only rent.

what happend though, combined with the government handing out fists of cash was a massive housing bubble ensued, making the rich richer, and the poor unable to ever even think about buying a house, and the next generation of people 25 and under unable to ever afford to live close to the city unless they earn 100k+ and have a partner doing the same.

More renters mean more people relying on welfare. Doesnt make sense.

Also the new budget is continuing the First Home Buyers Price Hike Ponzi Scheme to keep a few Property Developers and Tradies in a job.

I've come to the conclusion that the Over-priced Australian housing market is so highly protected by Government that it simply wont be allowed to have a correction. My only advice to anyone is put every last penny you have into your house or property investment.

*not trog*

Tax cuts would go to people who are already earning the income. The point of the tax bonus was to go to people who are spending a greater percentage of their income on non-discretionary things like rent / food / clothes and therefore could not actually afford to save it.

I think you can argue whether this actually worked as intended, but if it didn't it is more likely because it went to too many people who can afford to save.

I've come to the conclusion that the Over-priced Australian housing market is so highly protected by Government that it simply wont be allowed to have a correction.

i agree.

I read somewhere voters in Australia can be divided into 3 equal groups.

1/3 own their home outright.
1/3 have mortgage on their home
1/3 are renting

so, any government that lets the housing price collapse is going to be on the wrong side of 66% of the voting public. not the best place to be come an election.

did anyone watch the end of thank god you are here?

they had a classic bit of tv at the end with politicians obvoiusly making stuff up on the spot

first was wayne swan answering a question poorly (was moderately funny), then they had a gold bit of television, which id love a screeny of:

interviewer is talking to joe hockey about the simulus packge;

she says, the stimulus packge is supported by IMF, unions, and lists a few other groups that had come out and supported the stimulus packge, then she asks joe who supports the oppositions stance of rejecting the stimulus, and the waffle joe comes up with was hilarious:

as he waffling on and on and basically saying "no one supports our stance" they were listing his responses on his side of the screen (they also listed the pro stimulus groups)

haha, the best joe could come up with after all his waffling, was "the next generation" support our stance (and there was a picture of babies)

anyone record it?

edit: this is the transcript of the interview, was funnier with the images over the top though

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2484891.htm



last edited by Spook at 07:12:19 14/May/09

http://www.therealruddbudget.com/

joe hockey, powerpoint guru:

anyone see anything about the childcare rebate in the budget?

i havent been able to find if it stays at 50%

Saw Malcolm Turnbull's debate response to the budget tonight on the ABC.

I thought he did really well and made a lot of good points - got me thinking about things a bit more broadly which is good. His suggestion to swap the private health insurance cuts with a dollar-a-pack increase on the cigarette levy seemed to make a lot of sense.

It seems like a good, logical, reasonable change and seemed like the only point the Libs wanted changed to pass the budget. If the Government doesn't have a good reason to reject the amendment they will (in my opinion) look obstinate and unreasonable. Or worse, like they agree with the Libs' claims that they hate on private health care and want to kill it off.

The response will be interesting!

last edited by Hogfather at 21:22:21 14/May/09

I thought he did really well and made a lot of good points

Um, did you actually watch it? Sure, I agree that it was a well spoken speech, but realistically he didn't offer anything conclusive. He made a big deal about how much debt we were going to get in, and then he said the 1.9 Billion in savings from the private health rebates being means tested were going to be blocked. Then he turned around and said "why would the government bother with such pitiful savings"...if it's so pitiful wtf is that the only point the liberals have actually made a specific attack against?? Also they didn't respond to the PMs question about what a suitable defecit would actually be.

It was all ranting IMO..sure a good rant, but at the end of the day he really offered nothing new.

Nothing new?

- Veiled criticism of the indepennce of Treasury, and the proposition to implement new body to provide more independent advice.
- Directly responded to the Government's demand to support the budget in the senate by effectively clearing it bar one seemingly good amendment. This really calls Kevin's bluff on double dissolution and is a solid strategic move.
- Coverage of their previous propositions in contrast to the cash splash like the tax breaks for small business etc.

