To quote Alan Kohler...

"Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year."

The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%.

the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending.

Tony's stuffed then


Quote:

The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments. It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion. It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money.

Quote:

By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor. It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super.

Quote:

In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion, yet its proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion. That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFzaG1tCd1L

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Tony's stuffed then Quote: The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments. It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion. It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money. [quote]By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor. It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super.

Quote:

In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion, yet its proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion. That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFzaG1tCd1L[/quote]

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist?  you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott.  as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any? 

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY. Stop expecting Abbott to do something you don't expect Labor to do.

Why did you lie about voting preferences longlyingfool?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 12:18pm:

To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending.

What's tony going to cut?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:05pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending. What's tony going to cut?

dunno.  but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Tony's stuffed then Quote: The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments. It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion. It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money. [quote]By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor. It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super. [quote]In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion, yet its proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion. That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFzaG1tCd1L[/quote]

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist?  you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott.  as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any? 

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY. Stop expecting Abbott to do something you don't expect Labor to do.[/quote]


Labor has produced their policies & they are costed.
They are the ones Abbott's opposes & its called a budget

I (or more to the point Laura) seem to have hit a nerve.

And YES I attack Abbott because I do not want him or 99% of his front bench leading my country, not that Rudd is that much better but its the devil you know.

And why aren't you concerned about the very apparent budget deficit?
You are if Rudd falls short, well Tony's well short.
25 Billion to be generous >:(
so is it 25 plus Labors 31 making it 56, or do we cancel Labors & 25 is OK but the extra 6 tips us over?

And right back at you, why don't you ever bash Abbott ESPECIALLY when the above VERY REAL discrepancy is presented to you?
At least When I don't like what Labor are doing I say so, it just happens that I agree with a lot of it.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Tony's stuffed then Quote: The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments. It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion. It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money. [quote]By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor. It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super. [quote]In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion, yet its proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion. That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFzaG1tCd1L[/quote]

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist?  you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott.  as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any? 

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY.[/quote]

I could equally ask when you became a Lib apologist, but that's all in the past.

We all know THERE AREN'T ANY Liberal election promises or policies. Smithy's post exposes Abbott's position entirely: vote Coalition and the deficit will be in a worst state than it is today. It has to be - the numbers don't add up. They're billions out.

The Libs are stalling, pretending they have a team of accountants working around the clock to get us the numbers before election day.

They don't, and they won't. Abbott and Hockey have no experience managing a budget, and are in exactly the same position as Labor with falling revenues. They can only but run a deficit, and when they do they'll simply blame Labor.

The next election is entirely predictable - look at the mess Labor left the economy in: Pink batts, school halls. Only the Libs can be trusted to manage the tough economic times we find ourselves in thanks to Labor's mismanagement, etc, etc, etc.

This is why the Libs won't release their costings. They don't add up, they won't add up, and they'll simply blame Labor when they're inevitably in the red.

And this is GOOD economic management?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending. What's tony going to cut? dunno.  but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote?

:D. So labor offers cuts.  Liberals refuse to support.  Offer nothing in return. And don't tell us anything.  But you claim they will do more cuts and will have a better budget outcome.  You really have become a complete fool whilst following the wankjob and his merrry band of morons.  The tea party consists of people with more reality than you.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:01pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Tony's stuffed then Quote: The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments. It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion. It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money. [quote]By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor. It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super. [quote]In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion, yet its proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion. That is a big hole to fill. http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFzaG1tCd1L

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist?  you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott.  as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any? 

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY. Stop expecting Abbott to do something you don't expect Labor to do.[/quote]


Labor has produced their policies & they are costed.
They are the ones Abbott's opposes & its called a budget

I (or more to the point Laura) seem to have hit a nerve.

And YES I attack Abbott because I do not want him or 99% of his front bench leading my country, not that Rudd is that much better but its the devil you know.

And why aren't you concerned about the very apparent budget deficit?
You are if Rudd falls short, well Tony's well short.
25 Billion to be generous >:(
so is it 25 plus Labors 31 making it 56, or do we cancel Labors & 25 is OK but the extra 6 tips us over?

And right back at you, why don't you ever bash Abbott ESPECIALLY when the above VERY REAL discrepancy is presented to you?
At least When I don't like what Labor are doing I say so, it just happens that I agree with a lot of it.



[/quote]

rubbish. the budget is NOT Labors election policies unless you want to believe that labor has no new ideas or new plans for the future?

What is Rudd going to do with his campaign speech?  just talk about his trips overseas or how good he is at taking selfies (epic embarrassment!)  This is where policies and plans are announced.  And sitting governments do the same.  Don't you recall Gillard doing this or Howard?

Rudd has NOT made public his election promises or polices and obviously not his costings either.

You are happy to vote on the devil you know?  I expected more critical assessment than that from you.  Rudd - the epic failure in any and every policy.  Rudd the overspender on just about everything and now we have Rudd - the one with no new ideas.

and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote???

Karnal wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:01pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Tony's stuffed then Quote: The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments. It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion. It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money. [quote]By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor. It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super. [quote]In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion, yet its proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion. That is a big hole to fill. http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFzaG1tCd1L

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist?  you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott.  as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any? 

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY.[/quote]

I could equally ask when you became a Lib apologist, but that's all in the past.

We all know THERE AREN'T ANY Liberal election promises or policies. Smithy's post exposes Abbott's position entirely: vote Coalition and the deficit will be in a worst state than it is today. It has to be - the numbers don't add up. They're billions out.

The Libs are stalling, pretending they have a team of accountants working around the clock to get us the numbers before election day.

They don't, and they won't. Abbott and Hockey have no experience managing a budget, and are in exactly the same position as Labor with falling revenues. They can only but run a deficit, and when they do they'll simply blame Labor.

The next election is entirely predictable - look at the mess Labor left the economy in: Pink batts, school halls. Only the Libs can be trusted to manage the tough economic times we find ourselves in thanks to Labor's mismanagement, etc, etc, etc.

This is why the Libs won't release their costings. They don't add up, they won't add up, and they'll simply blame Labor when they're inevitably in the red.

And this is GOOD economic management?
[/quote]


hey, you cant have it both ways.  You are saying the coalitions numbers don't add up and then complain that they haven't released their numbers.  You need to find a consistent theme there.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:20pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:09pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending. What's tony going to cut? dunno.  but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote? :D. So labor offers cuts.  Liberals refuse to support.  Offer nothing in return. And don't tell us anything.  But you claim they will do more cuts and will have a better budget outcome.  You really have become a complete fool whilst following the wankjob and his merrry band of morons.  The tea party consists of people with more reality than you.

I think you could make a case that Abbott couldn't possibly manage things worse than Rudd.  After all Rudd has presided over the biggest debt, the worst 6 deficits and the largest number of epic policy failures EVER.  Abbott however has served in australias most successful govt.

I think without any other details - such as policy and costings - (which we don't have from either side), Abbott is clearly the better choice. Abbott might not have any runs on the board but Rudd is out for a duck as well as running out his partner.  why do you want to give him another innings?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:29pm:

and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote???

No I do not

I wanted to vote for Gillard

Someone who truly gave a sh!t about Australia, not just Corporate Australia.

Frankly if I'm honest my ballot will read bugger you, & I'll vote Pirate Party in the Senate just to niggle you ;)

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:34pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:20pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:09pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending. What's tony going to cut? dunno.  but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote? :D. So labor offers cuts.  Liberals refuse to support.  Offer nothing in return. And don't tell us anything.  But you claim they will do more cuts and will have a better budget outcome.  You really have become a complete fool whilst following the wankjob and his merrry band of morons.  The tea party consists of people with more reality than you. I think you could make a case that Abbott couldn't possibly manage things worse than Rudd.  After all Rudd has presided over the biggest debt, the worst 6 deficits and the largest number of epic policy failures EVER.  Abbott however has served in australias most successful govt. I think without any other details - such as policy and costings - (which we don't have from either side), Abbott is clearly the better choice. Abbott might not have any runs on the board but Rudd is out for a duck as well as running out his partner.  why do you want to give him another innings?

rudds a proven loser, I don't back losers

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending. What's tony going to cut? dunno.  but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote?

If you 'dunno'... how can you say it will be more than Rudds? Your really are an idiot .... 

Still blowing smoke out of your arse I see Longy ....

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:31pm:

Karnal wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:14pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:01pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Tony's stuffed then Quote: The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments. It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion. It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money. [quote]By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor. It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super. [quote]In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion, yet its proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion. That is a big hole to fill. http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFzaG1tCd1L when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist?  you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott.  as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any?  Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY.

I could equally ask when you became a Lib apologist, but that's all in the past.

