We made a mistake with Rudd, didn't we? (2 Viewers)

[Lauchlan]

You know the governor general can dissolve the House of Representatives, right? If the people see such an obviously gross abuse of power they will not continue to vote for him. Electoral swings are marginal enough in this country that I find your situation to be highly implausible, whether it was a Labor or Liberal Prime Minister is irrelevant.


'cause Labor governments never run a budget surplus and never institute sound economic policy and Liberal governments never run a budget deficit and always institute sound economic policy, right?

Fucking hell. Here's some advice. Vote for who has the best policies, not for a party. And don't let gross generalizations and misinterpretations of either party sway your decisions.

Edit: oh yeah and why people think they know all about public finance confuses the fuck out of me
Editedit: also rofl at people saying Rudd is left leaning economically. But I suppose centre-right is left of right.

hmmm

 

[Riet]

You're either a really shit troll or an absolute fuckstick. I'm thinking a bit of both.

Howard kept relations with the US strong, one of our major trading partners, a military ally and one of the world's richest nations. Rudd's siding with a communist regime that makes cheap plastic toys and can't even do communism right.

Rudd's censoring the interweb, what should be a free medium for people to post their opinions and share open information. And porn. What would stop him from censoring any sites that belittle the Labor party or Chairman Rudd once this ISP-level fliter is set up? There's no safeguards ensuring freedom of speech is unaffected, and morality already is a subjective issue (as proven so many times on this forum, let alone on the web and in the real world). So who is to say what is right and wrong? I wouldn't trust a politician with that power.

The Libs under Howard managed to accumulate a surplus, which was returned in part to the taxpayers so they could spend on things that benefit them personally. Labor likes to rip money out of people, spend it on stuff that benefits a minority and then announce the debt was because of the previous Liberal government. I'd rather have sound fiscal policies than allowing indiscriminate spending on multi-million dollar libraries the size of a $200 000 house.

Howard did not 'hold Australia back', the only reason Australia survived the GFC was not because of Ruddkip paying dead people and overseas citizens money, but because Australia was already in a good position financially thanks to Howard and the Libs.



My opinion is the same, my conflict is the same.

Howard delivered a strong surplus? Oh and here I was thinking it was BHP Billiton

I didn't realise taxing people too much and then not spending it on improving the country was sound economic management.

 

[Lauchlan]

You wouldnt make to a court of law, the judge would take one look at you and automatically tell you're a pre birth fuck up.

obviously you have issues - you cant discuss /debate anything without going too far....

your no better than the people in the Internet Filter thread who starting discussing good porn sites, and when i criticised their position - all they can do is mouth off...
it goes to show those who have good arguments can continue arguing, despite how good they are at it, and those who have bad arguments tend to mouth off at their successor.

 

[badquinton304]

obviously you have issues - you cant discuss /debate anything without going too far....

your no better than the people in the Internet Filter thread who starting discussing good porn sites, and when i criticised their position - all they can do is mouth off...
it goes to show those who have good arguments can continue arguing, despite how good they are at it, and those who have bad arguments tend to mouth off at their successor.

AdInfinium Lite

 

[Lauchlan]

howard delivered a strong surplus? Oh and here i was thinking it was bhp billiton

i didn't realise taxing people too much and then not spending it on improving the country was sound economic management.

respond to this. I dare you.

 

[Riet]

don't think I'm supporting Rudd, Lauchlan. Ineffective spending is stupid too, I'm just saying that a surplus doesn't mean anything if you have achieved it by failing to spend when necessary.

 

[funkshen]

don't think I'm supporting Rudd, Lauchlan. Ineffective spending is stupid too, I'm just saying that a surplus doesn't mean anything if you have achieved it by failing to spend when necessary.

No but if you're saving more money then you spend thats good ok.

THAT IS MY INTERPRETATION OF THE CALIBRE OF THIS DEBATE

 

[scuba_steve2121]

it can be INTERPRETED that Howard held Australia back in the areas of health and education, by not moving in any direction. in a sense he just sat on the fence and looking towards "privatising" the health system as previously mentioned.
by this was not completed in the time of over a decade in office.

