Just a bit of a reminder of the debt situation that John Howard rid us of and Rudd/Gillard brought back with a vengeance.

---

Tony is now leader of the labor party?

As sloppy and monkey said, we will deliver a surplus in our first year, nek minute, another 10 billion , oh dear longy, epic fail

Longy, how long before the idiots start taking responsibility for the economy? They are incompetent and have not got a clue but they said they had all the answers. If they were still bumbling along in ten years time with australia a third world country you would be still defending them. Tony was pretty good as an opposition leader only because labor were self destructing but he is not a PM's ars......hole.

If you look at the beginning of the chart the first thing you see is a Liberal debt followed by Consecutive surpluses during the Whitlam era which immediately went back into debt during the Fraser years.

Yes we had a downturn in the 2008/ 9 / 10 years corresponding to the GFC.

Interesting is that we still see debt going backwards and expected to continue deteriorating under the Abbott Government.

We see that in 2011/12 it went from 9.9% GDP to 2012/13 10% GDP. (Latest Labor data - solid)

Then 2013/14 to 12.5% GDP  (libs poor result)

And then a projection for 2014/15 of 14.9% GDP. (projected Libs worse result)

The chart clearly demonstrates both a history of increased debt under the Liberals and specifically a worsening position under the Abbott Government.

In fact the whole chart shows the only good performance by the conservatives was the Howard years supported by the best world economic growth period in over a century and yet we now know in retrospect admittedly that they stuffed it up and left the economy damaged and vulnerable.

You assertions are completely shot down by your own data.

Quote:

It wouldn't be Labor if we weren't in debt...

Yep, they should just change their name to the Visa-card Party  :D

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:24pm:

If you look at the beginning of the chart the first thing you see is a Liberal debt followed by Consecutive surpluses during the Whitlam era which immediately went back into debt during the Fraser years. Yes we had a downturn in the 2008/ 9 / 10 years corresponding to the GFC. Interesting is that we still see debt going backwards and expected to continue deteriorating under the Abbott Government. We see that in 2011/12 it went from 9.9% GDP to 2012/13 10% GDP. (Latest Labor data - solid) Then 2013/14 to 12.5% GDP  (libs poor result) And then a projection for 2014/15 of 14.9% GDP. (projected Libs worse result) The chart clearly demonstrates both a history of increased debt under the Liberals and specifically a worsening position under the Abbott Government. In fact the whole chart shows the only good performance by the conservatives was the Howard years supported by the best world economic growth period in over a century and yet we now know in retrospect admittedly that they stuffed it up and left the economy damaged and vulnerable. You assertions are completely shot down by your own data.

Rubbish Hockey promised a surplus in his first year, let's ignore the fact he said Swan was right when he said we had a revenue problem , labor had 6 years to reverse Howard's pork barreling , what we got was an advertising campaign from the big miners to ensure the MRRT was buried and ultimately Rudds demise, then we had carbon pricing that was working on a financial level with 4.5 billion worth of new projects in the pipeline under Labor, then we got abort with 3 word slogans without substance , the infrastructure PM , promising the world and delivering an atlas, with no new revenue streams, except the ones he abolished , anyone see the problem here  ::)

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:24pm:

If you look at the beginning of the chart the first thing you see is a Liberal debt followed by Consecutive surpluses during the Whitlam era which immediately went back into debt during the Fraser years. Yes we had a downturn in the 2008/ 9 / 10 years corresponding to the GFC. Interesting is that we still see debt going backwards and expected to continue deteriorating under the Abbott Government. We see that in 2011/12 it went from 9.9% GDP to 2012/13 10% GDP. (Latest Labor data - solid) Then 2013/14 to 12.5% GDP  (libs poor result) And then a projection for 2014/15 of 14.9% GDP. (projected Libs worse result) The chart clearly demonstrates both a history of increased debt under the Liberals and specifically a worsening position under the Abbott Government. In fact the whole chart shows the only good performance by the conservatives was the Howard years supported by the best world economic growth period in over a century and yet we now know in retrospect admittedly that they stuffed it up and left the economy damaged and vulnerable. You assertions are completely shot down by your own data.

an unsurprisingly, not  a SINGLE mention of the 12year Howard govt.  And Whitlam increased govt spending by 40% in ONE YEAR and naturally increased taxes to boot.

missed that. did you?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:24pm:

If you look at the beginning of the chart the first thing you see is a Liberal debt followed by Consecutive surpluses during the Whitlam era which immediately went back into debt during the Fraser years. Yes we had a downturn in the 2008/ 9 / 10 years corresponding to the GFC. Interesting is that we still see debt going backwards and expected to continue deteriorating under the Abbott Government. We see that in 2011/12 it went from 9.9% GDP to 2012/13 10% GDP. (Latest Labor data - solid) Then 2013/14 to 12.5% GDP  (libs poor result) And then a projection for 2014/15 of 14.9% GDP. (projected Libs worse result) The chart clearly demonstrates both a history of increased debt under the Liberals and specifically a worsening position under the Abbott Government. In fact the whole chart shows the only good performance by the conservatives was the Howard years supported by the best world economic growth period in over a century and yet we now know in retrospect admittedly that they stuffed it up and left the economy damaged and vulnerable. You assertions are completely shot down by your own data.

good grief.  how dumb can you be?  much of that year Labor was in govt and ALL Of that year was a labor budget.  Look at Howards results in his first fiscal year.  Debt rose slightly. why?  because turning around a massive budget doesn't happen overnight.  Or do you want to blame your beloved keating for the appalling 83-85 results?

one swallow does not a summer make

you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight.

Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D

I'm pretty sure the 2nd last paragraph talks about Howard

John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:52pm:

one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D

he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:53pm:

I'm pretty sure the 2nd last paragraph talks about Howard

correct.  However, he is happy to give credit to the world economy rather than howard but in the 70s he is happy to blame howard rather than recognising the world-wide extended recession and stagflation.

at some point you have to choose a consistent position.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:52pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:24pm: If you look at the beginning of the chart the first thing you see is a Liberal debt followed by Consecutive surpluses during the Whitlam era which immediately went back into debt during the Fraser years. Yes we had a downturn in the 2008/ 9 / 10 years corresponding to the GFC. Interesting is that we still see debt going backwards and expected to continue deteriorating under the Abbott Government. We see that in 2011/12 it went from 9.9% GDP to 2012/13 10% GDP. (Latest Labor data - solid) Then 2013/14 to 12.5% GDP  (libs poor result) And then a projection for 2014/15 of 14.9% GDP. (projected Libs worse result) The chart clearly demonstrates both a history of increased debt under the Liberals and specifically a worsening position under the Abbott Government. In fact the whole chart shows the only good performance by the conservatives was the Howard years supported by the best world economic growth period in over a century and yet we now know in retrospect admittedly that they stuffed it up and left the economy damaged and vulnerable. You assertions are completely shot down by your own data. good grief.  how dumb can you be?  much of that year Labor was in govt and ALL Of that year was a labor budget.  Look at Howards results in his first fiscal year.  Debt rose slightly. why?  because turning around a massive budget doesn't happen overnight.  Or do you want to blame your beloved keating for the appalling 83-85 results?

No excuse government full of nothing else.

Nothing but excuses supporters - with an excuse for every failure.

much of that year Labor was in govt and ALL Of that year was a labor budget.


Labor were in power for 3 months. The Liberals had the opportunity to implement a mini budget and chose to refused the opportunity but managed to add dramatically to spending with no savings. i.e. the Liberals significantly blew out the budget with their unfunded spending as is shown in the figures.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:53pm: I'm pretty sure the 2nd last paragraph talks about Howard correct.  However, he is happy to give credit to the world economy rather than howard but in the 70s he is happy to blame howard rather than recognising the world-wide extended recession and stagflation. at some point you have to choose a consistent position.

to blame howard rather than recognising the world-wide extended recession and stagflation.


In that period Australia under performed the world largely due to Howards actions.

The world had recovered and Australia was still floundering with no solution in sight, it took a change of government to solve stagflation in Australia lagging dramatically behind everyone else.

If it wasn't so sad it would have been funny that Howards primary strategy to combat stagflation was to force cheaper employment, he believed he could create a pool of low wage employees by dramatically increasing unemployment for an economic gain.

A pool of cheap labour to supposably squash wage demand.

In the end what he achieved was stagflation plus dramatically higher unemployment.

The solution to fix the problems of treasurer Howard was to replace him with a treasurer named Keating.

Can not help but to notice that you had no problem blaming Swan for the GFC when he clearly out performed most of the world in that period but complain about Treasurer Howard being criticised when he had badly underperformed with the world economic issue of that time. Your hypocrisy is outstanding.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years

he saved $230B

Is that an extra zero or are you counting the money saved that he spent later ?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:46pm:

And Whitlam increased govt spending by 40% in ONE YEAR and naturally increased taxes to boot. missed that. did you?

and naturally increased taxes to boot

Whitlam cut tariffs by 25% in 1973 and reduced income tax in 1975.

What taxes did he increase?

Did you just make up the 40% as well ?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:53pm: I'm pretty sure the 2nd last paragraph talks about Howard correct.  However, he is happy to give credit to the world economy rather than howard but in the 70s he is happy to blame howard rather than recognising the world-wide extended recession and stagflation. at some point you have to choose a consistent position.