We all know THERE AREN'T ANY Liberal election promises or policies. Smithy's post exposes Abbott's position entirely: vote Coalition and the deficit will be in a worst state than it is today. It has to be - the numbers don't add up. They're billions out.

The Libs are stalling, pretending they have a team of accountants working around the clock to get us the numbers before election day.

They don't, and they won't. Abbott and Hockey have no experience managing a budget, and are in exactly the same position as Labor with falling revenues. They can only but run a deficit, and when they do they'll simply blame Labor.

The next election is entirely predictable - look at the mess Labor left the economy in: Pink batts, school halls. Only the Libs can be trusted to manage the tough economic times we find ourselves in thanks to Labor's mismanagement, etc, etc, etc.

This is why the Libs won't release their costings. They don't add up, they won't add up, and they'll simply blame Labor when they're inevitably in the red.

And this is GOOD economic management?
[/quote]


hey, you cant have it both ways.  You are saying the coalitions numbers don't add up and then complain that they haven't released their numbers.  You need to find a consistent theme there.

[/quote]

Their policies and tax cuts don't add up.

Would you like to avoid this topic in the interest of a poorer Australia with a higher deficit? You've been complaining about Labor spending for 6 years.

Many economists will tell you that there are times when governments should run deficits.

In light of the GFC, and the subsequent end to the resources boom, the economy needs the government to run a surplus.

Australia has done fairly well under Labor in a difficult global environment:

OECD Public Debt 2012

http://www.factsfightback.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/banner-750x380-debt-oecd1-470x260.png

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:29pm: and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote??? No I do not I wanted to vote for Gillard Someone who truly gave a sh!t about Australia, not just Corporate Australia. Frankly if I'm honest my ballot will read bugger you, & I'll vote Pirate Party in the Senate just to niggle you ;)

On the assumption that you are male I question how you think Gillard cared about you?  Towards the end she made it very clear that she hates men and will promote women above men at any opportunity.  I think you are one of the very few with a penis that thinks Gillard was governing for them.  Vote pirate party if you want.  It will end up with Labor anyhow.

John Smith wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:09pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending. What's tony going to cut? dunno.  but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote? If you 'dunno'... how can you say it will be more than Rudds? Your really are an idiot ....  Still blowing smoke out of your arse I see Longy ....

that comprehension problem of yours really does mess you around.  why can you not understand the implicit argument here?  Why do you have to be so continually and so obviously DENSE.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:34pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:20pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:09pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending. What's tony going to cut? dunno.  but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote? :D. So labor offers cuts.  Liberals refuse to support.  Offer nothing in return. And don't tell us anything.  But you claim they will do more cuts and will have a better budget outcome.  You really have become a complete fool whilst following the wankjob and his merrry band of morons.  The tea party consists of people with more reality than you. I think you could make a case that Abbott couldn't possibly manage things worse than Rudd.  After all Rudd has presided over the biggest debt, the worst 6 deficits and the largest number of epic policy failures EVER.  Abbott however has served in australias most successful govt. I think without any other details - such as policy and costings - (which we don't have from either side), Abbott is clearly the better choice. Abbott might not have any runs on the board but Rudd is out for a duck as well as running out his partner.  why do you want to give him another innings?

Delusion thy name is longie, Australia's tea party leader. 

The government had had deficit and a current debt.  Tony claims its too much and would cut and return to surplus.  It's a simple question: what are the cut?  He refuses to support any and announce any.  Are we to believe a man without any idea will do a good job?  Maybe it's a daddy moment?

Great to see our political debate constantly bogged down in the minutiae of economic management, gambling on predictions made in a fundamentally unpredictable world. The truth of the matter is, both parties are out of their depth and the Australian economy has been swept up in global events.

The tragedy of it is that many voters will actually believe the Liberals can balance the budget, when the whole thing is starting to snowball out of control. So it comes down to the sort of political ideology and tone you want to set for the future, when the sh!t really starts to hit the fan and we are having emergency powers delegated to the government of the day when austerity/crisis hits and the real belt tighening and soul searching begins.

As far as the average battler is concerned, Labor will be the lesser of the two evils in this scenario.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 7:31pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:34pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:20pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:09pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending. What's tony going to cut? dunno.  but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote? :D. So labor offers cuts.  Liberals refuse to support.  Offer nothing in return. And don't tell us anything.  But you claim they will do more cuts and will have a better budget outcome.  You really have become a complete fool whilst following the wankjob and his merrry band of morons.  The tea party consists of people with more reality than you. I think you could make a case that Abbott couldn't possibly manage things worse than Rudd.  After all Rudd has presided over the biggest debt, the worst 6 deficits and the largest number of epic policy failures EVER.  Abbott however has served in australias most successful govt. I think without any other details - such as policy and costings - (which we don't have from either side), Abbott is clearly the better choice. Abbott might not have any runs on the board but Rudd is out for a duck as well as running out his partner.  why do you want to give him another innings? Delusion thy name is longie, Australia's tea party leader.  The government had had deficit and a current debt.  Tony claims its too much and would cut and return to surplus.  It's a simple question: what are the cut?  He refuses to support any and announce any.  Are we to believe a man without any idea will do a good job?  Maybe it's a daddy moment?

Let's imagine for a moment that I am in the inner circle of the budget oommittee in liberal HQ....

nah... how about.. I DONT KNOW.  which doesn't mean THEY don't know. 

Tell you what. When Kev the Cheat gives us his costings for his policies then we ill argue bout this. until then, you are just being hypocritical in demanding of one side what you don't demand from the other.

Imagine? Is that what you want us to.do?

My advice is to mistrust both of them. Don’t imagine anything. Longy just wants you to vote Liberal so they’ll shaft you, just like Labor. Only they’ll blame Labor for it.

And Longy will keep on pretending.

THEY don’t know? They only have the biggest accounting firm in Australia working for them.

Prepare for 3 years of being shafted, leftards.

Karnal wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:46pm:

Imagine? Is that what you want us to.do? My advice is to mistrust both of them. Don’t imagine anything. Longy just wants you to vote Liberal so they’ll shaft you, just like Labor. Only they’ll blame Labor for it. And Longy will keep on pretending. Prepare for 3 years of being shafted, leftards.

To be fair, imagining is how longie lives.  A true tea party man.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 8:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 7:31pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:34pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:20pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:09pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending. What's tony going to cut? dunno.  but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote? :D. So labor offers cuts.  Liberals refuse to support.  Offer nothing in return. And don't tell us anything.  But you claim they will do more cuts and will have a better budget outcome.  You really have become a complete fool whilst following the wankjob and his merrry band of morons.  The tea party consists of people with more reality than you. I think you could make a case that Abbott couldn't possibly manage things worse than Rudd.  After all Rudd has presided over the biggest debt, the worst 6 deficits and the largest number of epic policy failures EVER.  Abbott however has served in australias most successful govt. I think without any other details - such as policy and costings - (which we don't have from either side), Abbott is clearly the better choice. Abbott might not have any runs on the board but Rudd is out for a duck as well as running out his partner.  why do you want to give him another innings? Delusion thy name is longie, Australia's tea party leader.  The government had had deficit and a current debt.  Tony claims its too much and would cut and return to surplus.  It's a simple question: what are the cut?  He refuses to support any and announce any.  Are we to believe a man without any idea will do a good job?  Maybe it's a daddy moment? Let's imagine for a moment that I am in the inner circle of the budget oommittee in liberal HQ.... nah... how about.. I DONT KNOW.  which doesn't mean THEY don't know.  Tell you what. When Kev the Cheat gives us his costings for his policies then we ill argue bout this. until then, you are just being hypocritical in demanding of one side what you don't demand from the other.

Labor costings?  The budget is right there for you to look at :)

Now when will daddy moment release his costings for his ready plans?  It's all ready!  Why is he holding out?

