Julia Gillard - liar

[lionking]

No politician can be trusted with the national credit card.

Budget deficits should be outlawed and the economists who tell politicians to borrow and spend should be charged with treason.

Perhaps you should read a bit of history, even recent history. How do you think Australia avoided the GFC? How did the world recover from the Great Depression?

Deficits are an economic tool. Used well in this situation.

 

[psionl0]

Perhaps you should read a bit of history, even recent history. How do you think Australia avoided the GFC? How did the world recover from the Great Depression?

Deficits are an economic tool. Used well in this situation.

The economists have cheered Rudd's cash splash so loudly that most people believe that he single handedly saved Australia from a great depression.

I guess that the Chinese soaring demand for Australian minerals had nothing to do with it.

 

[bit_pattern]

The economists have cheered Rudd's cash splash so loudly that most people believe that he single handedly saved Australia from a great depression.

I guess that the Chinese soaring demand for Australian minerals had nothing to do with it.

Such stupid logic - yes, China put us in a better position than many others but the stimulus measures - targeting households, acting early and guaranteeing deposits to prevent a run on the banks - undoubtedly saved jobs and kept the economy afloat and positioned us to sail through the GFC virtually unscathed.

You should listen to the economists, they have expertise you clearly don't

And for a bloody brilliant economic history of Australia from Whitlam to the GFC I highly recommend George Megalogenis's latest book - The Australian Moment. The seeds that saved Australia were first sown in the reformist days of the early 80's.

 

[bit_pattern]

Perhaps you should read a bit of history, even recent history. How do you think Australia avoided the GFC? How did the world recover from the Great Depression?

Deficits are an economic tool. Used well in this situation.

You'd love this LK

http://www.amazon.com/The-Australian-Moment-ebook/dp/B007FVVEOS

A real cracker of a read, I do love the Megatron's analysis - was one of the few columnists that would tempt me into buying The Australian from time to time.

 

[psionl0]

The economists have cheered Rudd's cash splash so loudly that most people believe that he single handedly saved Australia from a great depression.

. . . . but the stimulus measures - targeting households, acting early and guaranteeing deposits to prevent a run on the banks - undoubtedly saved jobs and kept the economy afloat and positioned us to sail through the GFC virtually unscathed.

Case in point.

You should listen to the economists, they have expertise you clearly don't.

 

[bit_pattern]

Case in point.

Oh, cooooool argument bro

Who to believe: the experts in the field or you and a bunch of hack tabloid journalists?

I'd like to think on a forum like JREF the fly-by-the-seats-of-their-pant-ers like you are a distinct minority and most people will either defer to real expertise or at least mount some kind of coherent argument against the expert opinion.

 

[bit_pattern]

ftfy.

No politician can be trusted with the national credit card.

Budget deficits should be outlawed and the economists who tell politicians to borrow and spend should be charged with treason.

Clearly you're a real intellectual heavyweight,you remind me of a climate science denier... oh, wait

The Tea Party is thataway, brah >>>>>>>>>>

 

[bit_pattern]

The economists have cheered Rudd's cash splash so loudly that most people believe that he single handedly saved Australia from a great depression.

I guess that the Chinese soaring demand for Australian minerals had nothing to do with it.

You do realise that you simply avoided LK's question? Clearly debating the actual economics of the situation is beyond you.

 

[bit_pattern]

It seems that you are playing the incredibly childish "well he did it, so we can" game

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hdKr1jlDzW4

I really do wonder why you bother, LK...

 

[psionl0]

You do realise that you simply avoided LK's question? Clearly debating the actual economics of the situation is beyond you.

Just because you think borrowing is better than being productive doesn't mean that I didn't answer the question.

For once, I'm with Alfie on this. Ditching the planned surplus is the most damaging thing the Gillard government could have done to its credibility.

Tony Abbott got the best Christmas present - ever.

 

[psionl0]

Clearly you're a real intellectual heavyweight,you remind me of a climate science denier... oh, wait

The Tea Party is thataway, brah >>>>>>>>>>

Project much?

 

[lionking]

You'd love this LK

http://www.amazon.com/The-Australian-Moment-ebook/dp/B007FVVEOS

A real cracker of a read, I do love the Megatron's analysis - was one of the few columnists that would tempt me into buying The Australian from time to time.

I read it earlier this year. From a News Ltd journo no less. It's a very good analysis of the "Australian Miracle".

 

[lionking]

Just because you think borrowing is better than being productive doesn't mean that I didn't answer the question.

For once, I'm with Alfie on this. Ditching the planned surplus is the most damaging thing the Gillard government could have done to its credibility.

Tony Abbott got the best Christmas present - ever.

