Julia Gillard - liar

[psionl0]

No, you didn't.

Nice rebuttal. I should have realized that the "debt doesn't matter" mantra has spread. After all, it is preached by all of the economic "experts".

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?

A detailed response to this question would derail this thread. If anybody here is interested in exploring this issue, I will start up a thread about it in the economics section.

 

[a_unique_person]

Ultimately, any way the Gillard, her apologists, Swan etc wish to cut this it is a major embarrassment for her (and Labor) politically. It is yet another broken promise ('no ifs, no buts' this time) by a PM whose honesty, integrity and credibility is already highly questionable in the eyes of the more discerning electorate.

She lied, she lied, she lied.

Has anyone else noticed how silent she is on this? She has yet again put someone else in the firing line for her own shortcomings. Weak, cowardly leadership.

And it wasn't a lie. They were looking at treasury projections, and were managing their spending. If the unexpected drop in income had not happened, there would have been a surplus. As the drop started to happen, they trimmed off even more spending, by cutting some of the more stupid policies of the Howard era, such as the baby bonus. That was one policy every one agreed could do with some cutting. It is far better that Australia doesn't have a recession, and everyone with an ounce of brains is applauding their move.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

And it wasn't a lie.

Then it is incompetence.

They were looking at treasury projections, and were managing their spending.

Incompetence again, then.

If the unexpected drop in income had not happened, there would have been a surplus.

More incompetence?
But I start to wonder why Gillard (and Labor) would make promise if they might not be able to deliver. That would constitute a lie in my books.

As the drop started to happen, they trimmed off even more spending, by cutting some of the more stupid policies of the Howard era, such as the baby bonus.

Got it. This is Howard's fault. Moreover, Gillard had no new spending of her own that needed funding.

It is far better that Australia doesn't have a recession, and everyone with an ounce of brains is applauding their move.

And once again, you fall into the simplistic trap of conflating economics with politics.

She lied, they lied. If they couldn't control it they should not have promised it. They used a convenient lie at the time to deflect pressure and questions.

She/they lied, and lied, and lied and lied.

 

[psionl0]

Simple question. Did deficit budgeting help Australia survive the GFC?

In the short term, it did soften the blow (borrowing money is always terrific in the short term). However, without the subsequent mining boom, I suspect that the relief would have been short lived. The Australian government would probably have been faced with the prospect of watching its strategy unravel or borrow increasing amounts of money in the attempt to stave off a depression.

Borrowing money to ride out a bust in the hope of being able to repay it when(?) the economy improves is a very risky strategy. Even if the economy improves, repaying the debt is often seen as a vote-loser.

 

[lionking]

In the short term, it did soften the blow (borrowing money is always terrific in the short term). However, without the subsequent mining boom, I suspect that the relief would have been short lived. The Australian government would probably have been faced with the prospect of watching its strategy unravel or borrow increasing amounts of money in the attempt to stave off a depression.

Borrowing money to ride out a bust in the hope of being able to repay it when(?) the economy improves is a very risky strategy. Even if the economy improves, repaying the debt is often seen as a vote-loser.

So the Australian Government went into deficit without knowing about the mining boom, which had been going on for years?

You really are out of your depth. Thankfully the economy is managed by people who know what they are doing, and not by clueless internet posters.

 

[psionl0]

So the Australian Government went into deficit without knowing about the mining boom, which had been going on for years?

http://spinneypress.com.au/books/australias-mining-boom/

The impact of the current mining boom in Australia, aided by unprecedented demand for minerals from an emerging China, has helped this nation to withstand global financial turmoil.
. . .
fast facts
. . . .

• In the period 2006-07 to 2010-11, the value of exports from the mining industry more than doubled.
• In 2009-2010, more than 85% of Australian merchandise exports to China comprised primary products.
• In 2009-10, China was Australia’s largest market for iron ore and concentrates – accounting for almost 72% of all Australian ore exports.

. . . .

Google is your friend.

 

[lionking]

http://spinneypress.com.au/books/australias-mining-boom/

Google is your friend.

How on earth do you think this supports your argument? I didn't need Google to tell me that the government was well aware of the receipts from the mining boom, and how this would quickly rein in the deficit. The government knew what it was doing, and if it didn't go into temporary deficit, unemployment would have gone through the roof.

Your "deficit is bad" mantra is voodoo economics, unsupported by economists. You do realise that insistence in surpluses lengthened the Great Depression unnecessarily, and deficit budgeting ended it?

