So predictable. About as predictable as your re-emergence in this thread as soon as there was some perceived improvement in the Liberal party's situation.

Edited by mcjules: 7/4/2015 01:19:10 PM

Yes let's blame the ALP after all it has only been 18 months since they were last in office....and besides the last budget worked wonderfully well.

There were the six years prior to that, remember?

Didn' Labour try to use falling commodity prices as an excuse as well?

-PB

Yes.

Their unjustified spending was also significantly less than Howard, widely regarded by economists as the leader of the most profligate government in our history.

John Howard's government left us with 10 surpluses and no net debt. A single report by the IMF using dubious dodgy analysis widely ridiculed by economists doesn't subvert the proven excellent fiscal management of the Howard government, as demonstrated by the key metrics such as GDP growth, debt and surplus rather than some silly stupid IMF graph.

They did, it appears though they continually overestimated the commodity prices in each and every budget where they promised to deliver a surplus and only delivered miserable deficits.It appears all that positive jolly talk about the economy did dick all for business and consumer confidence and commodity prices.

Hockey and Abbott have made mistakes but they have only delivered one failed budget, lets see how they fare in the next one.

Last chance rusty, give us some sources.

How about you show your sources first :lol:

You already acknowledged IMF as a source, you made the positive claim that it was ridiculed by economists. You have the burden of proof to back up your claim.

So clever :roll:

You made the positive claim that it was widely regarded by economists. You have the burden of proof to back up your claim.

It's shocking how despite recording ten surpluses and paying down all of Labors that some people are ideologically blind they cannot bring themselves to admit the great fiscal success of the Howard government. It's a bit like the illegal boat arrivals, people trying to channel the debate away from the successful boat turn back policies into the failure of the government to protect children, despite the current government releasing 90% children from detention. Strangely these pleas for the lives and sanity of children were absent when Labor were running the show. It just goes to show how politicised these issues are and how stupid people confuse their precious morals and silly candlelight vigils with politics and ideology.

As expected, you can't back up your claims. You have not made a single reference to a single source of a respected economist disagreeing with the Howard profligacy paper, let alone any evidence of widespread ridicule.

The IMF is comprised of over 180 nations engaging the best economists in the world. Its published reports and opinions are the single most widely accepted economic theories and ideas in the world. Criticisms of the IMF are often individualised and based upon local conditions or ideological fanaticism.

Of course you don't need to know this, because you're not stupid... you're just trolling. It's why you're usually ignored.

Yep, it's all pretty predictable. He even went with his favourite strawman about boat people but with a twist about making about children in detention rather than deaths at sea.

https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/cat/longres.aspx?sk=40222.0

Disclaimer: This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the IMF. The views expressed in this Working Paper are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the IMF or IMF policy. Working Papers describe research in progress by the author(s) and are published to elicit comments and to further debate

The burden of proof that this article is "widely regarded" by economists is on you. All you've done is cherry picked a single study and totally spun it out of context in order to attack the Howard governments fiscal record, even though the paper at no stage makes any specific claims against the government spending, revenue or debt management.

So go on show me your sources other than Fairfax and ABC that economists "widely believe" the Howard government was fiscally irresponsible. Your ideological blindness is breathtaking.

It's like he watches Q&A every week just to copy down the LibNat talking points to sprout on the forum.

http://www.liberal.org.au/latest-news/2013/01/11/martin-misrepresents-official-opinion-imf why don't you quote your real source?

http://lowpollutionfuture.treasury.gov.au/documents/1352/PDF/03_spending_growth.pdf
I guess you'll try and discredit treasury studies next.

Yeah I too watch Q&A and am unsurprised to read rusty parrot the same things the next day.

Edited by mcjules: 7/4/2015 05:08:06 PM

Where does that study published in 2008 cite the IMF study published in 2013? Where does it accuse the Howard government of being profligate? Oh, I see, you had no sources to back your claim that the IMF study was "widely believed" by economists to be the most profligate, so you were reduced to pulling some Treasury schlock out of your ass. Pathetic.

You have to tip your hat to progressive who applaud any government increase in % of GDP except, when it's a Liberal governments then it's wasteful and profligate.

The issue of profligacy is subjective. Being sternly against middle and upper class welfare, I found most of the Howard governments spending measures such as the baby bonus and first home owners grant pretty wasteful.

All the counter arguments I've seen to what's in that IMF report is that "we had heaps of revenue so it's ok to spend as we still put a little away". What has become evident is that the Howard Government assumed the rivers of gold were going to run for a lot longer than they did and didn't put away anywhere near enough.

Are you joking? We had enough for Rudd to buy Australia out a recession. Do you think countries like Italy, Spain and Portugal could afford to mail out $900 cheques? We were one of the few countries who survived the GFC relatively unscathed much in part due to the negative debt position inherited by the Rudd who when on a stimulus spending spree, which left us with a pile of debt. If another GFC hit we wouldn't have the same latitude to buy ourselves out of recession, that's why we need to pay down (or at least maintain) the current levels of debt rather than trending towards those basketcases in Europe.

Glad you admit that the spending helped us survive the GFC. We had a surplus to spend but obviously not enough as we've ended up in debt. Pretty simple.

Edited by mcjules: 8/4/2015 10:02:39 AM

Countries should only tax as much as they spend. If government are collecting big surpluses they are effectively stealing from the public, and money is better spent in the hands of the public than bureaucrats. That being said I'm not opposed to the idea of a sovereign wealth fund like what Norway have, but with our debt trending towards the trillions that doesn't look likely anytime in the near future.

Well compounding inflation is pretty powerful I guess!

Edited by mcjules: 8/4/2015 03:37:41 PM

nah not really....just popped in to see what you mindless gimps are posting......cya

Arrivederci amico

The first home owners grant was a fantastic idea. Helped a lot of younger people get into the housing market.

Our problem is that we have a useless government with no comprehension of how to spend wisely. Now the solution for most idiots out there with no brain is to hammer the rich/big business to make up the shortfall rather than addressing the spending issue at the core. I have no faith in politics.