Sounds like you're making excuses for the current crop of rabble

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 7:54pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years

230B? really ... where did it all go?

And it wouldn't be Lib/Gnat if we didn't have a recession, rising unemployment, the total absence
of infrastructure or job-creation spending, and absolutely no planning for the future whatsoever.

Labor spends, but builds and creates, benefitting society as a whole, ensuring a bright future
while ensuring that no-one gets left behind or goes without altogether.

Lib/Gnats enforce unnecessary austerity, tear down and destroy, and society as a whole suffers
while an elite parasitic minority steal the cream.

Thus has it always been, thus will it always be.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 8:18pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:55pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:53pm: I'm pretty sure the 2nd last paragraph talks about Howard correct.  However, he is happy to give credit to the world economy rather than howard but in the 70s he is happy to blame howard rather than recognising the world-wide extended recession and stagflation. at some point you have to choose a consistent position. to blame howard rather than recognising the world-wide extended recession and stagflation. In that period Australia under performed the world largely due to Howards actions. The world had recovered and Australia was still floundering with no solution in sight, it took a change of government to solve stagflation in Australia lagging dramatically behind everyone else. If it wasn't so sad it would have been funny that Howards primary strategy to combat stagflation was to force cheaper employment, he believed he could create a pool of low wage employees by dramatically increasing unemployment for an economic gain. A pool of cheap labour to supposably squash wage demand. In the end what he achieved was stagflation plus dramatically higher unemployment. The solution to fix the problems of treasurer Howard was to replace him with a treasurer named Keating. Can not help but to notice that you had no problem blaming Swan for the GFC when he clearly out performed most of the world in that period but complain about Treasurer Howard being criticised when he had badly underperformed with the world economic issue of that time. Your hypocrisy is outstanding.

you and Gullible George are starting to sound the same.  the world economy was booming was it??? it is apparently news to 'the rest of the world'.  The entire world was enduring stagflation and economic difficulty and it was in fact largely corrected due to industrial and labor restructure. And did you forget the save 82/83 recession?  The worst recession in Australias history?  it was GLOBAL.

and lets not forget oil price shock - as apparently you did.

swan was a retarded Treasurer who spent like a dunken sailor.  Howard took 12 years to fill the coffers and Swan spent the entire lot in under a year and then continued to do so.

Do you know the first govt in decades to reduce spending in actual terms was THIS ONE?

John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 9:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go?

seriously???  were you not awake during the 6 year labor spend-a-thon?  All those $50Bpa deficits had to be paid for somehow.... BY BORROWINGS.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 7:51am:

Do you know the first govt in decades to reduce spending in actual terms was THIS ONE?

Yes but is that a good thing or bad.
I suppose that depends on what they reduced spending on.


Quote:

Most people seem unaware that on January 19, the Medicare rebate for a GP consultation lasting 6-10 minutes will fall from $37.05 to $16.95, and then down to $11.95 from July 1. I am a GP. Sometimes I can resolve a patient's problem in less than 10 minutes. This is usually because of the fact that I know a particular patient or family very well, because our practice provides continuity of care, and because we have years of education, experience, and hard work behind us. Occasional shorter consultations provide a much-needed opportunity to reduce the waiting room back-log while still offering high-quality care. Forty per cent of my billings go directly to my practice to cover staff wages and their entitlements, rent, accreditation, supplies, etc. None of these costs will drop despite the rebate falling 54 to 67 per cent over the next six months. This is an intolerable insult to the practice of family medicine. GPs earn considerably less than other medical specialists and yet we are crucial to cost-effective healthcare. It beggars belief that I should use my experience and decision-making capabilities, and expose myself to medico legal risk for $11.95. I cannot do it. And it is unfair to expect families to be able to absorb the huge gap that will be necessary to keep medical practice viable – especially with further reductions for the 10-20 minute consultation planned for July, and the freezing of all these reduced rebates until 2018. Is this really the kind of health care system we want? Dr Jennifer Sterrett Turramurra

Plenty of money for dud planes though

Plenty of money to monitor the media

How much for this increasemypolls jaunt to Iraq


But then again when the poor get sick they deserve it right?

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 7:56am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 7:51am: Do you know the first govt in decades to reduce spending in actual terms was THIS ONE? Yes but is that a good thing or bad. I suppose that depends on what they reduced spending on. Quote: Most people seem unaware that on January 19, the Medicare rebate for a GP consultation lasting 6-10 minutes will fall from $37.05 to $16.95, and then down to $11.95 from July 1. I am a GP. Sometimes I can resolve a patient's problem in less than 10 minutes. This is usually because of the fact that I know a particular patient or family very well, because our practice provides continuity of care, and because we have years of education, experience, and hard work behind us. Occasional shorter consultations provide a much-needed opportunity to reduce the waiting room back-log while still offering high-quality care. Forty per cent of my billings go directly to my practice to cover staff wages and their entitlements, rent, accreditation, supplies, etc. None of these costs will drop despite the rebate falling 54 to 67 per cent over the next six months. This is an intolerable insult to the practice of family medicine. GPs earn considerably less than other medical specialists and yet we are crucial to cost-effective healthcare. It beggars belief that I should use my experience and decision-making capabilities, and expose myself to medico legal risk for $11.95. I cannot do it. And it is unfair to expect families to be able to absorb the huge gap that will be necessary to keep medical practice viable – especially with further reductions for the 10-20 minute consultation planned for July, and the freezing of all these reduced rebates until 2018. Is this really the kind of health care system we want? Dr Jennifer Sterrett Turramurra Plenty of money for dud planes though  chosen and supported by both parties well before Abbott came along. Plenty of money to monitor the media  that was labors doing or did you forget, plus they wanted to censor the media. How much for this increasemypolls jaunt to Iraq   hmmm  How often did Rudd and Gillard do this? But then again when the poor get sick they deserve it right?

Which party increased govt spending on hospitals by NOT ONE DOLLAR while they managed to spend almost $300B on... who knows?


if you want to lay blame, start by laying blame where it is due.  State govts run hospitals and are dreadful at it.  Govts of both persuasions have given increased grants to hospitals only to see no bed increases and instead an increase in bureaucracy instead.  It is just like universities where increasing funding simply increases staff not front-line services.  Rudd found the same thing with his simplistic view on hospital reform.  He quickly found out that hospitals are almost a lost cause because it doesn't matter how much money you throw at them - nothing changes.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 7:52am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 9:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go? seriously???  were you not awake during the 6 year labor spend-a-thon?  All those $50Bpa deficits had to be paid for somehow.... BY BORROWINGS.

so you don't know either ... you should have just said so instead of flopping around like a fish out of water

John Smith wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 8:18am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 7:52am: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 9:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go? seriously???  were you not awake during the 6 year labor spend-a-thon?  All those $50Bpa deficits had to be paid for somehow.... BY BORROWINGS. so you don't know either ... you should have just said so instead of flopping around like a fish out of water

Labor spent $300B beyond the budget in just 6 years.  Where it went is a question a lot of people have asked.  Perhaps you should as well.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 8:21am:

Labor spent $300B beyond the budget in just 6 years

isn't that almost the same as Abbott spent in the last 12 months? :D :D :D :D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

Plenty of money for dud planes though  chosen and supported by both parties well before Abbott came along.

So Abbott cant change government spending decisions?


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

Plenty of money to monitor the media  that was labors doing or did you forget, plus they wanted to censor the media.

But Abbott told us the coalition would not do the same as Labor


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

How much for this increasemypolls jaunt to Iraq   hmmm  How often did Rudd and Gillard do this?

Fair point, I believe all pollies unless actually serving should be banned from warzone photo ops & the nauseating sight of fake grief at soldiers funerals.


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

Which party increased govt spending on hospitals by NOT ONE DOLLAR while they managed to spend almost $300B on... who knows?

So Tony cant?


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 8:08am:

if you want to lay blame, start by laying blame where it is due.  State govts run hospitals and are dreadful at it.

We aren't talking about hospitals (as your well aware but nice try) we are talking about DEFUNDING MEDICARE
by stealth.

For those that missed it


Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 7:56am:

Most people seem unaware that on January 19, the Medicare rebate for a GP consultation lasting 6-10 minutes will fall from $37.05 to $16.95, and then down to $11.95 from July 1.

John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 9:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go?

Batgatte, Julia's school monuments, vote bribes (AKA stimulus-> AKA future income tax increases)  ;D

Swagman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 8:58am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 9:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go? Batgatte, Julia's school monuments, vote bribes (AKA stimulus-> AKA future income tax increases)  ;D

Still no effing clue, I see...  >:(

John Smith wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 9:52pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go?