Perhaps not...

 

[a_unique_person]

In the short term, it did soften the blow (borrowing money is always terrific in the short term). However, without the subsequent mining boom, I suspect that the relief would have been short lived. The Australian government would probably have been faced with the prospect of watching its strategy unravel or borrow increasing amounts of money in the attempt to stave off a depression.

Borrowing money to ride out a bust in the hope of being able to repay it when(?) the economy improves is a very risky strategy. Even if the economy improves, repaying the debt is often seen as a vote-loser.

Australia's debt ratio is significantly less than those nations with a debt problem. We are nowhere near the limit yet of how much we can responsibly borrow. Business and economists are complaining even now that the government has cut back to much on spending too quickly to try to achieve a surplus.

 

[psionl0]

How on earth do you think this supports your argument? I didn't need Google to tell me that the government was well aware of the receipts from the mining boom, and how this would quickly rein in the deficit. The government knew what it was doing, and if it didn't go into temporary deficit, unemployment would have gone through the roof.

By 2008 the stock markets all around the world were in free fall and threatening to take out the banking system as well. Yet if you look at the mining export charts in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mining_in_Australia, it shows that mineral exports defied that trend continued their meteoric rise regardless (although they don't say, "thanks to China". The other link points that out).

You are basically arguing that the Rudd government knew that China was about to take up the slack so it was safe to borrow a large sum of money.

 

[psionl0]

Australia's debt ratio is significantly less than those nations with a debt problem.

It's a good thing that the Howard government took advantage of the boom conditions in the 90's to pay off Australia's national debt. Otherwise, you would not be able to point this out.

We are nowhere near the limit yet of how much we can responsibly borrow - yet.

ftfy.

Business and economists are complaining even now that the government has cut back to much on spending too quickly to try to achieve a surplus.

Well they are the experts.

 

[lionking]

You are basically arguing that the Rudd government knew that China was about to take up the slack so it was safe to borrow a large sum of money.

Treasury projections said so. Don't you live in WA? You do know about the massive investment in mines which were coming on line during the GFC? And the contracts in place?

Sure, China could have gone under and renege on the contracts. Deficit budgeting would then have been problematic. But only a believer in voodoo economics would think that.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Thankfully the economy is managed by people who know what they are doing, and not by clueless internet posters.

It sounds like they are going to miss their predictions by a mere $20 billion. Worse, they can't even predict now what the deficit will be in a mere five months.

If these are the "people who know what they are doing", then God help us.

Now, please get back on topic before I feel compelled to report the off topic posts.
Remember: Gillard needs asbestos pants.

 

[psionl0]

Treasury projections said so. Don't you live in WA? You do know about the massive investment in mines which were coming on line during the GFC? And the contracts in place?

links?

Now, please get back on topic before I feel compelled to report the off topic posts.

Don't forget all the rule 0/12 violations (although that would decimate this thread).

 

[Hallo Alfie]

That girl needs asbestos pants as well as underwear.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion...oses-credibility/story-fnddzlu4-1226541447000

The Opposition plans to use Gillard's own words against her. Take these two examples:

"My commitment to a surplus in 2012-13 was a promise and it will be honoured," Gillard told the Sydney Institute on April 13, 2011.

"It's vital to get the Budget back into surplus and back into the black. That's what this Budget has done. That is the best thing we can do to help families with cost of living pressures," she said on May 11 last year.

Labor inherited no net debt and a surplus of $20 billion from Peter Costello in 2007 and, to get voters to trust it with the economy, Kevin Rudd said he wore with pride the badge of "economic conservative".

A broken promise is a broken promise. If she was not in a position to make the promise, it is a lie.

Her pants are on fire and people are saying "doesn't she have nice shoes".

 

[Wildy]

A detailed response to this question would derail this thread. If anybody here is interested in exploring this issue, I will start up a thread about it in the economics section.

Please do.

 

[psionl0]

Please do.

I've changed my mind. None of the Australians in this thread would venture into the economics section anyway. They would rather trust the "experts" without question.

 

[lionking]

Quelle surprise.

 

[Damien Evans]

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.

One of the stupidest proposals I have ever read.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Meanwhile we are off topic.
Is no one going to put Julia's pants out?

 

[bit_pattern]

I've changed my mind. None of the Australians in this thread would venture into the economics section anyway. They would rather trust the "experts" without question.

You've been asked questions, you avoid answering them. What you don't know about economics could clearly fill a very large ledger.