Depends on the nature of the asset. There is not much to be gained long term from selling off a natural monopoly such as water, sewerage & electricity utilities. The Commonwealth Development Bank should not have been sold off. I do not have a problem with old & outdated military equipment being sold off.
For the record, I’m not big on conspiracy theories, but no one can deny the facts that Jewish families own every major baking financial house throughout the world, does speak for itself. Having this much power and influence, you would definitely be able to exert pressure, whenever and where ever you wanted without question. So, when they say jump, politicians say how high!! The point I was making about the banks is; if politicians want to have a super profit tax on mining, because of its wealth, then why not put a super profit tax on banks, who also generate obscene super profits. Doesn’t quite seen fair to tax one industry because of its wealth, but leave the other one out. Politicians have never answered as to why they just put a super profit tax on mining and not banks as well. I’m having a stab in the dark here, but reckon the Jewish owned banks wouldn’t let them do it, and that’s the reason why banks were never incorporated in the super profits tax. I agree totally, there is no reason why the Australian Government cannot step in and start running the Geelong Ford plant as an Australian owned company for the financial benefit of all Australian people. Just one problem: the ALP/unions will never allow an Australian owned car company in Australia. Very interesting to watch about how the ALP and unions destroyed the Leyland P76. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VE8rySSVKIs&t=0
By keeping assets governments are essentially operating as businesses, I thought? Is it a good thing or bad thing? Why shouldn't governments be about making money?
Some assets cost a government more to run than they derive income from. ie: commonwealth bank. Government is always far too top heavy with bureaucracy and red tape, whereas private enterprise can cut the costs of operation far more efficiently. Example is the commonwealth bank, and Telstra. I do not advocate selling public assets like services, or property. Hindsight is a wonderful tool, and if the government of the day had this tool when they sold the banking regulator they would of surely put much more stringent rules in place. Not so sure military equipment can be deemed an asset, as it would incur depreciation over a number of years. I am not an accountant, so I can't be sure of that.
The debt is manageable right now and it is a low percentage of GDP, right now. I'm not looking to some hypothetical future for the sake of argument. Right now the government looks pretty good on that basis. If the debt to GDP ratio is as high in Australia as in the UK under its Coalition government then, yes, it would not look good for the government which ever party is in power. But right now it's a low ratio of debt to GDP and Labor is in government so Labor looks pretty good.
Please tell me how anyone with the smallest brain can say any Government financial credentials look good, when the same Government has the country in debt to over $200billion, and borrowing $100million per week to keep its head above water? If this was my business in the private sector, the banks would have closed me down, and be sending in the receivers. These nob-jobs just use trick mathematics to make the financial situation look good. Have a clever accountant, and they can make anything look good on paper, but the truth and facts are not always represented by the writting on the paper.
I can not comment dav until you point out where the $200 billion debt is. My information is that before Wayne Swan handed down his last budget just two months ago, we had an accumulated debt of $79 billion on the books. Now that budget projected a 2013/2014 financial year deficit of $19 billion. So before 2013 we have an accumulated debt of $79 billion. The next financial year we add $19 billion. And that gives us a total of $96 billion debt. This is very easy to pay down, but only and I do stress this in the most forceful way, if the government handles the problem correctly and efficiently. I have found savings of $34 billion from the last budget. They include things like eliminating all subsidies such as family tax breaks, child care subsidy, baby bonus etc. It also includes halving the unemployment benefit,cracking down on disability pension recipients (which should only be paid to people who can not work at all) and lowering the foreign aid expenditure and incorporating the asylum seeker/refugee budget into the foreign aid budget, as well as stopping payments on equipment such as the Joint Strike Fighter which the government has wasted money on. If the government were to raise taxes for two years, to raise an extra $10.5 billion a year then my savings and tax increases would see the government raise $44.5 billion a year. We have no new government programs and we put a cap on political perks and salary packages for those two years and that allows us to pay down the debt by $89 billion. After the two years of tax increases, the government introduces tax cuts, starts to increase spending and reviews the programs which were cut during the two years we paid down the debt. Australians are prepared to go through some short term pain, if they can be gauranteed that there is a light at the end of the tunnel. Of course all this depends on trusting the leaders of our government and I ma afraid that might be a big hurdle to jump.
What people do when faced with bigotry and racism is point is question. I believe it was you who complained that in the people need to face, label and condemn such activity. BUT as usual you would excuse such when it does not suite you, as unnecessary. Talk about hypocrisy. Yes, but the very fact you clearly proclaim that people are clearly leaning from side to side and conservative or not is simple demonstration that you believe Australia is aligned with the US political system. As previously stated, you might think twice if you understood what leaning from the left to right actually meant in the Australian political system, but I realise you are happy in your ignorance. Only a bigot would believe that... Yes and further clear demonstration you do not know what the hell youre talking about... But what else can be expected from the bigoted of Australia...
