Libs to block Rudd's rescue initiative

[ManlyBacker]

I will trust the merchant banker over the life long polititian.

A merchant banker has a lower cred than a used car salesman. Perhaps you chose to forget that they are the ones who got us into this mess?

 

[Zep]

I didn't choose to forget anything. It was the lowering of standards mid-clintons administration that allowed for what we now call the sub prime crisis. Fair enough that some Merchant banks involve played there part, however it was more the banks themselves that built it up. Turnball as a merchant banker was more involved in advising and facilitating rather than selling investors loans.

Still the comment stands - I will trust the merchant banker over the life long politician.

 

[The Gronk]

Howard being only the second PM to lose his seat wasn't an accident.  It was a message to make sure this whole 'the Libs didn't really lose' argument can never have legs. 

 

[Canteen Worker]

Zep, the arrogance of which you speak belies some of the credible points that you make. I am happy to have a debate on most issues but to write in a patronising tone, trying to ram your self-inflated views down mine abnd other's throats as if you are just spot in everything and anyone who thinks contrary is mentally deficient, is just plain foolish. You don't really know what I think and some of your points are pretty spurious. You are passionate, but are so convinced you are right on every little matter that you can't see any other possibility or perspective. You are also exaggerating or spinning the 'pollie' line.

Point 1 - Rudd never promised to leave Afghanistan, in fact the opposite. He did criticise the previous government, not for involvement in Iraq (that was other lefties) but for lack of withdrawal strategy. He, like Obama, has committed to plan to leave. Nowhere did I, or anyone else suggest that the Army should be wound down or cut back: that was your (fallacious) assumption. I talked about the morality and lies used to go to and maintain our involvement in Iraq which is very different. Point 2 is that John Howard was a clever politician but he also was in power in very good years and benefitted from much of Keating's hard work during the last recession. He polarised people. Some people like Rudd just as much and others despise him. That's called politics and public life. Point 3 - many of us read and expose ourselves to the broad views of many commentators and experts. The balance of those seem to think Rudd and his government is doing an okay job. None seem to think he is perfect but most of us understand the business and political cycle and also have a bit of a clue about economics. (particularly on this site with a good mixture of bankers, small business owners and highly educated and intelligent posters).

To suggest you can go over the top trying to explain to someone who doesn't understand is just plain arrogance. (Tookey and I can agree to disagree on a lot of issues and yet I have great respect for his views - you have not earned that as yet. I often disagree with Mata too but also respect his views and experience of things I have little experience in.)

It is called perspective. I can agree to disagree with someone or try to intelligently argue a point, passionately at times. However, I cannot stomach someone whose head is stuck so far up his bum that he thinks he is so right that anyone else is a moron, simple or somehow conned by the media. A big problem the current Libs have is that they think that there is this terrible media conspiracy that has somehow conned the electorate. They tend to judge the electorate is too dumb to see the 'truth' and therefore miss the changes that are needed Australia wide. (After all the Lib Party in Australia has only 5 elections overall in 20 years,  four of them by Howard.)

One other suggestion - if you are so intelligent on politics - learn to spell Turnbull!!!

 

[Garts]

Ok, all you d!cks are so one eyed when it comes to politics.  John Howard could rape and murder someone from Byso's family and it would be ok with him and the same with CW and the others regarding Rudd 🙂

 

[Zep]

Zep, the arrogance of which you speak belies some of the credible points that you make. I am happy to have a debate on most issues but to write in a patronising tone, trying to ram your self-inflated views down mine abnd other's throats as if you are just spot in everything and anyone who thinks contrary is mentally deficient, is just plain foolish. You don't really know what I think and some of your points are pretty spurious. You are passionate, but are so convinced you are right on every little matter that you can't see any other possibility or perspective. You are also exaggerating or spinning the 'pollie' line.