More to the point is the question of how did they hide it all from the budget process and leave no record of it happening.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 8:29am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: Plenty of money for dud planes though  chosen and supported by both parties well before Abbott came along. So Abbott cant change government spending decisions?  Obviously you've not been keeping up with the senate this last 6 months.  But the planes are a separate issue.  You can think we don't need them but virtually everybody else disagrees.  longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: Plenty of money to monitor the media  that was labors doing or did you forget, plus they wanted to censor the media. But Abbott told us the coalition would not do the same as Labor  and they aren't censoring the media, remember?  nor are they proposing to censor the internet as labor did. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: How much for this increasemypolls jaunt to Iraq   hmmm  How often did Rudd and Gillard do this? Fair point, I believe all pollies unless actually serving should be banned from warzone photo ops & the nauseating sight of fake grief at soldiers funerals.  you can believe all you want but the vast majority would believe they should be present.  as for 'photo ops' that is your impression but given the very few photos of any kidn that have surfaced it was clearly as badly planned 'photo op'.  Perhaps the reasons were in fact, legitimate? longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: Which party increased govt spending on hospitals by NOT ONE DOLLAR while they managed to spend almost $300B on... who knows? So Tony cant?  Spend it from where?  REmember we have a massive deficit budget and a massive debt?  we didn't have that 6 years ago.  The money simply isn't there, like it or not. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: if you want to lay blame, start by laying blame where it is due.  State govts run hospitals and are dreadful at it. For those that missed it Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 7:56am: Most people seem unaware that on January 19, the Medicare rebate for a GP consultation lasting 6-10 minutes will fall from $37.05 to $16.95, and then down to $11.95 from July 1.

We aren't talking about hospitals (as your well aware but nice try) we are talking about DEFUNDING MEDICARE
by stealth.  Your choice of words is surprisingly wrong.  no one is 'de-finding' medicare by REDUDING a medicare payment.  And  in any case, Medicare has never been funded anyhow.  It comes out of general revenue and the medicare levy provides less than 20% of its operating costs.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 9:17am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 9:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go? More to the point is the question of how did they hide it all from the budget process and leave no record of it happening.

hmm... so I guess this is where you go to the dark side and say it didn't happen, right?  Labor in fact reduced spending, borrowed nothing and had surplus budgets? 


LOOK AT THE TREASURY DOCUMENTS.  they spent well in excess of income every single year.  there is the 'record' you insist doesn't exist.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 9:23am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:29am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: Plenty of money for dud planes though  chosen and supported by both parties well before Abbott came along. So Abbott cant change government spending decisions?  Obviously you've not been keeping up with the senate this last 6 months.  But the planes are a separate issue.  You can think we don't need them but virtually everybody else disagrees.  longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: Plenty of money to monitor the media  that was labors doing or did you forget, plus they wanted to censor the media. But Abbott told us the coalition would not do the same as Labor  and they aren't censoring the media, remember?  nor are they proposing to censor the internet as labor did. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: How much for this increasemypolls jaunt to Iraq   hmmm  How often did Rudd and Gillard do this? Fair point, I believe all pollies unless actually serving should be banned from warzone photo ops & the nauseating sight of fake grief at soldiers funerals.  you can believe all you want but the vast majority would believe they should be present.  as for 'photo ops' that is your impression but given the very few photos of any kidn that have surfaced it was clearly as badly planned 'photo op'.  Perhaps the reasons were in fact, legitimate? longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: Which party increased govt spending on hospitals by NOT ONE DOLLAR while they managed to spend almost $300B on... who knows? So Tony cant?  Spend it from where?  REmember we have a massive deficit budget and a massive debt?  we didn't have that 6 years ago.  The money simply isn't there, like it or not. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: if you want to lay blame, start by laying blame where it is due.  State govts run hospitals and are dreadful at it. For those that missed it Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 7:56am: Most people seem unaware that on January 19, the Medicare rebate for a GP consultation lasting 6-10 minutes will fall from $37.05 to $16.95, and then down to $11.95 from July 1. We aren't talking about hospitals (as your well aware but nice try) we are talking about DEFUNDING MEDICARE by stealth.  Your choice of words is surprisingly wrong.  no one is 'de-finding' medicare by REDUDING a medicare payment.  And  in any case, Medicare has never been funded anyhow.  It comes out of general revenue and the medicare levy provides less than 20% of its operating costs.

Whatev's

No matter what Tony chooses to spend or cut you will support even I suspect to your own & your children's detriment.

I don't know if that level of loyalty is to be applauded or pitied. 

:-?

One might term it fanaticism.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 9:26am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:17am: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 9:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go? More to the point is the question of how did they hide it all from the budget process and leave no record of it happening. hmm... so I guess this is where you go to the dark side and say it didn't happen, right?  Labor in fact reduced spending, borrowed nothing and had surplus budgets?  LOOK AT THE TREASURY DOCUMENTS.  they spent well in excess of income every single year.  there is the 'record' you insist doesn't exist.

You really should get that selective comprehension thing looked at.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 9:38am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:23am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:29am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: Plenty of money for dud planes though  chosen and supported by both parties well before Abbott came along. So Abbott cant change government spending decisions?  Obviously you've not been keeping up with the senate this last 6 months.  But the planes are a separate issue.  You can think we don't need them but virtually everybody else disagrees.  longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: Plenty of money to monitor the media  that was labors doing or did you forget, plus they wanted to censor the media. But Abbott told us the coalition would not do the same as Labor  and they aren't censoring the media, remember?  nor are they proposing to censor the internet as labor did. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: How much for this increasemypolls jaunt to Iraq   hmmm  How often did Rudd and Gillard do this? Fair point, I believe all pollies unless actually serving should be banned from warzone photo ops & the nauseating sight of fake grief at soldiers funerals.  you can believe all you want but the vast majority would believe they should be present.  as for 'photo ops' that is your impression but given the very few photos of any kidn that have surfaced it was clearly as badly planned 'photo op'.  Perhaps the reasons were in fact, legitimate? longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: Which party increased govt spending on hospitals by NOT ONE DOLLAR while they managed to spend almost $300B on... who knows? So Tony cant?  Spend it from where?  REmember we have a massive deficit budget and a massive debt?  we didn't have that 6 years ago.  The money simply isn't there, like it or not. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:08am: if you want to lay blame, start by laying blame where it is due.  State govts run hospitals and are dreadful at it. For those that missed it Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 7:56am: Most people seem unaware that on January 19, the Medicare rebate for a GP consultation lasting 6-10 minutes will fall from $37.05 to $16.95, and then down to $11.95 from July 1. We aren't talking about hospitals (as your well aware but nice try) we are talking about DEFUNDING MEDICARE by stealth.  Your choice of words is surprisingly wrong.  no one is 'de-finding' medicare by REDUDING a medicare payment.  And  in any case, Medicare has never been funded anyhow.  It comes out of general revenue and the medicare levy provides less than 20% of its operating costs. Whatev's No matter what Tony chooses to spend or cut you will support even I suspect to your own & your children's detriment. I don't know if that level of loyalty is to be applauded or pitied.  :-? One might term it fanaticism.

or perhaps I am able to understand figures and realities a tad better than you.  In my world of business where I am the owner and any losses are my personal responsibility, I understand very well that if it cant be afforded then it isn't done.  I understand that reducing costs is my PRIMARY responsibility as chief financial officer.  I can have wildly successful courses but if I lose money I am doomed to close.  Abbott understands what few righties do and no lefties do - that spending cannot be below income for very long before serious consequences ensue. 

Dnarever wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 9:47am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:26am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:17am: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 9:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go? More to the point is the question of how did they hide it all from the budget process and leave no record of it happening. hmm... so I guess this is where you go to the dark side and say it didn't happen, right?  Labor in fact reduced spending, borrowed nothing and had surplus budgets?  LOOK AT THE TREASURY DOCUMENTS.  they spent well in excess of income every single year.  there is the 'record' you insist doesn't exist. You really should get that selective comprehension thing looked at.

oh really???  you are the one now suggesting that that near $300B of over-budget expenditure was hidden and has no record.  Would you care to clarify what you meant or are you going to deny that it even happened?

Quote:

or perhaps I am able to understand figures and realities a tad better than you.  In my world of business where I am the owner and any losses are my personal responsibility, I understand very well that if it cant be afforded then it isn't done.  I understand that reducing costs is my PRIMARY responsibility as chief financial officer.  I can have wildly successful courses but if I lose money I am doomed to close.  Abbott understands what few righties do and no lefties do - that spending cannot be below income for very long before serious consequences ensue.

Yes Yes that tried old line of countries are businesses.

Not that its totally wrong, but if we really were a business as soon as someone becomes a liability through birth,illness,accident or age then they would be killed.


No one I know is advocating unfetted spending & debt, I am certainly not, but its the cuts & the areas that they effect that are the problem.

Had Joe said anyone earning over 200K on super investments must pay normal tax rates or something similar(not a pissy 18 month levy) and cut other corporate welfare, for example I think you'd find that other unpalatable measures would have been more widely accepted & they might have actually passed a budget.