Less imaging mr teaman :) more reality.  Your daddy moment wankjob has no idea.  Just daddy moments.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 5:01pm:

John Smith wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 2:03pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:09pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:05pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:18pm: To quote Alan Kohler... "Australian national government is currently running at a $30 billion loss because the average annual growth in revenue fell from 7.4 per cent in the decade to 2007 to 4 per cent over the following six years, while spending growth kicked up from an average of 6.2 to 8 per cent a year." The drop in revenue excuse is false.  The rate of increase in Revenue has slowed but only to the extent that it is lower than the time of the mining boom.  Responsible govt would have factored in reduced revenue.  Treasury were stupid enough to continue to predict pre-GFC revenues to continue but a clever Treasurer would have known to downgrade their estimates.  But in an environment of reducing revenues what does Labor do?  Increase the rate of spending growth by 20%. the fundamental problem with Labors budget is simple: bad forecasting, too much spending. What's tony going to cut? dunno.  but it will be more than Rudd cuts because Labor are incapable of doing that or did you not read the quote? If you 'dunno'... how can you say it will be more than Rudds? Your really are an idiot ....  Still blowing smoke out of your arse I see Longy .... that comprehension problem of yours really does mess you around.  why can you not understand the implicit argument here?  Why do you have to be so continually and so obviously DENSE.

you realise that claiming others don't understand, every time they call you on some dumb comment you've made, is not an argument don't you?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 1:01pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Tony's stuffed then Quote: The Coalition says it will forgo what the PEFO estimates as at least $9.6 billion of carbon revenue and $3.7 billion of mining tax revenue, as well as $1.8 billion of fringe benefits tax (FBT) on cars, while keeping $4 billion a year of personal tax cuts and welfare payments. It is also now going to match Labor on school funding, having previously argued it would save $3.2 billion over four years by not doing so, and will fund a paid parental leave scheme it costed last election at $4.5 billion. It says it will cut company tax at a cost of $5 billion a year. It has pledged infrastructure spending of $17 billion without saying how much is new money. [quote]By comparison, the Coalition’s proposed savings look anaemic: a $1 billion saving from “red tape”; $500 million a year from cutting the humanitarian migration intake. It says it will reap $1.8 billion from an extra efficiency dividend on a public service already facing big cuts under Labor. It says it will save $1.1 billion from not continuing an income supplement and $1 billion a year from ending the low-income super contribution. It says it will save $1.1 billion from 2016-17 by delaying increased compulsory super. [quote]In short, its commitments add up to well in excess of $40 billion, yet its proposed savings, on the kindest of estimates, would be lucky to amount to $15 billion. That is a big hole to fill.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/pefo_asks_the_question_no_one_wants_U4wrjntGIVyGFzaG1tCd1L[/quote]

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist?  you've throw away any semblance of being a credible critic since you ONLY attack Abbott.  as if Rudd hasn't got 500 targets painted on him and you cant find any? 

Why not complain about Labors election promises and policies or rather the fact that THERE ARENT ANY. Stop expecting Abbott to do something you don't expect Labor to do.[/quote]

when did you turn into a regurgitating labor apologist?  you've throw away any semblance of being a credible

You seem to say something similar to anyone who clearly shows something to be true that you don't like.

True Colours wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 2:07pm:

Many economists will tell you that there are times when governments should run deficits. In light of the GFC, and the subsequent end to the resources boom, the economy needs the government to run a surplus. Australia has done fairly well under Labor in a difficult global environment: OECD Public Debt 2012 http://www.factsfightback.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/banner-750x380-debt-oecd1-470x260.png

It says quite a bit about Longy's argument that he won't/can't answer the logic of such a simple & accurate statement, instead he does a Maqqa & avoids the real substantive discussions!

The fact is that in the Real world, Economics has had a time & a place for both Deficits, Stimilus & much more.

Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world, it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus".

But now, it is even more complicated than usual, because now  there are 3 unique factors influencing events & even the Economic standards used by Austrian & Keynesian Economics are now likely to fail!

Not that Longy &/or Maqqa have idea about what is happening, but they are in good company, because neither does the Liberal or Labor party's!

When it comes to current Economics both Longy & Maqqa, truly have NFI!!!

The answer is very simple the Labor government is spending more than it is raising. 
There is no revenue shortfall... in comparison to the Howard Government the Labor Government is pulling in more revenue.
However it is spending much more than the revenue it is raising.

http://barnabyisright.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/bq-q4decaaalegc.jpg

Grendel wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 10:35pm:

The answer is very simple the Labor government is spending more than it is raising.  There is no revenue shortfall... in comparison to the Howard Government the Labor Government is pulling in more revenue. However it is spending much more than the revenue it is raising. http://barnabyisright.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/bq-q4decaaalegc.jpg

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
pointless, labor supporters simply do not understand the meaning of wreckless spending.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 5:00pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:29pm: and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote??? No I do not I wanted to vote for Gillard Someone who truly gave a sh!t about Australia, not just Corporate Australia. Frankly if I'm honest my ballot will read bugger you, & I'll vote Pirate Party in the Senate just to niggle you ;) On the assumption that you are male I question how you think Gillard cared about you?  Towards the end she made it very clear that she hates men and will promote women above men at any opportunity.  I think you are one of the very few with a penis that thinks Gillard was governing for them.  Vote pirate party if you want.  It will end up with Labor anyhow.

Possibly the weakest & most stupid argument I've seen you post.
But the party officials must think it gets traction.
May well do with idiots.

Does NDIS only apply to women?
Does "Better Schools" as Rudds renamed it to take credit only apply to daughters?

You will NEVER see policies like the above ever again from either side, social policies designed with making a better quality of life at the fore front instead of turning a profit.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 5:00pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:29pm: and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote??? No I do not I wanted to vote for Gillard Someone who truly gave a sh!t about Australia, not just Corporate Australia. Frankly if I'm honest my ballot will read bugger you, & I'll vote Pirate Party in the Senate just to niggle you ;) On the assumption that you are male I question how you think Gillard cared about you?  Towards the end she made it very clear that she hates men and will promote women above men at any opportunity.  I think you are one of the very few with a penis that thinks Gillard was governing for them.  Vote pirate party if you want.  It will end up with Labor anyhow. Possibly the weakest & most stupid argument I've seen you post. But the party officials must think it gets traction. May well do with idiots. Does NDIS only apply to women? Does "Better Schools" as Rudds renamed it to take credit only apply to daughters? You will NEVER see policies like the above ever again from either side, social policies designed with making a better quality of life at the fore front instead of turning a profit.

if you want to believe Gillard wasn't a man-hater especially towards the end, then go for it.  You will be in a very small minority.  That last pitiful speech of hers which literally erased 25% of labors male vote was the final straw for caucus. It was exceedingly obvious what she thinks of men.  Ironically the most sexist leader in the house was Gillard.

BTW Gillard openly opposed a move to assist BOYS in school with their educational difficulties.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:51am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 8:40am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 5:00pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:29pm: and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote??? No I do not I wanted to vote for Gillard Someone who truly gave a sh!t about Australia, not just Corporate Australia. Frankly if I'm honest my ballot will read bugger you, & I'll vote Pirate Party in the Senate just to niggle you ;) On the assumption that you are male I question how you think Gillard cared about you?  Towards the end she made it very clear that she hates men and will promote women above men at any opportunity.  I think you are one of the very few with a penis that thinks Gillard was governing for them.  Vote pirate party if you want.  It will end up with Labor anyhow. Possibly the weakest & most stupid argument I've seen you post. But the party officials must think it gets traction. May well do with idiots. Does NDIS only apply to women? Does "Better Schools" as Rudds renamed it to take credit only apply to daughters? You will NEVER see policies like the above ever again from either side, social policies designed with making a better quality of life at the fore front instead of turning a profit. if you want to believe Gillard wasn't a man-hater especially towards the end, then go for it.  You will be in a very small minority.  That last pitiful speech of hers which literally erased 25% of labors male vote was the final straw for caucus. It was exceedingly obvious what she thinks of men.  Ironically the most sexist leader in the house was Gillard. BTW Gillard openly opposed a move to assist BOYS in school with their educational difficulties.

More delusion from the teaman.  Gillards speech points to the fact that the major economic decisions in a tony government will all be made by men, who ironically seem to be wearing blue ties ALL THE TIME. 

And she's not the one who thinks "sex appeal" is a virtue of a good woman politician. It's okay though... It was a daddy moment.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 5:00pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:29pm: and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote??? No I do not I wanted to vote for Gillard Someone who truly gave a sh!t about Australia, not just Corporate Australia. Frankly if I'm honest my ballot will read bugger you, & I'll vote Pirate Party in the Senate just to niggle you ;) On the assumption that you are male I question how you think Gillard cared about you?  Towards the end she made it very clear that she hates men and will promote women above men at any opportunity.  I think you are one of the very few with a penis that thinks Gillard was governing for them.  Vote pirate party if you want.  It will end up with Labor anyhow. Possibly the weakest & most stupid argument I've seen you post. But the party officials must think it gets traction. May well do with idiots. Does NDIS only apply to women? Does "Better Schools" as Rudds renamed it to take credit only apply to daughters? You will NEVER see policies like the above ever again from either side, social policies designed with making a better quality of life at the fore front instead of turning a profit.

Oh, I wouldn't go that far, I've seen Longy say some VERY stupid things!

He even seems to "think" that governments must always be in Surplus, contrary to most Economists & the vast reality of history, which says that isn't so!

Then, he refuses to discuss this or any other issue, where someone makes sense AND disagrees with Longy, HEAVEN FORBID!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 11:46am:

Oh, I wouldn't go that far, I've seen Longy say some VERY stupid things!

I'll second that!!!!

How long will the Libbos take to pay off Labor's debt?

