Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 24
th, 2017 at 9:28pm:
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Howard could afford the tax cuts because he'd paid off Keatings' debt of $96bn and replaced it with a surplus of more than $22bn. He could afford it because all of his policies were fully funded and paid for with money he did not have to borrow. He could afford it because he wasn't repaying a debt. Those tax cuts you continually mention were introduced long before the GFC even appeared on the radar. The other reason we weathered the GFC is because of changes in our financial sector put in place by Costello, the result of which saw our banks' lending habits come under much more stringent controls than was the case in the US, for example. Tax cuts provide people with more disposable income, which means they can pay down debt and/or spend more. When this occurs, business profits (literally) and the economy booms. This is precisely what we saw happen. You love to mention these supposedly dastardly tax cuts that we could not afford, but you fail to mention that Labor did nothing about them despite being in office for 6 years and having ample opportunity to change or reverse them. Labor did nothing - NOTHING. It was only by the good work done by Howard and Costello that we survived the GFC. We survived, but only just. The incompetence and panic of both Rudd and Swan very nearly brought all of Howard and Costello's work undone through reckless spending (which whittled away the $22bn surplus in record time) and drove Australia into debt. Then, in a colossal blunder, Labor thought it'd be a good idea to send people $300 cheques (with borrowed money, no less) that he wanted people to use to buy stuff but which most people either put into the bank or used to pay down debt. Bravo, Rudd - a real master stroke (not). You love to cherrypick bits and pieces of history to suit your naive and twisted view of the world, but the least you could do is at least get your facts right. Otherwise, you just look like an ill-informed idiot just towing the party line, which is precisely what you are. [/quote]
Wrong, wrong, wrong - he sold off the revenue generating assets to 'break even' and even have a 'surplus - and it was all downhill from there without the revenue-raising assets... the 'tax cuts' could only be afforded until the bills fell due again and he had no way of paying them. Same thing is happening now with Social Security through the sellout of this nation to the 'global economy' and all that nonsense*.
Get with the program. He sold the nation out to his 'business' mates - he didn't 'save' it. His short term 'gain' from selling the furniture was rapidly over-run by debt that has escalated since.
He is a traitor to this nation and its people.
* Again I ask - why do we have any NEED to abide by the dictates of the 'global economy'? We are not the servants of those who profit from it.. and why would any business or person sell its resources into a larger market in order to force itself of him/herself to buy back at a higher price? Why would any business or individual allow a business to come in, use its/their property and assets, derive profit, and then vanish offshore without paying the bills?
Only A Complete Moron!