Fortunately the electorate will prove to have more maturity than you display. The electorate will remember how well Labor navigated the country through the GFC. It will also realise that Abbott's and Hockey's insistence that a surplus be maintained will result to cuts to jobs and services.

The trend towards Labor will continue. Abbott is in trouble.

 

[psionl0]

It will also realise that Abbott's and Hockey's insistence that a surplus be maintained will result to cuts to jobs and services.

No matter what these two politicians say, their agenda won't permit a surplus budget any time in the foreseeable future either.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Fortunately the electorate will prove to have more maturity than you display. The electorate will remember how well Labor navigated the country through the GFC. It will also realise that Abbott's and Hockey's insistence that a surplus be maintained will result to cuts to jobs and services.

The trend towards Labor will continue. Abbott is in trouble.

Abbott might be in trouble (although I seriously doubt it now) but the trend is away from Labor and will only get worse with this new lie. It matters not who leads the coalition - Barnaby Joyce could do it... LOL... - Gillard and Labor are history.

 

[Wildy]

ftfy.

No, you didn't.

Budget deficits should be outlawed and the economists who tell politicians to borrow and spend should be charged with treason.

So I take it you'd consider the stimulus spending to have been a bad move as well? And why would a budget deficit be treasonous?

 

[bit_pattern]

Edited by jhunter1163: 

Edited for Rule 4. Do not post large block of text from other sites. Links are OK.

Note: The recent discussion on Possum Pollytics regarding Morgan and Newspoll is well worth reading.

The following included comment says it all: “I find it interesting that for the only poll in the last five years for which there is any ‘real’ figure with which to compare, i.e. the polls immediately before the 2004 election, Morgan (45.5%) was closer to the actual Coalition Primary (46.7%) than Newspoll (45%) or Nielsen (49%), and Morgan (38.5%) was also closer to the ALP actual primary (37.6%) than Newspoll (39%), and only marginally further away than Nielsen (37%). Since we have no idea of how far away the ongoing polls are from ‘reality’ (whatever that means), surely we should just go with what we know, that in the most recent testable case, Morgan was better at forecasting the actual primary vote than Newspoll. On what possible basis should we decide that the Newspoll or Nielsen primary vote estimate is ‘better’ than Morgan’s.”

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2012/4852/

 

[bit_pattern]

And why would a budget deficit be treasonous?

It MIGHT be IF you don't understand economics OR the concept of treason.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

How the hell can Swan and Gillard be unable to predict the bottom line result? We are over half way through their fiscal year now. In May it was a $1.5b surplus. In October it was reduced to $1.1b. Now they don't know. Seriously?!?!?!

If Labor wish to retain any semblance of what is left of their shattered credibility they would want to get the numbers, and in a hurry. Some are now predicting up to, and over a $20b deficit.

How could they not know? Inept? Lazy? Poor things might be depressed. Or are they lying again for political advantage?

 

[Hallo Alfie]

The 'No ifs, no buts' budget surplus was given by Gillard. The language was unequivocal as she belligerently and defiantly stared down questions around the massive and controversial spending.
Since things started looking shaky, these have been some of the responses from government:

(source): http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/na...d-on-the-surplus/story-fndo317g-1226541295940

21 December 2012
TREASURER Wayne Swan today indicated it was "unlikely" Labor would deliver the promised budget surplus.

"Unlikely"?!?!
Is he serious?!?!.
Once again a totally deceptive use of words. The chances of a surplus are an absolute zero and he knows it.
Unlikely my ....

Swan:

May 2011
"We'll be back in the black by 2012/13, as promised."

He sounded pretty sure of himself, didn't he?

August 2011
"The government remains absolutely committed to delivering our return to surplus as we planned."

'Committed'? Hmm, a noticeable weakening in the language, wouldn't you say?

February 2012
"We've nailed our colours to the mast."

Er, I guess not.

March 2012
"Despite the tough global conditions, we remain determined to return the budget to surplus in 2012/13, and we will get there."

Now confident again, except for the weaselly use of 'determined'. A foot in each camp?


Gillard:

April 2011
"My commitment to a surplus in 2012/13 was a promise made and it will be honoured."

Note the ownership here, followed up by a defiant 'will be'. It's almost as though she believes her promises are actually worth something. Perhaps delusional should be added to her list of shortcomings.

"November 2012
We stand by the predictions, the entries in the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook. We stand by the figures and we're on track to deliver a budget surplus."

It's no longer hers; she will gladly share the glory of the surplus.
But also, this was just a month or so ago. What sort of financial managers have no idea they will be short about five, ten or 20 billion? Do they think us all idiots?


The electorate will remember these things.
Time to start the basting?