Advertisement

Post Election Analysis: Coalition Govt to destroy Communist Canberra

By 17 March 2014 33

you're going down canberra
Unless the South Australian Labor Party can conjure a minority government from the ashes of last night’s state elections, the ACT will be the only Labor government left in the country.

Will this go unnoticed in Cabinet (or more specifically, the powerful Expenditure Review Committee who run the country)? Will the likes of Abbott, Hockey, Truss, Corman and Sinodinos let this go unpunished?

My money says no, it will be punished, severely. The ACT already epitomises many of the things that terrifies Abbott’s men (and woman). The Ministry can’t leave Parliament for fear of encountering a married-lesbian, EL1 asylum seeker.

The next Council of Australian Government’s meeting is sure to be a chilly one for our fearless Chief Minister. And no doubt a disappointment for the rest of us when she treks back down the hill clutching a parcel of territory funding cuts.

Did the voters of South Australia and Tasmania just deliver the ACT’s economic coup de grace? Did we do it to ourselves in 2012 re-electing Gallagher’s mob? Or should we be proud of our “Abbott’s most hated” status?

Image: Juice Rap News Ep 22, The Energy Crisis, thejuicemedia.com

Please login to post your comments
33 Responses to Post Election Analysis: Coalition Govt to destroy Communist Canberra
#1
HiddenDragon10:54 am, 17 Mar 14

Whether we have the last Labor government, or whether we’re one of the last two for the time being (hard to see Napthine surviving), probably doesn’t matter that much.

The real political consideration – if there is one at all – would be how far can Canberra be cut without throwing away the ACT Liberal Senate seat.

#2
VYBerlinaV8_is_back12:24 pm, 17 Mar 14

Cool rant. Not sure it counts as ‘analysis’ though.

#3
Diggety12:33 pm, 17 Mar 14

‘Analysis’??

#4
Diggety12:37 pm, 17 Mar 14

Either way, the downfall of the Greens can only be a good thing.

#5
justin heywood12:51 pm, 17 Mar 14

No evidence for even the vague prediction offered. Is there a point to this idle speculation?

Where is Queen of the Bun/Schmeah? I know she hates this kind of partisan trolling. :)

#6
Az12:55 pm, 17 Mar 14

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Cool rant. Not sure it counts as ‘analysis’ though.

Fair call, it’s a rant. Trying to prompt analysis via comments.

I like reading RA posts on such topics. Lot of the posters have interesting opinions/perspectives and sometimes inside knowledge from the camps of key players. Drama can also be fun.

#7
astrojax1:22 pm, 17 Mar 14

Diggety said :

Either way, the downfall of the Greens can only be a good thing.

to entrench the duopoloy of australian politics, now we don’t have the democrats? oh yeah, that’d be a great thing… we still need to find a way to rid ourselves of those pesky motorist, and shooters, and other tinfoil hat parties, but.

#8
Maya1231:28 pm, 17 Mar 14

Diggety said :

Either way, the downfall of the Greens can only be a good thing.

Your reasons?

#9
VYBerlinaV8_is_back2:06 pm, 17 Mar 14

Az said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Cool rant. Not sure it counts as ‘analysis’ though.

Fair call, it’s a rant. Trying to prompt analysis via comments.

I like reading RA posts on such topics. Lot of the posters have interesting opinions/perspectives and sometimes inside knowledge from the camps of key players. Drama can also be fun.

Then good luck and bring it on!

#10
DrKoresh4:22 pm, 17 Mar 14

I love how you’re laying the blame for this supposed act of petty bastardry at the feet of A.C.T voters for pursuing their right to democracy as opposed to the person who is, in your estimation, going to penalise the A.C.T for voting in a Labor govt.

#11
howeph4:49 pm, 17 Mar 14

Az, I don’t understand what point you are trying to make here.

For what it’s worth I don’t think the Abbott government is going to single out the ACT for special treatment because we have a local Labor government.

We are going to be singled out because cutting the public service is popular.

#12
bikhet5:16 pm, 17 Mar 14

The Federal government, whether Liberal or Labor, doesn’t give a stuff about Canberra. We’re electorally insignificant. They may cut or expand the public service, but that has nothing to do with Canberra – it’s just that a lot of the public service is based here.

#13
dungfungus7:04 pm, 17 Mar 14

howeph said :

Az, I don’t understand what point you are trying to make here.