I estimate 15 years.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 11:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 8:51am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 8:40am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 5:00pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:29pm: and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote??? No I do not I wanted to vote for Gillard Someone who truly gave a sh!t about Australia, not just Corporate Australia. Frankly if I'm honest my ballot will read bugger you, & I'll vote Pirate Party in the Senate just to niggle you ;) On the assumption that you are male I question how you think Gillard cared about you?  Towards the end she made it very clear that she hates men and will promote women above men at any opportunity.  I think you are one of the very few with a penis that thinks Gillard was governing for them.  Vote pirate party if you want.  It will end up with Labor anyhow. Possibly the weakest & most stupid argument I've seen you post. But the party officials must think it gets traction. May well do with idiots. Does NDIS only apply to women? Does "Better Schools" as Rudds renamed it to take credit only apply to daughters? You will NEVER see policies like the above ever again from either side, social policies designed with making a better quality of life at the fore front instead of turning a profit. if you want to believe Gillard wasn't a man-hater especially towards the end, then go for it.  You will be in a very small minority.  That last pitiful speech of hers which literally erased 25% of labors male vote was the final straw for caucus. It was exceedingly obvious what she thinks of men.  Ironically the most sexist leader in the house was Gillard. BTW Gillard openly opposed a move to assist BOYS in school with their educational difficulties. More delusion from the teaman.  Gillards speech points to the fact that the major economic decisions in a tony government will all be made by men, who ironically seem to be wearing blue ties ALL THE TIME.  And she's not the one who thinks "sex appeal" is a virtue of a good woman politician. It's okay though... It was a daddy moment.

you can think that all you like  but very few others do.  In fact, 25% of male labor voters abandoned her in the week following that speech and saw labor's support plunge to 29%.  That obvious sexism and man-hating is what caused the party to dump her.

This is why the question of Tim is asked - because Gillard so obviously hates men.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 12:45pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:29am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 8:51am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 8:40am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 5:00pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:29pm: and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote??? No I do not I wanted to vote for Gillard Someone who truly gave a sh!t about Australia, not just Corporate Australia. Frankly if I'm honest my ballot will read bugger you, & I'll vote Pirate Party in the Senate just to niggle you ;) On the assumption that you are male I question how you think Gillard cared about you?  Towards the end she made it very clear that she hates men and will promote women above men at any opportunity.  I think you are one of the very few with a penis that thinks Gillard was governing for them.  Vote pirate party if you want.  It will end up with Labor anyhow. Possibly the weakest & most stupid argument I've seen you post. But the party officials must think it gets traction. May well do with idiots. Does NDIS only apply to women? Does "Better Schools" as Rudds renamed it to take credit only apply to daughters? You will NEVER see policies like the above ever again from either side, social policies designed with making a better quality of life at the fore front instead of turning a profit. if you want to believe Gillard wasn't a man-hater especially towards the end, then go for it.  You will be in a very small minority.  That last pitiful speech of hers which literally erased 25% of labors male vote was the final straw for caucus. It was exceedingly obvious what she thinks of men.  Ironically the most sexist leader in the house was Gillard. BTW Gillard openly opposed a move to assist BOYS in school with their educational difficulties. More delusion from the teaman.  Gillards speech points to the fact that the major economic decisions in a tony government will all be made by men, who ironically seem to be wearing blue ties ALL THE TIME.  And she's not the one who thinks "sex appeal" is a virtue of a good woman politician. It's okay though... It was a daddy moment. you can think that all you like  but very few others do.  In fact, 25% of male labor voters abandoned her in the week following that speech and saw labor's support plunge to 29%.  That obvious sexism and man-hating is what caused the party to dump her. This is why the question of Tim is asked - because Gillard so obviously hates men.

No.  It was asked because the loonies have just become loonier.  No other explanation for it.

And gillard made a very common sense statement. 3 men.  All blue ties because PETA thinks it makes them look moderate.   All relatively dumb, and not because they are men by because they are just dumb.  Wail about debt and deficit and instead have no approach to cut spending.  What would you call it?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 1:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:45pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:29am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 8:51am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 8:40am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 5:00pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 1:29pm: and you want to give this vacuous hole your vote??? No I do not I wanted to vote for Gillard Someone who truly gave a sh!t about Australia, not just Corporate Australia. Frankly if I'm honest my ballot will read bugger you, & I'll vote Pirate Party in the Senate just to niggle you ;) On the assumption that you are male I question how you think Gillard cared about you?  Towards the end she made it very clear that she hates men and will promote women above men at any opportunity.  I think you are one of the very few with a penis that thinks Gillard was governing for them.  Vote pirate party if you want.  It will end up with Labor anyhow. Possibly the weakest & most stupid argument I've seen you post. But the party officials must think it gets traction. May well do with idiots. Does NDIS only apply to women? Does "Better Schools" as Rudds renamed it to take credit only apply to daughters? You will NEVER see policies like the above ever again from either side, social policies designed with making a better quality of life at the fore front instead of turning a profit. if you want to believe Gillard wasn't a man-hater especially towards the end, then go for it.  You will be in a very small minority.  That last pitiful speech of hers which literally erased 25% of labors male vote was the final straw for caucus. It was exceedingly obvious what she thinks of men.  Ironically the most sexist leader in the house was Gillard. BTW Gillard openly opposed a move to assist BOYS in school with their educational difficulties. More delusion from the teaman.  Gillards speech points to the fact that the major economic decisions in a tony government will all be made by men, who ironically seem to be wearing blue ties ALL THE TIME.  And she's not the one who thinks "sex appeal" is a virtue of a good woman politician. It's okay though... It was a daddy moment. you can think that all you like  but very few others do.  In fact, 25% of male labor voters abandoned her in the week following that speech and saw labor's support plunge to 29%.  That obvious sexism and man-hating is what caused the party to dump her. This is why the question of Tim is asked - because Gillard so obviously hates men. No.  It was asked because the loonies have just become loonier.  No other explanation for it. And gillard made a very common sense statement. 3 men.  All blue ties because PETA thinks it makes them look moderate.   All relatively dumb, and not because they are men by because they are just dumb.  Wail about debt and deficit and instead have no approach to cut spending.  What would you call it?

The MEN of the ALP were pretty unimpressed and a lot of them wear blue ties.  Do you even know why???  because they are the best tie for photos in newspapers (red turns black) and for tv.  it is that simple.

it was Gillards self-destruction moment - blaming all men for all ills and destroying her own career as a result.

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 14^th, 2013 at 10:19pm:

True Colours wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 2:07pm: Many economists will tell you that there are times when governments should run deficits. In light of the GFC, and the subsequent end to the resources boom, the economy needs the government to run a surplus. Australia has done fairly well under Labor in a difficult global environment: OECD Public Debt 2012 http://www.factsfightback.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/banner-750x380-debt-oecd1-470x260.png It says quite a bit about Longy's argument that he won't/can't answer the logic of such a simple & accurate statement, instead he does a Maqqa & avoids the real substantive discussions! The fact is that in the Real world, Economics has had a time & a place for both Deficits, Stimilus & much more. Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world, it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus". But now, it is even more complicated than usual, because now  there are 3 unique factors influencing events & even the Economic standards used by Austrian & Keynesian Economics are now likely to fail! Not that Longy &/or Maqqa have idea about what is happening, but they are in good company, because neither does the Liberal or Labor party's! When it comes to current Economics both Longy & Maqqa, truly have NFI!!!

As I have said previously, Longy &  Maqqa are both into SPIN, BUT both avoid the real substantive discussions, particularly on -
1) Global Economics & how that affects OZ!
2) The current, major drivers of Local & Global Economics and how they affect OZ!
3) The REALITIES of Economics in general, including how & why Austrian & Keynesian Economics have combined together in the past.
Why? Because both truly have NFI, when it comes to the Realities of Global &or Local Economics!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 5:26pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 10:19pm: True Colours wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 2:07pm: Many economists will tell you that there are times when governments should run deficits. In light of the GFC, and the subsequent end to the resources boom, the economy needs the government to run a surplus. Australia has done fairly well under Labor in a difficult global environment: OECD Public Debt 2012 http://www.factsfightback.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/banner-750x380-debt-oecd1-470x260.png It says quite a bit about Longy's argument that he won't/can't answer the logic of such a simple & accurate statement, instead he does a Maqqa & avoids the real substantive discussions! The fact is that in the Real world, Economics has had a time & a place for both Deficits, Stimilus & much more. Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world, it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus". But now, it is even more complicated than usual, because now  there are 3 unique factors influencing events & even the Economic standards used by Austrian & Keynesian Economics are now likely to fail! Not that Longy &/or Maqqa have idea about what is happening, but they are in good company, because neither does the Liberal or Labor party's! When it comes to current Economics both Longy & Maqqa, truly have NFI!!! As I have said previously, Longy &  Maqqa are both into SPIN, BUT both avoid the real substantive discussions, particularly on - 1) Global Economics & how that affects OZ! 2) The current, major drivers of Local & Global Economics and how they affect OZ! 3) The REALITIES of Economics in general, including how & why Austrian & Keynesian Economics have combined together in the past. Why? Because both truly have NFI, when it comes to the Realities of Global &or Local Economics!

