Why did Rudd faulter?

I see. It is just more of these narrow-minded opinions that you like to regurgitate.

You have nothing to demonstrate why you call 10 years of wasting mining boom profits on middle-class welfare, "the most successful economy in the western world".

You simply made something up, and when called on it you revert to your normal partisan drivel.

WTF?!?!?
They had 10 years to build a national broadband network. Where is it? They had the cash
Where is the new generation of power generation to replace our ageing infrastructure? They had the cash - what did they do with it!?!?! Oh yeah - they bought votes with tax cuts and baby bonuses. They gave it away to remain in government.

Tell us - after 10 years of mining boom income and the sale of Telstra - how much was actually left? How much wasn't wasted by the Libs in middle-class welfare?


the Treasury reported that from the 2004-05 budget to the 2007 election, the China boom and a robust economy had added $334 billion in windfall gains to the budget surplus.
Of this, the Howard government spent, or gave away in tax cuts, $314 billion, or 94 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/fiscal-feud-20090424-ai6z.html#ixzz1ZEZnGbwd

Stop trying to re-write history to make excuses for those sorry pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*)

 

1. Rudd was too smart for the rest of his cabinet and they resented it (subsequent events has proved this to be undeniably true).

2. He wasn't part of the Union Establishment.

3. Julia stabbed him in the back (so now,it maybe her turn).

4 He spent too much time 'swanning' around on overseas junkets (and he hasn't changed).

Another remote possibility:
He wanted Julie to take his place so he could prove how dumb she is and/or how smart he is (just joking!).

 

Interesting link, I especialy like this bit;

But the mining boom began in 2002-03, some six years after Howard took office. He inherited a budget in deficit by the equivalent of 1.9 per cent of GDP, or $10 billion. By their second budget, Howard and Costello managed to turn that into a surplus.

By rigorously cutting outlays, they ended up with 1.17 per cent of GDP in hand in 1997-98. And with the exception of 2001-02, they delivered surpluses in every year that followed. The Howard government retired the national debt, a significant accomplishment.

Sorry pieces of (*)(*)(*)(*)? I don't think so. Howard presided over the best frederal government this country has ever seen.

 

Rudd is/was a man with many visions, but lacked a good team. Labor tactics have proven to be disgusting.
In a conservative nation like ours of "don't change anything" and especially his guts of standing up to the corrupt mining industry he never stood a chance. I will remember him as one of the honest, but unluckiest we have ever had....

 

Honest, Unlucky O'Lemon.

How funny is that?

 

Oxyboy,
didn't expect anything different from you. Have a great day,
cheers

 

Oh no, it is in fact I that didn't expect any different form you!

The dud blew 75% popularity....and you are blaming everyone but him!

 

Rudd didn't faulter. To say he faultered is to say he changed in some way, he didn't. Rudd was the same from start to finish, he was typical Labor, all form and no substance. Instead of getting on with the job he was being paid for, that is managing the federal government efficiently and economically, we got endless egocentric verbiage and one grandiose plan after another. Gillard is little different.