All the while we have had the most money paid for our exports ever. They have not managed to save 1cent toward debt, but expand the debt in the billions.

Please give us back the liberals lol

Bob Menzies the founder of the Liberal party was Prime Minister from 1949 until 1966 and not once did he have a budget surplus.

Australia never went broke back then so why is there a song and dance now that we have to have a budget surplus all the time.

A government that always have a budget surplus is not a good government it just shows that they are taxing us to much or not supplying the services or infrastructure that the community wants or needs.

As long as the government can service the debit there is no worries

John S wrote on Oct 31^st, 2012 at 10:21am:

It isnt just a budget surplus. It is funding super for all the public servants. How much money have labor put toward that. Nothing. They have actually taken out of the future fund. What else is not on the budget. The NBN for one. That monster will never be fully costed while labor is in office.

As I have said previously, Debt is a 2 part issue,  Expenditure is 1 & Revenue is another!

In order to run an annual Deficit & accrue Debt, Expenditure needs to exceed Revenue.

However, Debt in itself is NOT inherently bad and most countries, like individuals & Businesses, will acquire Debt at various points in the Economic cycle. The "trick", to use a "global warming phrase", is to use Debt wisely and run at a Debt which is affordable, at that period in the Economic cycle.

In other words, when the Economic cycle is positive and is likely to remain so for some time, then Debt can be a useful way to expand the local economy, by putting the Debt to good use, in ways that will promote Economic activity & Productivity, particularly from the longer term perspective.

Equally, Debt incurred during the above phase, should be reduced to manageable levels, before the Economic cycle starts to head South.

Personally, I would suggest a net Debt to GDP ratio of something between 5-25%, depending on the point of the Economic cycle was at the time.

Ok, back to Expenditure & Revenue. It is not merely a matter of Spending less, in order to convert a Deficit into a Surplus and thereby getting rid of Debt!

Why, Well, for all Actions & Inactions, there are Consequences. IF Spending is reduced, it may also reduce Productivity & also Revenue, thus possibly increasing the Deficit/Debt, instead of lowering the Debt.

A great deal of care and attention needs to go into what Spending is to be cut, when it will be cut (at what point in the Economic cycle) & how it will be done, in order to keep Productivity & Revenue, as high as possible.

Serious consideration also needs to be given to the Revenue side, particularly as the Tax system is inherently too high on basic rates and too low on real Revenue, as the Deduction & avoidance industry allows far too much leeway, for both Business & individuals.

In fact, the whole tax system needs to be revamped, to lower tax rates & eradicate the avoidance industry and all sectors need to bear their fair share!


To close, the Europeans & the USA have real problems with Debt upwards of 80% of GDP and I do not foresee any way they will recover from their current position, without one hell of an Economic downturn.

To give an analogy, most people say, Credit Cards are terrible.
However, I use Credit Cards for nearly everything, but then I pay it off (in full) each month.
I haven't paid a cent in interest for a long, long time & the Credit Card company even pays me, via their "rewards programs", for using their money.
On top of that, I earn extra interest by keeping my money, in my bank accounts, for a longer period.

My point? Well, Debt isn't just Debt, there is good Debt & bad Debt!

PS - I have heard several commentators remark that the physical Damage & lost Business profits, caused by hurricane Sandy (in the USA) may not be too bad, as those loses may be offset by the spending on Recovery efforts.
What these commentators failed to do, was go to the next step, by including in their calculations the effects of the additional Debt that will inevitably be acquired during the recovery phase.
Should the US want some ideas on that situation, perhaps they can have a chat to Queensland & OZ Federal Politicians, who have already had some experience in those issues, following cyclone Yasi.

As I said earlier, for all Actions & Inactions, there are Consequences.

John S wrote on Oct 31^st, 2012 at 10:21am:




we have had the MINING BOOM  I am sure you remember the one that Howard and Costello had that got them out off all sorts of trouble so when Costello had a surplus..it was thanks to China..


well guess what?????.. THE MINING BOOM NEVER WENT ANYWHERE IN FACT IT INCREASED 3 FOLD.

not only that the price also went up and up and up...


which means govts reap more and more and more..


AND GUESS WHAT VALLEYBOY

IT ISNT THE LIBS CALLING FOR A SURPLUS..


HAVE YOU FORGOTTEN THIS WAS WAYNIES PROMISE AT THE LAST BUDGET AND THE BUDGET BEFORE THAT

I will have a surplus.... over and over.... followed by gillard claiming they will have a surplus..


so dont go twisting this to be a Lib promise because it ain t and never was..


as for servicing this debt.......

with phony figures we can do anything I suppose.

Interest rates will always be lower under a Liberal govt and only a Liberal Govt can produce a surplus.
Just two of phony tonys lies 

Doctor Jolly wrote on Oct 31^st, 2012 at 3:07pm:


Tax cuts for everyone in NSW..woo hoo