Rudd has only been in office for a few years and he already has introduced policy to work towards a direction for australias future specific to these services. the original policy of health reform may not be 100% perfect and effective..... yet - there will be compromise with the states, particularly victoria.

In education Howard did not move towards improving Australian education standards, as in the funding, the curriculum, the services schools need ect. Rudd has started to address these of which Howard didnt.

Im not saying Rudd's policy is 100% perfect and effective, but its over 50% in my point of view - which is 50% more than Howard ever did.

If you can RESPOND TO WHAT I JUST SAID then do so. but do not bring up further issues until you have responded to the 'holding back' question which, i did not start btw - i am only saying that if i were to comment - i would agree 75% labor, 25% liberal.... if that.

responses are to bits in bold in order from top to bottom

there is no interpretation in social and economic growth he ether did or didn't

he supported private healthcare as it is better. the senate would not of passed complete privatisation of the healthcare system so Howard didn't bother to introduce the Bill. as i have already said it wouldn't of mattered how much money he shoved at it.

for education don't fix what is not broken

any healthcare reform will not work as it is public sector refer to my sig

at my school a new library was built and new ramps for disabled children during the Howard years so saying he did nothing for schools and education is a blatant lie

all Rudd is doing is wasting money with these hurriedly made contracts to build new school halls etc. hes shoving to much money in a place where u could do the same thing and even better with half the amount of money. as for the laptops lol as if kids are going to use them seriously i mean come on they are just ridiculous. and this new national curriculum is not going to bring states up to nsw level but rather bring nsw down to mediocrity. i mean seriously these new subject like wealth fare and ethics classes seroiusly wtf school time can be better spent on other things

Rudd with this stimulus package is preventing the much needed reallocation of capital and labour so i guess u could say he is holding us back

basically howard did not hold us back at all with the extreme amount of economic growth we had. and with greater economic power comes greater amounts of freedom thus progression

 

[scuba_steve2121]

its ALL TRIVIAL - but as i have said before, i seem to touching a nerve when i suggest that your queen Howard isnt perfect.

no its not trivial he provided examples of how Howard was awesome and u dismiss them as trivial when they are so clearly not

 

[scuba_steve2121]

Howard delivered a strong surplus? Oh and here I was thinking it was BHP Billiton

I didn't realise taxing people too much and then not spending it on improving the country was sound economic management.

Howard was saving because something bad was going to happen which omg it did

also by reducing the money supply eg saving not spending you reduce inflation which I'm sure is considered a good thing?

also by saving and not spending he was trying to slow economic growth so we didn't fall as hard as the other nations who were still driving a huge debt

 

[Riet]

Howard was saving because something bad was going to happen which omg it did

also by reducing the money supply eg saving not spending you reduce inflation which I'm sure is considered a good thing?

also by saving and not spending he was trying to slow economic growth so we didn't fall as hard as the other nations who were still driving a huge debt

Inflation was higher under howard than it is now, better infrastructure and education would have long term benefit, the money was put into a "future fund" that isn't protected against being devalued by inflation. Recessions are all part of the cycle, if weak companies had been allowed to die off there would be overall benefit in the long run. It's not as if once you spend money it is gone. If either howard or rudd had spent on things like upgrading our ports and freight rail there would be positive effects on our economy. If we had emphasised manufacturing and exporting value added products instead of raw materials our dollar wouldn't be at the mercy of commodities prices. If we didn't have such a high dollar our farmers and small businesses would be in a better position for exporting to global markets.

Digging up coal and iron ore is short sighted. Although we of course should exploit our natural resources we have to look beyond that as well.

 

[funkshen]

Inflation was higher under howard than it is now, better infrastructure and education would have long term benefit, the money was put into a "future fund" that isn't protected against being devalued by inflation.

World class economic management.

 

[Riet]

World class economic management.

which is why it is the exact opposite of what everyone ever does? Debt isn't automatically unhealthy

 

[SylviaB]

it can be INTERPRETED that Howard held Australia back in the areas of health and education, by not moving in any direction. in a sense he just sat on the fence and looking towards "privatising" the health system as previously mentioned.