That's all I can remember off the top of my head but I remember at a couple of points thinking to myself "hmm they actually do have alternative plans?"

Granted there was a lot of noise about the budget deficit, but it is f***ing massive and the Government needs to be criticised about it and made to answer for it. They would not be acting properly in Opposition if they just let that slide.

I think its pretty obvious that I am deeply critical of the Opposition, but in this case I have to give kudos to old Mal. It was a well crafted speech well delivered that the Government now has to answer to.

last edited by Hogfather at 22:16:48 14/May/09

This speech was brilliant. He did cut through. He demonstrated the level of neglect contained in this budget.

The wisecrack he made at end on Rudd was an absolute ripper. He also managed to paint Rudd as nervous and rushing to an early poll due the level of their fiscal stuff up.

As for announcements well what can you expect? The Government have had the whole treasury at their disposal to craft their budget. Turnbull has no public service and and two days to formulate a repsonse.

His key policies were excellent Coaltion policy focused on small business, transparency and protecting private health insurance.

^
infi raised a good point ... god that tasted bad to get out. I'm sure it will be forgotten next time the Labor party is in Opposition tho ;)

The expectation laid before the Opposition to produce detailed, complete policy is often a bit over the top. As noted, they don't have access to the public service to assist them. Legislation is massively complex - we can't affford to run a Government and a full-fledged alternative.

The Opposition's primary role is unsurprisingly to Oppose. By providing strong falsification of Government policy as well as sketching in their alternative they fulfil an important role in the 2-party system we run the joint with.

There is often a claim made that the Opposition should be more bi-partisan - while they do need to make sure that their power in the Senate doesn't prevent the Government from Governing, they really are there primarily to beat the s*** out of Labor as much as possible.

It won't be too long, once the electorate wakes up to its betrayal by Mr Rudd.

He's going to get in another term and when the time comes I'm going to point and laugh at you infi. "betrayal". hahahaha

Well what else can you call shackling this country with $9,000 of debt for every man woman and child? A gift?

Can someone link me to a video of Turnbull's response?

http://www.recoveryforaustralia.com.au/index.html

Papa Smirk must be getting close to recontesting the seat of Higgins ;-)

if it's so pitiful wtf is that the only point the liberals have actually made a specific attack against?? Also they didn't respond to the PMs question about what a suitable defecit would actually be.

Missed this earlier.

They're not attacking whether or not its a meaningful contribution to balancing the budget. The Government is on record as saying that they will reject any changes that mangle their "careful balance" in this budget.

The Coalition support private health in general, and want the Government to leave it alone, so the change is designed to maintain the same bottom line but gather the revenue from the extended levy rather than as a saving from the private health rebate.

I'll be looking for their numbers on a suitable deficit as well, and how they plan to achieve it. I imagine that Joe's off the cuff number of about 25B less will be about what they stake out the alternative at. This could be achieved pretty easily - they just need to be a bit less extravagant in terms of stimulus spends.

if it's so pitiful wtf is that the only point the liberals have actually made a specific attack against?? Also they didn't respond to the PMs question about what a suitable defecit would actually be.

the libs have had 2 days to look at the budget and respond. the govt has had the treasury cooking the books for them for months, don't you think that they will have more to say on it in the near future?

I thought it was pretty lame actually infi.

Block a tax against alcopop getting the same tax as other alcohols. But stop middle class welfare by taxing ciggies.

Sounds like an acrobat opposing for oppositions sake.

It won't be too long, once the electorate wakes up to its betrayal by Mr Rudd.

we mite see about that soon eh?

If Costello just woke up and took the leadership, the Libs would be a good chance of challenging in an early election I think.

I don't think that Turnbull will ever be PM.