For what it’s worth I don’t think the Abbott government is going to single out the ACT for special treatment because we have a local Labor government.

We are going to be singled out because cutting the public service is popular.

Also popular with the previous Labor government but I didn’t see you being cynical then.

#14
Roundhead897:44 pm, 17 Mar 14

Where did you get that pathetic picture from? Is that supposed to be Tony Blair? What does that have to do with the price of eggs in Denmark?

#15
Queen_of_the_Bun9:44 pm, 17 Mar 14

justin heywood said :

No evidence for even the vague prediction offered. Is there a point to this idle speculation?

Where is Queen of the Bun/Schmeah? I know she hates this kind of partisan trolling. :)

Oh so sorry, I have been at work. And why do you think I’m a woman?

#16
Queen_of_the_Bun10:17 pm, 17 Mar 14

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

justin heywood said :

No evidence for even the vague prediction offered. Is there a point to this idle speculation?

Where is Queen of the Bun/Schmeah? I know she hates this kind of partisan trolling. :)

Oh so sorry, I have been at work. And why do you think I’m a woman?

PS who is Schmeah?

#17
arescarti4210:19 pm, 17 Mar 14

astrojax said :

Diggety said :

Either way, the downfall of the Greens can only be a good thing.

to entrench the duopoloy of australian politics, now we don’t have the democrats? oh yeah, that’d be a great thing… we still need to find a way to rid ourselves of those pesky motorist, and shooters, and other tinfoil hat parties, but.

Might as well just skip the middle man and go straight to a single party plutocracy run by the Laberal Party.

Probably not as far from the truth as it should be.

#18
bundah10:59 pm, 17 Mar 14

Queen_of_the_Bun said :

Oh so sorry, I have been at work. And why do you think I’m a woman?

Says he with gay abandon….

#19
HiddenDragon10:54 am, 18 Mar 14

Az said :

VYBerlinaV8_is_back said :

Cool rant. Not sure it counts as ‘analysis’ though.

Fair call, it’s a rant. Trying to prompt analysis via comments.

I like reading RA posts on such topics. Lot of the posters have interesting opinions/perspectives and sometimes inside knowledge from the camps of key players. Drama can also be fun.

I wouldn’t call it a rant, in fact it’s fairly mild compared to some of the stirring that JB used to engage in. This, and a few other of the more adventures recent posts have kicked things along, and provided a nice contrast to the day-to-day practical stuff.

Back on topic, once the WA Senate election is over, perhaps the Opposition will start asking questions about the implications of the Commission of Audit Report for the ACT – or perhaps not.

#20
watto234:29 pm, 18 Mar 14

I know he has only had top job for half a year, but by the time Abbott has a senate, that will be more friendly to him, he’ll only have about 18 months to win over the public. Polls have it fairly balanced right now, which IMO is more of a sign that people were pissed off with both sides just as much. SA, ACT and the 2010 federal election shows that. Plus the coalition won the last federal election by highlighting how bad Labor was rather than how good they could do.

That said I was thinking the other day, would politics be better if politicians had say 5 yr terms, could only be re-elected once thus serving 10 years maximum? Less would hinge on them winning to keep power and get more money. In fact maybe if Politicians earned a much smaller wage also, their policies may reflect on whats good for the country rather than doing their best to bash each other and just win power.

#21
HiddenDragon11:09 am, 19 Mar 14

watto23 said :

I know he has only had top job for half a year, but by the time Abbott has a senate, that will be more friendly to him, he’ll only have about 18 months to win over the public. Polls have it fairly balanced right now, which IMO is more of a sign that people were pissed off with both sides just as much. SA, ACT and the 2010 federal election shows that. Plus the coalition won the last federal election by highlighting how bad Labor was rather than how good they could do.

That said I was thinking the other day, would politics be better if politicians had say 5 yr terms, could only be re-elected once thus serving 10 years maximum? Less would hinge on them winning to keep power and get more money. In fact maybe if Politicians earned a much smaller wage also, their policies may reflect on whats good for the country rather than doing their best to bash each other and just win power.

I think the 2013 result was mainly about getting rid of the Rudd-Gillard-Rudd fiasco-drama – the fact that Labor weren’t smashed nearly as badly as a lot of polling had suggested, probably shows the extent of the reservations about Abbott.

A proportion of the people who voted for “balancing the Budget” will be less enthusiastic about that when they discover it will mean pain for them, not just for people they envy/resent/disapprove of.

