Abbott has said that the Goverment has borrowed $100 million a day and all you Liberals have jump on the band wagon about it. None of you have asked why the Goverment borrows $100 million a day.

Lets look outside the square about why the Goverment needs $100 million a day. What does it cost a day to run goverment? Paid wages, the welfare bill etc.

All goverment borrow money evey day even the Howard Goverment borrow money to run goverment.

The coalition introduced all sorts of handouts at a time when the reserve bank was (rightly) trying to put the brakes on an economic bubble about to burst.

John S wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 9:02am:

Abbott has said that the Goverment has borrowed $100 million a day and all you Liberals have jump on the band wagon about it. None of you have asked why the Goverment borrows $100 million a day. Lets look outside the square about why the Goverment needs $100 million a day. What does it cost a day to run goverment? Paid wages, the welfare bill etc. All goverment borrow money evey day even the Howard Goverment borrow money to run goverment.

Keep up Jack, it rose to 120 million Thursday last week :D :D :D :D
Must have been a rate rise somewhere ;)

An especially annoying gaff from the coalition, since by their own admission they supported the first stimulus, and only argue with the degree of second stimulus - so they would probably be borrowing $80m a day themselves. Maybe more if their lack of action had sent Australia into recession.

Please delete wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 9:10am:

An especially annoying gaff from the coalition, since by their own admission they supported the first stimulus, and only argue with the degree of second stimulus - so they would probably be borrowing $80m a day themselves. Maybe more if their lack of action had sent Australia into recession.

The first stimulus was funded by the Howard/Costello surplus, so NO borrowing there. The second is open to dispute as it was never opening outlined what spending would have taken place.

And even if it was $80 million/day, that still a bucketload less over a 12 month period. BIG difference.

:)

riverina - the govt also gets in all sorts of taxes. it has a huge income.
any borrowings are in excess over its income

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 9:27am:

riverina - the govt also gets in all sorts of taxes. it has a huge income. any borrowings are in excess over its income

Well, compared to most mortal humans, the Australian Federal government does have a very large income, just over $300 BILLION and the Australian GDP is even larger at just over $1 TRILLION.

However, if we do use the example of us normal mortals, it is suggested that a "normal" range for Debt repayment is around 30-40% of annual income, which can be used to fund a Total Debt, for the like of House mortgages & Car loans, which may be considerably greater than their annual Debt Repayments.

Now, there are always rules & exceptions, but we need to understand that governments also have acceptable ranges, for both Debt repayment to Annual Income and for their Total Debt.

To put things into perspective, mere mortals can go out & buy a house with a $400,000 mortgage, on a salary of $60,000, on an ineterest only loan and afford the repayments of around 35% of our annual salary.

Similarly, the Australian government (&/or others) could afford to run yearly Deficits and therefore accumulate a Debt over time, provided that the Repayments & Total Debt remain within viable limits, which many overseas countries have disregarded.

That said, as a general rule, governments should balance their budgets and only go into Deficits & Debt as the exception.

Exceptions include those rainy Economic days, when they do arrive & to fund infrastructure, which vital for the future of the country!

perceptions :-

Quote:

...........To put things into perspective, mere mortals can go out & buy a house with a $400,000 mortgage, on a salary of $60,000, on an ineterest only loan and afford the repayments of around 35% of our annual salary...........

yes. It is also wrong to be continually spending more than have as income.
The goal is to have a surplus and zero debt.

Ask anyone who has been under a big mortgage at times and at times had no debts which is preferable.

Sprintcyclist wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 1:06pm:

perceptions :- Quote: ...........To put things into perspective, mere mortals can go out & buy a house with a $400,000 mortgage, on a salary of $60,000, on an ineterest only loan and afford the repayments of around 35% of our annual salary........... yes. 1) It is also wrong to be continually spending more than have as income. 2) The goal is to have a surplus and zero debt. Ask anyone who has been under a big mortgage at times and at times had no debts which is preferable.

1) Agreed, as is now being shown by many overseas countries, such as the USA and many in Europe.

2) Yes & No!
As I said in my previopus post -
"as a general rule, governments should balance their budgets and only go into Deficits & Debt as the exception.
Exceptions include those rainy Economic days, when they do arrive & to fund infrastructure, which vital for the future of the country."

So, finally, after all of the -
Credible
Reliable
Abundant
Paradoxes

about how much the Labor Debt Debt was & how much interest per Day the Labour Debt was costing, both Hockey & Abbott have agreed that the Liberals would have gone into debt.

Not only would the Liberals have gone into Debt, but the Liberal Debt would have been only about $20 Billion less than Labor!

So, after all of the huff & puff over Labor going into Debt at a rate of $100 Million a Day, the difference between Labor & the Libs was actually only $20 Million (P/D), the Libs would have incurred Debt at $80 Million a day themselves.

