Not sure if you read your own article: Phil Lowe"it was a prudent and sensible decision to recapitalize the fund", he goes on to say the decision was in our collective interest.
Seriously? Libs want to change Tony Abbot for Turnbull or Bishop?
- Thread starter Beanie Girl
- Start date
It's politics, yes. But it's not good economic management.
It still doesn't change the fact that in the middle of a 'budget emergency' the RBA received $8.8 billion it didn't need, or ask for.
Here's the full quote, from SMH
?The current government has decided to move quickly to the desired level of capital to make sure the bank's balance sheet is of unquestionable quality and I think that's in our collective interest because you want the central bank to have unquestioned ability to deal with a whole range of situations. The board had wanted to get to that position over time and what we're doing now is moving directly to that position.?
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/trader-joe-playing-the-forex-tables-20131025-2w5v6.html#ixzz3QjbXvyV5
Entertaining discussion but I have to do some work, was recapitalizing the fund required? YES, could it be used for future political purposes? YES, Turnbull should have been Lib leader prior to the election but unfortunately he is not.
Too early in first term to establish much else.....
Too early in first term to establish much else.....
What is the criteria for "terrible"?
To me, terrible is results - we vote them (I hope) in based on what they say they will do for the Country; not their personality.
And, if they are no good; vote them out next time.
Although; in my opinion many of the voting public get conned by the personality in their decision.
If Labor hadn't done so badly, and it was a more "neck and neck" Election, I reckon TA might not have had any chance.
He certainly isn't my warm and fuzzy choice, but he is/was the Leader then, and I vote Liberal.
Last edited:
did it need to happen when it happened? QUESTIONABLE
so why are you getting so fired up when people vote them out?
I'm not fired up about people voting Liberal out because they are still the Gubb.
I will be saddened if they do get voted out in another year or so, because then we will go back to shoit Gubb under a Union Hack.
Union Hacks cannot run a Country; all they know how to do it take, take.
I asked what DanC's criteria was for describing a PM as "terrible". That is not getting fired up.
Libs haven't been voted out yet, and TA is still PM.
And if they do a crap job, I expect they will be voted out at the next election, and fair enough.
Mind you, if they only do as half a crap job as Labor did for the last 6 years, then the Libs should be retained.
Even though I am a Liberal voter, I don't just blindly agree with everything they do. Sometimes they get it wrong, and thank god they realise and reverse their plan - such as the PPL. in my view it would be another cost that we cannot afford, and will cost god knows how many jobs, and/or send the deficit soaring because it has to be funded from somewhere...more of spending more than we earn.
I vote for Liberal based on what my view is for sending the Country forward generally, which matches up with theirs - I am more the "boss" voter who wants to expand the economy, create jobs and investment, encourage business growth and so on; not the "employee" voter who wants to make sure they are looked after, have their hand held and have their hand out.
Last edited:
I have persevered with these two blokes over my lifetime; to try and "get" their humour style, but I cannot.
I don't find them the least bit funny, and actually turn the channel when they appear.