#22
Nylex_Clock2:11 pm, 19 Mar 14

HiddenDragon said :

A proportion of the people who voted for “balancing the Budget” will be less enthusiastic about that when they discover it will mean pain for them, not just for people they envy/resent/disapprove of.

..and that proportion of people would have done well to have listened to yesterday’s Senate speech by Helen Polley (ALP, TAS):

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;adv=yes;db=CHAMBER;id=chamber%2Fhansards%2F3da98054-7a97-431b-89cc-001ce92d8247%2F0011;orderBy=_fragment_number,doc_date-rev;query=Dataset%3Ahansards,hansards80;rec=0;resCount=Default

“The effective tax rate in the mining industry was just 17c in the dollar, yet in Canada it is 23 per cent, in Russia it is 30 per cent and in South Africa it is 33 per cent.”

“The mining industry employs around 2% of the workforce and pays the lowest rate of tax on its profits of any industry in Australia.”

—-
Later….:

“Senator Wong: She’s on leave.

Senator BACK: Yes, she has leave ‘for electorate matters’—for electorate matters. I am sure the Minister for Defence, Senator Johnston, would like to have leave for electorate purposes!

Senator Wong: We grant it if it’s asked for.

Senator BACK: I am sure—

Senator Wong: He hasn’t asked for it. Don’t make a stupid political point.

(I love Penny Wong).

Senator WONG (South Australia—Leader of the Opposition in the Senate) (13:23): The Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill 2013 says everything that needs to be said about the skewed values of the Abbott government. At the heart of this bill is a fundamental injustice and at the heart of this bill is a fundamental deception of the Australian people. The government present this bill as being only about repealing a tax—and we have just heard a lengthy dissertation from Senator Back in which he continued this. Let us remind ourselves what is in this bill that they do not want to talk about. It includes increased taxes on low- and middle-income families, increased taxes on workers saving for their retirement, increased taxes on small business, cuts to benefits for working families and cuts to investment in regional Australia.

The bill gives with one hand but takes and takes and takes with the other. It really should not be called the minerals resource rent tax repeal bill; it should be called the ‘hitting those who can least afford it’ bill. It gives a tax cut worth $3.3 billion to the biggest mining companies in the world but hits Australian families and small business owners with $16.3 billion in higher taxes and cuts to benefits. That is the financial arithmetic at the heart of this bill, the financial arithmetic lauded by those opposite—a $3.3 billion handout for mining companies and a $16.3 billion slug for battlers.

This bill shows that, under this Abbott government, there is indeed a new age of entitlement—an age of twisted priorities where there are tax cuts for the few and tax hikes for the many, where millions of Australian families are slugged while big mining companies are given a tax cut. This bill hurts low- and middle-income earners, erodes the superannuation savings of working Australians, makes small businesses pay higher taxes—this is the Liberal Party supporting higher taxes on small business!—and cuts investment in communities and regional Australia. No doubt the doormats in the Nationals will simply ignore that fact. They will simply gloss over it.

This piece of legislation is entitled the Minerals Resource Rent Tax Repeal and Other Measures Bill. As with so much that this government does, the sting is in the tail—the ‘other measures’ which are included in the bill. I will take the Senate through some of these other measures. They are regressive, they are unfair, they should not be supported and they hit those in our community who can least afford it. These other measures fall into four main categories.

First there are the hits to low- and middle-income families. This bill abolishes the former Labor government’s schoolkids bonus. This bonus provides payments to around 1.3 million families—low- and middle-income families whose children are at school. The payments are worth $410 a year per primary school student and $820 a year for high school students. They go to eligible families receiving family tax benefit part A and to schoolchildren receiving youth allowance or payments from the Department of Veterans’ Affairs. This bill scraps those payments from January next year, just when parents will need help with the cost of children going back to school. The Senate Economics Legislation Committee heard evidence from the Australian Council of Social Services that more than half a million children in Australia are currently living in poverty. Scrapping the schoolkids bonus hits those children and their families and many more. You do not hear those over on that side talking much about that aspect of the bill, do you? The explanatory memorandum to this bill shows that this cut will hit families to the tune of $4½ billion over the four years from 2013-14 to 2016-17.