Point 1 - Rudd never promised to leave Afghanistan, in fact the opposite. He did criticise the previous government, not for involvement in Iraq (that was other lefties) but for lack of withdrawal strategy. He, like Obama, has committed to plan to leave. Nowhere did I, or anyone else suggest that the Army should be wound down or cut back: that was your (fallacious) assumption. I talked about the morality and lies used to go to and maintain our involvement in Iraq which is very different. Point 2 is that John Howard was a clever politician but he also was in power in very good years and benefitted from much of Keating's hard work during the last recession. He polarised people. Some people like Rudd just as much and others despise him. That's called politics and public life. Point 3 - many of us read and expose ourselves to the broad views of many commentators and experts. The balance of those seem to think Rudd and his government is doing an okay job. None seem to think he is perfect but most of us understand the business and political cycle and also have a bit of a clue about economics. (particularly on this site with a good mixture of bankers, small business owners and highly educated and intelligent posters).

To suggest you can go over the top trying to explain to someone who doesn't understand is just plain arrogance. (Tookey and I can agree to disagree on a lot of issues and yet I have great respect for his views - you have not earned that as yet. I often disagree with Mata too but also respect his views and experience of things I have little experience in.)

It is called perspective. I can agree to disagree with someone or try to intelligently argue a point, passionately at times. However, I cannot stomach someone whose head is stuck so far up his bum that he thinks he is so right that anyone else is a moron, simple or somehow conned by the media. A big problem the current Libs have is that they think that there is this terrible media conspiracy that has somehow conned the electorate. They tend to judge the electorate is too dumb to see the 'truth' and therefore miss the changes that are needed Australia wide. (After all the Lib Party in Australia has only 5 elections overall in 20 years,  four of them by Howard.)

One other suggestion - if you are so intelligent on politics - learn to spell Turnbull!!!

Bottom up aye. Had a friend spelt it Turnball. Got to get used to it.

Most of what I was saying in down to personal views based on what I have studied. It just mystified that you were trying to ask how defence force had anything to do with it and then stated that you didn't see the difference between a rebate and a handout. For someone who claims intelligence that is pretty poor effort, just like my spelling on Turnball. You can argue all you like for Rudd and how Howard was poor, However i will argue my point that Howard was a great australian and that Rudd with his current econmic policies will turn us to ruin. There is always arrogance in arguing as to win an argument you have to have the self belief that what you are saying is always 100% otherwise the opposition can sense the fragility.

What has Rudd done to fix any industry in this country? Seriously Howards first term he took the docks from being the equivlent of third world docks to improving year in year out. Howard obviously let the state goverments turn the health industry into ruins. What are Rudds plans for that maybe?

 

[Canteen Worker]

Ok, all you d!cks are so one eyed when it comes to politics.  John Howard could rape and murder someone from Byso's family and it would be ok with him and the same with CW and the others regarding Rudd 🙂

That's my point exactly, though you have said it more clearly and briefly!!! 🙂 🙂 🙂

 

[byso]

Zep, the arrogance of which you speak belies some of the credible points that you make. I am happy to have a debate on most issues but to write in a patronising tone, trying to ram your self-inflated views down mine abnd other's throats as if you are just spot in everything and anyone who thinks contrary is mentally deficient, is just plain foolish. You don't really know what I think and some of your points are pretty spurious. You are passionate, but are so convinced you are right on every little matter that you can't see any other possibility or perspective. You are also exaggerating or spinning the 'pollie' line.

Point 1 - Rudd never promised to leave Afghanistan, in fact the opposite. He did criticise the previous government, not for involvement in Iraq (that was other lefties) but for lack of withdrawal strategy. He, like Obama, has committed to plan to leave. Nowhere did I, or anyone else suggest that the Army should be wound down or cut back: that was your (fallacious) assumption. I talked about the morality and lies used to go to and maintain our involvement in Iraq which is very different. Point 2 is that John Howard was a clever politician but he also was in power in very good years and benefitted from much of Keating's hard work during the last recession. He polarised people. Some people like Rudd just as much and others despise him. That's called politics and public life. Point 3 - many of us read and expose ourselves to the broad views of many commentators and experts. The balance of those seem to think Rudd and his government is doing an okay job. None seem to think he is perfect but most of us understand the business and political cycle and also have a bit of a clue about economics. (particularly on this site with a good mixture of bankers, small business owners and highly educated and intelligent posters).

To suggest you can go over the top trying to explain to someone who doesn't understand is just plain arrogance. (Tookey and I can agree to disagree on a lot of issues and yet I have great respect for his views - you have not earned that as yet. I often disagree with Mata too but also respect his views and experience of things I have little experience in.)

