Why did the Libs have a surplus? They sold off assets and failed to build any infrastructure. That is the governments job - to build infrastructure. Not to store "surpluses" that they can dip into when they want to buy votes with middle-class welfare (aka tax cuts and baby bonuses) The is nothing wrong with debt. Especially very small debt as Australia has. Debt means the money is actually being used. Giving us the NBN that the Libs neglected for a decade. And begining to decarbonise the economy. Another essential program hat the Libs neglected for over a decade. It is my money. I want to see it spent. Not given out as tax cuts to buy votes the way the Libs did.
Geez bugs i thought you were an inteligent person. Our carbon foot print will only get bigger and we will pay more for it. Thats what you're in favour of????????????
No, it is more likely that you made it up. In fact, I would hazard a guess that we're becoming a lot more like the Brits with their incessant whingeing than what we are Americans. I never remember anything in the Australian image of people whingeing over $3.50 rise in airfares, nor this idiotic belief that we're 'doing it tough'. We have an economy that makes the rest of the world envious of us, and people are still complaining. Cry me the mother(*)(*)(*)(*)ing Nile. Do yourself a favour, if you're going to try and insult someone, try to be more subtle and make sure that what it is you say doesn't actually reflect on your own ability to debate in an internet forum.
So you admit to it, seek help if you dare relinquish bias (which you probably use to identify yourself since you defend it so). Its better then keeping on assuming that everyone who disagrees using something unknown must be making it up.
I say it's more likely you made it up because, when someone says 'I don't remember where I read it', what it really means is one of two possible things. 1) When you learn facts, your mind plays fast and loose with its storage. You can remember the fact but not remember how you came to learn it, so what you think you may have read in a respectable economics journal or paper, is more likely to come from talkback radio, fictional television programs, fiction books, conversations with people who repeat talkback radio slogans, or any other number of useless wastes of space. Now, I know you might think that you read it on the internet, but see, the beautiful thing about the internet is that it has a bookmarks tool bar. If you knew that you debated on a political forum and had something that would garner weight for your side of an argument, you would've bookmarked it for quick and easy reference. Since, you can't remember where you read it, and don't have it bookmarked, it's not reliable evidence, which then may very well lead us to the only other possibility. 2) You made it up.
I stated openly I didnt remember where I read it, which is different from not remembering if I read it. You telling me I made it up is calling me a liar.... which isnt a big deal but its pointless if everyone goes around outright disbelieving everything everyone else says.... unless your proposing all posts here have references and exposed sources. Perhaps just stay on topic instead hey, that is Julia and the ALP have been without direction whilst in oppossition, and once in office they have looked around and followed other peoples and countries ideas in a pathetic attempt to appear popular and capable. When this sort of thing happens the first indicator of proof is when the programs they finally decide on start to fail miserably. This is because firstly they dont have the passionate people behind it because they didnt invent it, and secondly because they didnt invent it they are using only available information about the actual policies and actions and so without the full story the actions dont work properly. The ALP is founded and structured all about getting power and keeping power, it is not a political party for the people its a party using the people so it can be political.
Our public debt is indefensible! Australia should have no public debt whatsoever. If the Lib/Nat coalition can pay off Labors $98 billion and borrow no more then we don't need debt. Australia has such a wealth of natural resources owned by such a tiny population and produces such an enormous excess of primary produce, the rest of the world should owe us money!! The fact that after Labor has had less than two terms in office we are now tens of billions in debt, from no debt when they took office, means they are extremely poor managers. Australia is a very rich country with a very small population. We have more natural resources than we need, we grow more food than we need, we produce all the energy we need, so why have we got such a huge, and growing, debt? There can be only one answer, bad management.
But how can we be sure that you even read it. You know what, just do a quick google, that should answer it for you. Of course it's not a big deal for you, why fight the truth? No, they have direction, but what they also have is a mass media making everyone feel like they're 'doing it tough' (they're not), an opposition party who's answer to everything is 'no' and who's alternatives are about as usefel as eunuch in a whorehouse. They have leading economists saying that the Carbon Tax is a good idea but a bunch of political shock-jobs who's authority on economics is about as concrete as a piece of soiled toilet paper. See, what we really have is people blowing (*)(*)(*)(*) the (*)(*)(*)(*) out of proportion, and idiots believing it because hey, talk back radio, the tv and the internet wouldn't lie to us, would they? [SARCASM]They're far more reliable than the people who actually did the research, and have the years of experience, training, knowledge and education to make an educated argument on the subject. [/SARCASM]
It's expected to be paid off in 2-3 years. Yeah, that's really indefensible. In fact, (*)(*)(*)(*), I wish I could pay off my home loan in that amount of time, hell, maybe I should never have gotten one since, if paying a debt off in 2-3 years is indefensible, more than must be pure stupidity .
When you start high school Kazi, you might learn how to formulate a response that addresses the initial statement. Sure you're not getting mixed up between debt repayment and surplus budgets?
Well, if a debt's paid off, we go into the black. That means surplus. Or, I'm sorry, were there different states of budget?
Yeah, barring any more idiotic moves by our friends overseas, it's certainly possible, but I'd rather be realistic.
When you get to high school mate, make sure you take a subject that will teach you something about economics, macro economics in particular which deals with government monetary policie. And if you think Labor will pay off all the government debt in 2-3 years you must be forgetting to take your medication. I would wager that in 2 years when Labor gets chucked out, the government debt will be twice what it is now.
You inability to tell me what is wrong with my statement indicates that this doesn't apply to just me.
You're still getting it wrong. It's not that I am unable, I thought I would try and prompt you to find the errors in what you are saying. Public debt and budget defeceits/surpluses are two completely different things that may have no connection whatsoever. When the coalition took office 1996 they inherited from Labor a public debt of $98 billion but they ran surplus budgets. Whether or not you can pay a debt off in 2 - 3 years has nothing to do with the question of whether or not you should have incurred the debt in the first place. And mate, there is absolutely no way Labor can pay off, in just a couple of years, the tens of billions they are racking up! And don't get fooled by the GDP argument. Go and find out exactly what GDP stands for and you will find that it is a meaningless measure of public debt.
Yeah, GDP per capita is much better. Oh look, Australia's debt is nothing. Just because a number is in the billions doesn't mean it's huge.
Really? What should the government have done? Sit there with its thumb up its arse while the rest of the world's economy goes to (*)(*)(*)(*)? Incurring a debt in a time like this is not a bad thing, especially if it comes from surpluses, because it's putting money back into the economy and keeps the consumer spending. As for not being able to pay it off: we do what we have to in the good and the bad years. Howard did nothing in the good years, and that was good. Now, we're reeling from the effects of the GFC and we're doing what we can, working on infrastructure and the things that weren't done during the Howard years.
Jeeezzz, I was only joking about 'when you get to high school' but you REALLY don't know WTF you are talking about!!
Balls in your court to explain, of course, now that you're retracting the whole 'high school', I'm pretty certain that it hit a nerve when I suggested that I'm not the only one needing to complete high school.
No Kazi, it's up to you to get some education. You are so profoundly ignorant about the above mentioned subjects that there is no way I could educate you here. As for completing high school, I reckon I did that at least forty years before you were born.
Yes Adul, if you want to actually debate, you need to bring your cards to the table and show why you're right. Now, I've already implied why you're not right, and your insistence of not debating is only validating that point.
You haven't implied anything Kazikli, you responses have been nonsensical. Not only do you have no understanding of the topics you appear to have poor skills of evaluation, reason and logic. You clearly do not understand what I have said.
