would depend on the circumstances at that particular time, obviously it is not required at the moment.....

Ok so you think capping housing interest rates at that stage was a good idea?

i can't see where i stated that?

you should try for a job with the ABC....ambushing and putting words in peoples mouths.....

He's not saying you stated it, he's asking you a question :lol:

Dense.

-PB

Why don't you stop beating around the bush and out with it, cunt

It's because of my pissing habits and the pressure batty puts me under



-PB

As PB stated, I'm asking the question. I'm just curious if you think it was a good idea to cap housing interest rates during the fraser/howard era (and before)? My assumption is yes as you were using it to suggest that interest rates were better back then. Unless of course you were just trying to troll but I think that you are generally sincere.

I do wonder how many banks were willing to lend when they could only charge interest at 13% but could only get the funds themselves at 21% but I'm sure you'll have a good explanation.

Actually it is you who is dense, there is one word missing from his comment and it is "DO" and it should have been placed between SO & YOU, he is assuming i support capping interest rates, i haven't stated that in any of my posts.....

you assume way to much..... i was just stating facts......housing loan interest rates were 17% under keating and 13% under fraser/howard......how hard is that for you to get???

But I shit standing up and piss lying down.

Where is your God now Finkest?

-PB

seek help immediately;)

Not hard at all. From now on I'll treat any facts that you raise as just that. A fact that has no proper point or relevance to the discussion. ;)

I knew I shouldn't have put my assumption in as you'd just use it to deflect. Live and learn :lol:

Edited by mcjules: 9/9/2014 01:27:18 PM

you are quite special aren't you....the point is....housing interest rates were 17% under keating and 13% under howard.....that is a fact and completely relevant.......

perhaps if you asked straight up questions without the assumptions and ambush tactics people would be prepared to view an opinion

It's perfectly valid to make some assumptions based on your responses. I asked some very straight up questions, to confirm or deny my assumptions but you deflected them rather than answering. TBH shame on me for thinking that anything else would happen :lol:

It's only relevant if you can use that fact to support your argument in the discussion. Yes the interest rate was lower but it was capped so it wasn't allowed to go higher. If you think that 13% is better than the 17% under Keating then you need to explain how as it was pointed out that the real comparable interest rate was as high as 21% otherwise you're just throwing out random facts. If you don't want to, that's fine I'll just assume that you're trolling or have no idea what you're talking about and not waste my time anymore.

do whatever you want sunshine..... obviously you can't handle the truth......perhaps it's time for you to ge play marbles with the rest of the kids

I guess a response better than this is too much to ask on a football forum :lol:

From someone like batfink; yes.

-PB

What were the housing rates under Rudd and Gillard compared to Howard?

It's a shame that most of the more right wing posters are incapable of producing a decent argument. I actually don't mind rusty, most of the time I've come to the conclusion that based on our own ideologies we'll never agree but at least I get something out of the discussion. Most of the others...

well there you go again.....more assumption......


on another topic,

did anyone see cooky Bill Shorten on last nights news addressing a union rally???

what a ranting socialist nut job........scare mongering and spewing lies


Here you go Matt

http://www.loansense.com.au/historical-rates.html

Don't look at these JULES they are facts, you may not be able to handle the truth again, twice in 24 hours is a bit outside your capability.....

pot / kettle ;)

So... You're saying Gillard was a better PM than Howard?

Nope, can't see where i said the either????

Notor, didn't you read????? You're not supposed to interpret the facts and come to an understanding as to the relevance to the discussion we're having......... They're just facts and they are what they are...........

Btw you didn't write the question correctly,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, should be ARE YOU and you're making assumptions about him. Am I doing it RIGHT?????? ;)

Just following your demonstrated thought processes to their logical conclusions.

not really, how could anyone conclude that only one element of 1000's could determine who is a better PM???

i feel sorry for your wife

Not really no.

-PB

When all else fails, go for the personal insult :cool:

-PB

Which also fails ;)