Wayne Swan Is A Hypocrite.

Better not, they`ve already run out of other people`s money.

 

Snorting, fact less derision once again, Garry and Aussie and Culldav all seem to think you are making some telling argument with your bluster and insults and "Rhetoric" , not facts.

I hate to tell you Garry but your opinion of something isn't a fact just your opinion and adding a lol and an insult doesn't make it any more convincing.

No one has to answer for imagined failings and overblown allegations when the facts are known to them!

Totally unfunded?? Its a trial, but hey let's criticize labor for overspending and quote programs of such waste (in your opinion) while in the next sentence criticize them for only tossing in a billion dollars to kick off the program (while liberal states refuse to even sit down to negotiate) exaggerating as usual to make it seem like nothing to suit your rant!

Poor management of injected funds in programs? Of course I would much prefer the liberal strategy of tearing money and jobs out of education to fund picnics. Perhaps we should spend $180m on a "Family Filter" for the internet whether it's needed, wanted or even already exists in many FREE forms. POOR MANAGEMENT I'd say!
I don't actually hear Gillard complaining about anything, nor do I hear her slinging mud or name calling. I do hear her stating her and her governments goals and objectives, informing Australians of what their intentions are. Although it's a wonder anyone can hear anything over the constant bombardment of interjection, misinformation, manipulation, fear mongering and blatant lies coming from every orifice the liberal party has.The cackling and over played guffaws of bravado from Mr Abbott and his band of (and these guys really do fit the word) thugs belies their fear and insecurity. The lack of policies that aren't knee jerk reactions to labor policy is evidence of their weak work ethic and their self serving attitude. Their history in government speaks for itself if you could even remember it, they have changed it so many times in their telling of the tale.

I reckon put em in the ring. Abbott's drunken monkey style will get pawned by Gillard's masterful Aikido.

 

Is aikido another word for bull(*)(*)(*)(*) ?

 

LOL LOL LOL LOL Brilliant slipper!! Emailed this to the wife, and she just replied saying she actually wet her pants with laughter. LOL LOL LOL LOL

 

Fixed it for you ^^

Wow, fail on two counts; do you remember when the ALP were in opposition.... obviously not. The 'government' of the day has the entire public service as its engine of policy creation and whichever party in opposition at the time does not have this capacity because it is not their job to generate policy.

How come ALP supporters seem just to puppet ALP propaganda all the time!? The thing that annoys me is when the media does it as well.

 

Gotta giggle at the emptyness of gazza'a opposition to all things labor. It is such a shallow argument. Old matey once told me that he makes up his own mind regarding opinion but isn't evident, he expresses verbatim the very comments of abbott and his media pals with vested interests! OMG!!

 

LOL... So nobody should be held accountable for anything, IYO, because you decide it is too hard? LOL...

LOL... the Liberal states, refuse to sit down and negotiate? LOL... Perhaps you should find out where the money is coming from to fund this trial.
The fact that Labor federal posed this NDIS program as part of the federal budget, and then pressure state governments into funding for a trial of the program, without even considering where the ongoing funding will come from to continue the funding, is IYO a good thing?
Yes...I do criticise them for overspending and wasteful management, and here we see a NDIS program that will in true ALP form be wasted in the bureaucracy with state funds. LOL

Well, yes But as they are not the ones in government at this time, It makes little if any difference.
But hey, lets us cherry pick all the parties policy to find the ones we do not like...Sorry, at this time I would have to cherry pick the ALP for the policy for any good policy (or should I say, policy they can actually deliver without waste...lol)

You should listen to question time more often, then.

Intentions are one thing, actually preforming them, seems to be a major failure, as the list of failures show.

LOL... the poor thing, can not be heard over everybody else, LOL... again perhaps you should listen to question time more often.

Something that has amazed me, question time, where questions (no matter how much they are loaded) are never answered, perhaps they should just do away with it.

and this differs from the current government how? Oh that is right, they did not stuff policy anywhere near as much.