But hey keep cheering champ :)

Kat wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 9:12am:

Swagman wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:58am: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 9:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go? Batgatte, Julia's school monuments, vote bribes (AKA stimulus-> AKA future income tax increases)  ;D Still no effing clue, I see...  >:(

Ohhh that's right.....there was NO batgatte, NO Julia's school monuments and NO vote bribes (AKA stimulus-> AKA future income tax increases) in Truebelieverland....?  ::) :D ;D

http://www.emofaces.com/en/smilies/s/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil-smile.gif

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 10:09am:

Quote: or perhaps I am able to understand figures and realities a tad better than you.  In my world of business where I am the owner and any losses are my personal responsibility, I understand very well that if it cant be afforded then it isn't done.  I understand that reducing costs is my PRIMARY responsibility as chief financial officer.  I can have wildly successful courses but if I lose money I am doomed to close.  Abbott understands what few righties do and no lefties do - that spending cannot be below income for very long before serious consequences ensue. Yes Yes that tried old line of countries are businesses. Not that its totally wrong, but if we really were a business as soon as someone becomes a liability through birth,illness,accident or age then they would be killed. No one I know is advocating unfetted spending & debt, I am certainly not, but its the cuts & the areas that they effect that are the problem. Had Joe said anyone earning over 200K on super investments must pay normal tax rates or something similar(not a pissy 18 month levy) and cut other corporate welfare, for example I think you'd find that other unpalatable measures would have been more widely accepted & they might have actually passed a budget. But hey keep cheering champ :)

do you really believe that?  Think about it for a moment.  Abbott put in place an income tax levy for high earners and received not one word of praise from the usual suspects - not one.  Even you are criticising it! And this was something Labor declined to do! If he had cut the tax exemption on high super returns, do you honestly think that this mob would applaud it? labor didnt do it either. All they did was suggest it. And as you claim to manage a business why do you think cutting corporate assistance would help unemployment?

There is no budget, no measure, no policy Abbott could pass that this crowd would applaud. and Labor and PUP would oppose it no matter what.  We already know the Greens would vote against anything.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

Abbott put in place an income tax levy for high earners and received not one word of praise from the usual suspects - not one.  Even you are criticising it!

Because its not permanent, unlike the medicare cuts, unlike the increase to Uni fees, unlike the fact anyone under 25 without work or rich parents must either thieve or starve.


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

this mob would applaud it?

This mob is a bunch of partisan hacks killing time on a political board, hardly a respresentive slice of the electorate.

My point stands & your rebuttal is weak.

Had the pain been spread more evenly & either all temporary or permanent then Tones polls numbers would be better & Joe wouldn't look quite so useless.

Swagman wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 10:15am:

Kat wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:12am: Swagman wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 8:58am: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 9:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go? Batgatte, Julia's school monuments, vote bribes (AKA stimulus-> AKA future income tax increases)  ;D Still no effing clue, I see...  >:( Ohhh that's right.....there was NO batgatte, NO Julia's school monuments and NO vote bribes (AKA stimulus-> AKA future income tax increases) in Truebelieverland....?  ::) :D ;D http://www.emofaces.com/en/smilies/s/see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-speak-no-evil-smile.gif

Correct.

There might yet be hope for you.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

Had the pain been spread more evenly & either all temporary or permanent then Tones polls numbers would be better & Joe would look quite so useless.

You mean how the Debt levy passed but naught else?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 10:28am:

And as you claim to manage a business why do you think cutting corporate assistance would help unemployment?

Why would it increase unemployment?

Peddling more IPA phurfies I see.

No business will employ more people if penalty rates are cut

No business will stop employing people if tax is increased or write offs decreased.

Successful businesses have as many employee's as needed to get the job done.

If I have 6 jobs at 7pm I need 6 drivers regardless of taxes or wage cost, or I refuse bookings or pick 2 to be late arriving, neither option good for my reputation.

Same as any restaurant has as many staff on to provide decent service regardless of cost, they will not put more on if costs are less, why pay someone to stand around for most of their shift believe me I know as I was in that industry for 17 years before this one.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 10:28am: Abbott put in place an income tax levy for high earners and received not one word of praise from the usual suspects - not one.  Even you are criticising it! Because its not permanent, unlike the medicare cuts, unlike the increase to Uni fees, unlike the fact anyone under 25 without work or rich parents must either thieve or starve. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 10:28am: this mob would applaud it? This mob is a bunch of partisan hacks killing time on a political board, hardly a respresentive slice of the electorate. My point stands & your rebuttal is weak. Had the pain been spread more evenly & either all temporary or permanent then Tones polls numbers would be better & Joe wouldn't look quite so useless.

the pain was spread pretty evenly but because everyone measures these things solely by how it affects them they come up with jaundiced opinions.  middle earners have had substantial cuts to welfare payments but that doesn't count, right?

It is the same argument when there are tax cuts of the same percentage across the board.  complaints time and time again because the clowns compare dollar values and not percentages.

and if you think the tax levy is temporary then you perhaps forget the experience of other temporary tax surcharges which were extended time and time again.  After all, income tax itself was a 'temporary measure'.

And perhaps you forget the politics of all this. As some have said, he could put the budget into toe black in an instant (assuming the senate supported it) but getting rid of super deductability, negative gearing, increasing income taxes for middle and upper earners.  and what do you think happens then?  Lib vote drops to about 15%, labor wins the next election and turns the $50B surplus into a $50B debt and...

you get the picture.  as ugly as it might be, the political reality is that the measures that SHOULD be taken will never be taken.  INcrease govt terms to 6 years, reform the senate so it is a house of review and not a house of petty political revenge and then you might see govtsd of both persuasions able to govern and take the hard decisions that need to be taken.

You like Paul Keating so let's use him as an example.  Do you think that if he had had a 6 year term as PM and the ability to legislate how he thought it should be that things wouldn't be dramtically different?  Ironically he would have introduced a 12.5% GST as he originally wanted.

the problem is our system that precludes anyone of substance ever being able to rule effectively.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 10:59am:

INcrease govt terms to 6 years, reform the senate so it is a house of review and not a house of petty political revenge and then you might see govtsd of both persuasions able to govern and take the hard decisions that need to be taken.

An island of agreement in a torrid sea of debate :)

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 10:59am: INcrease govt terms to 6 years, reform the senate so it is a house of review and not a house of petty political revenge and then you might see govtsd of both persuasions able to govern and take the hard decisions that need to be taken. An island of agreement in a torrid sea of debate :)

No, the Senate is fine just as it is, and is only doing what it was designed to
do - put the brakes on bad policy, and rein-in poor governments.

As for 6 year terms - NO WAY.

You only have to look at the damage these bastards have done in little over
a year to see that a government such as this can and will destroy a country
in far less than 6 years.

And with a traitor like Cosgrove as G-G, there's NO way of getting rid of them.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 11:13am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 10:59am: INcrease govt terms to 6 years, reform the senate so it is a house of review and not a house of petty political revenge and then you might see govtsd of both persuasions able to govern and take the hard decisions that need to be taken. An island of agreement in a torrid sea of debate :)

interesting thought isn't it.  If we had say 5 years terms and a reform of the senate that would preclude unrepresentative swill from destroying genuine policy then things would be very different.  The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud.  But he was dumped internally anyhow so perhaps that is not so bad.  Gillard was a country mile better than Rudd.  Perhaps in a better parliamentary circumstance she might have been a decent PM. 

But whats the chance of this reform???  ZERO.

Kat wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 11:18am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:13am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 10:59am: INcrease govt terms to 6 years, reform the senate so it is a house of review and not a house of petty political revenge and then you might see govtsd of both persuasions able to govern and take the hard decisions that need to be taken. An island of agreement in a torrid sea of debate :) No, the Senate is fine just as it is, and is only doing what it was designed to do - put the brakes on bad policy, and rein-in poor governments. As for 6 year terms - NO WAY. You only have to look at the damage these bastards have done in little over a year to see that 6 years of a government such as this can and will destroy a country in far less than 6 years. And with a traitor like Cosgrove as G-G, there's NO way of getting rid of them.

The senate was DESIGNED to protect state-based interests and not party-based ones.  if you are going to complain at least get your facts right.

Kat wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 11:18am:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:13am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 10:59am: INcrease govt terms to 6 years, reform the senate so it is a house of review and not a house of petty political revenge and then you might see govtsd of both persuasions able to govern and take the hard decisions that need to be taken. An island of agreement in a torrid sea of debate :) No, the Senate is fine just as it is, and is only doing what it was designed to do - put the brakes on bad policy, and rein-in poor governments. As for 6 year terms - NO WAY. You only have to look at the damage these bastards have done in little over a year to see that a government such as this can and will destroy a country in far less than 6 years. And with a traitor like Cosgrove as G-G, there's NO way of getting rid of them.

Kat, we are in a constant electioneering cycle.
3 years is a joke, no party can reasonably do anything.
Had we had 6 year terms Keating would have reaped the benefits of HIS reforms instead of Howard.

Whilst some periods might be torrid through ideology, there would more chance of those light pole lynchings you like to call for bringing on an early poll & decent governments would not be afraid of giving medicine we don't like but need to improve our lot over the long term.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 11:41am:

Kat wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:18am: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:13am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 10:59am: INcrease govt terms to 6 years, reform the senate so it is a house of review and not a house of petty political revenge and then you might see govtsd of both persuasions able to govern and take the hard decisions that need to be taken. An island of agreement in a torrid sea of debate :) No, the Senate is fine just as it is, and is only doing what it was designed to do - put the brakes on bad policy, and rein-in poor governments. As for 6 year terms - NO WAY. You only have to look at the damage these bastards have done in little over a year to see that a government such as this can and will destroy a country in far less than 6 years. And with a traitor like Cosgrove as G-G, there's NO way of getting rid of them. Kat, we are in a constant electioneering cycle. 3 years is a joke, no party can reasonably do anything. Had we had 6 year terms Keating would have reaped the benefits of HIS reforms instead of Howard. Whilst some periods might be torrid through ideology, there would more chance of those light pole lynchings you like to call for bringing on an early poll & decent governments would not be afraid of giving medicine we don't like but need to improve our lot over the long term.