and while you endlessly wank on about such facts as running out of oil in 1985 your only commentary is to criticise and then offer zero solutions beyond voting out every Mp every time.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 5:29pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:26pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 10:19pm: True Colours wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 2:07pm: Many economists will tell you that there are times when governments should run deficits. In light of the GFC, and the subsequent end to the resources boom, the economy needs the government to run a surplus. Australia has done fairly well under Labor in a difficult global environment: OECD Public Debt 2012 http://www.factsfightback.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/banner-750x380-debt-oecd1-470x260.png It says quite a bit about Longy's argument that he won't/can't answer the logic of such a simple & accurate statement, instead he does a Maqqa & avoids the real substantive discussions! The fact is that in the Real world, Economics has had a time & a place for both Deficits, Stimilus & much more. Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world, it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus". But now, it is even more complicated than usual, because now  there are 3 unique factors influencing events & even the Economic standards used by Austrian & Keynesian Economics are now likely to fail! Not that Longy &/or Maqqa have idea about what is happening, but they are in good company, because neither does the Liberal or Labor party's! When it comes to current Economics both Longy & Maqqa, truly have NFI!!! As I have said previously, Longy &  Maqqa are both into SPIN, BUT both avoid the real substantive discussions, particularly on - 1) Global Economics & how that affects OZ! 2) The current, major drivers of Local & Global Economics and how they affect OZ! 3) The REALITIES of Economics in general, including how & why Austrian & Keynesian Economics have combined together in the past. Why? Because both truly have NFI, when it comes to the Realities of Global &or Local Economics! and while you endlessly wank on about such facts as running out of oil in 1985 your only commentary is to criticise and then offer zero solutions beyond voting out every Mp every time.

As usual, YOU ARE INCORRECT!
You fail miserably, because you incessantly fail the 4R's!

Oh, but you MAY be improving, "just a tiny bit", because you have picked up "my vote out every incumbent edict", as that may be the only way of getting the establishments attention!

Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!   

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 6:39pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:29pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:26pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 10:19pm: True Colours wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 2:07pm: Many economists will tell you that there are times when governments should run deficits. In light of the GFC, and the subsequent end to the resources boom, the economy needs the government to run a surplus. Australia has done fairly well under Labor in a difficult global environment: OECD Public Debt 2012 http://www.factsfightback.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/banner-750x380-debt-oecd1-470x260.png It says quite a bit about Longy's argument that he won't/can't answer the logic of such a simple & accurate statement, instead he does a Maqqa & avoids the real substantive discussions! The fact is that in the Real world, Economics has had a time & a place for both Deficits, Stimilus & much more. Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world, it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus". But now, it is even more complicated than usual, because now  there are 3 unique factors influencing events & even the Economic standards used by Austrian & Keynesian Economics are now likely to fail! Not that Longy &/or Maqqa have idea about what is happening, but they are in good company, because neither does the Liberal or Labor party's! When it comes to current Economics both Longy & Maqqa, truly have NFI!!! As I have said previously, Longy &  Maqqa are both into SPIN, BUT both avoid the real substantive discussions, particularly on - 1) Global Economics & how that affects OZ! 2) The current, major drivers of Local & Global Economics and how they affect OZ! 3) The REALITIES of Economics in general, including how & why Austrian & Keynesian Economics have combined together in the past. Why? Because both truly have NFI, when it comes to the Realities of Global &or Local Economics! and while you endlessly wank on about such facts as running out of oil in 1985 your only commentary is to criticise and then offer zero solutions beyond voting out every Mp every time. As usual, YOU ARE INCORRECT! You fail miserably, because you incessantly fail the 4R's! Oh, but you MAY be improving, "just a tiny bit", because you have picked up "my vote out every incumbent edict", as that may be the only way of getting the establishments attention! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!

And where are your ideas??  oh of course... you don't have any beyond this idiotic notion that cabinet should be composed entirely of people who a month ago were teachers, gardeners and union reps.  No experience in parliament itself nevermind managing the largest corporation in the country.

so why not actually give us your IDEAS instead of your antiquated and contractirory garbage.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:29pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:26pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 10:19pm: True Colours wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 2:07pm: Many economists will tell you that there are times when governments should run deficits. In light of the GFC, and the subsequent end to the resources boom, the economy needs the government to run a surplus. Australia has done fairly well under Labor in a difficult global environment: OECD Public Debt 2012 http://www.factsfightback.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/banner-750x380-debt-oecd1-470x260.png It says quite a bit about Longy's argument that he won't/can't answer the logic of such a simple & accurate statement, instead he does a Maqqa & avoids the real substantive discussions! The fact is that in the Real world, Economics has had a time & a place for both Deficits, Stimilus & much more. Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world, it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus". But now, it is even more complicated than usual, because now  there are 3 unique factors influencing events & even the Economic standards used by Austrian & Keynesian Economics are now likely to fail! Not that Longy &/or Maqqa have idea about what is happening, but they are in good company, because neither does the Liberal or Labor party's! When it comes to current Economics both Longy & Maqqa, truly have NFI!!! As I have said previously, Longy &  Maqqa are both into SPIN, BUT both avoid the real substantive discussions, particularly on - 1) Global Economics & how that affects OZ! 2) The current, major drivers of Local & Global Economics and how they affect OZ! 3) The REALITIES of Economics in general, including how & why Austrian & Keynesian Economics have combined together in the past. Why? Because both truly have NFI, when it comes to the Realities of Global &or Local Economics! and while you endlessly wank on about such facts as running out of oil in 1985 your only commentary is to criticise and then offer zero solutions beyond voting out every Mp every time. As usual, YOU ARE INCORRECT! You fail miserably, because you incessantly fail the 4R's! Oh, but you MAY be improving, "just a tiny bit", because you have picked up "my vote out every incumbent edict", as that may be the only way of getting the establishments attention! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!    And where are your ideas??  oh of course... you don't have any beyond this idiotic notion that cabinet should be composed entirely of people who a month ago were teachers, gardeners and union reps.  No experience in parliament itself nevermind managing the largest corporation in the country. so why not actually give us your IDEAS instead of your antiquated and contractirory garbage.

I have frequently & repeatedly put my ideas in writing, following are some examples -
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375798381/42#42
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376185892/all
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376351268/7#7

You may have read them & more, but it wouldn't make much difference, your 4R's a just not that flash!

Oh & as I have said many times, the re-instating of the status quo (that you are wanting) simply isn't about to happen!
This time, everyone will have to bear their fair share of the pain, because Pollies (of all description) got it so wrong, over the last 50-60 years!! 
However, I have no doubt there will be too many others, like you, who will try to avoid their fair share of the pain, so our problems will be deeper & last longer than they should!!!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:47pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:39pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:29pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 5:26pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 10:19pm: True Colours wrote on Aug 14th, 2013 at 2:07pm: Many economists will tell you that there are times when governments should run deficits. In light of the GFC, and the subsequent end to the resources boom, the economy needs the government to run a surplus. Australia has done fairly well under Labor in a difficult global environment: OECD Public Debt 2012 http://www.factsfightback.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/banner-750x380-debt-oecd1-470x260.png It says quite a bit about Longy's argument that he won't/can't answer the logic of such a simple & accurate statement, instead he does a Maqqa & avoids the real substantive discussions! The fact is that in the Real world, Economics has had a time & a place for both Deficits, Stimilus & much more. Normally, in modern Economics, it is a complicated world, it is certainly not as simple as "you must always run at a Budget Surplus". But now, it is even more complicated than usual, because now  there are 3 unique factors influencing events & even the Economic standards used by Austrian & Keynesian Economics are now likely to fail! Not that Longy &/or Maqqa have idea about what is happening, but they are in good company, because neither does the Liberal or Labor party's! When it comes to current Economics both Longy & Maqqa, truly have NFI!!! As I have said previously, Longy &  Maqqa are both into SPIN, BUT both avoid the real substantive discussions, particularly on - 1) Global Economics & how that affects OZ! 2) The current, major drivers of Local & Global Economics and how they affect OZ! 3) The REALITIES of Economics in general, including how & why Austrian & Keynesian Economics have combined together in the past. Why? Because both truly have NFI, when it comes to the Realities of Global &or Local Economics! and while you endlessly wank on about such facts as running out of oil in 1985 your only commentary is to criticise and then offer zero solutions beyond voting out every Mp every time. As usual, YOU ARE INCORRECT! You fail miserably, because you incessantly fail the 4R's! Oh, but you MAY be improving, "just a tiny bit", because you have picked up "my vote out every incumbent edict", as that may be the only way of getting the establishments attention! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!    And where are your ideas??  oh of course... you don't have any beyond this idiotic notion that cabinet should be composed entirely of people who a month ago were teachers, gardeners and union reps.  No experience in parliament itself nevermind managing the largest corporation in the country. so why not actually give us your IDEAS instead of your antiquated and contractirory garbage. I have frequently & repeatedly put my ideas in writing, following are some examples - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375798381/42#42 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376185892/all http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376351268/7#7 You may have read them & more, but it wouldn't make much difference, your 4R's a just not that flash! Oh & as I have said many times, the re-instating of the status quo (that you are wanting) simply isn't about to happen! This time, everyone will have to bear their fair share of the pain, because Pollies (of all description) got it so wrong, over the last 50-60 years!!  However, I have no doubt there will be too many others, like you, who will try to avoid their fair share of the pain, so our problems will be deeper & last longer than they should!!!

you have a truly odd and bizarre concept of 'ideas'.  You don't actually propose alternative polices at all.  I am sure that deep within the morass inside your head you THINK you are promoting alternative policies but they don't actually make it to the keyboard.  Nowhere in your ravings where you lamblast every current version of economic policy do you actually come up with any ACTUAL POLICIES.

you need help - at least in how to write.

