Australian Politics Forum | |
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Liberal Surpluses http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1336547476 Message started by adelcrow on May 9th, 2012 at 5:11pm |
Title: Liberal Surpluses Post by adelcrow on May 9th, 2012 at 5:11pm
If we are guaranteed surpluses under a Liberal Govt can someone please supply a list of Liberal Treasurers since the inception of the party that have provided this country with a surplus.
I can only come up with one. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Incomptinence on May 9th, 2012 at 5:44pm
Every liberal has the midas touch duh.
That is why every single one of them knows everything about the economy. Oh save us wise libs! |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by adelcrow on May 9th, 2012 at 5:45pm Incomptinence wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 5:44pm:
I have one Labor Paul Keating and one Liberal Peter Costello..are there any others? |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by great one on May 9th, 2012 at 5:45pm adelcrow wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 5:11pm:
Was Costello a treasurer or Howard's Eunuch? |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Maqqa on May 9th, 2012 at 6:08pm adelcrow wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 5:11pm:
How is that relevant in terms of surpluses? |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by buzzanddidj on May 9th, 2012 at 6:10pm adelcrow wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 5:11pm:
I'm PRETTY sure Fraser's treasurer didn't make "the surplus club" He did manage to CONCEAL it, though, until the Hawke team won the election - and could check out "the books", themselves |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by GoddyofOz on May 9th, 2012 at 6:12pm Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:08pm:
It's relevant when Labor is continually rubbished for its Deficits. If you can only name one Liberal Treasurer who delivered surpluses (which were built out of laziness and not good economic management), then that means the Libs are no better at delivering Surpluses then Labor. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by adelcrow on May 9th, 2012 at 6:12pm Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:08pm:
Just because the two best treasurers this country has ever seen had surpluses doesnt mean hacks like Swan or Hockey ever will. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by GoddyofOz on May 9th, 2012 at 6:14pm adelcrow wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
Describing Swan as a hack is a little unfair. Granted he hasn't delivered his surplus yet, but he is on track to do so. Hockey on the other hand, still has a budget black hole to fill. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Maqqa on May 9th, 2012 at 6:14pm adelcrow wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
We know Swan is a hack because of his Grocery Watch |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by adelcrow on May 9th, 2012 at 6:22pm Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:14pm:
You wont get an argument out of me...this is the worse Labor and Liberal Parties we have had in this country since the dawn of political time. We can blame Howard for staying on to long and not giving Costello a go for the idiocy we are now putting up with. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Maqqa on May 9th, 2012 at 6:24pm adelcrow wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:22pm:
:D :D :D :D So you are blaming Howard for this mess? :o :o :o :o :D :D :D :D ;D ;D ;D |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by adelcrow on May 9th, 2012 at 6:27pm Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:24pm:
Im blaming Howard for taking away my chance to vote for Costello and Im blaming Abbott for taking away my chance to vote for Turnbull. I certainly will never vote for any party led by Gillard or Abbott. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Maqqa on May 9th, 2012 at 6:31pm adelcrow wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:27pm:
You vote for a group not for an individual - because its the group that will collectively make or break this country You can see this very clearly with Rudd as PM then Gillard as PM. Rudd was a self obsessed ego-manic that the majority of Caucus hates Gillard can't control her team and is a pathological liar Both instances they are all about self interest A change in leadership of a sitting government is always de-stablising. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by adelcrow on May 9th, 2012 at 6:42pm Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:31pm:
You may vote Liberal no matter who they put up as leader and others may vote Labor under the same circumstances but I never have and I never will. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 10th, 2012 at 12:04am
You'd have to admit though that we were better off under Howard.
When Howard was in, we did well in budgets. He gave us a greater share in the economic well being of the country, we got $5k payments for our children, we got family benefits, we got decent rebates on our health cover. Under Labor - Took away the baby bonus Taken away the health insurance rebate Cut the superannuation tax assistance Labor just dislike the people who basically pay for the country. Howard didn't. Howard helped us. It was a far better time for us all. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Dnarever on May 10th, 2012 at 5:17am Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:14pm:
There’s a real empty assessment. Whether you are right or wrong this one instance of pretty much nothing does not support your conclusion. It would be more accurate to say that Costello was a hack because of his stuff up on gold. That was an actual real, meaningful and incompetent decision which has cost us heaps. Of course even that error does not give an indication of his worth and overall performance which was reasonably good at worst. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Dnarever on May 10th, 2012 at 5:23am Maqqa wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 6:31pm:
You vote for a group not for an individual - because its the group that will collectively make or break this country You make this statment but your opinions listed below it seem to be in contradiction - not supporting your principal. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Doctor Jolly on May 10th, 2012 at 8:59am
Costello's surpluses were made by selling public assets (telstra, airports, etc).
Eventually he would have run out of tax payer owned assets to sell |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by longweekend58 on May 10th, 2012 at 9:16am adelcrow wrote on May 9th, 2012 at 5:45pm:
You forget that there were 6 treasurers with an ACTUAl surplus. they are: Keating Costello (2007) Costello (2006) Costello (2005) Costello (2004) Costello (2003) |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by longweekend58 on May 10th, 2012 at 9:17am Doctor Jolly wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 8:59am:
not even close to true. because airports made $22B? and lets not forget that he inherited a $10B deficit. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Incomptinence on May 10th, 2012 at 9:20am
We need to cross the Costello and Keating bloodlines to create the ultimate treasurer breed.
