Yes your points are correct, but there is one essential difference. Private debt can be eliminated through bankrupcy, there is economic pain, but that is capitalism. Public sector debt is much harder to eliminate, much more painfull.
Which political side manages money well
- Thread starter Dazz
- Start date
Yes your points are correct, but there is one essential difference. Private debt can be eliminated through bankrupcy, there is economic pain, but that is capitalism. Public sector debt is much harder to eliminate, much more painfull.
GM's analysis in the article has this disclaimer:
"Mr Swan's effort at holding the increase in real government spending to 1 per cent a year between 2010-11 and 2014-15 would be the second best on record, if the budget projections hold."
Unfortunately, the Opposition has a point that the ETS should be included. If the financial impact is available for a measure that has already been approved by the government then it should be included in the government's budget covering the finances in the next 4 years. This is financial transparency that people need. By not being open, the government has created suspicion and a backlash in thrashing of its credibility in the polls.
The context is still not clear until the financial impact on the government is available. If it is a tax I expect the government will be in massive surplus. Not boring ahead, just that it may take money away from us.
The original poster warrants nothing. The viewer must conduct their own due diligence and arrive at their own conclusions.
The original poster warrants nothing. The viewer must conduct their own due diligence and arrive at their own conclusions.
The original poster warrants nothing. The viewer must conduct their own due diligence and arrive at their own conclusions.
I couldn't possibly comment - you will have to come to your own conclusions on that matter.
Ahhh...looks like you have finally come to your own conclusion. Great stuff.
Oh Mark - turn it up....you're more intelligent than that to do the banal cool thing and simply bury your head in the sand and say "all politicians suck". You can't escape them and you can't ignore them - they run the country chief.
C'mon - you can do better than that, that's scraping the bottom of the barrel.
Dazz, I've spent most of my life ignoring pollies. Seems to be working quite well for me so far. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I don't vote, I just go get my name ticked off and walk out.
True story: I didn't even know who the Treasurer was until about six months ago.
True story: I didn't even know who the Treasurer was until about six months ago.
For me;
Which Party manages money better? Liberals. they occasionally even hail from that componenet of society that has business accumen. (edit: and can spell unlike myself...)
Does this mean they are always the better party? no.
The current Labor government however is as bad as they get at least from what I have read of the likes of Lang and even Whitlam who at least had a vision and pursued it. (Edit 2: Removed a rambling mess from here about Swan, if you have nothing good to say, say nothing right...)
Anyway one thing I thought you could rely on labor for is big picture infrastructure projects. The likes of Sydney Harbour bridges, Snowy river Hydro Schemes etc. So when we had a GFC I thought herewe come a bit of fiscal stimulous in the form of hard economic infrastructure to pave the way for prosperity tommorrow.
What did we get; Cash handouts, School Halls, Insulation, A second round ofcash handouts and many more wastefull excuses to spend money the worse being comparisons between teh NBN and the snowy river hydro. We knew we wanted cheap power and investment in it, will broadband make that much difference to our businesses? Certainly not any I have been involved with. Would cheaper power make a difference, yes!
They (Labor in 08) said projects were not shovel ready, but ffs surely it is better to dip into a recession for 6 to 12 months while projects get set to spend then just waste our collective savings?
Anyone who has lived in a country town while a large infrastructure job passes through or in knows it builds confidence in the local community like a new hall or $1000.00 cheque in the mail never can. City people seem to forget and just cry about noise and inconvenience but truly when the **** hits the fan build a bridge and get over it, literally...
On the individuals I reckon the labor party has had some champions, Lindsay Tanner is a good recent example.
The liberal party has had some champions and still does like Malcolm Turnbull.
Both parties have lots of mediocre or worse members of parliament and I would rate both Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard in the how come people cannot see they are useless crowd.
Which Party manages money better? Liberals. they occasionally even hail from that componenet of society that has business accumen. (edit: and can spell unlike myself...)
Does this mean they are always the better party? no.
The current Labor government however is as bad as they get at least from what I have read of the likes of Lang and even Whitlam who at least had a vision and pursued it. (Edit 2: Removed a rambling mess from here about Swan, if you have nothing good to say, say nothing right...)
Anyway one thing I thought you could rely on labor for is big picture infrastructure projects. The likes of Sydney Harbour bridges, Snowy river Hydro Schemes etc. So when we had a GFC I thought herewe come a bit of fiscal stimulous in the form of hard economic infrastructure to pave the way for prosperity tommorrow.
What did we get; Cash handouts, School Halls, Insulation, A second round ofcash handouts and many more wastefull excuses to spend money the worse being comparisons between teh NBN and the snowy river hydro. We knew we wanted cheap power and investment in it, will broadband make that much difference to our businesses? Certainly not any I have been involved with. Would cheaper power make a difference, yes!
They (Labor in 08) said projects were not shovel ready, but ffs surely it is better to dip into a recession for 6 to 12 months while projects get set to spend then just waste our collective savings?
Anyone who has lived in a country town while a large infrastructure job passes through or in knows it builds confidence in the local community like a new hall or $1000.00 cheque in the mail never can. City people seem to forget and just cry about noise and inconvenience but truly when the **** hits the fan build a bridge and get over it, literally...
On the individuals I reckon the labor party has had some champions, Lindsay Tanner is a good recent example.
The liberal party has had some champions and still does like Malcolm Turnbull.
Both parties have lots of mediocre or worse members of parliament and I would rate both Tony Abbott and Julia Gillard in the how come people cannot see they are useless crowd.
Last edited:
Which he got through larger tax intakes. Any idiot can balance the budget for a while by upping taxes.
The problem is when Howard increased taxation to near record levels (>25% of GDP), you were all "Harder Johnny, harder!"