Take the boat people, why did they decide to change the policy? Something about humane treatment of people, Now what are they trying to do? introduce such similar policy, they can call their own, to try and stem the flow. BUT what happens, fails the test of the high court. Sounds like they are doing such a good job.

LOL... Unfortunately, I don't think it will be as entertaining as you think.

BUT HEY, THAT IS JUST OUR OPINION, isn't it? LOL

 

LOL...emptiness? So far, it would seem both you and GS have provided nothing, to explain bad policy or even failed actions of the ALP. You simply sit there and claim, How victimised Gillard is and how innocent she is. Problem is, as facts show, Gillard is not innocent at all. Perhaps if you had any idea about me and what I think, you would change your mind, about my distaste for the ALP. Fact is, you have no idea about my opposition of any government body. BUT I do have an opposition to stupidly blindly following a party without thought or reason.

LOL...
I have to ask, why do you ignore the failures of this Labor government? Why is it, you support leaders of a government, who ignored warnings from their own, which could have prevented deaths?

'Expressing verbatim the comments of Abbott'? Perhaps, you should read about the ALP movement against the GST, I would also be expressing the ALP verbatim as well...LOL

 

Mate, the Unions / ALP are robbing you blind. If you are a worker, your best bet is to support National security & Conservatism.

 

stop phibbing garry, much like a couple of others on here you pretend to hide behind not having a political persuasion, but again parot verbatim the very words of abbott. You can rave on as much as you like supporting abbott rhetoric, suggesting failed labor government policy, but the realities are they have been a fantastic nation building government who have introduced the NBN, increased hospital funding, national curriculum, ETS, MRRT, increased infrastructure funding etc etc . You're just dirty because you've stood behind a nothing party that hasn't done anything visionary but support the massive increase of foreign debt, which in turn was all but a present for the rich. Re-register under another alias, that way you can begin to state a different stance without the embarrassment of changing your stance under this one. Can you state something that doesn't emulate the words of abbott? I don't think so, it seems that that is all you have!!

 

LOL... AND ALP rhetoric of the attack on GST. Oh, I do not pretend not to have a political persuasion at all. I have never said either way what my political persuasion actually is. That is left to you to decide, You obviously have. But that is not my problem, it seems yours...LOL

LOL...LOL... Suggesting? Give us some evidence that they are not failed policy. I do not suggest it, I state it, failed asylum seeker policies, failed grocery watch, fuel watch, insulation schemes... etc, etc, etc. Show us some evidence that the list of failures of the ALP government are not real, No you would rather just ignore them. LOL

and when you wake from your slumber...

LOL... massive increase in foreign debt... I find it interesting, that you would not understand what the article you linked actually stated. BUT I think you will find, that the increasing foreign debt, YOU lay blame on Howard, has steadily been increased by Labor policy, with public debt leading the way. Visionary Labor? Apparently NOT, as your claim will show a greater increase of these figures under present circumstances, and you champion that. You ignore increasing costs, with 'minimal impact' claims, which are increasing the movement away from Australian manufacturing now. You ignore the fact, that increasing dependence on welfare by the population, to try reduce the impact of increasing costs to living. and you ignore the increasing movement of jobs from productive economic employment to bureaucratic employment, that produces nothing. and claim this is visionary? Perhaps you could actually show some evidence of this great visionary government? No... I am guessing we will just get more attempt at veiled insults, with absolutely nothing but your stupendous rhetoric.

 

Garry, I don't mind reading responses but I can't stand extended BS. It is quite obvious you don't understand foreign debt......lmao! You come out with a throw away assessment of how foreign debt comes about. Research it a little more than come back and comment. Please don't give me a thesis of BS.

 

LOL... With all your claims, and little understanding of what you provide as evidence, AGAIN there seems to be more BS coming from yourself.

