Latham or Howard? (2 Viewers)

[craz]

NEVER EVER SHOULD Pauline Hansen become PM. By this, I mean it big time, I hate her. Politicians are scums of the earth i reckon...but every votes counts, thats whats important.

 

[gaybasher]

i like pauline hanson cos she has big balls, if you look at the politicians..none of them have any backbone..

whats wrong with pauline hansen anyways?

 

[OZGIRL86]

thats probably the only thing i agree on with u

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by OZGIRL86
thats probably the only thing i agree on with u

well then it's probably the only thing you are correct on.

 

[OZGIRL86]

no

 

[Nescient]

OMFG no PAULINE! are u retarded?! pls johnny has screwed us up enough... no white australia pls... noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo no pauly

 

[craz]

Originally posted by gaybasher
i like pauline hanson cos she has big balls, if you look at the politicians..none of them have any backbone..

whats wrong with pauline hansen anyways?

i just have a feeling about her...her views are too blunt and too narrow minded.

 

[Carlito]

this week, Howard visits g.w. bush, arnie, blair, etc.,... Latham goes on Rove Live. lol.

 

[gaybasher]

lol carlito .......

ummm btw im not sure if i agreee with everyone of paulines policies..but i am against most of the policiesof the major politcal parties..........pauline is just mostly nieve but she has good intentions..............the other politicians are corrupted but are probably a bit more educated.

there fore i think with a bit of guidance pauline would make a totally kick arse politician.

btw guys what did u think of my views on boat ppple?

 

[christ]

Originally posted by Sush
Howard has improved Australia's economic situation whihc is no surprise as obviously the liberal party is inclined towards privatisation and other economic enhancing concepts, according to that theory we'll have to continue seeing good ol' bushy eye brows at it again. n also deres d whole ignorant view of "oh since the labor party created debt last time in power it must mean tahts what they all will do" so yeh just because keating was shite its given labor a bad name

whilst i agree that howard has managed Australia's economic situation successfully since the liberal party has been in government, we are also experiencing the benefits of the polices implemented by labor regarding productivity improvements such as lowering of trade barriers through tariff reduction (the liberal party actually increased tariffs the last time it was in power), so that Australia's industries are concentrated in areas where we have competitive advantage. These long term changes have contributed to Howard's economic success.

 

[gaybasher]

christ i could have got that out of a text boook come up with your own ideas dude.....

and secondly who cares about the economy the most important thing is the war...............and our current governments decision to declare war on a country and indanger the lives of our troops..not to mention increase the likely hood of terrorism in this country. who cares about the economy when voting there are more important things to consider.

 

[poloktim]

Originally posted by gaybasher
christ i could have got that out of a text boook come up with your own ideas dude.....

and secondly who cares about the economy the most important thing is the war...............and our current governments decision to declare war on a country and indanger the lives of our troops..not to mention increase the likely hood of terrorism in this country. who cares about the economy when voting there are more important things to consider.

Though I do agree with you when you say the war should play an integral part of voting, I still think that one still must consider all factors.

One such factor that makes Latham a far better choice than Howard is that Bush said that Latham would suck as a prime minister. Bush is an idiot for:
a). meddling in Australian domestic politics.
b). everything.
Some people may decide to take a swing on what Bush said today when they choose who to elect. This may not turn out in Latham's favour, but then again it may.

One important thing I think is the governments handling of Medicare. Is the new "Strengthened" Medicare better? If so, will Labor keep it? In fact, in my opinion, Medicare is one of the most important issues the country can face. Moreso than the war. The governments handling of federal roads and other transport issues, and the way they're dealing with universities are also extremely important factors to consider.

Though, gaybasher, you're right. The war is one such issue that people should probably hold higher than a few others when considering who to vote for.

 

[christ]

Originally posted by kochou
Howard... well the economy seems to be doing well and as an ignorant economics student, the proposed buget is quite appealing.

What the budget doesn’t do is address Australia’s macroeconomic objectives. The proposed tax cuts are indications of an expansionary budget – giving people more money to spend and so boosting the economy. However, at the moment we want to dampen the economy as price rises in the housing sectors (mainly in Syd and Mel) are becoming unsustainable and the current account deficit has again reached a high. Also we are at a point where unemployment is so low that further economic growth, instead of further reducing unemployment, could potentially lead to inflation as it did in 1990/1991 (causing a recession).
Because this budget encourages growth when we don’t really want it to, the RBA has been forced to raise interest rates to slow down the economy. High interest rates are not good with so many people having masses of debt!

These tax cuts = irresponsible fiscal policy !!

 

[gaybasher]

christ fucking helll stop taking things out of a first year economics text book wen i first learnt all that garbage yeah it was interesting but you dont need to recite it on here..

Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmi personally i think voting is a complete waste of time. Most politicians are liars and provide no leadership for this country and pretty much just waste our tax money.

I think its illegal to tell people not to vote so i wont do that. so if you have to vote i would encourage you to vote for latham...........................basically just to piss off george the war monger bush ------------------ that will further distablise iraq............................and that would be so goood to watch on tv. come on guys give the terrorists in iraq a helping hand.