Rudd/Gillard drop taxes (now <22% of GDP), and suddenly it's all "Rape, rape, rape!"
is gdp higher now then it was then?
They're both useless. We're one of the greatest commodity wealth countries in the world, with an articulate, intelligent, healthy population of good social cohesion. Put me or someone else with both intelligence and a set of balls in charge and see this place rise above any other. Both factions are sold out, entrenched, corrupt and useless. It's a two headed single party system. All the big issues are the same - the only difference is personality and frivololous policies. Scumbags.
It's better to look at spending, not taxes. Any idiot can spend without taxing, and leave the fiscal clean-up for the next guy. Bush is one example.
Thanks for making me laugh. Your comment made my day.
Howard did not increase taxes, he reduced then but his government created an enivonment where businesses were confident to expand, which leads to higher business profits which leads to higher tax dollars (and by not upping tax rates) been collected and as business expands they employ more people who then pay more income tax.
Rudd/Gillard just see businesses or people doing ok and think ok we need more money lets just create new taxes to take their hard earned money (because it is not fair the business/person has this money).
This leads to businesses saying why bother expanding which leads to them reducing their workforce and in the end leads to less tax dollars coming in even thought the governement has created a whole lot more completed taxes to try and take the more money they can.
This is the issue with labor they can not see the issues that their policies cause.
all labor governments are great at stifling growth.
property is hooning along - oh - lets tax the cripes out of if by putting in 3 layers of infrasturue taxes ... don't decrease stamp duty because prices doubling so the tax intake is increasing astronomically ... oh, and lets up land tax on those trying to get ahead ... shall we introduce a land tax on expensive pppor's too?
partially due to being taxed to bejesus (amongst other things) new housing development has screeched to a halt, so little tax is actually being collected.
they don't seem to understand the economics of collecting a little on a lot of turnover - rather they want to collect a lot and the turnover dies.
property is hooning along - oh - lets tax the cripes out of if by putting in 3 layers of infrasturue taxes ... don't decrease stamp duty because prices doubling so the tax intake is increasing astronomically ... oh, and lets up land tax on those trying to get ahead ... shall we introduce a land tax on expensive pppor's too?
partially due to being taxed to bejesus (amongst other things) new housing development has screeched to a halt, so little tax is actually being collected.
they don't seem to understand the economics of collecting a little on a lot of turnover - rather they want to collect a lot and the turnover dies.
It's because no Federal Labour MP has worked an honest day in their lives. They are all from the Union movement - which by definition does not do business of any kind. All they do is strike to attempt to extort money from businesses who take risk to make money in this society. Why would you expect any more?
YES!!!!!!!! It is so frustrating being in business sometimes.
what a shifty little study that is ShiftyPhil.
"Average annual real spending increase when the economy is growing >2%pa."
WTF. This criteria divorces govt growth in spending from economic growth. Who the hell decided to stop the comparison when economic growth fell below 2%pa?
What is that hiding?
I'll tell you what it is hiding. When the economy slows, Labor does what socialists love doing, and that's Keynesian stimulus spending. They go into greater debt in their naive and deluded effort to keep the wheels of the economy lubricated, while the private sector tightens its belt.
Hey, all great on paper, but history shows such public stimulus is highly inefficient, especially by Labor govts, and is rarely invested with a view to generating a return to cover the interest bill.
The better analysis is the differential between govt spending growth and economic growth, no matter what economic growth is....and I'd argue it should all be done in nominal dollars so 'social engineers' can't play mickey mouse with 'real' figures by fudging CPI....anyone remember how higher banana prices moved CPI up, but not down when bananas returned to normal values?
Only a Socialist could dream up a comparative analysis where Keynesian spending is excluded.
I've just had a very quick look through the Labour MP's and their past history. I've only looked at the top 10 or so in the alphabetical list, and there are maybe 2 who have a union movement background, another couple who have been policy writers in govt. But there are several who have run businesses, teachers, accountant/lawyer etc etc and of course the wealthy rock star ...... to me, its looks like a very similar mix of backgrounds to the Libs.
It doesnt help the conservative cause to make wild, unsubstantiated claims about Labor politicians. Better to focus on the policies rather than the people.
That's the problem. It's not so much the amount of money being spent, but what it is being spent on.
Keynesian stimulus spending, in theory is a good idea IMO. However, the stimulus spending employed by the Rudd/Gillard government over the last few years has just been wasteful really.
Dear me pennyk, we really do see what we want to see, don't we......if that's your reality then run with it. It's off in fairyland, but never mind.
I also had a quick 10 minute skim, looking at the Ministers really, cos they are the top dogs and whose names were familiar to me....this is what I found ;
Simon Crean........former President of ACTU - doesn't get any bigger than that in the Union movement
Martin Ferguson...former President of ACTU - doesn't get any bigger than that in the Union movement
Greg Combet.......former Sect of ACTU for 20 years
Laurie Ferguson...former Fed. Misc Workers Union for 6 years
Gary Gray...........former National Secretariat for 14 years
Chris Bowen........former Financial Sector Union for 5 years
Dick Adams.........
Anna Burke..........
....it goes on and on and on and on.....
The last time they were truly in power, it was off the back of Bob Hawke, a former President of the ACTU, along with Bill Hayden.
Come on pennyk, you can delude yourself, but don't try and pull the wool over people's eyes.
Nothing is wild, and nothing is unsubstantiated. Labor pollies have a very strong reputation from coming from Union backgrounds for a very good reason - they do !!
The policies you speak of come directly from their days in the Union, and the backing that got them into Parliament in the first place.
C'mon, don't try and tell the people they are a nice purple colour, when they are all tomato red. There's not a blue streak in any of 'em.....the unions have smashed that out of 'em years ago.
Similar threads