I don't understand foreign debt? LOL... Obviously you are reflecting your own understanding of your claims upon others. Answer my questions (if you actually have some ability to comprehend what you are talking about).

It is obvious that you do not understand, the reason for the so called increase of foreign debt you are attributing to Howard, as you article actually supports my claims on many threads. Bet you have no idea how?

 

Garry, can you structure what you want to ask appropriately or more clearly. Put a number beside each question so that it becomes clear what you are actually asking dude. It is all messed up!

 

1.what foreign debt has been increased?

2.Who increased it?

3.Should the population be more worried about borrowing money to pay interest payments?

Clear Now, again, we will see nothing but your own rhetoric and inability to understand how the foreign debt is accumulated

 

One of the biggest issues during the Howard era was the huge increase in housing prices. Many thought that this was the endless Panacea for Australia. Economists back then, for those that were willing to listen, warned of the very situation of creating a real estate bubble and the terrible consequences long term. Negative gearing was solely responsible. Numerous people were buying 2 or 3 houses or were encoraged to buy more. I personally know of some people owning over ten. It wasnt their fault and good on them for their opportunity. Property investment shows were top hits on our tv screens and were simply ways to seemingly get rich and fast. It's not hard to see what the consequences were going to be. The howard government were simply shoving unnecessary responsibility of addressing housing demand on the australian people without considering the future. A little further regulation in this area may have done the trick. The government wanted no responsibility for the welfare of citizens, their goal was to make their buddies even richer and a way of recycling funds into their coffer. Young people had to pay exorbitant prices for their first home, which meant committing to huge mortgages. Repayments as a consequence were well over the income percentage even when interest rates were at 18% under labor. (Howard as treasurer saw 21% under his watch. )What was the next step, it was the need to subsidise first home buyers and get them to commit to these increasing costs for one of humanities essentials, a roof over heads to make everyone feel as though the government is doing them a good deed..

Borrowing money to meet demand, centered around a strategy of short term gain was the issue.

What happened here you ask? The government wasnt spending money, then who was? Once again GS alluded to the reasoning behind the coalitions ulterior motive to reduce the public debt and to twist the truth around it. The labor government used the funds to reduce the effects of a mess the coalition would have got us deeper into that would have only benefited the wealthy in our society. We were heading down a path of destruction like the US and Greece. Once again, thank God for our current government for their foresight and vision.

3. I still don't know what u are trying to get at.

 

THUS We see, you actually have no idea, what the article was showing.

You are trying to attribute the housing market to increases in foreign debt, when your article actually shows exactly where that gross private foreign debt was gained.

You would attempt to attribute the housing bubble that ALL economists warned for years was going to burst, to Howard. Forget that the entire issue of pumping the housing market by Keating (you know, one of the reasons of the recession we had to have) Keating really started this process howard perpetuated it and guess what the ALP are doing now.

It is easy to point the finger at one or the other, but your problem becomes an issue with this, if your supporting a government that is perpetuating the problem. OR did you not see this?

That is obvious, when you do not know what your evidence actually show.

Talk about foward thinking and building the nation, you do not even know what the real problem is.

 

It is evident that you don't know and just playing silly buggers, I mean how much clearer does it need to get when our property market is of obvious greatest value, which is worth trillions. 90% of gdp is made up of mortgage debt. Tell me what you think this debt is caused from gazza! Housing prices increased to over 120% under the coalition government. Where does most debt derive from, the purchase of lollies? The real estate bubble started essentially in 1996 and skyrocketed due to negative gearing and capital gains tax changes, then add gst into the mix. Who was in government then?

In the early 90's you were expected to have a savings of 20% to purchase a property of which case a house costing $90,000 required an $18,000 deposit. It wasn't that out of reach back then, after a few years of saving for many people. In 2003 you could purchase a house for 200k with no deposit due to the FHBG. There was an obvious snow ball effect across all areas.

Now, what did you think caused the foreign debt???????????