I would support 6 years terms as long as there was a recall facility with a very high trigger point eg 10% of the voters.  But we need to get the senate into line and change the voting system so that boofheads like Muir don't get elected on 1500 votes and a SA candidate with 50,000 does not.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 11:47am:

I would support 6 years terms as long as there was a recall facility with a very high trigger point eg 10% of the voters.  But we need to get the senate into line and change the voting system so that boofheads like Muir don't get elected on 1500 votes and a SA candidate with 50,000 does not.

Im happy with those suggestions.

Now how do we make it happen ;D

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 11:51am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:47am: I would support 6 years terms as long as there was a recall facility with a very high trigger point eg 10% of the voters.  But we need to get the senate into line and change the voting system so that boofheads like Muir don't get elected on 1500 votes and a SA candidate with 50,000 does not. Im happy with those suggestions. Now how do we make it happen ;D

now you have to ask the hard questions!!!

Unfortunately there is probably no way at all.  a four year term is POSSIBLE although unlikely.  Senate reform is needed but who has to pass these reforms?  the senate!  And while labor under any other leader than Shorten might work out that it is to their benefit as much as Abbotts to reform the senate, they will oppose it because... well that's all they do at the moment.

IN a way, we need a Howard type character to sell it.  Even to his opponents, Howard was considered safe and not likely to abuse the process.  Not that I am saying Shorten or Abbott would either but in politics, PERCEPTION is the reality.

Obviously, bipartisan support is essential and for some years now, bipartisan support on anything other than pay rises has been non-existent.

I see four year terms as possible (with senate either 4 or 8 years).  five years as highly unlikely and 6 years as impossible.

pity.  Politics aside, such a system would attract and elevate the best of our PMs and Ministers.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 12:08pm:

a four year term is POSSIBLE although unlikely

No lets stick with 6, another year & we'll only get maybe 6 months of governing instead of electioneering


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 12:08pm:

Senate reform is needed but who has to pass these reforms?  the senate!  And while labor under any other leader than Shorten might work out that it is to their benefit as much as Abbotts to reform the senate, they will oppose it because... well that's all they do at the moment.

You cant help but throw politics in there can you?
I could say the same for Tones when Gillard was in government.


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 12:13pm:

(with senate either 4 or 8 years).

No lets keep it simple, 6 year terms for both upper & lower houses, polling at same time.


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 12:08pm:

Howard was considered safe and not likely to abuse the process.

My turn for politics
"Workchoices"

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 11:20am:

The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud

and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D

if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 9:52am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:47am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:26am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:17am: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 9:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go? More to the point is the question of how did they hide it all from the budget process and leave no record of it happening. hmm... so I guess this is where you go to the dark side and say it didn't happen, right?  Labor in fact reduced spending, borrowed nothing and had surplus budgets?  LOOK AT THE TREASURY DOCUMENTS.  they spent well in excess of income every single year.  there is the 'record' you insist doesn't exist. You really should get that selective comprehension thing looked at. oh really???  you are the one now suggesting that that near $300B of over-budget expenditure was hidden and has no record.  Would you care to clarify what you meant or are you going to deny that it even happened?

That is the point about comprehension - that is nothing like what I asked.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 12:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:08pm: a four year term is POSSIBLE although unlikely No lets stick with 6, another year & we'll only get maybe 6 months of governing instead of electioneering longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Senate reform is needed but who has to pass these reforms?  the senate!  And while labor under any other leader than Shorten might work out that it is to their benefit as much as Abbotts to reform the senate, they will oppose it because... well that's all they do at the moment. You cant help but throw politics in there can you? I could say the same for Tones when Gillard was in government. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:13pm: (with senate either 4 or 8 years). No lets keep it simple, 6 year terms for both upper & lower houses, polling at same time. longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:08pm: Howard was considered safe and not likely to abuse the process. My turn for politics "Workchoices"

a singular example is not evidence of a trend.  I would grant most people the ability  to make a mistake or two without calling them 'bad' or 'evil'


I agree with 6 years but in practical terms that has ZERO chance of succeeding.  4 years is the only possibility with 5 a very distant half-chance.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 1:45pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:52am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:47am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:26am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 9:17am: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 9:52pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:54pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 7:52pm: one swallow does not a summer make you've got one lib that gave us a surplus, and they had to sell the farm to do it. ... whoopdedooo ... they would never have gotten that surplus if it wasn't for Keatings forsight. Hows W.A. going? The largest mining state in the middle of a mining boom and still posting deficits  ;D ;D ;D ;D he saved $230B.  that's an enormous amount of money.  By contrast, Labor spent that and more in just 6 years 230B? really ... where did it all go? More to the point is the question of how did they hide it all from the budget process and leave no record of it happening. hmm... so I guess this is where you go to the dark side and say it didn't happen, right?  Labor in fact reduced spending, borrowed nothing and had surplus budgets?  LOOK AT THE TREASURY DOCUMENTS.  they spent well in excess of income every single year.  there is the 'record' you insist doesn't exist. You really should get that selective comprehension thing looked at. oh really???  you are the one now suggesting that that near $300B of over-budget expenditure was hidden and has no record.  Would you care to clarify what you meant or are you going to deny that it even happened? That is the point about comprehension - that is nothing like what I asked.

then what precisely is THIS supposed to mean???
Quote:

More to the point is the question of how did they hide it all from the budget process and leave no record of it happening.

John Smith wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 12:56pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd

I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him.

Funny how laborites complain about $100 of liberal debt but nothing about $300B in labor debt.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6^th, 2015 at 4:11pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him.

and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Funny how laborites complain about $100 of liberal debt but nothing about $300B in labor debt.

no, labor people complain about how the guy who used to complain about all the waste and budget emergencies , throws money away like its confetti ... doesn't matter if its $100 or $1MILLION

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 8:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 4:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him. and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him.

now you just sound stupid(er).  simply mirroring something said about labor is primary school level and reflects poorly on you. 

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Funny how laborites complain about $100 of liberal debt but nothing about $300B in labor debt.

Repressing a nightmare perhaps?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 8:24am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 4:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him. and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him. now you just sound stupid(er).  simply mirroring something said about labor is primary school level and reflects poorly on you.

Just because you don't like does not make it untrue. Remember Costello's warning about Abbott and how closely it aligns with his failures. Abbott has been a dud and a lot of Liberals know it is true.

His lies have been an embarrassment to many and impossible to defend, the economic performance has been another indefensible but predicted embarrassment.


Abbott has in fact been a lot bigger DUDD than you unfairly claim that Rudd was.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 8:24am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 4:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him. and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him. now you just sound stupid(er).  simply mirroring something said about labor is primary school level and reflects poorly on you.

whos got the knives at the ready...lolololol...

mad memory syndrome sufferers our laborites...they probably think the krudd gillard krudd years were all a bad nightmare....

shame we have to keep reminding them.....what about the bloody SURPLUS...NO IFS OR BUTS.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

they overlooked the massive debt..

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 7:59am:

Funny how laborites complain about $100 of liberal debt but nothing about $300B in labor debt.

complain about $100 of liberal debt

Did we buy morning tea for Brandis again ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 9:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:24am: John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 4:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him. and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him. now you just sound stupid(er).  simply mirroring something said about labor is primary school level and reflects poorly on you.  Just because you don't like does not make it untrue. Remember Costello's warning about Abbott and how closely it aligns with his failures. Abbott has been a dud and a lot of Liberals know it is true. His lies have been an embarrassment to many and impossible to defend, the economic performance has been another indefensible but predicted embarrassment.

you dont mean BROKEN PROMISES do you? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::)

seems to me it was alright when gillard had a few of those....remember the SURPLUS/STOP THE BOATS/NO CARBON TAX.... and she didnt have a HUGE DEBT WHEN SHE AND KRUDDY TOOK OVER....

they did in fact have a leg up.....which they never acknowledged...and neither do lefties..

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 9:05am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 7:59am: Funny how laborites complain about $100 of liberal debt but nothing about $300B in labor debt. complain about $100 of liberal debt Did we buy morning tea for Brandis again ?

I think we are still paying off Krudd plus Carrs travel around the globe.....first class...

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 9:07am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 9:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 7:59am: Funny how laborites complain about $100 of liberal debt but nothing about $300B in labor debt. complain about $100 of liberal debt Did we buy morning tea for Brandis again ? I think we are still paying off Krudd plus Carrs travel around the globe.....first class...

Where is Tony today ?

You know for all the rubbish about Kevin 747 that Tony has out travelled him and spent more on travel.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 8:24am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 4:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him. and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him. now you just sound stupid(er).  simply mirroring something said about labor is primary school level and reflects poorly on you.

don't be such a daft prick all your life .... Abbott has turned many traditional liberal voters off the party ... not everyone is as willing to sell their soul as you are.

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 9:06am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 9:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:24am: John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 4:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him. and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him. now you just sound stupid(er).  simply mirroring something said about labor is primary school level and reflects poorly on you.  Just because you don't like does not make it untrue. Remember Costello's warning about Abbott and how closely it aligns with his failures. Abbott has been a dud and a lot of Liberals know it is true. His lies have been an embarrassment to many and impossible to defend, the economic performance has been another indefensible but predicted embarrassment. you dont mean BROKEN PROMISES do you? ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) ::) seems to me it was alright when gillard had a few of those....remember the SURPLUS/STOP THE BOATS/NO CARBON TAX.... and she didnt have a HUGE DEBT WHEN SHE AND KRUDDY TOOK OVER.... they did in fact have a leg up.....which they never acknowledged...and neither do lefties..

