The 2014/15 Off Season Thread

[oldmancraigy]

Abbott won Stephen Bradbury style and did not need to promise anything. Spent his entire time in opposition sledging the LP for their "there will be no carbon tax" guff, yet stupidly decided to tell everyone that there will be no taxes, cuts to pensions, ABC etc. Why ? Stupidity. I doubt that anyone other than one eyed LP supporters see him now as honest or trustworthy. He has a massive problem with the trust issue.

Abbott offered punters an honest alternative to the LP and has f**ked it up royally by breaking promises and going after pensioners and Joe Public with petrol excise etc. Joe Public might not understand everything, but they smell a rat when there are austerity measures aimed at low income earners, yet a PPLS propping up women earning 6 figures.

Dumb.

Yeah, it's far too similar to the state NSW government story. When they got in, they could have just done nothing for the entire term, and still been re-elected. Instead they jumped into all the corruption stuff that had seen the previous mob punted.

Not intelligent IMHO...


Abbott should've just gone for a swim at Bondi every week, had a chat with the old ladies, and left some of the dumb stuff out of the budget. Don't try and do anything positive, just don't do anything negative. But oh dear, they did some things that are hard to understand!
If ALL they did was 'stop the boats', I reckon they'd be on about 94% popularity right now. Everyone would be hating Shorten and Palmer (and Lambie), and calling for 10000 more years of the mighty boat stoppers (assuming that if they can accomplish that, then they could accomplish anything).
Then they would have got a senate majority, and could have put whatever austerity measures they wanted in place.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

They could have done that but the deficit is f**king scary. And made no less so by those of other countries in massive debt.

 

[Gronk]

They could have done that but the deficit is f**king scary. And made no less so by those of other countries in massive debt.

HmmmmOK.

 

[Gronk]

They could have done that but the deficit is f**king scary. And made no less so by those of other countries in massive debt.

Oh look, Australia's leading economists warned in April that the deficit is not an emergency and Abbott risks slowing economic growth if his budget goes too hard. Guess what happened ? :roll:

Economists sceptical of Abbott's 'budget emergency'

Australia's chief economists have warned Joe Hockey not to rush the budget back to surplus, saying the urgency of the deficit was being exaggerated for political purposes.
Interviews with four chief economists at banks and financial institutions revealed a common scepticism with the “budget emergency” described by Prime Minister Tony Abbott and his Treasurer, Mr Hockey. All economists cited Australia’s “enviable” budgetary position compared to other rich countries, and none thought the speculated “deficit levy” on high income earners was an intelligent way to repair the budget.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

One unexpected bonus from the weak world economy is the likelihood that the interest we we will have to pay on our debt over the medium term (2-5 years) will be charged at a record low rate. The UK (who do owe a lot more than us) have just rounded down their forecast interest bills by about AUD40billion.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Oh look, Australia's leading economists warned in April that the deficit is not an emergency and Abbott risks slowing economic growth if his budget goes too hard. Guess what happened ? :roll:

Economists sceptical of Abbott's 'budget emergency'

Slower growth isn't so much a big deal....that was an inevitable price we were going to have pay at some point. The larger problem is the increased risk of a severe downturn in response to some external shock, because we cut stuff too suddenly.

 

[oldmancraigy]

Gronk, how does that graph play out on a 'debt per capita', or 'debt to GDP' basis? And how did it project forwards based on 'similar spending habits'?

Bear in mind that little Johnny left a fair warchest, which was spent and then some.

While continuing at the former rate might not have turned us in to Greece, that is hardly a reason to pat ourselves on the back is it? A projection sees us rise to 9th on that chart without measures being taken.
And the man making the projection is not an Abbott supporter.

This chart suggested that the future isn't rosy:

This shows how the slide has been arrested:

And if you can't see why this graph is scary....

Good on them for doing something I guess? I don't like a lot of it, surely there are other avenues to pursue? But we can't just keep bleeding ca$h

 

[Joshuatheeel]

When was the last PM that has held two Royal Commissions just to have two PM's from opposition ridiculed ? He even allowed cabinet documents released to the RC that no other PM has agreed to.

He has no class, no matter what side you support PM's from either side normally have some level of respect from the other side.

 

[oldmancraigy]

I think we all wanted Gillard and Ruddy ridiculed.

But you're right, it was a dog move, and might just be that Shorten continues the trend?

 

[Joshuatheeel]

Abbott won Stephen Bradbury style and did not need to promise anything. Spent his entire time in opposition sledging the LP for their "there will be no carbon tax" guff, yet stupidly decided to tell everyone that there will be no taxes, cuts to pensions, ABC etc. Why ? Stupidity. I doubt that anyone other than one eyed LP supporters see him now as honest or trustworthy. He has a massive problem with the trust issue.

Abbott offered punters an honest alternative to the LP and has f**ked it up royally by breaking promises and going after pensioners and Joe Public with petrol excise etc. Joe Public might not understand everything, but they smell a rat when there are austerity measures aimed at low income earners, yet a PPLS propping up women earning 6 figures.