Q.3 don't make sense dude, restructure it garry, it is like most of your arguments that simply don't make sense dude. At least give it context , it's a type of question my children used to give me, which I had to decipher. I patiently did this but expect more from an adult.

 

How about this, You provide evidence of these claims.
1. 90% of Gross Domestic Product is made up of mortgage debt...LOL

2. Mortgage debt is the main cause of foreign debt

Your rhetoric does not cover that

Did you not read your link? I thought you and your ALP mates where forward thinkers? If you do not know, how can you complain?

But from your article, here is a clue

And you think this is the reason behind the gross foreign debt? Housing industry is the cause of increased borrowings from overseas?

No, I have given you a hint from your own article, You attempt to say something the article does not say to support your stance. It is you to provide the evidence of your claims. Not me, as it obviously shows, that you do not understand the article at all.

I have already given it enough context, and it is plain enough. There is nothing to decipher. Your attempt at subterfuge would obviously show, you actually have no idea what you are talking about.

So again, Should the population be more worried about borrowing money to pay interest payments?

Simple and straight forward. I can wait for you to consult with your ALP handlers

You the one who claims to have the high ground, yet you have no idea what the article YOU link as HARD FACTS is actually about. You attribute the entire article to the housing market, which actually was not mentioned in relation to the foreign debt.

Show us your forward thinking and of the ALP. So far it is extremely laking

 

http://www.stubbornmule.net/blog/wp-content/debt-hhold1.png

Start researching dude, but here is a start. You've got no idea but want to be educated don't you.

You either don't take time to think when you write or are a little out of your depth. You're all over the place dude. You responses aren't connected to ones you are addressing. man o man.

hahahaha....."i've given you a hint".... pleeeasse buddy. I'm not into little game playing with ya dude. It is a major cause of the debt. Of course it states it. Look if you aren't willing to read documents and not respond appropriately, then give up. I'm not going to hold your hand on every bit of information.

You have given no context dude, it doesn't make sense if you understand the article and the system...lmao!. Wear that cap called subterfuge dude, your grammar either leaves a lot to be desire or your being tricky. I think it is a case of both to be honest.

What is your point.....I'm guessing you haven't got one lol.

Yep, I absolutely am claiming it on the housing debt, what's your argument? Couldn't forward think in 11 years of conservative reign. The forward thinking and action was done before hand re: howard government, but conservative policy has long term negative effects, such as what was clearly evident the world over. Labor are nation building once again, which would be a shame if the liberals took control of the economy too early out from their last term in government.

 

LOL... Love your little graph, except it does not state that MORTGAGE DEBT is 90% of Gross Domestic Product. Without any sources and references, not even explained. from a BLOG.

Perhaps the biggest give away that it does not support YOUR claim, is the heading HOUSEHOLD debt. YOU are assuming that means MORTGAGE, but it does not.

Give us the evidence of your claims. do you have any? NO...just more rhetoric and complete inability to understand what you are looking at.

LOL... OBVIOUSLY, you have nothing and are trying the strawman. it seems very obvious, with ALP supporters, That when they are cornered and unable to support their claims, you become desperate.

LOL... yes, and now it appears, you are far from understanding what was in the article you linked.

You just posted it because it had a few choice words, YOU thought put a bad light on Howard government. You failed to understand that it was attacking both sides of the political spectrum, then claimed it as evidence for something totally different to what was actually shown.

While you fail to think about what the article is about and continue to defend it as YOUR HARD FACTS, your credibility slides further into a ditch. Before you make more stupid claims of the article, perhaps you should ask your ALP mates, they know. Which is why they are not championing the article the way you are...LOL

LOL... I am not willing to read documents? Obviously more willing than you. IT is obvious you did not read your own link.

As stated 'You attribute the entire article to the housing market, which actually was not mentioned in relation to the foreign debt.' I will go one further, housing debt is not mentioned in the article YOU linked at all...LOL

What context do you need? The question is straight forward and your inability to answer,only shows that you have absolutely no idea what the article is about and how the system works.