Nothing in historical memory goes close to the dishonesty of Abbott, his pre election statement on the ABC cuts etc included about 6 lies in 25 words delivered in under a minute.

6 lies in 1 minute has to be a political record.

By the way that single minute about eclipses all the broken promises in Gillard's full term.

Something like 20 broken promises in Abbott's first budget is another record well worth being ashamed of.

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 9:03am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:24am: John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 4:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him. and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him. now you just sound stupid(er).  simply mirroring something said about labor is primary school level and reflects poorly on you.  whos got the knives at the ready...lolololol... mad memory syndrome sufferers our laborites... shame we have to keep reminding them.....what about the bloody SURPLUS...NO IFS OR BUTS.... ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;Dthey probably think the krudd gillard krudd years were all a bad nightmare.... they overlooked the massive debt..

not at all ... the only nightmare was the infighting, otherwise labor were doing a fairly good job of looking after the country, sure some things could have been better, but you can say that about any government.

I find it hillarious that one who goes on and on about the debt all the time like you do simply ignores the fact that Abbott had almost doubled labors 6 years of debt in less than a year.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 9:53am:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 9:07am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 9:05am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 7:59am: Funny how laborites complain about $100 of liberal debt but nothing about $300B in labor debt. complain about $100 of liberal debt Did we buy morning tea for Brandis again ? I think we are still paying off Krudd plus Carrs travel around the globe.....first class... Where is Tony today ? You know for all the rubbish about Kevin 747 that Tony has out travelled him and spent more on travel.

Cods only see's through one eye .... unfortunately that eye is the one thats not connected to her brain

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 9:02am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:24am: John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 4:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him. and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him. now you just sound stupid(er).  simply mirroring something said about labor is primary school level and reflects poorly on you.  Just because you don't like does not make it untrue. Remember Costello's warning about Abbott and how closely it aligns with his failures. Abbott has been a dud and a lot of Liberals know it is true. His lies have been an embarrassment to many and impossible to defend, the economic performance has been another indefensible but predicted embarrassment. Abbott has in fact been a lot bigger DUDD than you unfairly claim that Rudd was.

and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5^th, 2015 at 5:44pm:

Just a bit of a reminder of the debt situation that John Howard rid us of and Rudd/Gillard brought back with a vengeance.

Hey longloser how come you never complain about this lot of debt ?

---

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 10:40am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 5:44pm: Just a bit of a reminder of the debt situation that John Howard rid us of and Rudd/Gillard brought back with a vengeance. Hey longloser how come you never complain about this lot of debt ?

because we are talking about govt debt, fool.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his.

and that is merely opinion

Yes my opinion in answer to your opinion ?

Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his.

More opinion - I see little evidence of this.

I re-post the following here, as it is relevant!


perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 11:23am:

Remember the 'good old days'? You would Longy, because that's where you live! What you do not understand, is WHY they were the good old days! However and as usual, you also do not understand that much of the current problems arise from the fact that Politicians, both Labor & Liberal, did not do what was needed in the Best, Long Term interests of all Australians, over many decades, they simply look at their own short term interests & those of their "supporters"! Notwithstanding the above comment, our Pollies on both sides, still arrived at much better outcomes than many other countries, as quite look at the Debt to GDP ratios will confirm, with the OZ ratio being around 25-30%, whilst others are 100%, 200% & more! As I said, you have no idea!

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 11:06am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:36am: and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. and that is merely opinion Yes my opinion in answer to your opinion ? Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. More opinion - I see little evidence of this.

Actually, the absence of serious disunity and strife is the evidence you are (not) looking for.

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 11:24am:

I re-post the following here, as it is relevant! perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:23am: Remember the 'good old days'? You would Longy, because that's where you live! What you do not understand, is WHY they were the good old days! However and as usual, you also do not understand that much of the current problems arise from the fact that Politicians, both Labor & Liberal, did not do what was needed in the Best, Long Term interests of all Australians, over many decades, they simply look at their own short term interests & those of their "supporters"! Notwithstanding the above comment, our Pollies on both sides, still arrived at much better outcomes than many other countries, as quite look at the Debt to GDP ratios will confirm, with the OZ ratio being around 25-30%, whilst others are 100%, 200% & more! As I said, you have no idea!

only in your simple little mind is a comparison among losers of some meaning.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 10:51am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:40am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 5th, 2015 at 5:44pm: Just a bit of a reminder of the debt situation that John Howard rid us of and Rudd/Gillard brought back with a vengeance. Hey longloser how come you never complain about this lot of debt ? because we are talking about govt debt, fool.

but this debt is much bigger and for useless discretionary things such as a new patio or kitchen and joe hockey wants us to spend more on things like that !!

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 11:34am:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:24am: I re-post the following here, as it is relevant! perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:23am: Remember the 'good old days'? You would Longy, because that's where you live! What you do not understand, is WHY they were the good old days! However and as usual, you also do not understand that much of the current problems arise from the fact that Politicians, both Labor & Liberal, did not do what was needed in the Best, Long Term interests of all Australians, over many decades, they simply look at their own short term interests & those of their "supporters"! Notwithstanding the above comment, our Pollies on both sides, still arrived at much better outcomes than many other countries, as quite look at the Debt to GDP ratios will confirm, with the OZ ratio being around 25-30%, whilst others are 100%, 200% & more! As I said, you have no idea! only in your simple little mind is a comparison among losers of some meaning.

On the contrary, it takes a simple mind, not to draw comparisons!

What would you be saying, IF Australia was up around the Japanese Debt to GDP ratio of about 250%.

You would/should correctly be saying at 250% we (OZ) would be stuffed, AS JAPAN IS IN FACT, STUFFED!

And, Much of Europe & the US, is already well over what is generally regarded as the cut off point, where A GREAT DEAL OF PAIN WILL INEVITABLY COME FROM THAT 100% FIGURE, IN ANY ECONOMY!

Whilst the 25-30% in OZ is higher than it was, it is well inside Historically/Globally acceptable figures. That said, on this occasion, both major Parties should have keep our Debt much lower and they should also have already introduced quite a few changes, which are now well overdue, in both the Revenue & Expenditure areas!
   

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 12:42pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:34am: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:24am: I re-post the following here, as it is relevant! perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:23am: Remember the 'good old days'? You would Longy, because that's where you live! What you do not understand, is WHY they were the good old days! However and as usual, you also do not understand that much of the current problems arise from the fact that Politicians, both Labor & Liberal, did not do what was needed in the Best, Long Term interests of all Australians, over many decades, they simply look at their own short term interests & those of their "supporters"! Notwithstanding the above comment, our Pollies on both sides, still arrived at much better outcomes than many other countries, as quite look at the Debt to GDP ratios will confirm, with the OZ ratio being around 25-30%, whilst others are 100%, 200% & more! As I said, you have no idea! only in your simple little mind is a comparison among losers of some meaning. On the contrary, it takes a simple mind, not to draw comparisons! What would you be saying, IF Australia was up around the Japanese Debt to GDP ratio of about 250%. You would/should correctly be saying at 250% we (OZ) would be stuffed, AS JAPAN IS IN FACT, STUFFED! And, Much of Europe & the US, is already well over what is generally regarded as the cut off point, where A GREAT DEAL OF PAIN WILL INEVITABLY COME FROM THAT 100% FIGURE, IN ANY ECONOMY! Whilst the 25-30% in OZ is higher than it was, it is well inside Historically/Globally acceptable figures. That said, on this occasion, both major Parties should have keep our Debt much lower and they should also have already introduced quite a few changes, which are now well overdue, in both the Revenue & Expenditure areas!

your problem is that all you do is ant to be better than the worst and not even be best, nevermind apply a standard of actual EXCELLENCE.

How about applying a level of economic and fiscal excellence in its own right than simply whining that we 'are better than most of the other retards'.  even in primary school that was considered lame.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 10:36am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 9:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:24am: John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 4:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him. and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him. now you just sound stupid(er).  simply mirroring something said about labor is primary school level and reflects poorly on you.  Just because you don't like does not make it untrue. Remember Costello's warning about Abbott and how closely it aligns with his failures. Abbott has been a dud and a lot of Liberals know it is true. His lies have been an embarrassment to many and impossible to defend, the economic performance has been another indefensible but predicted embarrassment. Abbott has in fact been a lot bigger DUDD than you unfairly claim that Rudd was. and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his.

really? how do you know it's genuine?  :D :D :D maybe you should ask Turnbull or Bishop .... and many more out there starting to come out of the woodwork. 