Finally, having watched Tony Abbott on the 7.30 report tonight, I must say that his grasp of Future Technology is extremely poor for someone wanting to become PM and having seen another interview whether he exposed his absolute lack of knowledge on Peak Oil, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE TOP JOB!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 10:41pm:

So, finally, after all of the - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes about how much the Labor Debt Debt was & how much interest per Day the Labour Debt was costing, both Hockey & Abbott have agreed that the Liberals would have gone into debt. [highlight]Not only would the Liberals have gone into Debt, but the Liberal Debt would have been only about $20 Billion less than Labor! So, after all of the huff & puff over Labor going into Debt at a rate of $100 Million a Day, the difference between Labor & the Libs was actually only $20 Million (P/D), the Libs would have incurred Debt at $80 Million a day themselves. Finally, having watched Tony Abbott on the 7.30 report tonight, I must say that his grasp of Future Technology is extremely poor for someone wanting to become PM and having seen another interview whether he exposed his absolute lack of knowledge on Peak Oil, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE TOP JOB![/highlight]

$20 billion is hardly a small figure Perceptions, i though you would understand that.

And do you understand that the PM doesn't need to know every little detail about FO and Wireless, that's WHY there is a Broadband & Comms portfolio.

Did Rudd have a clue? NO

Does Gillard have a clue? NO

Does CONROY have a clue? NO.
::)

Hey, its gone UP again -From LAST NIGHTS lateline
Here a beauty....gotta luv Barnaby..the economic minister that Abbott once endorsed.


BARNABY JOYCE: Well, it's a return to Howard-era policies of balancing the books, Leigh. We can't go on the way we're going. We're $153.2 billion in debt. It's interesting that people should know that last week, each day, we borrowed an extra $250 million




Senator Joyce joins Lateline
Print Email
Australian Broadcasting Corporation

Broadcast: 09/08/2010

wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 10:55pm:

Hey, its gone UP again -From LAST NIGHTS lateline Here a beauty....gotta luv Barnaby..the economic minister that Abbott once endorsed. BARNABY JOYCE: Well, it's a return to Howard-era policies of balancing the books, Leigh. We can't go on the way we're going. We're $153.2 billion in debt. It's interesting that people should know that last week, each day, we borrowed an extra $250 million Senator Joyce joins Lateline Print Email Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 09/08/2010

Vege, we ALL Joyce is a loose cannon and as such i don't think anyone takes what he says seriously anymore, including Abbott i dare say.

:)

iamtheman012 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 10:49pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 10th, 2010 at 10:41pm: So, finally, after all of the - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes about how much the Labor Debt Debt was & how much interest per Day the Labour Debt was costing, both Hockey & Abbott have agreed that the Liberals would have gone into debt. [highlight]Not only would the Liberals have gone into Debt, but the Liberal Debt would have been only about $20 Billion less than Labor! So, after all of the huff & puff over Labor going into Debt at a rate of $100 Million a Day, the difference between Labor & the Libs was actually only $20 Million (P/D), the Libs would have incurred Debt at $80 Million a day themselves. Finally, having watched Tony Abbott on the 7.30 report tonight, I must say that his grasp of Future Technology is extremely poor for someone wanting to become PM and having seen another interview whether he exposed his absolute lack of knowledge on Peak Oil, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE TOP JOB![/highlight] $20 billion is hardly a small figure Perceptions, i though you would understand that. And do you understand that the PM doesn't need to know every little detail about FO and Wireless, that's WHY there is a Broadband & Comms portfolio. Did Rudd have a clue? NO Does Gillard have a clue? NO Does CONROY have a clue? NO. ::)

Let me see, $20 Billion over 3 years, with a Federal government income of some $300 Billion a year & an annual GDP of $1 Trillion.

You are joking, Right!

As for Technology & Peak Oil, Labor clearly has a lot more going for it, than does Abbott & the Libs and where Peak Oil is concerned both have problems, but Abbott is a basket case!

wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 10:55pm:

Hey, its gone UP again -From LAST NIGHTS lateline Here a beauty....gotta luv Barnaby..the economic minister that Abbott once endorsed. BARNABY JOYCE: Well, it's a return to Howard-era policies of balancing the books, Leigh. We can't go on the way we're going. We're $153.2 billion in debt. It's interesting that people should know that last week, each day, we borrowed an extra $250 million Senator Joyce joins Lateline Print Email Australian Broadcasting Corporation Broadcast: 09/08/2010

I thought he said that veg but then thought I must have missed a question but as your post of the transcript proves HE DID ;D ;D ;D ;D
Imagine if this boofhead was still in charge of finance?????
Talk about pulling figures out of the air, Barnaby's probably a nice bloke & capable small town accountant but anywhere near government...really. :P

