Fuck it ...I want me a laptop instead:lol:

He's also proven to be capable of trading seemingly against his constituents short term interest when playing the long game.

I don't bring that up as a positive or a negative, just that you may see him deal on things that are unexpected to be able to hit long-term Labor/Unionist agendas.

National debt does not need to be paid back (but it should be paid back). Your mortgage needs to be paid back because you will retire one day and no longer be able to service the debt. The Australian government will not retire and merely needs to service the debt.

I heard that if you pay off all your sovereign debt that you own the country outright.

Its interesting though that when Labor try to adopt co payments and freeze rebates , lower the subsidy of medicines etc this doesn't translate into "privatization". Just ask Bob Hawke.:lol: Libs don't want to privatise Medicare, but if there are ways of making Medicare more efficient, less costly and reducing waste through outsourcing every responsible government should be on board with this.

Sadly now medicare costs will continue to explode as no government will want to touch it which will reduce the quality and efficiency of services in the long run.

All debt, whether national debt, credit card debt, mortgage debt needs to be paid back. Now servicing the interest on the debt is fine so long as there is continual economic growth to cover the repayments, however if there's a downturn in the economic and a recession happens and they cannot meet the repayments, they will either need to borrow more at a higher interest or print money which will increase inflation and negative impact on credit rating, bond rates, investment and economic stability.

The mantra that debt doesn't need to be carefully managed and can be balanced through economic growth alone is very foolish. Hasn't anyone learned lessons from the GFC?

What lessons did you learn from the GFC, Czar Rusty?

All debt, whether national debt, credit card debt, mortgage debt needs to be paid back. Now servicing the interest on the debt is fine so long as there is continual economic growth to cover the repayments, however if there's a downturn in the economic and a recession happens and they cannot meet the repayments, they will either need to borrow more at a higher interest or print money which will increase inflation and negative impact on credit rating, bond rates, investment and economic stability.

The mantra that debt doesn't need to be carefully managed and can be balanced through economic growth alone is very foolish.

ONE MORE TIME FOR THE WORLD!!!!

Hands up who thinks debt can be balanced through economic growth alone?

My hands down for the record :lol:

Why is it a HECS debt needs to be paid back if governments subsidise the loans ?

It can default. Defaulting would be a better option than rampant inflation and printing of worthless dollars.

Edited by rusty: 4/7/2016 12:17:17 PM

Doesn't change the argument really, I just tried to simplify things because in reality sovereign debt and the way the economy works is incredibly complex. The debt at current levels is not a major cause for concern. Certainly not a "budget emergency" and you can see that in how the Liberal party tried to manage it while in government.

I think it's worth bearing acknowledgment of the tremendous job Di Natale has done in revitalising and pragmatising The Greens and in the face of some branches being totally resistant to being more professional and targeted.

Bob Brown was fun, but never really more interested in anything other than activism. Milne was shrill & annoying white noise.

Di Natale is more composed, more professional and more able to articulate a moderate socialist position that appeals to plenty of rusted on voters from both sides of politics.

I know more than a handful of regular Liberal/National voters here in Vic who voted Greens this election.

OK - taking the bait and responding.

What do you think that will happen to economic growth at a time of global weak growth, if you decide to impose austerity and cut spending.

By cutting spending you are decreasing the very economic growth you are relying on to occur! What do you think has happening in the EU for the last 5 years?

What you need to do is have a manageable deficit, with a focus on spending on things like infrastructure in order to increase the productive capacity of the overall economy.

That's where the sound economic managers tripled the budget deficit and failed to pass any meaningful economic reform, right?

Doesn't change the argument really, I just tried to simplify things because in reality sovereign debt and the way the economy works is incredibly complex. The debt at current levels is not a major cause for concern. Certainly not a "budget emergency" and you can see that in how the Liberal party tried to manage it while in government. [/quote]

The "budget emergency" hyperbole related more to the rate of increase in spending , which I understand under Labor was the fastest in the OECD, rather than the actual level of debt in net terms. The current debt is not a major concern on its own merits, but when you factor in the volatile global economy on which we are highly dependent, if another GFC like event were to hit we could very rapidly find ourselves in the shit. Unlike countries like Greece, Ireland, Portugal we dont have coutnries to bail us out if/when shit hits the fan. The current debt is also responsible for the growing burden of bracket creep. Rather than government trying to reduce debt through spending cuts and economic growth, both sides of government are banking on higher tax revenues in particular from low and middle income workers to claw back the deficit.

Didn't ABC fact check the claim the libs tripled the deficit?

:lol:

But you also neeed to ensure you have a buffer, so if when global financial crisis hits you can raise sufficient debt @ low interest to spend on things like infrastructure. If debt is too high, then it will cost more to borrow which which will make borrowing more difficult and more expensive to service, which can curtail the economic growht you are trying to achieve.

Didn't Keynes advocate for deficits in times of economic prosperity?

I heard the National Debt is on a 30 year lease.

No - deficit in times of low growth, surplus in times of good growth.

Balanced over the course of the business cycle.

Yes that's what I meant .

It's interesting watching the 2PP on the AEC website , the Libs vote has dipped below 5 million. Hopefully AEC haven't forgotten how to count .

You meant the complete opposite of what you actually said?

It would have more than tripled under the Labor.

A senate and cross bench which blocks passing The Budget, and the government gets called "do nothing"- really?

When you fail to pass your legislation, you have done nothing.

I'm a 100% sure Bill is better than Mal at cutting a deal that would for Labor.

And re: spending and infrastructure. This is one of the great lies perpetuated by the left. Most tax receipts do not get spent on infrastructure, they get spent on welfare. In fact the welfare cost is almost eqal to the PAYG Tax receipts.

Increasing CGT, removing NG, taxing super will not result in a single additional road, bridge, school, internet connection being built.

It will be pissed up as another welfare payment to someone in the bottom 80% of "taxpayers" who contribute sweet FA to the tax base.

Who wiil then vote for more taxes, for the infrastructure, of course.

Yes

When you have senate made up of knobs, voted in by knobs whose only interest is in "what will the govment give me" that's what happens.

People aren't stupid-most vote for a pay rise, rather than work for it.