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 11:33am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:06am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:36am: and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. and that is merely opinion Yes my opinion in answer to your opinion ? Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. More opinion - I see little evidence of this. Actually, the absence of serious disunity and strife is the evidence you are (not) looking for.

so the day before Rudd was knifed he was liked by all?  :D :D :D :D :D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 1:09pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 12:42pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:34am: perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:24am: I re-post the following here, as it is relevant! perceptions_now wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:23am: Remember the 'good old days'? You would Longy, because that's where you live! What you do not understand, is WHY they were the good old days! However and as usual, you also do not understand that much of the current problems arise from the fact that Politicians, both Labor & Liberal, did not do what was needed in the Best, Long Term interests of all Australians, over many decades, they simply look at their own short term interests & those of their "supporters"! Notwithstanding the above comment, our Pollies on both sides, still arrived at much better outcomes than many other countries, as quite look at the Debt to GDP ratios will confirm, with the OZ ratio being around 25-30%, whilst others are 100%, 200% & more! As I said, you have no idea! only in your simple little mind is a comparison among losers of some meaning. On the contrary, it takes a simple mind, not to draw comparisons! What would you be saying, IF Australia was up around the Japanese Debt to GDP ratio of about 250%. You would/should correctly be saying at 250% we (OZ) would be stuffed, AS JAPAN IS IN FACT, STUFFED! And, Much of Europe & the US, is already well over what is generally regarded as the cut off point, where A GREAT DEAL OF PAIN WILL INEVITABLY COME FROM THAT 100% FIGURE, IN ANY ECONOMY! Whilst the 25-30% in OZ is higher than it was, it is well inside Historically/Globally acceptable figures. That said, on this occasion, both major Parties should have keep our Debt much lower and they should also have already introduced quite a few changes, which are now well overdue, in both the Revenue & Expenditure areas!     your problem is that all you do is ant to be better than the worst and not even be best, nevermind apply a standard of actual EXCELLENCE. How about applying a level of economic and fiscal excellence in its own right than simply whining that we 'are better than most of the other retards'.  even in primary school that was considered lame.

I think you meant WANT not ant!

As usual, you revert to personal attacks, as soon as you start losing, which is usually quite quick!

Try facts Longy, REPLY TO THE FACTS!

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 1:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:06am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:36am: and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. and that is merely opinion Yes my opinion in answer to your opinion ? Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. More opinion - I see little evidence of this. Actually, the absence of serious disunity and strife is the evidence you are (not) looking for. so the day before Rudd was knifed he was liked by all?  :D :D :D :D :D

They all loved Turnbull as well until only one day later then the consensus was that he was never really a Liberal.

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 1:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:36am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 9:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:24am: John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:02am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 4:11pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 12:56pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 6th, 2015 at 11:20am: The risk of course is 5 years of someone like Rudd who even the true believers rank as a dud and you think Abbotts any better?  :D :D :D :D if you are going to critise the system at least keep your party politics out of it. Especially when you have probably the only person at the moment capable of out duding Rudd I was referring to how even Labor people regard Rudd as a poor PM.  His colleagues have very low regard for him. and liberal people regard Abbott as a dud .... His colleagues have no regard for him. now you just sound stupid(er).  simply mirroring something said about labor is primary school level and reflects poorly on you.  Just because you don't like does not make it untrue. Remember Costello's warning about Abbott and how closely it aligns with his failures. Abbott has been a dud and a lot of Liberals know it is true. His lies have been an embarrassment to many and impossible to defend, the economic performance has been another indefensible but predicted embarrassment. Abbott has in fact been a lot bigger DUDD than you unfairly claim that Rudd was. and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. really? how do you know it's genuine?  :D :D :D maybe you should ask Turnbull or Bishop .... and many more out there starting to come out of the woodwork.

I don't HAVE to know its genuine.  Rather, you have to demonstrate it is not.  Most people are reasonably honest. I can easily prove Rudd was hated by most in the Labor Caucus.  You need to do the same.

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 1:15pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:06am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:36am: and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. and that is merely opinion Yes my opinion in answer to your opinion ? Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. More opinion - I see little evidence of this. Actually, the absence of serious disunity and strife is the evidence you are (not) looking for. so the day before Rudd was knifed he was liked by all?  :D :D :D :D :D

are you trying to prove my point for me????  The disunity and dislike of Rudd was the major reason for his removal and was well known to the public.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 2:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 1:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:06am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:36am: and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. and that is merely opinion Yes my opinion in answer to your opinion ? Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. More opinion - I see little evidence of this. Actually, the absence of serious disunity and strife is the evidence you are (not) looking for. so the day before Rudd was knifed he was liked by all?  :D :D :D :D :D are you trying to prove my point for me????  The disunity and dislike of Rudd was the major reason for his removal and was well known to the public.

No it wasn't

The reason Gillard never got a fair go & 1 of the major factors that the Liberals played on was the surprise factor.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 2:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 2:30pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 1:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:06am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:36am: and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. and that is merely opinion Yes my opinion in answer to your opinion ? Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. More opinion - I see little evidence of this. Actually, the absence of serious disunity and strife is the evidence you are (not) looking for. so the day before Rudd was knifed he was liked by all?  :D :D :D :D :D are you trying to prove my point for me????  The disunity and dislike of Rudd was the major reason for his removal and was well known to the public. No it wasn't The reason Gillard never got a fair go & 1 of the major factors that the Liberals played on was the surprise factor.

serious???  Rudd has sky-high personal popularity with the electorate as well as a leading position in the polls for the ALP.  he was removed because he was HATED.  no other reason make sense.

Sorry should have highlighted


longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 2:30pm:

and was well known to the public.

His removal wasn't even well known in the party as witnessed by the reactions of backbenchers to ABC reporters.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 3:43pm:

Sorry should have highlighted longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 2:30pm: and was well known to the public. His removal wasn't even well known in the party as witnessed by the reactions of backbenchers to ABC reporters.

what kind of evidence is that?  Or are you going to contend that Rudd was not and still is loathed by almost everyone in the ALP?  IN 2013 he could hardly find enough people to fill cabinet.  Everyone else refused.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 3:46pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 3:43pm: Sorry should have highlighted longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 2:30pm: and was well known to the public. His removal wasn't even well known in the party as witnessed by the reactions of backbenchers to ABC reporters. what kind of evidence is that?  Or are you going to contend that Rudd was not and still is loathed by almost everyone in the ALP?  IN 2013 he could hardly find enough people to fill cabinet.  Everyone else refused.

What are you not understanding???
I'm not sticking up for Rudd, I'm not saying he wasn't disliked

You put forward his dismissal was well known by the public & also the public knew his was universally hated within.

It might fit your narrative now but that does not change the fact its crap.

More chance of me being leader as becoming full forward.
How many times did you post that quote??

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 3:26pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 2:36pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 2:30pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 1:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:06am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:36am: and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. and that is merely opinion Yes my opinion in answer to your opinion ? Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. More opinion - I see little evidence of this. Actually, the absence of serious disunity and strife is the evidence you are (not) looking for. so the day before Rudd was knifed he was liked by all?  :D :D :D :D :D are you trying to prove my point for me????  The disunity and dislike of Rudd was the major reason for his removal and was well known to the public. No it wasn't The reason Gillard never got a fair go & 1 of the major factors that the Liberals played on was the surprise factor. serious???  Rudd has sky-high personal popularity with the electorate as well as a leading position in the polls for the ALP.  he was removed because he was HATED.  no other reason make sense.

well, he got dumped for some serious reasons.
Whatever it was.

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 3:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 3:46pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 3:43pm: Sorry should have highlighted longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 2:30pm: and was well known to the public. His removal wasn't even well known in the party as witnessed by the reactions of backbenchers to ABC reporters. what kind of evidence is that?  Or are you going to contend that Rudd was not and still is loathed by almost everyone in the ALP?  IN 2013 he could hardly find enough people to fill cabinet.  Everyone else refused. What are you not understanding??? I'm not sticking up for Rudd, I'm not saying he wasn't disliked You put forward his dismissal was well known by the public & also the public knew his was universally hated within. It might fit your narrative now but that does not change the fact its crap. More chance of me being leader as becoming full forward. How many times did you post that quote??

The public knew Rudd was disliked by much of cabinet before his knifing.  It was only after that we realised that 'dislike' was more like 'hatred'.  How does that changed the narrative except by degree?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 2:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 1:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:06am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:36am: and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. and that is merely opinion Yes my opinion in answer to your opinion ? Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. More opinion - I see little evidence of this. Actually, the absence of serious disunity and strife is the evidence you are (not) looking for. so the day before Rudd was knifed he was liked by all?  :D :D :D :D :D are you trying to prove my point for me????  The disunity and dislike of Rudd was the major reason for his removal and was well known to the public.

it was welll known AFTER he was knifed .... hindsights a beautiful thing isn't it? :D :D :D

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 4:29pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 3:55pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 3:46pm: Dsmithy70 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 3:43pm: Sorry should have highlighted longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 2:30pm: and was well known to the public. His removal wasn't even well known in the party as witnessed by the reactions of backbenchers to ABC reporters. what kind of evidence is that?  Or are you going to contend that Rudd was not and still is loathed by almost everyone in the ALP?  IN 2013 he could hardly find enough people to fill cabinet.  Everyone else refused. What are you not understanding??? I'm not sticking up for Rudd, I'm not saying he wasn't disliked You put forward his dismissal was well known by the public & also the public knew his was universally hated within. It might fit your narrative now but that does not change the fact its crap. More chance of me being leader as becoming full forward. How many times did you post that quote?? The public knew Rudd was disliked by much of cabinet before his knifing.  It was only after that we realised that 'dislike' was more like 'hatred'.  How does that changed the narrative except by degree?

what a load of bollocks ... you just make this poo up as you go don't you? No one knew that Rudd wasn't liked ... sure there may have been one or two rumblings, there always are, there are even rumblings about Abbott now .. to try and turn that into a 'the public knew he was disliked' is the sort of bullsheat only you would try.