So, doing something bad is better than not doing anything, just because you're doing something?

is it better to shoot yourself or to sit there with the gun to your head?
Nah yeah you're right if you don't shoot yourself you're just holding yourself back .

 

[funkshen]

which is why it is the exact opposite of what everyone ever does? Debt isn't automatically unhealthy

Government debt is actually vital to the health of the economy. Just not the economy of scuba_stevia

 

[Riet]

Government debt is actually vital to the health of the economy. Just not the economy of scuba_stevia

sorry this thread is such a train wreck Ive lost track of who's arguing what and when you are being sarcastic

 

[SylviaB]

Government debt is actually vital to the health of the economy.

um no

 

[funkshen]

sorry this thread is such a train wreck Ive lost track of who's arguing what and when you are being sarcastic

im on your side brah

also im out cause this thread is fucked

 

[Lauchlan]

don't think I'm supporting Rudd, Lauchlan. Ineffective spending is stupid too, I'm just saying that a surplus doesn't mean anything if you have achieved it by failing to spend when necessary.

its not who your supporting, im looking at responses to criticism - both sides.

 

[Lauchlan]

responses are to bits in bold in order from top to bottom

there is no interpretation in social and economic growth he ether did or didn't

he supported private healthcare as it is better. the senate would not of passed complete privatisation of the healthcare system so Howard didn't bother to introduce the Bill. as i have already said it wouldn't of mattered how much money he shoved at it.

for education don't fix what is not broken

any healthcare reform will not work as it is public sector refer to my sig

at my school a new library was built and new ramps for disabled children during the Howard years so saying he did nothing for schools and education is a blatant lie

all Rudd is doing is wasting money with these hurriedly made contracts to build new school halls etc. hes shoving to much money in a place where u could do the same thing and even better with half the amount of money. as for the laptops lol as if kids are going to use them seriously i mean come on they are just ridiculous. and this new national curriculum is not going to bring states up to nsw level but rather bring nsw down to mediocrity. i mean seriously these new subject like wealth fare and ethics classes seroiusly wtf school time can be better spent on other things

Rudd with this stimulus package is preventing the much needed reallocation of capital and labour so i guess u could say he is holding us back

basically howard did not hold us back at all with the extreme amount of economic growth we had. and with greater economic power comes greater amounts of freedom thus progression

ok you make some good points, but i cant help but see contradictions.

@ EDUCATION - do you have proof that the work you speak of is a result of Howard's legislation. if your in a state that is labor it could have been the result of state government funding - as i remind you all the system is concurrent. i cant really believe such a claim when all your using to defend it is it happened during when he was in national office. but dont think i was saying that infrastructure wasnt being built by liberals - both labor and liberal have different approaches to this.
i will not even take two glances at the "don't fix what is not broken" excuse. i have time and time again on threads discussed the holes in education that could be addressed by state and federal govts - refer to metaphors used.

@ HEALTH i seem to recall tony abbott saying that the health system needs reform where 100% of funding is from the commonwealth. he agrees to this day we need a reform - what do you think of this? when (or if) he releases an alternate policy i would wonder what the liberal voters would think of it.

@ LAPTOPS - these are a result of state government choice of how to use the funding. every state got to choose how to provide 'a computer for every 9-12 student'. i think schools should updated their computers and got more... but again that was state not federal response.

@ CURRICULUM - i agree that NSW's curriculum is the best in australia, but it has its holes... like the absence of some subjects (psychology)... i think the government should have helped the states to update their syllabus's and provided guidelines for outcomes. this would bring the other states up but not affect nsw - seriously the board of studies weere planning to update many of their syllabus's around now... like maths, and legal studies was just implemented. oh well it wont affect me (luckily) but it is a shame - again i think the govt has the right intentions but the wrong variations of practice (that being said im not sure liberal would be better). welfare and ethics classes have been around long before this reform - that part is irrelevent.

@ RUDD - i dont think this term of his govt has held australia back - i think we needed a change from howard, despite how economically gifted you say he is. rudd has his plus sides.

what do you think eh?