The problem is the future. You say everything is fine now and you do not want to talk about the future. The problem is that you are voting for what the parties do in the future so you have to consider what might happen in the future. Fact is that while we all want things to continue the same, future events will affect the issue. The ALP are now looking to where they can tighten the shoe strings as the Coalition have been demanding. Is this for some hypothetical future for the sake of it? No, it is to try and manage a debt that could be crippling in the future. Fact is that better management in the past could have made Australia something better, but the ALP has clearly demonstrated they are unable to manage the economy. So while you want to sit on the debt as it stands now, you need to consider the future of the debt to consider the best party for the job. AND the only way to consider these points is to look at what you think both parties are going to do. Managing the debt is extremely important and the floods demonstrated that issues unforeseen could arise (you know that hypothetical future) that could throw the problem into disarray. At present, half thought out policy and wasteful management simply tells me that the ALP is not a party for the future. BUT, that is my opinion. As an ALP supporter (and I was surprised) you tell us that you consider they will change their policy after the election to better policy and again that is a problem for me. We need to have confidence that these parties will do what they bring to the election (intent that is) and not simply play the popularity game. I know, people consider that the Coalition has the same issue, and I would agree. However, at this time the Coalition's past is better demonstration of the ALP’s. Greens are a waste of space and clearly there is no other alternative. After so many years of this supposed democracy, we are only left with 2 alternatives left and neither are looking to the peoples wishes, only to get into a job of power and influence. Not a good look is it?
I think dav pulls these figures out his Rs, they never make sense and he NEVER backs them up with references.
My point about the future is that it as an hypothesis can't be validly used to criticise current government policy and conditions. Debt to GDP in Australia at the moment is low. Will that remain the case? Who knows? There are a lot of factors that impinge on this. A government can't see the future, it can only do some forecasting using known data. It would be wise of the government to ensure that debt to GDP doesn't increase to unworkable levels. This has happened, for example, in the UK where the so-called austerity policy programme is in place. Very high debt to GDP I'm not an economist so I don't know if it's cause and effect or merely correlation. Either way the austerity approach doesn't seem to be working and it's probably something future Australian governments should avoid. The ALP has shown that they can manage the economy. The response to the GFC was a good response, our economy is in very good shape. Now it's good shape has a lot to do with our ability to flog minerals to other countries. But as we can see that doesn't generalise to all the state/territory economies, but it sure helps the country as a whole. The fact that we made it through the after-effects of the GFC is testament to the correct government response not to go to austerity but to put in place Keynesian methods. I think that must overcome any broad allegation that Labor can't manage the economy. If the government is looking to manage debt then surely that's an example of good management? The good times won't go forever and we know that following a Keynsian approach government should be parsimonious when the non-government economy is going strong so it can build reserves to stimulate the domestic economy when it goes into one of its regular down-cycles.
People complain about the economy " with a stimulus", could you imagine what would have happened under austerity! It would have not only blown a hole in confidence but gave us nothing to be confident about! There is no hope on the horizon for the UK from all reports I have seen! Pessimism is a disease that has the potential to rot away at Australia's beautiful and powerful self belief! Thank god, our country and this forum is full of optimism in the face of adversity! It is a demonstration of our resilience and boldness to achieve above and beyond limits that others have wanted to box us in to! We are no longer the poor cousins, we are the forerunners! Keep your head up australia, and don't let the doubters control your mind with senseless rot built on pessimism!
No. There must be an intention to make a profit/derive an income over time & that income must be dependent on the goods or services provided. Governments legislate for income & most of that is taxes in one form or another, some of it is borrowings that are paid for at a later date with taxes after interest. Some taxes are hidden such as when utilities are required to pay a government a dividend & the utility has to pass that on in the form of higher rates. It is a good thing for governments to be run efficiently so the money saved can be used to provide more services/infrastructure & where a business model can do that it is a good thing. It is not the job of governments to make money. Sometimes a government gets an incidental non tax income stream from the ownership of a non monopoly company such as the Commonwealth Bank but, with the exception of Lotto, making money for the government was not the objective.
Good comedy TV. You are completely negative about the people who made Australia what it is today, hard working, White Christians. You twist every aspect of our being, from our history, to the present day. We lol @ you.
Like I said, the brain dead Laborite leftards will probably fall for it. Only a fool would compare their performance to the worst performers. Only a fool would think they are doing well simply because they are not the worst.
For a real indictment on the appalling economoc management of the Rudd/Gillard government, you need look no further than the governments own figures; http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/myefo/html/13_appendix_d-01.htm
That is the level of the mentality that we`re dealing with here. They keep embarrassing themselves with comments like "don`t need to fix the brakes on my car, haven`t hit anything yet".
I read on one of those desk calender daily quotes something that sums up the level of reasoning possed by the leftards. I can't remember it exactly so I will improvise, "A laborite leftard is a person who upon noticing that a rose smells nicer than a cabbage will conclude that it will make better soup".
Interesting this morning. Rudd has called in Obama campaign specialists to help with his campaign, stating that he will call on the best brains in the world for this campaign. It is interesting to note that none of the best brains in the world are Australian. MMMMM ! And who is paying for these MUPPETS ?
