choco said...

could'nt believe the Libs on radio ranting about wasting money on new schools buildings....everyone I've talked too are stoked that their schools have finally got some new infrastructre......piss Tony off and bring in Malcom T

If you go for the blue team you wouldn't want to bring in Mr T in just yet.When he was opposition leader the blue team were about as popular as blowflies at a butchers picnic .having said that at the time Kevin and Wayne were handing out money for new plasma T'V's so it's gonna be hard to get some traction.plus he had Tony and his cohorts white anting him .So for the blue team stick with Tony and co for the time being .the blue team is more popular than ever even tho no one really likes tony and he is a bit short on ideas for when he is running the show any way .So when tony and co get the keys it will be a short while before they are found to be useless and that no one likes Tony anyway and he will be easily tossed on the rubbish heap .this is where you reinstall Mr T as leader reminding people that he did have a poison chalice last time he was in charge but now that they have the keys he deserves a crack because the rest of the blue team were good mudslingers and street fighters when they din't have the keys but the whole schebang is heading for a wreck and Malcolm will save the day.

Talking about lies! Remember what the mad monk said about work choice?
What is he going to call it???? Reborn work choice.... Lazarus w/c, ???? We should run a competition to find a good name for it!
Watch this space!

Diver said...

Mad Monk as PM?

Didn't they all run for cover when Peter Costello's name was mentioned this morning.

Call me cynical, but...

bring back the king slinger "Keating"

Nah, she would only get $800 if she was of voting age....

Pugwash said...

choco said...

could believe the Libs on radio ranting about wasting money on new schools buildings....everyone I've talked too are stoked that their schools have finally got some new infrastructre......piss Tony off and bring in Malcom T

Once upon a time
If Mal T was around, there would be no Labs and no Gillard.
The end.

We agree.... but that would mean a return to "liberalism" for the Liberal party. The party wants a more conservative approach

jamdfingr said...

Mr Float and Log Man,

To be diplomatic about this, I will state the facts as I see them.

You guys have judged our current government to have governed well and I have judged them to rule poorly and disagree with alot of their economic policies.

The original dispute was over Mr Float believing that I had a go at her because she is a woman which I have stated before that is not the case and am in favour of having women in the PM seat.

I also agree with you that PK was a bit of a let down but I think Bob Hawke did a better job than you give him credit for.

At the end of the day, we either like or dislike the values, policies and decisions of our politicians and are in an environment where being able to debate these differences in opinion are accepted.

I will accept that you have been provided with information that leads you to the conclusion that Julia has governed well, however from my own information that I have been provided, I have judged her to have governed poorly.

Cheers,

[/quote
But mate, where do you get you're facts from. Mine come from Australian bureau of statistics........unemployment DOWN to 4.9 percent. Australian department of Treasury......1B surplus budget. Australian department of defence........troops to be withdrawn from Afghanistan. CSIRO......climate change is happening.

Where do your fact come from?

Logman,

You make some good points and got me interested

..What is the long term unemployment average, excluding seasonal and the unemployable.
does low unemployment have anything to do with a mining boom and skills shortage?

What is the government borrowing associated with this surplus. And our current account deficit?

Is a governments only source of income taxation, does a surplus mean we are being over taxed or our taxes aren't being spent to the full extent.

And the troops, should of been home earlier and it was not Julia's doing, she didn't make that decision...it was a military decision and actually a sign of transferring security back to the afghans, as per the US plan...

No argument on climate change, the economic cost of doing nothing is much larger than the cost of doing something..... but Julia did not have anything to do with it, in fact... no carbon tax was her words... Non core promise? Maybe it is the implementation that has offended people and the fact she was not honest before a very close election.

I have a background in finance and as unemployment goes down, inflation goes up. You can't have one without the other. The 1b surplus budget means that they are not plunging further into the $140b (I have been told) debt that was created and they have raised the self imposed borrowing limit to $350b so that they can spend again come next budget. The surplus just means that we will be able to pay back less than 1% of our current national debt (which did not exist when libs were in). The interest on this debt is $7b per year so you can see that it is more like a fart in the wind.

I agree with them pulling troops from Afghanistan but only if the country is safe for its people and stable to do so. That is why we are still there protecting the democratic process and training their own national guards.