The bill also seeks to scrap the Labor government’s income support bonus. The income support bonus provides eligible social security recipients with $250 a year for singles and $350 a year for most couples. It helps people on low incomes to meet unexpected living costs, such as medical expenses or the cost of getting a car repaired. For people struggling to make ends meet, these unexpected costs can be financially crippling. Scrapping the income support bonus will hit 1.1 million people on low incomes, mainly Australians receiving Newstart or youth allowance. The hit is $1.1 billion over the four years of the forward estimates from 2013-14 to 2016-17.

As we have heard in recent days—reaffirmed again by the Prime Minister—the cut to the income support bonus includes taking money away from the children of war veterans who have been injured or killed while serving their country. That is one of the most obnoxious aspects of this legislation and one that the Prime Minister of this country defended stoutly in the House of Representatives. ‘Yes,’ he told us, ‘I do want to pay billions of dollars over the next few years to wealthy families for paid parental leave, but I am going to take money away from the children of veterans who have served this country and who have been injured or killed whilst doing so.’ What an obnoxious set of priorities from this government! Yet they come in here and proudly declaim about the end of the age of entitlement. I remind those opposite that the cost of the income support bonus to children of war veterans is $260,000 a year. They are cutting that support at the same time as they are proposing a multibillion-dollar paid parental leave scheme.

The next category of this bill’s regressive ‘other measures’ is a set of major attacks on the retirement savings of working Australians. It delays the increase in the superannuation guarantee entitlement. Under reforms introduced by Labor to ensure Australians have a decent retirement income, the superannuation guarantee entitlement is legislated to increase from 9.25 per cent to 9½ per cent in July 2014. Under this bill, that increase will be delayed for two years. That also means that the long-term goal, which is to get the superannuation guarantee entitlement to 12 per cent, will also be delayed by two years. Twelve per cent is widely acknowledged as the level of superannuation contribution that Australians will need in order to ensure they have an adequate retirement income.

Etc…,many more paragraphs listing all the extra tax that will be paid by the bottom 90%.

#23
Nylex_Clock2:13 pm, 19 Mar 14

How could anybody be a Liberal Party member or supporter and not be hanging their heads in shame it this disgusting attempt at legislation>

As Penny Wong says,
“In summary, this bill delivers a $3.3 billion tax break to mining companies; it cuts benefits to families by $5.6 billion over four years; it cuts superannuation entitlements and hikes superannuation taxes by $4.3 billion; it hikes the tax take on small business by $3.7 billion; and it cuts regional investment by $2.7 billion. What we have before the chamber is $16.3 billion in unfair, economically damaging tax hikes and spending cuts.”

#24
watto2310:12 pm, 19 Mar 14

Nylex_Clock said :

How could anybody be a Liberal Party member or supporter and not be hanging their heads in shame it this disgusting attempt at legislation>

As Penny Wong says,
“In summary, this bill delivers a $3.3 billion tax break to mining companies; it cuts benefits to families by $5.6 billion over four years; it cuts superannuation entitlements and hikes superannuation taxes by $4.3 billion; it hikes the tax take on small business by $3.7 billion; and it cuts regional investment by $2.7 billion. What we have before the chamber is $16.3 billion in unfair, economically damaging tax hikes and spending cuts.”

The cuts to the low income superannuation bonus where the government matches the $500 (used to be $1500) of extra savings into super is what amazes me. Surely if a person on a low income can save some extra money and put it into their super, that any scheme helping and adding to that is far better than letting them just retire onto the pension.

Money should be aimed at people bettering their lives, but I get the impression that might be too extreme for conservative voters who don’t want those below them on the social ladder making too much money and climbing said ladder.

HECS in itself is a great idea and more programs like that, where the money is repaid should be introduced. How about medical contribution scheme. If you need surgery, a person without insurance has to sit in the queue. How about giving them the option to take out a HECS style loan to pay for the surgery in private and then pay that back through higher tax deductions based on income. Of course there would be limits based on ability to pay it back, but it would certainly help the waiting lists.

I call it incentive based welfare.

#25
dungfungus2:59 pm, 20 Mar 14

watto23 said :

Nylex_Clock said :

How could anybody be a Liberal Party member or supporter and not be hanging their heads in shame it this disgusting attempt at legislation>

As Penny Wong says,
“In summary, this bill delivers a $3.3 billion tax break to mining companies; it cuts benefits to families by $5.6 billion over four years; it cuts superannuation entitlements and hikes superannuation taxes by $4.3 billion; it hikes the tax take on small business by $3.7 billion; and it cuts regional investment by $2.7 billion. What we have before the chamber is $16.3 billion in unfair, economically damaging tax hikes and spending cuts.”