For the most part the terrorists have been pretty nice to australians besides in bali, but besides that they have been pretty goood its time to show your apprechiation.

Vote for latham purely to spite geoge bush and undermine the glotal war on terror. Its funny guys do it. Otherwise ummm yeah like i said voting is a waste of time and energy.

 

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by christ
What the budget doesn’t do is address Australia’s macroeconomic objectives. The proposed tax cuts are indications of an expansionary budget – giving people more money to spend and so boosting the economy.

You are drastically oversimplifying a complex process. However, you're simplification is reasonably accurate. I assume you do realise that Mark Latham wants to cut taxes ON TOP OF the Howard government proposed tax cuts?

However, at the moment we want to dampen the economy as price rises in the housing sectors (mainly in Syd and Mel) are becoming unsustainable and the current account deficit has again reached a high.

2003 called, they want you and their pressing issues back. Also, the CAD isn't at a high (that was mid2003, IIRC), it's rather down towards the upper end of the long term trend due to factors largely outside the government's control. Alternatively, you can stay with good ol' 2004, where people are concerned about the slowdown of domestic demand and retail sales, with the depreciating AUD likely to somewhat reverse the large trade deficit which was responsible for the CAD, due to factors that can't be attributed to the government - such as the slowdown in global economic activity, and the drought.

Oh and, I find it highly amusing that you're trying to be pro labor and raising the issue of CAD, since as an economics student you should know all about the ALP's large budget deficits.

True or false: The public sector does not contribute to the CAD under the Howard government.

Also we are at a point where unemployment is so low that further economic growth, instead of further reducing unemployment, could potentially lead to inflation as it did in 1990/1991 (causing a recession).

Firstly, the Keating government largely caused that recession. Secondly, you have no idea what the NAIRU is in Australia, nobody does, so your vague referencing of it makes you look stupid to anyone who knows what you are talking about. The truth is that Australia has had unemployment of lower than 6% under the Howard government for quite a while now, and wage pressures are relatively constrained.

Because this budget encourages growth when we don’t really want it to, the RBA has been forced to raise interest rates to slow down the economy.

The RBA hasn't raised interest rates, dumbass. I actually went back and checked your post to ensure this wasn't typed back at the end of last year. But that June 2004 is plain to see, so I must question what on earth you are talking about. However, I do agree the RBA is likely to raise interest rates, but this was already rather likely before the Budget, and the Budget is merely an extra reason to raise interest rates.

PS: POP QUIZ: what were the interest rates under the last ALP administration?

These tax cuts = irresponsible fiscal policy !!

You = dumbass, who turns a blind eye to Labor's brilliant economic management, and Latham's plan for a more stimulatory tax cut than the current government's suggestion.

 

[ihatecensorship]

sasas

 

[kochou]

since when did this thread turn into an economics lesson??

 

[RUB!X]

???

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by kochou
since when did this thread turn into an economics lesson??

You know when idiots open their mouths, and let loose bullshit they learnt in 1 ecos lesson and thought they were 100% correct? That's when.

 

[ameh]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
You are drastically oversimplifying a complex process. However, you're simplification is reasonably accurate. I assume you do realise that Mark Latham wants to cut taxes ON TOP OF the Howard government proposed tax cuts?



2003 called, they want you and their pressing issues back. Also, the CAD isn't at a high (that was mid2003, IIRC), it's rather down towards the upper end of the long term trend due to factors largely outside the government's control. Alternatively, you can stay with good ol' 2004, where people are concerned about the slowdown of domestic demand and retail sales, with the depreciating AUD likely to somewhat reverse the large trade deficit which was responsible for the CAD, due to factors that can't be attributed to the government - such as the slowdown in global economic activity, and the drought.

Oh and, I find it highly amusing that you're trying to be pro labor and raising the issue of CAD, since as an economics student you should know all about the ALP's large budget deficits.

True or false: The public sector does not contribute to the CAD under the Howard government.



Firstly, the Keating government largely caused that recession. Secondly, you have no idea what the NAIRU is in Australia, nobody does, so your vague referencing of it makes you look stupid to anyone who knows what you are talking about. The truth is that Australia has had unemployment of lower than 6% under the Howard government for quite a while now, and wage pressures are relatively constrained.



The RBA hasn't raised interest rates, dumbass. I actually went back and checked your post to ensure this wasn't typed back at the end of last year. But that June 2004 is plain to see, so I must question what on earth you are talking about. However, I do agree the RBA is likely to raise interest rates, but this was already rather likely before the Budget, and the Budget is merely an extra reason to raise interest rates.

PS: POP QUIZ: what were the interest rates under the last ALP administration?



You = dumbass, who turns a blind eye to Labor's brilliant economic management, and Latham's plan for a more stimulatory tax cut than the current government's suggestion.

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
You know when idiots open their mouths, and let loose bullshit they learnt in 1 ecos lesson and thought they were 100% correct? That's when.