I don't think that Turnbull will ever be PM.

reckon;

he appears to have less charisma than john howard or costello, which is bizarre in both cases!

and poor joe hockey, the more he opens his mouth lately, the more stupid stuff he says

i liked him better when he was on sunrise and wasnt a gimp

OHNOS

the budget is f***ing with my share plan dealy at work and its looking like it mite be cancelled :(

what have you done krudd, WHAT HAVE YUO DONE?!

I've never liked Hockey. Hes a knob.

Pollies suck .... we need overlords

Block a tax against alcopop getting the same tax as other alcohols. But stop middle class welfare by taxing ciggies.

Not sure I understand this; are alcopops taxed less than beer at the moment?

I also don't agree that comparing cigarette taxes to alcohol is entirely valid though I have seen this popping up a bit in duscussing this.

I can totally understand the logic behind blocking the alcopops tax and then proposing an tax hike on cigs.

Alcopops was just a blatant grab for revenue. It's not like alcopops do more health damage than other alcoholic drinks. But the tobacco tax increase is across the board and applies to all tobacco products.

Alcopops tax increase was an opportunistic tax grab bandwagon.

Pollies suck .... we need overlords

They have them in Iran, China, Burma, Fiji, Zimbabwe. All lovely places to live so I've heard.

i concur, every couple of years we should bump up the tax on cigarettes in addition to indexation till they are taxed out of existence.

Not sure I understand this; are alcopops taxed less than beer at the moment?

As long as its under 10%, its the same as beer, about half the rate of spirits.

Strangely Draughts are cheaper then "packaged"

^ don't see a problem with that? If our system is set up to tax alcohol by its alcoholic content it makes sense?

I like to grab a Dark & Stormy on the way home some nights. These aren't really a sweet premixed drink, most kids would find them prety disgusting I guess. But they got smashed with the alcopops tax as well.

Pissed me off, so f*** that tax! Next..

^ don't see a problem with that? If our system is set up to tax alcohol by its alcoholic content it makes sense?

But it's not (if it were it would make a whole lot more sense.
For example an 11% draught beer is taxed alot less then an 11% packaged beer which is taxed alot less then a 11% alcopop. (that's true for anything below 3.6% or above 11%)

Brandy is taxed less then rum ....

And I can't even work out where wine fits.

JUST LEAVE WINE ALONE OK

But the tobacco tax increase is across the board and applies to all tobacco products.

HUH????? thats pretty silly justification, its pretty much cigarettes that people smoke, sure there are different brands but they are all pretty much the same.

Its just a tax grab just like the alcopops tax was a tax grab too, nothing wrong with tax grabs though. I realy dont think you believe the libs blocked the alchopops tax cause they had some moral objection, its was to show they are fighting against the goverment.

Alcopops was just a blatant grab for revenue.

So is is the increase in tobacco tax.

I reckon Rudd should call his bluff, say ok we'll do that one swap you want, now keep your word and pass the rest of the budget.

Alcopops was just a blatant grab for revenue.

um ... isn't any tax ?

bring back slavery
at least then we didn't have to buy a house and feed ourselves.

it's already here except that it has morphed into 'Economic Slavery'.

Alcopops was just a blatant grab for revenue.

um ... isn't any tax ?

it is a grab for revenue in the guise of saving kids from binge drinking, when the money raised isn't going towards anti-alcohol abuse programs and the majority of the alcopops sold aren't sold to kids. this is why the minor parties in the senate didn't support it.

compare that with the libs proposal to maintain the private health care rebate by increasing a tax on tabacco and it is like chalk and cheese.

last edited by ara at 22:30:46 15/May/09

I'd disagree, they are both trying to add an additional consumption tax on to legal recreational drugs. Once the money is in general revenue who knows what it will get used for, probably for more free booze and smokes at parliment house functions!

imo Do both of them.
Or convert alcohol to a tax based on the percentage/ammount of alcohol.

No excise on my home brew!

that's why u don't drink premixes, u just do crack.