The cuts to the low income superannuation bonus where the government matches the $500 (used to be $1500) of extra savings into super is what amazes me. Surely if a person on a low income can save some extra money and put it into their super, that any scheme helping and adding to that is far better than letting them just retire onto the pension.

Money should be aimed at people bettering their lives, but I get the impression that might be too extreme for conservative voters who don’t want those below them on the social ladder making too much money and climbing said ladder.

HECS in itself is a great idea and more programs like that, where the money is repaid should be introduced. How about medical contribution scheme. If you need surgery, a person without insurance has to sit in the queue. How about giving them the option to take out a HECS style loan to pay for the surgery in private and then pay that back through higher tax deductions based on income. Of course there would be limits based on ability to pay it back, but it would certainly help the waiting lists.

I call it incentive based welfare.

Just to remind you all that there was a Federal election last year and the conservative parties were able to form a majority government in th lower house. The Senate outcome from 1/7/14 is yet to be determined.
Did it occur to you that the policies you are complaining about are those preferred by the majority of Australians who believe the country is already overcommitted to repaying debt due to Labor being unable to control expenditure?

#26
watto239:38 pm, 20 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

watto23 said :

Nylex_Clock said :

How could anybody be a Liberal Party member or supporter and not be hanging their heads in shame it this disgusting attempt at legislation>

As Penny Wong says,
“In summary, this bill delivers a $3.3 billion tax break to mining companies; it cuts benefits to families by $5.6 billion over four years; it cuts superannuation entitlements and hikes superannuation taxes by $4.3 billion; it hikes the tax take on small business by $3.7 billion; and it cuts regional investment by $2.7 billion. What we have before the chamber is $16.3 billion in unfair, economically damaging tax hikes and spending cuts.”

The cuts to the low income superannuation bonus where the government matches the $500 (used to be $1500) of extra savings into super is what amazes me. Surely if a person on a low income can save some extra money and put it into their super, that any scheme helping and adding to that is far better than letting them just retire onto the pension.

Money should be aimed at people bettering their lives, but I get the impression that might be too extreme for conservative voters who don’t want those below them on the social ladder making too much money and climbing said ladder.

HECS in itself is a great idea and more programs like that, where the money is repaid should be introduced. How about medical contribution scheme. If you need surgery, a person without insurance has to sit in the queue. How about giving them the option to take out a HECS style loan to pay for the surgery in private and then pay that back through higher tax deductions based on income. Of course there would be limits based on ability to pay it back, but it would certainly help the waiting lists.

I call it incentive based welfare.

Just to remind you all that there was a Federal election last year and the conservative parties were able to form a majority government in th lower house. The Senate outcome from 1/7/14 is yet to be determined.
Did it occur to you that the policies you are complaining about are those preferred by the majority of Australians who believe the country is already overcommitted to repaying debt due to Labor being unable to control expenditure?

Did you read what I wrote? I’m not a labor or liberal voter. One has to vote based on what you can find out from the political parties. I’m not upset the coalition won the election. I’m upset with bad policies from both sides of politics and the spin that you clearly believe. Yes we are in debt and yes it needs to be managed better, but all the economists say Australia is still going perfectly ok.

Stop being a blind liberal/labor following zombie and realise neither party has offered anything of substance at the last election. even good policies get lost due to people parroting the party line. NBN is an example of this. The labor NBN model is technically the best, over 50% of coalition voters supported it, yet coalition supporters sprout the unaffordable line while spending nearly as much to give the impression of saving money. Yet spending money on other unaffordable things like parental leave is perfectly ok and isn’t a waste of money.

Its really sad to see numpties like you and all the pro labor ones as well on here repeat the BS fed to you by the political parties, rather than looking for real solutions to fix the problems and not just superficial rubbish to get reelected on.

I just have no time for people like yourself who repeat lines like look who won the election, or the boat people are all terrorists, We are in debt, but lets scare people to make them think the country is going down the gurgler. Meanwhile Labor goes on about job losses to public servants, many of which are overpaid and have work conditions far in excess to everyone else.

I feel sorry for all the blind political supporters thats for sure and those of us in the middle who are truly the intelligent ones just have to vote for who is going to do the least damage rather than who is actually convincing us to vote. So yes the Coalition got voted in and they will get voted out too if they don’t come up with any solutions.