Does Abbott practice what he preaches?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ABtlI2Wk3Ws

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

How long will the Libbos take to pay off Labor's debt? I estimate 15 years.

so you actually know how much we are in debt.... care to share?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:45am:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:47pm: And where are your ideas??  oh of course... you don't have any beyond this idiotic notion that cabinet should be composed entirely of people who a month ago were teachers, gardeners and union reps.  No experience in parliament itself nevermind managing the largest corporation in the country. so why not actually give us your IDEAS instead of your antiquated and contractirory garbage. I have frequently & repeatedly put my ideas in writing, following are some examples - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375798381/42#42 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376185892/all http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376351268/7#7 You may have read them & more, but it wouldn't make much difference, your 4R's a just not that flash! Oh & as I have said many times, the re-instating of the status quo (that you are wanting) simply isn't about to happen! This time, everyone will have to bear their fair share of the pain, because Pollies (of all description) got it so wrong, over the last 50-60 years!!  However, I have no doubt there will be too many others, like you, who will try to avoid their fair share of the pain, so our problems will be deeper & last longer than they should!!! you have a truly odd and bizarre concept of 'ideas'.  You don't actually propose alternative polices at all.  I am sure that deep within the morass inside your head you THINK you are promoting alternative policies but they don't actually make it to the keyboard.  Nowhere in your ravings where you lamblast every current version of economic policy do you actually come up with any ACTUAL POLICIES. you need help - at least in how to write.

1) You're still stuck in SPIN MODE Longy & you still haven't addressed the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE issues behind the Global & Local Economic collapse!
2) YOU are still pretending that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally. You refer to the Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007. However, you disregard the facts that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND you disregard history which says that Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era! 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt
3) The fundamental problem/s facing Australia is NOT SIMPLE, as you suggest & not just bad forecasting, as you suggest, although clearly forecasting is & has been a problem for quite some time, for both Labor & Liberal thus creating a gross under-estimation of the problems we now face!
4) Your solution, as usual, is simply retsoring the OZ Economy to what it was.
THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN! IN FACT, IT CAN NOT HAPPEN, because a number of major Economic drivers have changed direction (over time - 50-60 years) and all political party's & Treasury have done what you are doing, ignoring the problems, in hope they will magically disappear.
BUT, THEY WILL NOT, THEY CAN NOT & WE ARE NOW FACED WITH A LONG TERM SYSTEMIC SLOWDOWN, WHICH IS NOW UNAVOIDABLE!

The best we can try for now, is to avoid the worst outcomes, by everyone taking their fair share of pain & by getting stuck into some of the areas I have previously referred to, those being -
a) A concentration on Productivity & I would start with reducing government by one entire level, that being Local Councils & a complete review of Government, including ALL Taxes & All Expenditures!
b) However, this will require great care on specifics, NOT AN ACROSS THE BOARD AUSTERITY DRIVE, WHICH WOULD SIMPLY DRIVE THE ECONOMY FURTHER SOUTH!
c) The thing that neither YOU NOR MAQQA seem capable of comprenhending is ALL ACTIONS & INACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES and your simple SPIN WILL NOT SOLVE ANYTHING!

THE REAL LOCAL & GLOBAL ECONOMIC DRIVERS ARE NOW -
1) DEMOGRAPHICS
2) ENERGY (LACK OF SUPPLY TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND & RISING PRICES)
3) CLIMATE CHANGE

THE ABOVE ARE BASIC ECONOMIC CAUSES, EVERYTHING ELSE ARE EFFECTS, WHICH FLOW FROM THOSE CAUSES!

You, Maqqa & others, MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE, but THEY ARE NOW THE REALITIES OF GLOBAL ECONOMICS & THEY ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE, NOT FOR QUITE SOME TIME!!!

I suggest YOU get used to this new REALITY & stop dreaming of what used to be, Mr Longy Van Winkle! 
 

sh1t perc give it a rest.. the GFC wasnt our problem remember??? until the left made it our problem...its done its dusted.. for gods sake give it a rest.you are getting as bad as all the rest it all comes back to putting down the messenger...and the name calling....boring and childish.. if you are such a wow as an economist why dont you go and work for rudd I think he could use you.you are wasted on here obviously.

cods wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 11:53am:

sh1t perc give it a rest.. the GFC wasnt our problem remember??? until the left made it our problem...its done its dusted.. for gods sake give it a rest.you are getting as bad as all the rest it all comes back to putting down the messenger...and the name calling....boring and childish.. if you are such a wow as an economist why dont you go and work for rudd I think he could use you.you are wasted on here obviously.

thommo

Bobby. wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 12:21pm:

How long will the Libbos take to pay off Labor's debt? I estimate 15 years.

LOL

Reminds me of when Jeff Kennett was running for premier, and it was being claimed that it would take 100 years to pay off Victoria's debt.

The debt actually rose during the first few years of Kennet's premiership. The debt was paid off within a decade - and last part of the debt was actually repaid under the Labor Government of Steve Bracks.

The state remained virtually debt free for Brack's entire premiership.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/ScreenHunter_02-Nov.-30-22.04.gif

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 11:43am:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:45am: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:47pm: And where are your ideas??  oh of course... you don't have any beyond this idiotic notion that cabinet should be composed entirely of people who a month ago were teachers, gardeners and union reps.  No experience in parliament itself nevermind managing the largest corporation in the country. so why not actually give us your IDEAS instead of your antiquated and contractirory garbage. I have frequently & repeatedly put my ideas in writing, following are some examples - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375798381/42#42 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376185892/all http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376351268/7#7 You may have read them & more, but it wouldn't make much difference, your 4R's a just not that flash! Oh & as I have said many times, the re-instating of the status quo (that you are wanting) simply isn't about to happen! This time, everyone will have to bear their fair share of the pain, because Pollies (of all description) got it so wrong, over the last 50-60 years!!  However, I have no doubt there will be too many others, like you, who will try to avoid their fair share of the pain, so our problems will be deeper & last longer than they should!!! you have a truly odd and bizarre concept of 'ideas'.  You don't actually propose alternative polices at all.  I am sure that deep within the morass inside your head you THINK you are promoting alternative policies but they don't actually make it to the keyboard.  Nowhere in your ravings where you lamblast every current version of economic policy do you actually come up with any ACTUAL POLICIES. you need help - at least in how to write. 1) You're still stuck in SPIN MODE Longy & you still haven't addressed the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE issues behind the Global & Local Economic collapse! 2) YOU are still pretending that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally. You refer to the Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007. However, you disregard the facts that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND you disregard history which says that Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt 3) The fundamental problem/s facing Australia is NOT SIMPLE, as you suggest & not just bad forecasting, as you suggest, although clearly forecasting is & has been a problem for quite some time, for both Labor & Liberal thus creating a gross under-estimation of the problems we now face! 4) Your solution, as usual, is simply retsoring the OZ Economy to what it was. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN! IN FACT, IT CAN NOT HAPPEN, because a number of major Economic drivers have changed direction (over time - 50-60 years) and all political party's & Treasury have done what you are doing, ignoring the problems, in hope they will magically disappear. BUT, THEY WILL NOT, THEY CAN NOT & WE ARE NOW FACED WITH A LONG TERM SYSTEMIC SLOWDOWN, WHICH IS NOW UNAVOIDABLE! The best we can try for now, is to avoid the worst outcomes, by everyone taking their fair share of pain & by getting stuck into some of the areas I have previously referred to, those being - a) A concentration on Productivity & I would start with reducing government by one entire level, that being Local Councils & a complete review of Government, including ALL Taxes & All Expenditures! b) However, this will require great care on specifics, NOT AN ACROSS THE BOARD AUSTERITY DRIVE, WHICH WOULD SIMPLY DRIVE THE ECONOMY FURTHER SOUTH! c) The thing that neither YOU NOR MAQQA seem capable of comprenhending is ALL ACTIONS & INACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES and your simple SPIN WILL NOT SOLVE ANYTHING! THE REAL LOCAL & GLOBAL ECONOMIC DRIVERS ARE NOW - 1) DEMOGRAPHICS 2) ENERGY (LACK OF SUPPLY TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND & RISING PRICES) 3) CLIMATE CHANGE THE ABOVE ARE BASIC ECONOMIC CAUSES, EVERYTHING ELSE ARE EFFECTS, WHICH FLOW FROM THOSE CAUSES! You, Maqqa & others, MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE, but THEY ARE NOW THE REALITIES OF GLOBAL ECONOMICS & THEY ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE, NOT FOR QUITE SOME TIME!!! I suggest YOU get used to this new REALITY & stop dreaming of what used to be, Mr Longy Van Winkle!

and where in this the 964th retelling of the same thing is YOUR SOLUTIONS?    You keep claiming to have them so where are they?

cods wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 11:53am:

sh1t perc give it a rest.. the GFC wasnt our problem remember??? until the left made it our problem...its done its dusted.. for gods sake give it a rest.you are getting as bad as all the rest it all comes back to putting down the messenger...and the name calling....boring and childish.. if you are such a wow as an economist why dont you go and work for rudd I think he could use you.you are wasted on here obviously.