The question stands unanswered and obviously will remain so.

Should the population be more worried about borrowing money to pay interest payments?

So far, I have asked 3 questions of YOUR link. A news article, YOU proclaim from vested interests (you know that corrupt media). And you have not answered any of them with any fact, not even from the article YOU provide as YOUR HARD FACTS. Who is the one trying subterfuge to bumble through a very stupid claim, that they can now not back? YOU...LOL

No... Not much point in debating you about that. It would seem you have no idea either at local level or international level of economics, at all. If you can not answer the Question, what is the point?

LOL... So Keating did the forward thinking so the current government does not have to do anything?...LOL

So tell me, What policy do you think Howard introduced that caused a boost in MORTGAGE debt?

Perhaps you would be well aware, that the Keating government started, Howard perpetuated, and now Gillard is bolstering, the housing market. So you open Criticism of the Howard government, for boosting the Housing market, in exactly the same manner as both previous and current government, gives you NO credibility at all.

You are still yet to show '90% of Gross Domestic Product is made up of mortgage debt' Or do you really believe, that HOUSEHOLD debt is equivalent to MORTGAGE debt?

As stated, if you do not understand what the article YOU linked is about, then how can you defend YOUR claims with it?

 

the graph, was your starter...now start digging rather than playing games gazza. It is easy to find. Come back and comment. I'm not holding your hand dude. There nothing to hide, I'm just starting to build a clearer picture of what I'm dealing with....lol

man, you are superficial on every level. Rambling on ain't any credit. Get busy gazza.

You were given a good source. Sit down with somebody of intellect and discuss the article with them and then come back and comment. Your mum or dad might be sufficient.

Claims were supported quite clearly gazza, I think some home truths about your beloved conservatives are being exposed and tactics always used in defence are to just argue without any substance.....oooops, I just let on about that picture I was building of you.

Yep as suspected. Why do we waste our time with you gazza.

Ahhhhh, I see where you are coming from........you where looking for an article persuasion. Because it didn't substantiate decisively a position in your anal mind, it didn't make sense to draw an clear argument from this. The article quite clearly stated where the problem derived gazza...

who else is. It's me and you dude.....the world is not against you lol, or are they in your mind. Decipher and analyse gazza. Do yourself a favor!

We could go round and round with this point.....it is quite clear you enjoy operating at this level.

It is the main substance lmao, just some people want their hands held.....keep reading it gazza.

it is totally irrelevant, you are clutching at straws.

it will remain that way when it has no relevance.

As per previous response.

As per previous....it is demonstrating how much you ramble on lol.

oh, it takes you such a rambling time to make a point....you see what I'm doing don't you....lmao?

It would have been worse had keating foresight not taken place. The economic pretenders were taking the economy on a road to destruction.

It has already been stated. Your fluster and bias gets in the road.

no, totally wrong! Keating established a platform for economic strength, Howard abused it and gillard has to roll with it until an appropriate time.

Rambling again....you must get to your points sooner gazza.

 

So, No you have nothing and have made claims that are factually untrue. It is your job to support YOUR claims.

There seem much to hide from your quarter, as you really have no idea what your talking about...LOL

LOL... I did not make the claims, you did. It is up to YOU to support your claims, Obviously you can not. TALK ABOUT SUPERFICIAL...LOL

Obviously, I have not been talking to somebody with intellect, here.

How about telling me, 'Do you believe household debt IS mortgage debt? OOPS... you obviously did not understand that, did you?

LOL... when I get substance, I will provide with substance, but YOU seem to think, if the right words are in the article, it must support your opinion(only the way it appears from your understanding of your so called HARD FACTS).

I wonder why you even say anything, it seems to be your own rhetoric and attempt at insult rather than an intelligent analysis of your own sources.

Obviously, No you do not see where I am coming from, YOU do not even know what your article is about.