Dumb.

Interestingly the two areas they are flogging, the Medicare co-payment and freeing up of uni fees probably won't make a huge different to the budget anyway.

Price signal, yeah right. Yeah some people go to the doctor for fun but it wouldn't be a huge percentage and they are likely to do something else that costs the govenment. And to prevent people from going that need to is just pushing the cost to another area. And the funds raised are for a health slush fund, thought we had a debt issue!

Freeing up uni fees is probably just going to lead to a massive student debt which the government will be holding- probably want this so they can onsell the debt to the financial industry.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Oh look, Australia's leading economists warned in April that the deficit is not an emergency and Abbott risks slowing economic growth if his budget goes too hard. Guess what happened ? :roll:

Economists sceptical of Abbott's 'budget emergency'

'Leading economists' hey? Do you mean the kind of 'economists' lefties go to when they want to justify bizarre unproven 'economic' theories?

I'd rather hear from actual stakeholders thanks: Standard & Poor's: Australia Could Lose Its Triple-A Credit Rating If Budget Savings Are Watered Down

 

[Joshuatheeel]

I think we all wanted Gillard and Ruddy ridiculed.

But you're right, it was a dog move, and might just be that Shorten continues the trend?

Hope not!!

Each side does doggy things but it is an unwritten rule that you let it sleep once elected. Labour could had easily have three RC after 2007 on the Libs, wheat board , children overboard and Iraq war. But what would it achieve ?

 

[Gronk]

I think we all wanted Gillard and Ruddy ridiculed.

But you're right, it was a dog move, and might just be that Shorten continues the trend?

Didn't Abbott pull cash from Gillard's Royal Commission into Institutional Child Sexual Abuse and channel it into the Union RC ?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Gronk, how does that graph play out on a 'debt per capita', or 'debt to GDP' basis? And how did it project forwards based on 'similar spending habits'?

Bear in mind that little Johnny left a fair warchest, which was spent and then some.

While continuing at the former rate might not have turned us in to Greece, that is hardly a reason to pat ourselves on the back is it? A projection sees us rise to 9th on that chart without measures being taken.

That particular chart is projection of *change* in net debt deflated by GDP, over a 6-year window. It is not of any great meaning without considering the base level of debt at the beginning of the period. Doesn't mean we should keep borrowing more (we shouldn't), but that is the chart that was very selectively interpreted in the period surrounding the budget.

 

[Joshuatheeel]

They could have done that but the deficit is f**king scary. And made no less so by those of other countries in massive debt.

Easily fixed:

- increase GST to 12% (or even 15%) and expand to education and health
- remove negative gearing for pre-existing house (can remain in place for current users). Only allowed on new builds and can only be used against income from that property
- super can no longer be paid out as a lump sum unless to pay off loan on current home and must then be converted to a pension. Any pension drawn is taxed as per current paye rates
- keep carbon tax
- current home if valued over certain amount (let's have a public debate about amount)is included in test for pension
- SMSF cannot no longer borrow money
- better enforcement of tax rules on corporations
- consider a land tax

 

[Gronk]

'Leading economists' hey? Do you mean the kind of 'economists' lefties go to when they want to justify bizarre unproven 'economic' theories?

I'd rather hear from actual stakeholders thanks: Standard & Poor's: Australia Could Lose Its Triple-A Credit Rating If Budget Savings Are Watered Down

Well that article was in May, published by his mate Murdoch around budget time. Speculation spin at it's best.

If you had bothered to take a look, S&P, Moody's & Fitch still all have us at AAA.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

That particular chart is projection of *change* in net debt deflated by GDP, over a 6-year window. It is not of any great meaning without considering the base level of debt at the beginning of the period. Doesn't mean we should keep borrowing more (we shouldn't), but that is the chart that was very selectively interpreted in the period surrounding the budget.

You could argue that the trend is more important than the snapshot.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well that article was in May, published by his mate Murdoch around budget time. Speculation spin at it's best.

If you had bothered to take a look, S&P, Moody's & Fitch still all have us at AAA.

And let's hope we stay there.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Brian Cox is kinda cute. Having said that, his latest BBC series contains some fundamental errors that can easily illustrate the bias of modern scientists to use science as a Trojan horse for atheism.

He took us to Heaven...and then told us it doesn't exist.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

You could argue that the trend is more important than the snapshot.

Both are certainly relevant, but to interpret the change measure you need to know what base it is coming from. Countries with abnormally low levels of debt are inherently more likely to have a large positive change in debt.....coz they can (for the time being) afford to borrow. Countries with abnormally high debt levels have trouble borrowing, though their debt often still grows b/c of failure to at least cover interest.

Also depends on the time window....if the trend is simply part of a cycle, then extending that trend beyond the peak of the cycle doesn't help too much.

There's zero doubt that we had to reduce the deficit...just a question of how and how swiftly. We're doing better than the UK, who owe about 100% of GDP and this will grow for the next couple of years. If the graph in OMCs data were based on current info, they'd be to the right of us for the first few years.....and starting from a much worse base.