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 10:59pm:

iamtheman012 wrote on Aug 10th, 2010 at 10:49pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 10th, 2010 at 10:41pm: So, finally, after all of the - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes about how much the Labor Debt Debt was & how much interest per Day the Labour Debt was costing, both Hockey & Abbott have agreed that the Liberals would have gone into debt. [highlight]Not only would the Liberals have gone into Debt, but the Liberal Debt would have been only about $20 Billion less than Labor! So, after all of the huff & puff over Labor going into Debt at a rate of $100 Million a Day, the difference between Labor & the Libs was actually only $20 Million (P/D), the Libs would have incurred Debt at $80 Million a day themselves. Finally, having watched Tony Abbott on the 7.30 report tonight, I must say that his grasp of Future Technology is extremely poor for someone wanting to become PM and having seen another interview whether he exposed his absolute lack of knowledge on Peak Oil, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE TOP JOB![/highlight] $20 billion is hardly a small figure Perceptions, i though you would understand that. And do you understand that the PM doesn't need to know every little detail about FO and Wireless, that's WHY there is a Broadband & Comms portfolio. Did Rudd have a clue? NO Does Gillard have a clue? NO Does CONROY have a clue? NO. ::) Let me see, $20 Billion over 3 years, with a Federal government income of some $300 Billion a year & an annual GDP of $1 Trillion. You are joking, Right! [highlight]As for Technology & Peak Oil, Labor clearly has a lot more going for it, than does Abbott & the Libs and where Peak Oil is concerned both have problems, but Abbott is a basket case! [/highlight]

YOU clearly DON'T pay attention to anything Conroy says or does within his portfolio Perceptions, perhaps you could go do some reseach first and then come back.

;)

iamtheman012 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 11:03pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 10th, 2010 at 10:59pm: iamtheman012 wrote on Aug 10th, 2010 at 10:49pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 10th, 2010 at 10:41pm: So, finally, after all of the - Credible Reliable Abundant Paradoxes about how much the Labor Debt Debt was & how much interest per Day the Labour Debt was costing, both Hockey & Abbott have agreed that the Liberals would have gone into debt. [highlight]Not only would the Liberals have gone into Debt, but the Liberal Debt would have been only about $20 Billion less than Labor! So, after all of the huff & puff over Labor going into Debt at a rate of $100 Million a Day, the difference between Labor & the Libs was actually only $20 Million (P/D), the Libs would have incurred Debt at $80 Million a day themselves. Finally, having watched Tony Abbott on the 7.30 report tonight, I must say that his grasp of Future Technology is extremely poor for someone wanting to become PM and having seen another interview whether he exposed his absolute lack of knowledge on Peak Oil, HE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ANYWHERE NEAR THE TOP JOB![/highlight] $20 billion is hardly a small figure Perceptions, i though you would understand that. And do you understand that the PM doesn't need to know every little detail about FO and Wireless, that's WHY there is a Broadband & Comms portfolio. Did Rudd have a clue? NO Does Gillard have a clue? NO Does CONROY have a clue? NO. ::) Let me see, $20 Billion over 3 years, with a Federal government income of some $300 Billion a year & an annual GDP of $1 Trillion. You are joking, Right! [highlight]As for Technology & Peak Oil, Labor clearly has a lot more going for it, than does Abbott & the Libs and where Peak Oil is concerned both have problems, but Abbott is a basket case! [/highlight] YOU clearly DON'T pay attention to anything Conroy says or does within his portfolio Perceptions, perhaps you could go do some reseach first and then come back. ;)

Clearly, Abbott & the Libs are 80% spin, because they have admitted they would have incurred 80% of the Debt (at least), over the last 3 years!

Just as clearly, Technology & Energy are 2 of the 3 major Economic Drivers, Population (Growth & Aging) being the other and Abbott, in particular has no idea what its all about!

As, I think Bill Clinton is credited saying, "it's the Economy stupid", but if the Politicians & their party have absolutely no understanding of what the Economic drivers are all about, NOW, then the Economy will go down the toilet and the Politicians will look stupid, but it will be the Public that will have to take the hits!    

iamtheman012 wrote on Aug 10^th, 2010 at 9:14am:

Please delete wrote on Aug 10th, 2010 at 9:10am: An especially annoying gaff from the coalition, since by their own admission they supported the first stimulus, and only argue with the degree of second stimulus - so they would probably be borrowing $80m a day themselves. Maybe more if their lack of action had sent Australia into recession. The first stimulus was funded by the Howard/Costello surplus, so NO borrowing there. The second is open to dispute as it was never opening outlined what spending would have taken place. And even if it was $80 million/day, that still a bucketload less over a 12 month period. BIG difference. :)

But it won't be over a 12 month period. Because you have taxes raised and lowered, expenditure raised and lowered.