We made a mistake with Rudd, didn't we? (7 Viewers)

[Lauchlan]

money is everything

if socially a country appealed to you on every level means shit when its got the wealth of Sierra Leone

also wtf do u think the government does all day if its not 'playing around' with money. when federal or state decides to do something like idk a healthcare reform. wtf do you think one of the main things they are doing. its like one day on what we want to do then the rest of the time is seeing if its possiable with the amount of money we have.

there are different ways of 'playing with' and using money (or not using it).
money is an important factor considered and dealt with by govts, but its not the only thing they should be good at. thats my point.

say what you will, but it wont change the fact that all i have heard of the liberal party's skills is with money - thats a major thing but doesnt cover the entire scope of govt responsisbilities. if you can give examples of their other gifts than do so - otherwise i suggest you reread this.

(BTW: this is about the liberal party in general (particularly the "econimic wiz" Howard) so do not respond to this about other issues, parties or policies!

 

[scuba_steve2121]

there are different ways of 'playing with' and using money (or not using it).
money is an important factor considered and dealt with by govts, but its not the only thing they should be good at. thats my point.

say what you will, but it wont change the fact that all i have heard of the liberal party's skills is with money - thats a major thing but doesnt cover the entire scope of govt responsisbilities. if you can give examples of their other gifts than do so - otherwise i suggest you reread this.

(BTW: this is about the liberal party in general (particularly the "econimic wiz" Howard) so do not respond to this about other issues, parties or policies!

dude you don't get me, every decision the government makes is almost always about something to do with money. being good with money and budgeting etc is what makes or breaks a country/government

lol bits in bold you tell me to give other examples then tell me not to

 

[tommykins]

logic is lacking in this young one

 

[Lauchlan]

dude you don't get me, every decision the government makes is almost always about something to do with money. being good with money and budgeting etc is what makes or breaks a country/government

lol bits in bold you tell me to give other examples then tell me not to

1. im aware that money can be regarded as everything to govts, but it is much more than that. its how the money is used. not saved, not managed - those are other issues out of topic. the labor party arent afraid to USE money. show me where the liberal party has acted to achieve results by using record amounts of money. thats my question - answer it - dont say something about labor - defend liberal for their lack of funding australia - and dont give me pathetic one-liners like 'dont fix what isnt broken'.... actually address the question - dont dismiss it like you always do.
2. i told you not to respond with, and i quote "other" examples that aren't related to the comment. dont try and get out of answering the question, noob.

 

[tommykins]

what i've alwyas failed to fathom is when dipshits argue - they claim YOU'RE not answering their questions/points when they're the ones ignoring yours.

additionally, when you do answer their point, they reply with another question which only leads to ad infinitum.

then when they run out of questions/ideas, it becomes 'AGREE TO DISAGREE K'

 

[scuba_steve2121]

1. im aware that money can be regarded as everything to govts, but it is much more than that. its how the money is used. not saved, not managed - those are other issues out of topic. the labor party arent afraid to USE money. show me where the liberal party has acted to achieve results by using record amounts of money. thats my question - answer it - dont say something about labor - defend liberal for their lack of funding australia - and dont give me pathetic one-liners like 'dont fix what isnt broken'.... actually address the question - dont dismiss it like you always do.
2. i told you not to respond with, and i quote "other" examples that aren't related to the comment. dont try and get out of answering the question, noob.

(ill come back on 2moro to respond to your hopefully responsive response.... )

you see that is what made the liberal party good they didn't use record amounts of money because they didn't need to. they used the money that they had and through good management and budgeting got the same job done that labour would of probably needed twice the amount of money. THIS IS WHY ECONOMICALLY SAVVY PEOPLE VOTE LIBERAL!!!!

 

[Lentern]

you see that is what made the liberal party good they didn't use record amounts of money because they didn't need to. they used the money that they had and through good management and budgeting got the same job done that labour would of probably needed twice the amount of money. THIS IS WHY ECONOMICALLY SAVVY PEOPLE VOTE LIBERAL!!!!

Actually I read an article a while back by I think former Howard staffer Gerrard Henderson which suggested the Howard government was actually the biggest tax and spend government since Whitlam. Something to do with Hawke and Fraser whenever GDP jumped at the rates it did in the wake of the 90' s recession and later the mining boom the government tended to sustain suspending and reduce cut taxes aggressively whereas spending still grew massively over the term of the liberal government. Certainly the Costello memoirs have some lovely graphs in them pointing out how much more money per capita the coalition spent on education, defence, health care etc than the Keating government.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Actually I read an article a while back by I think former Howard staffer Gerrard Henderson which suggested the Howard government was actually the biggest tax and spend government since Whitlam. Something to do with Hawke and Fraser whenever GDP jumped at the rates it did in the wake of the 90' s recession and later the mining boom the government tended to sustain suspending and reduce cut taxes aggressively whereas spending still grew massively over the term of the liberal government. Certainly the Costello memoirs have some lovely graphs in them pointing out how much more money per capita the coalition spent on education, defence, health care etc than the Keating government.

well of course they spent more money its called inflation. back in whitlams day the budget was like 2 dollars 50?

no matter what government is in office the budget is always going to gradually increase and i havn't found any inflation adjusted figures of yet but if you have i would really like to see some because i have honestly been looking.