We shall call this project les enfant icantspeakawordoffrenchibles. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Maqqa on May 10th, 2012 at 9:23am longweekend58 wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 9:17am:
@Jolly Why did Costello sell the assets? Could you provide references to where he used it to fund the Budget |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Doctor Jolly on May 10th, 2012 at 9:40am Incomptinence wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 9:20am:
Costello wasnt a good treasurer. Not in the class of Keating or even Swan. Imagine if Costello was treasurer through the GFC. He'd be delivering us a "surplus" *, while the country dived head long into a depression. If still in power now, he'd have run out of assets to sell, and his surplus's would be harder and harder to achieve. His surpluses, instead of being invested in much needs infrastructure, were pissed up against the wall on vote buying middle class welfare. * surplus = over taxation |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by longweekend58 on May 10th, 2012 at 10:54am Doctor Jolly wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 9:40am:
yeah you keep saying that. You mind even find the odd fool who will agree. But it really does trash your credibility. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by FriYAY on May 10th, 2012 at 11:04am Doctor Jolly wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 9:40am:
So Swan’s surplus = over taxation as well? |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by longweekend58 on May 10th, 2012 at 11:33am FriYAY wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 11:04am:
swans surplus is a bit like Thomson's innocence. Illusory and ultimately proven wrong. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Doctor Jolly on May 10th, 2012 at 12:15pm FriYAY wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 11:04am:
In a near $1 trillion dollar economy, breaking even by $1.5b either way, is essentially a neutral budget. There are plenty of economic professionals who dispell this surplus at all costs mentality. Heres just one: http://www.abc.net.au/money/currency/features/feat13.htm The claim is often made that governments which run structural budget surpluses, and achieve this goal through expenditure restraint, are better economic managers than those which run structural deficits. In fact structural surpluses can often indicate weak, lazy government rather than economic competence and virility. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by FriYAY on May 10th, 2012 at 12:20pm Doctor Jolly wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 12:15pm:
You stated surpluses = over taxation. So Swan’s surplus = over taxation as well? Simple question.. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Doctor Jolly on May 10th, 2012 at 12:20pm longweekend58 wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 10:54am:
Even your right-wing Australian newspaper thinks Costello was an incompitent gimp... http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/coalition-faces-a-ruinous-record/story-e6frg7ex-1225712757155 A stimulus-free budget would have faced deficits of $25.6 billion in 2009-10, $38.4billion in 2010-11 and $31.3 billion in 2011-12. That was, in effect, the Costello trajectory. It would have been worse, of course, because no spending would have made the recession deeper and crunched revenues by even more. How exactly did the Howard-Costello government prepare the nation for what came next when it left behind a budget that could not afford to spend in bad times without breaking all previous deficit records? The Coalition must cut the cord with its past if it wants to argue with credibility on fiscal prudence. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Doctor Jolly on May 10th, 2012 at 12:22pm FriYAY wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 12:20pm:
I gave you a simple answer. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by FriYAY on May 10th, 2012 at 12:24pm Doctor Jolly wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 12:22pm:
So we are just a little bit over taxed? What if all the tax money is utilised in the budget? Can you not still be over taxed, but show no surplus? :-/ |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Doctor Jolly on May 10th, 2012 at 12:48pm FriYAY wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 12:24pm:
What on earth are you talking about ? ::) Swan has got it in his mind that we need a surplus. He's aimed for a very small one, which at the end of the day will probably be about even. Not a bad policy when aiming for budget neutrality in this volatile period. The other question is, should he be aiming for a surplus at all? Is the reducing in spending going to take too much stimulus out of the economy at the wrong time ? Could it tip the economy into recession ? Me personally, I would have been aiming for a small deficit (around $5 to $10b). This would have the effect of tempering the economy allowing interest rates to drop and dropping the dollar. Both things that are probably in our best interest. All in all its a jugling act. But to pursue surpluses for the sake of surpluses is irrational economic policy. You pursue a surplus if the economy warrants it. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by FriYAY on May 10th, 2012 at 3:21pm Doctor Jolly wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 12:48pm:
* surplus = over taxation |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Doctor Jolly on May 10th, 2012 at 3:38pm FriYAY wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 3:21pm:
I know what I'm talking about. But what are you talking about ? |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Dnarever on May 10th, 2012 at 7:47pm Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 12:04am:
One of the biggest failures of the Howard years was the growth in upper middle welfare. Howard / Costello were lucky enough to be in power during the most benign economic period in recorded history. We never got to see how they would do in difficult times or if they would keep wasting money on upper class welfare when things started to get tough. Howard was giving high earners $150. increases when he gave workers $2.50 Over 12 years he basically gave pensioners or the unemployed nothing and managed to increase higher education from around $1500 to in many cases over $100,000. Before being thrown out of office and his seat he said that he realised that he had not governed for the benefit of all Australians and committed to doing better if we let him con us again. Yeah he was a peach. Luckiest sob ever. Didn't deserve one term but conned 4. |
Title: Re: Liberal Surpluses Post by Dnarever on May 10th, 2012 at 7:51pm longweekend58 wrote on May 10th, 2012 at 9:16am:
If you know the numbers how many Keatings did you leave out one or two and how many other Labor treasurers go in the list? Hint there are no other Liberal treasurers. |
Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2! YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved. |