As for climate change, hardly any of the carbon tax is spent on protecting the environment. It goes from in circles from the businesses who pay, who pass it on to the buyers who in turn are given back the money by the government who took it from the businesses in the first place.

That is where I get my opinion from and my information comes from various sources both public and private. I am an engineer who works in the mining industry with a second degree in finance and I have lived overseas for 10 years in Muslim countries and Asian countries.

Believe me when I say that although my opinion is different from yours, it comes from a well educated and experienced level of understanding.

I stand corrected.

Thanks mate, it has been about 5 years since I did that little piece of study.

Are these one off occurences i.e exemptions to the rule or was this postulation proven to be an incorrect theory on the behaviour of inflation rate and unemployment?

Im sorry for sounding like a douche when saying.. "well I have a background in finance..." I only meant it as Im not pulling this out of my butt.... When I read it again, it sounds kind of laa dee daa....

Are these one off occurences i.e exemptions to the rule or was this postulation proven to be an incorrect theory on the behaviour of inflation rate and unemployment?

Depends which "school of thought" you come from and each side claims that their explanation is better that the others.

The ongoing argument centres on the government versus market solution to economic problems. My view is that it is simpy a set of numbers looking for an explanation.


No offence taken about other comments.

As her puppet master I would also be her ventriloquist .

#1

So.. I would allow her to tell more lies , her wooden nose would then grow even longer !


#2


Then lie her down on Craig Thomson's chair , nose up .

#3


Now practice ventriloquism .

SP said...

Logman,

You make some good points and got me interested

..What is the long term unemployment average, excluding seasonal and the unemployable.
does low unemployment have anything to do with a mining boom and skills shortage?

What is the government borrowing associated with this surplus. And our current account deficit?

Is a governments only source of income taxation, does a surplus mean we are being over taxed or our taxes aren't being spent to the full extent.

And the troops, should of been home earlier and it was not Julia's doing, she didn't make that decision...it was a military decision and actually a sign of transferring security back to the afghans, as per the US plan...

No argument on climate change, the economic cost of doing nothing is much larger than the cost of doing something..... but Julia did not have anything to do with it, in fact... no carbon tax was her words... Non core promise? Maybe it is the implementation that has offended people and the fact she was not honest before a very close election.

."What is the long term unemployment average, excluding seasonal and the unemployable". answer LOW.

"does low unemployment have anything to do with a mining boom and skills shortage?" Answer: meh! unemployment is LOW even in VIC

"What is the government borrowing associated with this surplus. And our current account deficit?" Answer : LOW


"Is a governments only source of income taxation, does a surplus mean we are being over taxed or our taxes aren't being spent to the full extent". Answer (1st bit ) maybe, (second bit) Probably


"And the troops, should of been home earlier and it was not Julia's doing, she didn't make that decision...it was a military decision and actually a sign of transferring security back to the afghans, as per the US plan..."Answer: Nah mate, The armed forces fight wars until the government tell them to stop, The military don't control policy.

But generally on the economic stuff. At present the Gov is presiding over an economy that has LOW INTEREST RATES/ LOW INFLATION/ LOW DEBT/ LOW UNEMPLOYMENT/ HIGH DOLLAR. No amount of coalition sqeeeeeeeling will change that , and no amount of half arsed economics will change the fundamental good numbers of the economy.

For years and years we were told by coalition that these were the cornerstones of the worth of an economy and now you want to move the goal posts. I thought interest rates would always be lower under a coalition ???

Wonder where that Coalition "debt Truck" is now!!

Poodle said...

choco said...

could'nt believe the Libs on radio ranting about wasting money on new schools buildings....everyone I've talked too are stoked that their schools have finally got some new infrastructre......piss Tony off and bring in Malcom T

I reckon my teenage daughter would be pretty stoked if I gave her $800 to buy a new $299 ipod

I guess this shows that you and her don't actually do any research yourself, and wildly exaggerate figures without any background. Have you thought of politics yourself?


Wasn't there was an inquiry where they showed that in the reported cases where people thought there was overspending, that the reality was much different?

Bring in and enforce a 'one child' policy.