It is called perspective. I can agree to disagree with someone or try to intelligently argue a point, passionately at times. However, I cannot stomach someone whose head is stuck so far up his bum that he thinks he is so right that anyone else is a moron, simple or somehow conned by the media. A big problem the current Libs have is that they think that there is this terrible media conspiracy that has somehow conned the electorate. They tend to judge the electorate is too dumb to see the 'truth' and therefore miss the changes that are needed Australia wide. (After all the Lib Party in Australia has only 5 elections overall in 20 years,  four of them by Howard.)

One other suggestion - if you are so intelligent on politics - learn to spell Turnbull!!!

Hypocrisy at its highest, get off your high horse f-ck knuckle.

 

[Canteen Worker]

I didn't say I respect you Byso. it is not the arguments I am commenting upon but the arrogant and petulant tone of 'all-knowingness.' Feel free to point out the hypocrisy!!!! 🙂

 

[Matabele]

The more I think about it, the more I back the Libs on this one.  Throwing money about willy nilly is desperate and un-thought-through and could result in an apocalyptic economic scenario if it is done on a global scale.

 

[byso]

I didn't say I respect you Byso. it is not the arguments I am commenting upon but the arrogant and petulant tone of 'all-knowingness.' Feel free to point out the hypocrisy!!!! 🙂

You've been parading in that same tone since the site started about the virtues of labor. Don't pretend otherwise.

Zep is merely holding his own on this labor flee ridden site. Let him have his say without your hypocritical rubbish.

 

[Guest]

Ok, all you d!cks are so one eyed when it comes to politics.  John Howard could rape and murder someone from Byso's family and it would be ok with him and the same with CW and the others regarding Rudd 🙂

Politicians, both Liberal and labor have been rogering the electorate for years. 

 

[Guest]

The more I think about it, the more I back the Libs on this one.  Throwing money about willy nilly is desperate and un-thought-through and could result in an apocalyptic economic scenario if it is done on a global scale.

Absolutely.

There are many problems with what labor proposes but the worst is the fact that they seem to think that whatever they propose must be done straight away without any debate in parliament. 

No government should ever be allowed to spend this amout of money and put the country in such huge debt without some sort of debate.  Rudd reminds me so much of Whitlam.

The Liberals are right in that there are better ways to keep the country going.  Why not decrease rates by 2% immediately.  Also suspend the 9% complusory super for 12 months to ease the burden on business.  Reduce payroll taxes (why there is a tax on employing people is beyond me). 

There are many things that can be done without costing us billions in debt to be paid off by our children.

 

[Garts]

I do not mind some of the things in the package but the one off payment to all people under $90k seems pretty reckless.  Most people are still in employment at the moment and they have received the benefits of the rate cuts so why do we need extra.  Better off using that money to give people a once off payment if they loose their jobs. 

In saying that I will not turn down the payment if it is thrown my way!!!!

 

[Matabele]

I think to put it into perspective, I believe the Sydney Olympics cost around $10bn to stage, including all the infrastructure that went with it.  In December the same amount of money was burned and now we're talking about a $42bn package.  Where to from here if this one doesn't work?

In some respects the Libs are just as culpable as the ALP in this.  We survived the Asian crisis in the late 90s because we were pursuing some significant infrastructure projects.  However, since then there was a focus on delivering a large surplus and frittering it away on dumb tax cuts just before the election.  It's too late now, but a visionary infrastructure spending process over the last 8 years would have firewalled us against the crisis.

Instead the money was pumped into mum and dad tax cuts where it was then frittered on nonsense services.  So the unemployment crisis is going to come about because we have a small army of useless beauticians, consultants and marketers and noone capable of doing genuinely hard work.  They're going to have to learn.

 

[ManlyBacker]

Why not decrease rates by 2% immediately.  Also suspend the 9% complusory super for 12 months to ease the burden on business.  Reduce payroll taxes (why there is a tax on employing people is beyond me).  

As you know tookey, I am actually middle of the road. You are right - that sort of expenditure deserves debate. But it should be a case of the opposition looking at the proposal in the best interests of the country and not because of political expediency. I personally think the plans put forward since last October are in general sound plans. However the opposition is entitled to have their say. Rudd would have been better served by being more inclusive with the LIbs.