I am public, I knew

miketrees wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 8:44pm:

I am public, I knew

you knew that he was disliked by much of his cabinet? bollocks.

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 8:03pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 2:30pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 1:15pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:33am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 11:06am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 10:36am: and that is merely opinion supported by nothing much in particular.  Rudd was HATED, LOATHED and DETESTED by his colleagues as you well know.  Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. and that is merely opinion Yes my opinion in answer to your opinion ? Abbott appears to be genuinely liked by most of his. More opinion - I see little evidence of this. Actually, the absence of serious disunity and strife is the evidence you are (not) looking for. so the day before Rudd was knifed he was liked by all?  :D :D :D :D :D are you trying to prove my point for me????  The disunity and dislike of Rudd was the major reason for his removal and was well known to the public. it was welll known AFTER he was knifed .... hindsights a beautiful thing isn't it? :D :D :D

you are not seriously going to contend that the public though the the rudd govt wasn't racked by disunity, are you?  Memory of a goldfish notwithstanding, it was a major public scandal... BEFORE he was knifed.

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2015 at 8:45pm:

miketrees wrote on Jan 7th, 2015 at 8:44pm: I am public, I knew you knew that he was disliked by much of his cabinet? bollocks.

EVERYONE KNEW you idiot.

It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news.

sad little laborites.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:03am:

It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites.

here's a clue for you numbnuts.... no one said he wasn't disliked by some collegues ... as I pointed out earlier, even Abbott is disliked by some collegues ... the point I was disputing was he was disliked by much of his cabinet

when you learn English, get back to me.

John Smith wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:09am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:03am: It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites. here's a clue for you numbnuts.... no one said he wasn't disliked by some collegues ... as I pointed out earlier, even Abbott is disliked by some collegues ... the point I was disputing was he was disliked by much of his cabinet when you learn English, get back to me.

nice try at a backpedal, but like so much else you say, it is an epic fail.

you have the memory of a goldfish.  And apparently the IQ.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 8:03am:

It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites.

when it was actually repeated front page news.



The Telegraphs front page in those days was used almost exclusively to undermine Labor. Nobody knew the difference between what was real from what had been made up.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:00am:

John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:09am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:03am: It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites. here's a clue for you numbnuts.... no one said he wasn't disliked by some collegues ... as I pointed out earlier, even Abbott is disliked by some collegues ... the point I was disputing was he was disliked by much of his cabinet when you learn English, get back to me. nice try at a backpedal, but like so much else you say, it is an epic fail. you have the memory of a goldfish.  And apparently the IQ.

backpeddle? that must be why you cahnged your claim from most of the public to most of the cabinet  ;D ;D ;D ;D (both are wrong)

you're the expert in backpeddle.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:26am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:03am: It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites. when it was actually repeated front page news. The Telegraphs front page in those days was used almost exclusively to undermine Labor. Nobody knew the difference between what was real from what had been made up.

and here is a clue for you to consider.  I don't live in Sydney nor do most of the members here.  when I said it was NATIONWIDE NEWS I was not referring to the telegraph whoich I have only ever glanced thru a few times when in Sydney.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:24am:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:03am: It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites. when it was actually repeated front page news. The Telegraphs front page in those days was used almost exclusively to undermine Labor. Nobody knew the difference between what was real from what had been made up. and here is a clue for you to consider.  I don't live in Sydney nor do most of the members here.  when I said it was NATIONWIDE NEWS I was not referring to the telegraph whoich I have only ever glanced thru a few times when in Sydney.

yeah, cause Newscorp only owns papers in Sydney ..... fvvck you're an idiot

Dnarever wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 9:26am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:03am: It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites. when it was actually repeated front page news. The Telegraphs front page in those days was used almost exclusively to undermine Labor. Nobody knew the difference between what was real from what had been made up.

Was it read by the ALP as it's source of news?
Because if it was all made up how come they replaced leaders twice and ran around like headless chickens at the election??

John Smith wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 11:44am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:24am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:03am: It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites. when it was actually repeated front page news. The Telegraphs front page in those days was used almost exclusively to undermine Labor. Nobody knew the difference between what was real from what had been made up. and here is a clue for you to consider.  I don't live in Sydney nor do most of the members here.  when I said it was NATIONWIDE NEWS I was not referring to the telegraph whoich I have only ever glanced thru a few times when in Sydney. yeah, cause Newscorp only owns papers in Sydney ..... fvvck you're an idiot

if he says Telegraph then he says Sydney.  you can be truly dumb and the rest of the time just average dumb.

It is rather amusing to watch ignorant buffoons on here running around trying to tell us that the hatred for Rudd was a complete secret and not in fact front-page news for a long time prior to his knifing.

I wonder how anyone would convince these people that it really was 2015 if Abbott announced it as such.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9^th, 2015 at 12:18pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:44am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:24am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:03am: It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites. when it was actually repeated front page news. The Telegraphs front page in those days was used almost exclusively to undermine Labor. Nobody knew the difference between what was real from what had been made up. and here is a clue for you to consider.  I don't live in Sydney nor do most of the members here.  when I said it was NATIONWIDE NEWS I was not referring to the telegraph whoich I have only ever glanced thru a few times when in Sydney. yeah, cause Newscorp only owns papers in Sydney ..... fvvck you're an idiot if he says Telegraph then he says Sydney.  you can be truly dumb and the rest of the time just average dumb.

he said tele because that's what he has where he lives ... you are expected to be able to think for yourself on these forums ...

John Smith wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 2:53pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 12:18pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:44am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:24am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:03am: It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites. when it was actually repeated front page news. The Telegraphs front page in those days was used almost exclusively to undermine Labor. Nobody knew the difference between what was real from what had been made up. and here is a clue for you to consider.  I don't live in Sydney nor do most of the members here.  when I said it was NATIONWIDE NEWS I was not referring to the telegraph whoich I have only ever glanced thru a few times when in Sydney. yeah, cause Newscorp only owns papers in Sydney ..... fvvck you're an idiot if he says Telegraph then he says Sydney.  you can be truly dumb and the rest of the time just average dumb. he said tele because that's what he has where he lives ... you are expected to be able to think for yourself on these forums ...

nah... he said Telegraph because that's all he could think of.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 3:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 12:18pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:44am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:24am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:03am: It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites. when it was actually repeated front page news. The Telegraphs front page in those days was used almost exclusively to undermine Labor. Nobody knew the difference between what was real from what had been made up. and here is a clue for you to consider.  I don't live in Sydney nor do most of the members here.  when I said it was NATIONWIDE NEWS I was not referring to the telegraph whoich I have only ever glanced thru a few times when in Sydney. yeah, cause Newscorp only owns papers in Sydney ..... fvvck you're an idiot if he says Telegraph then he says Sydney.  you can be truly dumb and the rest of the time just average dumb. he said tele because that's what he has where he lives ... you are expected to be able to think for yourself on these forums ... nah... he said Telegraph because that's all he could think of.

I was aware of the distinction and thought about it before posting, I expected the understanding that News Corp were acting as irresponsibly and dishonestly across virtually all of their publications.

Do you really think that nit picking on sermantics changes the facts ?

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 7:36pm:

Do you really think that nit picking on sermantics changes the facts ?

not really, but he'll run with it anyway ... it's all he has :D :D :D

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10^th, 2015 at 7:36pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 3:21pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 10th, 2015 at 2:53pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 12:18pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:44am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 11:24am: Dnarever wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 9:26am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 9th, 2015 at 8:03am: It is amusing if also a little sad listening to the laborites with their goldfish memories pretending that no body knew Rudd was disliked by colleagues before the knifing.  After a couple of years of repeated public disunity beforehand, these selective-memory dolts now want to contend that it was a secret when it was actually repeated front page news. sad little laborites. when it was actually repeated front page news. The Telegraphs front page in those days was used almost exclusively to undermine Labor. Nobody knew the difference between what was real from what had been made up. and here is a clue for you to consider.  I don't live in Sydney nor do most of the members here.  when I said it was NATIONWIDE NEWS I was not referring to the telegraph whoich I have only ever glanced thru a few times when in Sydney. yeah, cause Newscorp only owns papers in Sydney ..... fvvck you're an idiot if he says Telegraph then he says Sydney.  you can be truly dumb and the rest of the time just average dumb. he said tele because that's what he has where he lives ... you are expected to be able to think for yourself on these forums ... nah... he said Telegraph because that's all he could think of. I was aware of the distinction and thought about it before posting, I expected the understanding that News Corp were acting as irresponsibly and dishonestly across virtually all of their publications. Do you really think that nit picking on sermantics changes the facts ?

quoting the Telegraph ALL: THE TIME makes you look rather silly.  I for instance live in Adelaide where the Advertiser is nothing like the Tele.  It is quite well balanced.  But like every other newspaper in the country it was reporting on the almost daily infighting in the Rudd Govt.  it wasn't secret or made up.  it was real. 

What is disappointing about a poster like you DNA who I would not normally put in the category of the uber-stupid is that a mere 4 years later you are pretending it didn't happen or that it wasn't real.  You should really go to www.nodisinfo.com  I think your thinking would fit real well there.