 

[Lentern]

well of course they spent more money its called inflation. back in whitlams day the budget was like 2 dollars 50?

no matter what government is in office the budget is always going to gradually increase and i havn't found any inflation adjusted figures of yet but if you have i would really like to see some because i have honestly been looking.

I'm not talking about inflation I'm saying most liberal economists believe the Howard government needed a lot less revenue to run the shop than it kept rustling up and that the approach of Fraser and even Hawke would have been to cut taxes more aggressively than the government Howard did.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

I'm not talking about inflation I'm saying most liberal economists believe the Howard government needed a lot less revenue to run the shop than it kept rustling up and that the approach of Fraser and even Hawke would have been to cut taxes more aggressively than the government Howard did.

well fortunately for them they weren't paying off one of the biggest Australian government debts in history

 

[zaxmacks]

Rudd is tops.

 

[SnowFox]

what i've alwyas failed to fathom is when dipshits argue - they claim YOU'RE not answering their questions/points when they're the ones ignoring yours.

additionally, when you do answer their point, they reply with another question which only leads to ad infinitum.

then when they run out of questions/ideas, it becomes 'AGREE TO DISAGREE K'

Shall the name be cursed for infinity.

 

[Lentern]

well fortunately for them they weren't paying off one of the biggest Australian government debts in history

No... because the world economy was booming and later the mining industry was booming and as such they had tons and tons of revenue, much of which Hawke and Fraser would probably have given to the people instead of investing in ships and schools and stadia.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

No... because the world economy was booming and later the mining industry was booming and as such they had tons and tons of revenue, much of which Hawke and Fraser would probably have given to the people instead of investing in ships and schools and stadia.

lol this is ridiculous i don't even support government

to be fair Hawke was an ok PM he abolished tariffs and did some fine deregulation and you can't say the thing about cutting taxes Howard cut taxes close to the end of his career because the economy was good and they didn't need the revenue. however i will admit gst wasn't the best idea but the doesn't come anywhere close to the introduction of capital gains taxes by hawke and the introduction of fing medicare

 

[mirakon]

My point is this - why are you not willing to discuss tony abbott? it wont kill you, it is relevant to the debate as he is the current leader - which is what people should be debating about - not about a dead politician. obviously you dont have many positives things to say about abbott which is why you are clinging on to what is now history.

im sick of you blaming state govt for howard - he maintains a portion (however small) of blame in this area - it is CONCURRENT for gods sake.

in education i very much so agree with you on many points. i agree that the issues could have been addressed better - i do not agree that they shouldnt be addressed at all.

the problem is that there is two options for the australian public to look at (that have been highlighted recently like abbott's fail to introduce his alternate policy on health)

Labor: Something
Liberal: Nothing

There is no comparison. There are systems in Australia that are regarded as 'broken' therefore they need to be fixed. Everyone you says 'if it aint broken dont fix it' is a pathetic conservatist.

Of course Abbot is irrelevant, have you read the title of this thread? Yes, I don't like Abbot, but that by no means means that Howard is a bad leader, which is what this thread is about. That's the precise point, you're arguing the wrong thing.

 

[Lauchlan]

what i've alwyas failed to fathom is when dipshits argue - they claim YOU'RE not answering their questions/points when they're the ones ignoring yours.

additionally, when you do answer their point, they reply with another question which only leads to ad infinitum.

then when they run out of questions/ideas, it becomes 'AGREE TO DISAGREE K'

im finding it hard to fathom what you want from me. if you want me to say 'k i agree with you'... give up now because we share very different views.

we both have responded with questions, thats why this thread has reached 40 pages.

and i think we both are not satisfied with eachother's answers also, claiming that one is ignoring another's points - this is not going to end if that contunies, which it is.

but i dont care, its fun in a way.

 

[Lauchlan]

you see that is what made the liberal party good they didn't use record amounts of money because they didn't need to. they used the money that they had and through good management and budgeting got the same job done that labour would of probably needed twice the amount of money. THIS IS WHY ECONOMICALLY SAVVY PEOPLE VOTE LIBERAL!!!!

whats the point in saving and managing money that you dont plan to spend?

you say they didnt need to - what bs.

 

[Lauchlan]

I'm not talking about inflation I'm saying most liberal economists believe the Howard government needed a lot less revenue to run the shop than it kept rustling up and that the approach of Fraser and even Hawke would have been to cut taxes more aggressively than the government Howard did.

Lentern seems to be making some points that others are failing to answer properly, all i see is ppl dismissing his well-informed comments. keep going Lentern.

 

[scuba_steve2121]

whats the point in saving and managing money that you dont plan to spend?

you say they didnt need to - what bs.

just because you have money doesn't mean you have to spend it you can save it for when you need it like in a crisis, wait a minute this sounds familiar

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Lentern seems to be making some points that others are failing to answer properly, all i see is ppl dismissing his well-informed comments. keep going Lentern.

i addressed his point wtf are u talking about?