#27
Nylex_Clock10:05 pm, 20 Mar 14

dungfungus said :

Did it occur to you that the policies you are complaining about are those preferred by the majority of Australians who believe the country is already overcommitted to repaying debt due to Labor being unable to control expenditure?

No, because such a belief could only be the result of gross ignorance. It’s the job of the govenrment to govern. Tony Abbott hasn’t figured out how to do this yet, which is natural, because he essentially got elected on the back of a massive bargeload of complete and utter lies, and being a liar makes it difficult to effectively govern.

All international economic bodies point to Australia’s response to the GFC as having been the correct one.
Australia’s foreign debt is a tiny fraction of the size of the debts of other first-world countries.
Australia: 12% of GDP
Japan: 134%
USA: 88%
France: 84%
UK:83%
Germany: 57%
Canada: 35%
(And Norway: -165%, thanks to their version of the Mining Tax)
90% of the world’s countries have greater debts than ours.

Anybody who has decided to believe the Liberal party’s dishonest alarmism about “debt” has no idea what they are talking about. Gullible fools.

#28
housebound9:00 am, 21 Mar 14

Being debt averse doesn’t mean you are a Liberal. Some of us are just plain debt averse (Scottish heritage?). We were not only very uncomfortable with Rudd’s spending spree at a time when income, the ability to pay the debt, was probably going to drop, but also with Howard’s handouts before then and his selling off the family silver to pay down debt before that.

Back OT. We’re in a safe seat. Locally, we’re close to being a one-party state. No political party will ever care about what happens here. There’s probably something more personal about the lack of care right now because the CPSU announced loudly an proudly last year that it would campaign against the party that vocally promised the loss of 12,000 jobs but ignored what the other party was already doing (in a sneakier but probably more effective way). But that’s just speculation.

#29
VYBerlinaV8_is_back9:10 am, 21 Mar 14

Nylex_Clock said :

[… he essentially got elected on the back of a massive bargeload of complete and utter lies…

Disagree. Abbott got elected because people were sick to death of Labor’s infighting, lack of direction and generally piss poor performance.

Abbott didn’t win, he just didn’t lose.

Regarding the debt, I don’t think it’s a problem if the debt is used for constructive purposes. Some of the Labor debt was constructive, but a lot wasn’t. Personally I think they overspent during the GFC, which is why interest rates jumped then fell back.

I wouldn’t mind reducing our debt, but it needs to be done gradually, and not at the expense of programs that improve our economic situation.

Labor and Liberal both suck these days, and the Greens do too. What we really need are some new pollies that have some clever ideas and the brains and balls to implement them.

#30
dungfungus9:38 am, 21 Mar 14

Nylex_Clock said :

dungfungus said :

Did it occur to you that the policies you are complaining about are those preferred by the majority of Australians who believe the country is already overcommitted to repaying debt due to Labor being unable to control expenditure?

No, because such a belief could only be the result of gross ignorance. It’s the job of the govenrment to govern. Tony Abbott hasn’t figured out how to do this yet, which is natural, because he essentially got elected on the back of a massive bargeload of complete and utter lies, and being a liar makes it difficult to effectively govern.

All international economic bodies point to Australia’s response to the GFC as having been the correct one.
Australia’s foreign debt is a tiny fraction of the size of the debts of other first-world countries.
Australia: 12% of GDP
Japan: 134%
USA: 88%
France: 84%
UK:83%
Germany: 57%
Canada: 35%
(And Norway: -165%, thanks to their version of the Mining Tax)
90% of the world’s countries have greater debts than ours.

Anybody who has decided to believe the Liberal party’s dishonest alarmism about “debt” has no idea what they are talking about. Gullible fools.

The alarmism about debt is real. The $300 billion does not include state, territory or unfunded public service pension money nor the contingent liability on deposit gurantees.
I am not disputing the indebtedness of the other countries but the difference between them and us is they are all industrialised and have enormous manufacturing capability. In simple terms, the other countries can trade out. In two years, Australia will not even be making cars and when cheaper coal and iron ore come on line from Brazil and Mongolia soon, our mining boom will be over.
Please give us you plan for Australia to then repay our debt.
If you had ever risked a few dollars in a business yourself you might understand; in fact, if you are confident things are so good why don’t you borrow heaps of that cheap money currently available and get into a business yourself. A man of your insight would do well. But then again, don’t take my advice as I don’t know what I am talking about.

Sponsors
RiotACT Proudly Supports
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.