When you say "our problem" Cods, it seems you are saying "the Liberal party" didn't have a hand in where we now find ourselves?
However, as I have said previously, whilst the Liberal party did bring down OZ Debt during the Howard years, they did so, with the assistance of the biggest Global Boom of the modern era & frankly whilst they did a better job than many Politicians overseas, they should have & could have, done much better, as should the Labor party over the last 50-60 years!

Unfortunately Cods, IT (the GFC) IS NOT DONE & DUSTED, the GFC still has a long way to run.
Oh & I am not, putting down the messenger, nor am I name calling except for a select few who deserve what they get, because they hand it out first and even then, I am quite restrained!

Boring & childish? Yes, quite a bit of the Political banter is that!
No, I will not go to work for Rudd, Abbott nor any Political party, as they are now a large part of the problem, they are clearly nothing to do with any solutions!

Btw, I hope you got a little info on your Debt enquiry, from the following site I posted in my earlier reply to Longy -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 12:19pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 11:43am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:45am: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:47pm: And where are your ideas??  oh of course... you don't have any beyond this idiotic notion that cabinet should be composed entirely of people who a month ago were teachers, gardeners and union reps.  No experience in parliament itself nevermind managing the largest corporation in the country. so why not actually give us your IDEAS instead of your antiquated and contractirory garbage. I have frequently & repeatedly put my ideas in writing, following are some examples - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375798381/42#42 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376185892/all http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376351268/7#7 You may have read them & more, but it wouldn't make much difference, your 4R's a just not that flash! Oh & as I have said many times, the re-instating of the status quo (that you are wanting) simply isn't about to happen! This time, everyone will have to bear their fair share of the pain, because Pollies (of all description) got it so wrong, over the last 50-60 years!!  However, I have no doubt there will be too many others, like you, who will try to avoid their fair share of the pain, so our problems will be deeper & last longer than they should!!! you have a truly odd and bizarre concept of 'ideas'.  You don't actually propose alternative polices at all.  I am sure that deep within the morass inside your head you THINK you are promoting alternative policies but they don't actually make it to the keyboard.  Nowhere in your ravings where you lamblast every current version of economic policy do you actually come up with any ACTUAL POLICIES. you need help - at least in how to write. 1) You're still stuck in SPIN MODE Longy & you still haven't addressed the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE issues behind the Global & Local Economic collapse! 2) YOU are still pretending that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally. You refer to the Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007. However, you disregard the facts that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND you disregard history which says that Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt 3) The fundamental problem/s facing Australia is NOT SIMPLE, as you suggest & not just bad forecasting, as you suggest, although clearly forecasting is & has been a problem for quite some time, for both Labor & Liberal thus creating a gross under-estimation of the problems we now face! 4) Your solution, as usual, is simply retsoring the OZ Economy to what it was. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN! IN FACT, IT CAN NOT HAPPEN, because a number of major Economic drivers have changed direction (over time - 50-60 years) and all political party's & Treasury have done what you are doing, ignoring the problems, in hope they will magically disappear. BUT, THEY WILL NOT, THEY CAN NOT & WE ARE NOW FACED WITH A LONG TERM SYSTEMIC SLOWDOWN, WHICH IS NOW UNAVOIDABLE! The best we can try for now, is to avoid the worst outcomes, by everyone taking their fair share of pain & by getting stuck into some of the areas I have previously referred to, those being - a) A concentration on Productivity & I would start with reducing government by one entire level, that being Local Councils & a complete review of Government, including ALL Taxes & All Expenditures! b) However, this will require great care on specifics, NOT AN ACROSS THE BOARD AUSTERITY DRIVE, WHICH WOULD SIMPLY DRIVE THE ECONOMY FURTHER SOUTH! c) The thing that neither YOU NOR MAQQA seem capable of comprenhending is ALL ACTIONS & INACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES and your simple SPIN WILL NOT SOLVE ANYTHING! THE REAL LOCAL & GLOBAL ECONOMIC DRIVERS ARE NOW - 1) DEMOGRAPHICS 2) ENERGY (LACK OF SUPPLY TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND & RISING PRICES) 3) CLIMATE CHANGE THE ABOVE ARE BASIC ECONOMIC CAUSES, EVERYTHING ELSE ARE EFFECTS, WHICH FLOW FROM THOSE CAUSES! You, Maqqa & others, MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE, but THEY ARE NOW THE REALITIES OF GLOBAL ECONOMICS & THEY ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE, NOT FOR QUITE SOME TIME!!! I suggest YOU get used to this new REALITY & stop dreaming of what used to be, Mr Longy Van Winkle!    and where in this the 964th retelling of the same thing is YOUR SOLUTIONS?    You keep claiming to have them so where are they?

You truly are 4R's inhibited, Longy!!!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 12:22pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 12:19pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 11:43am: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:45am: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:07pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:47pm: And where are your ideas??  oh of course... you don't have any beyond this idiotic notion that cabinet should be composed entirely of people who a month ago were teachers, gardeners and union reps.  No experience in parliament itself nevermind managing the largest corporation in the country. so why not actually give us your IDEAS instead of your antiquated and contractirory garbage. I have frequently & repeatedly put my ideas in writing, following are some examples - http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1375798381/42#42 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376185892/all http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1376351268/7#7 You may have read them & more, but it wouldn't make much difference, your 4R's a just not that flash! Oh & as I have said many times, the re-instating of the status quo (that you are wanting) simply isn't about to happen! This time, everyone will have to bear their fair share of the pain, because Pollies (of all description) got it so wrong, over the last 50-60 years!!  However, I have no doubt there will be too many others, like you, who will try to avoid their fair share of the pain, so our problems will be deeper & last longer than they should!!! you have a truly odd and bizarre concept of 'ideas'.  You don't actually propose alternative polices at all.  I am sure that deep within the morass inside your head you THINK you are promoting alternative policies but they don't actually make it to the keyboard.  Nowhere in your ravings where you lamblast every current version of economic policy do you actually come up with any ACTUAL POLICIES. you need help - at least in how to write. 1) You're still stuck in SPIN MODE Longy & you still haven't addressed the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE issues behind the Global & Local Economic collapse! 2) YOU are still pretending that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally. You refer to the Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007. However, you disregard the facts that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND you disregard history which says that Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era!  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_public_debt 3) The fundamental problem/s facing Australia is NOT SIMPLE, as you suggest & not just bad forecasting, as you suggest, although clearly forecasting is & has been a problem for quite some time, for both Labor & Liberal thus creating a gross under-estimation of the problems we now face! 4) Your solution, as usual, is simply retsoring the OZ Economy to what it was. THAT WILL NOT HAPPEN! IN FACT, IT CAN NOT HAPPEN, because a number of major Economic drivers have changed direction (over time - 50-60 years) and all political party's & Treasury have done what you are doing, ignoring the problems, in hope they will magically disappear. BUT, THEY WILL NOT, THEY CAN NOT & WE ARE NOW FACED WITH A LONG TERM SYSTEMIC SLOWDOWN, WHICH IS NOW UNAVOIDABLE! The best we can try for now, is to avoid the worst outcomes, by everyone taking their fair share of pain & by getting stuck into some of the areas I have previously referred to, those being - a) A concentration on Productivity & I would start with reducing government by one entire level, that being Local Councils & a complete review of Government, including ALL Taxes & All Expenditures! b) However, this will require great care on specifics, NOT AN ACROSS THE BOARD AUSTERITY DRIVE, WHICH WOULD SIMPLY DRIVE THE ECONOMY FURTHER SOUTH! c) The thing that neither YOU NOR MAQQA seem capable of comprenhending is ALL ACTIONS & INACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES and your simple SPIN WILL NOT SOLVE ANYTHING! THE REAL LOCAL & GLOBAL ECONOMIC DRIVERS ARE NOW - 1) DEMOGRAPHICS 2) ENERGY (LACK OF SUPPLY TO KEEP UP WITH DEMAND & RISING PRICES) 3) CLIMATE CHANGE THE ABOVE ARE BASIC ECONOMIC CAUSES, EVERYTHING ELSE ARE EFFECTS, WHICH FLOW FROM THOSE CAUSES! You, Maqqa & others, MAY OR MAY NOT AGREE, but THEY ARE NOW THE REALITIES OF GLOBAL ECONOMICS & THEY ARE NOT GOING ANYWHERE, NOT FOR QUITE SOME TIME!!! I suggest YOU get used to this new REALITY & stop dreaming of what used to be, Mr Longy Van Winkle!    and where in this the 964th retelling of the same thing is YOUR SOLUTIONS?    You keep claiming to have them so where are they? You truly are 4R's inhibited, Longy!!!

so list them all here, right now. Actual suggestions and solution.  No one else has been able to find them in your scribbling's.  so there is your challenge.  speak to us oh economic oracle and give us your wisdom.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 12:42pm:

so list them all here, right now. Actual suggestions and solution.  No one else has been able to find them in your scribbling's.  so there is your challenge.  speak to us oh economic oracle and give us your wisdom.