The three areas you have put up for change would be fine in a normal 'promote the economy' scenario. Unfortunately none of these will actually promote spending right now when it is needed. I don't know whether the rates you mention are council rates or tax rates (?). Anyway I would normally support any initiative that reduces burden on business but today's immediate problem is getting the population to buy products and services as they have reduced all forms of consumerism dramatically. That means that helping business by reducing their costs for super and payroll tax (although this has to be the maddest tax ever) won't help at all if the company sales are going down the toilet (and that is exactly what is happening). The issue today is to maintain employment as high as possible. Employment growth just cannot be expected until 2010 and that is when your ideas may be better suited.

There is no doubt that the Labor government, in this package, is promoting areas that it has always held important. But they will create jobs in the construction industry and even though handouts seem ridiculous, they need to be targeted at the lower income households to ensure that they are used. A $960 bonus isn't going to affect a household on 200k - they will either be surviving comfortably or have made such disastrous financial decisions they will be going out backwards anyway.

Large infrastructure projects take a long time to gain approval. At least some of the funds are targeted to rectification activities such as in the schools, insulation, road black-spots, and small business incentives and these can be started immediately. I think also that most of us are in agreement that serious infrastructure projects are well over-due and will have long term benefits for all Australians, so the real question here is whether the right ones have been chosen. In credit to Rudd he has been working for ages with the States in getting together a definitive prioritised list.

 

[Canteen Worker]

Opinion and reports from today's herald:

From Ross Gittins "The way to think of this is as a once-only, lump-sum tax cut. Whereas ordinary tax cuts are doled out at a few dollars a week, this one comes in an upfront lump.

Another difference is that low- and middle-income families will get a lot more (and high-income families a lot less) than had the tax cuts already planned for July this year and next merely been brought forward.

Clearly, Swan's approach scores well on timeliness and reasonably on targeting, although this time the cash bonuses are going to many middle-income families who'll be more inclined to save them than would poorer people.

Malcolm Turnbull's argument that people would be more inclined to spend a "permanent" tax cut than a once-off bonus - based on the economists' "permanent income hypothesis" - isn't a strong one empirically.

Finally, the temporary principle says everything you do must be a once-off (even if spread over a few years) so that it leaves no impediment to getting the budget back into surplus once the economy is well clear of recession. Swan gets full marks on that bit." [i/]

Mind you - he is obviously a left-wing looney with no idea!!!

http://business.smh.com.au/business/stimulus-is-three-ts-and-sympathy-20090206-801i.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/clash-of-the-titans/2009/02/06/1233423496690.html

http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/rudd-burnt-the-midnight-oil-as-lights-went-out/2009/02/06/1233423497135.html

 

[Matabele]

I would suggest they're better off sitting tight and not throwing money around like confetti.  It is madness to think the middle class, bought up on a diet of commercial television twaddle can legitimately make wise expenditure choices from a national priority perspective.

As Keating said once, you have to have a recession every now and again, it's part of the evolutionary process of economics.  Cull off all the dead wood in the commercial sector and re-train people into productive areas. 

All this madness will achieve is to prop up some frivolous lightweight businesses for a few months longer, and in doing so tie a millstone of debt around the national neck and perhaps even let the inflationary genie out of the bottle.  anyone heard of stagflation?

 

[The Gronk]

Yeah its a lot of money but small even in per capita terms compared to what the EU, China and the US are throwing about.  And then organisations as respected as the IMF have come out and said the size of the package is only just approaching what is needed in Australia. 

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/

I'm not that impressed that to an extent the ALP are using the crisis as a cover to pushing through their broader agenda, as in including in the package items that don't stimulate the economy in the short term.  The same thing is happening in the US.  It smacks of the "War on Terror" to me. 

And guess what, I'm a card carrying member of the ALP and capable of criticising them.  When was the last time you met a Lib drone able to do that?

 

[Canteen Worker]

i find it hard not to puke on Byso's comment 'parading that tone on this labor ridden site'. Happy for very robust discussion and alternate views. That was never the problem - all need to acknowledge there is more than one side of the story - I am not a card carrier for any party and have even voted for both mainstream parties.