Yes it does, problem is that you decided that it means something completely different to what it is actually saying. YOU are trying to claim it draws a direct line to MORTGAGE debt as foreign debt. because you have been caught out, your attempting insult, and subterfuge to bumble through, much like YOUR ALP mates.

exactly the point I am stating, thank you for conceding. At least, you can admit failure, even with attempt at insult.

No, if you would actually read your links and give some clear indications of supporting evidence. But as pointed out and after several posts, it is clear, you actually do not have any idea, what you are doing. It is YOU who raised the point of reading the links and articles, and when it does not agree with you, it is the corrupt media, so we should not be listening to it... MAKE UP YOUR MIND.

YOU have assumed something the article does not indicate or even skirt around. The main substance is that GROSS FOREIGN DEBT is actually being ignored by both sides of politics, because it has increased. YOU assumed it supported YOUR claim of the coalition increasing public debt by $500 billion and now you are trying your best to to squirm out of it.

Totally relevant, as it is in the article YOU link as HARD EVIDENCE, just because YOU have no idea how to answer the question, does not mean it is strawman.

Obviously, as you have been caught out. YOU do not understand the article you linked and are just trying anything to get out of blowing all credibility.

Yes, I do. I saw that a while back, before you even linked YOUR HARD EVIDENCE. The problem is, it does not show what you think you are showing...LOL

Aaahhh...so you really do not know why we had 'the recession we had to have'.

AND guess what, it had a lot to do with artificially boosting the HOUSING MARKET, the very thing YOU blame Howard for. So are you now claiming Keating as an economic pretender?

Again, I do blame Keating for the recession of the 80's but I feel he turned a negative into a positive (which will be obvious you have no idea what I am talking about)

Where? YOU have simply blamed Howard, for something you do not know about and now you claim it has been stated.

What policy do you think Howard introduced that caused a boost in MORTGAGE debt? It is YOUR claim, so back it.

LOL... YOU blame the housing market for 90% of foreign debt(which you obviously can not back). BUT you actually have no idea HOW any government did it. So what your saying is totally aloof of any understanding of what any government has done, as you bumble through a debate, you have no clue on what is actually occurring.

I will show you why you are wrong.

gross foreign debt $1219b
public forieng debt $153b

90% of $1219b is $1097b
if you deduct the two you are left with $122b

Now given that the Government is borrowing $153b where is the corporate debt.
All figures are taken from YOUR HARD EVIDENCE, and assumption of MORTGAGE debt is taken from YOUR claim.

Funny, the figures do not add up...LOL much like the current ALP's economic policy.

Does not take much to show how thoughtless you really are.

So again, Should the population be more worried about borrowing money to pay interest payments?

And I will give your relevance again, from your HARD EVIDENCE

 

Personally I don't believe any government can be to blame for mortgage debt. BUT if you are so badly looking to blame a particular government, it would have to be Keating, who overseen the privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank between 91 and 96.

The CBA was the regulator of our banking system and controlled not only rates but also borrowing rules and regulations. Banking was far more responsible with their loaning back then. 20% deposit and repayments were rarely more than a third of household income.

So if we have to blame someone it would be Keating....however I feel that blaming anyone would be narrow sighted and un fair.

 

I think, TV wishes to state that pumping the housing market and deregulation of the banking industry is the cause of increasing mortgage debt. However, as this was one of the main reasons that Keating gave to bring the economy into a recession, I think it is long bow to draw to blame one side or the other as both sides are continuing the same strategy.

However, trying to attribute mortgage debt to foreign debt, ignores one of the the major and increasing problems of the Australian economy.

It would appear to show the short sighted understanding of the current account deficits. The fact that, Both sides would like to ignore the problem and perpetuate it, shows more at the unbelievable stance that they are only interested in pillaging the economy for their own benefit.

I do not see a problem with having a large foreign debt, but I do see a problem with borrowing to pay the interest on that debt.