Aw, I'm sorry Longy, I over-estimated  your capacity?

Your not just truly 4R's inhibited, you are BIG TIME 4R'S INHIBITED!

The total sum of your -
Reading
wRiting
aRithmetic
& compRehension
is ZERO!

Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 12:42pm: so list them all here, right now. Actual suggestions and solution.  No one else has been able to find them in your scribbling's.  so there is your challenge.  speak to us oh economic oracle and give us your wisdom. Aw, I'm sorry Longy, I over-estimated  your capacity? Your not just truly 4R's inhibited, you are BIG TIME 4R'S INHIBITED! The total sum of your - Reading wRiting aRithmetic & compRehension is ZERO! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!

and still no answers.  still no ideas.  still no suggestions.

where are they depression_now?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 1:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 12:42pm: so list them all here, right now. Actual suggestions and solution.  No one else has been able to find them in your scribbling's.  so there is your challenge.  speak to us oh economic oracle and give us your wisdom. Aw, I'm sorry Longy, I over-estimated  your capacity? Your not just truly 4R's inhibited, you are BIG TIME 4R'S INHIBITED! The total sum of your - Reading wRiting aRithmetic & compRehension is ZERO! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening! and still no answers.  still no ideas.  still no suggestions. where are they depression_now?

There's already MUCH MORE there than YOU can absorb, with your very limited 4R's capacity!

Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!  

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 3:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:12pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 1:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 12:42pm: so list them all here, right now. Actual suggestions and solution.  No one else has been able to find them in your scribbling's.  so there is your challenge.  speak to us oh economic oracle and give us your wisdom. Aw, I'm sorry Longy, I over-estimated  your capacity? Your not just truly 4R's inhibited, you are BIG TIME 4R'S INHIBITED! The total sum of your - Reading wRiting aRithmetic & compRehension is ZERO! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening! and still no answers.  still no ideas.  still no suggestions. where are they depression_now? There's already MUCH MORE there than YOU can absorb, with your very limited 4R's capacity! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!

well you are the one, pinhead, claiming such insight and knowledge so where are your solutions?

of course... wankers of your limited breeding and education can only COMPLAIN.  you never have any actual IDEAS.

you are an empty windbag. no ideas, no thoughts, no use.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 5:22pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:38pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:12pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 1:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 12:42pm: so list them all here, right now. Actual suggestions and solution.  No one else has been able to find them in your scribbling's.  so there is your challenge.  speak to us oh economic oracle and give us your wisdom. Aw, I'm sorry Longy, I over-estimated  your capacity? Your not just truly 4R's inhibited, you are BIG TIME 4R'S INHIBITED! The total sum of your - Reading wRiting aRithmetic & compRehension is ZERO! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening! and still no answers.  still no ideas.  still no suggestions. where are they depression_now? There's already MUCH MORE there than YOU can absorb, with your very limited 4R's capacity! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!   well you are the one, pinhead, claiming such insight and knowledge so where are your solutions? of course... wankers of your limited breeding and education can only COMPLAIN.  you never have any actual IDEAS. you are an empty windbag. no ideas, no thoughts, no use.

As I said -
1) I have already put up, it is your very limited 4R's capacity that is YOUR PROBLEM!
2) You still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!   
3) SPIN & CALLING PEOPLE NAMES WON'T SOLVE ANYTHING LONGY, YOU MAY TRY DEALING WITH REALITY SOMETIME & you MAY start to get some insights?

For example, why do you pretend that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally. You refer to the Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007. However, you disregard the facts that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND you disregard history which says that Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era!

Reality Longy, when are you going to start living in it, instead of the past & your own head space?

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 6:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:22pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:38pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:12pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 1:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 12:42pm: so list them all here, right now. Actual suggestions and solution.  No one else has been able to find them in your scribbling's.  so there is your challenge.  speak to us oh economic oracle and give us your wisdom. Aw, I'm sorry Longy, I over-estimated  your capacity? Your not just truly 4R's inhibited, you are BIG TIME 4R'S INHIBITED! The total sum of your - Reading wRiting aRithmetic & compRehension is ZERO! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening! and still no answers.  still no ideas.  still no suggestions. where are they depression_now? There's already MUCH MORE there than YOU can absorb, with your very limited 4R's capacity! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!   well you are the one, pinhead, claiming such insight and knowledge so where are your solutions? of course... wankers of your limited breeding and education can only COMPLAIN.  you never have any actual IDEAS. you are an empty windbag. no ideas, no thoughts, no use. As I said - 1) I have already put up, it is your very limited 4R's capacity that is YOUR PROBLEM! 2) You still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!    3) SPIN & CALLING PEOPLE NAMES WON'T SOLVE ANYTHING LONGY, YOU MAY TRY DEALING WITH REALITY SOMETIME & you MAY start to get some insights? For example, why do you pretend that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally. You refer to the Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007. However, you disregard the facts that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND you disregard history which says that Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era! Reality Longy, when are you going to start living in it, instead of the past & your own head space?

I don't know if you are obtuse, stubborn or both.  You are a bit like FD has become.  Make a lot of claims and thenb support none of them.

You are an economic dinosaur with a prescription for Prozac.  your could depress a lottery winner.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 6:24pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 6:14pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 5:22pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:38pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 3:12pm: perceptions_now wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 1:46pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 12:42pm: so list them all here, right now. Actual suggestions and solution.  No one else has been able to find them in your scribbling's.  so there is your challenge.  speak to us oh economic oracle and give us your wisdom. Aw, I'm sorry Longy, I over-estimated  your capacity? Your not just truly 4R's inhibited, you are BIG TIME 4R'S INHIBITED! The total sum of your - Reading wRiting aRithmetic & compRehension is ZERO! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening! and still no answers.  still no ideas.  still no suggestions. where are they depression_now? There's already MUCH MORE there than YOU can absorb, with your very limited 4R's capacity! Oh & btw, you still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!   well you are the one, pinhead, claiming such insight and knowledge so where are your solutions? of course... wankers of your limited breeding and education can only COMPLAIN.  you never have any actual IDEAS. you are an empty windbag. no ideas, no thoughts, no use. As I said - 1) I have already put up, it is your very limited 4R's capacity that is YOUR PROBLEM! 2) You still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!    3) SPIN & CALLING PEOPLE NAMES WON'T SOLVE ANYTHING LONGY, YOU MAY TRY DEALING WITH REALITY SOMETIME & you MAY start to get some insights? For example, why do you pretend that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally. You refer to the Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007. However, you disregard the facts that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND you disregard history which says that Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era! Reality Longy, when are you going to start living in it, instead of the past & your own head space? I don't know if you are obtuse, stubborn or both.  You are a bit like FD has become.  Make a lot of claims and thenb support none of them. You are an economic dinosaur with a prescription for Prozac.  your could depress a lottery winner.

As I said -
1) I have already put up, it is your very limited 4R's capacity that is YOUR PROBLEM!
2) You still haven't answered any of the REAL & SUBSTANTIVE Economic issues, BUT that's not unusual, because you have NFI what is actually happening!   
3) SPIN & CALLING PEOPLE NAMES WON'T SOLVE ANYTHING LONGY, YOU MAY TRY DEALING WITH REALITY SOMETIME & you MAY start to get some insights?

Specifically, why do you pretend that Surpluses are the norm, when they are very clearly the exception, both in OZ & Globally. You refer to the Liberal history of Surpluses, which the Libs did have during the Howard era from 1995-2007. However, you disregard the facts that the 1995-2007 period co-incided with the greatest Global Economic boom of any era, as it was also the Peak Baby Boomer years AND you disregard history which says that Debt & Deficits are part of the usual role of government & have been in most countries (as can be seen at the following website), for most of the modern era!