@Balmain Bobby said:
That's funny, Gillard admitted they got it wrong and that they didn't need to spend billions in hand outs.
Have you got a link to any article where Gillard is quoted as saying that? I don't remember it.
@Balmain Bobby said:
All of our surplus gone, half of our futures fund depleted, and massive borrowing, all for nothing
That's untrue about the future fund, it wasn't 'raided' as some may have put it. While some money may have been handed out to keep the retail sector rolling and keep people employed, other funds were spent on infrastructure.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Government_Future_Fund
_'In the 2008 and 2009 federal budgets, there was a deficit of A$27 and A$57 billion respectively, yet during these years the Australian Government added a further A$41 billion into the Fund.[16][dead link] The 2008 federal budget created a A$20 billion Building Australia Fund to invest in roads, rail, ports and broadband; an $11 billion Education Investment Fund, which absorbed a similar $6 billion fund set up by the previous government; and a A$10 billion Health and Hospital Fund. These new funds were established and administration placed in the hands of the Future Fund, on behalf of the government.'_
\
@Balmain Bobby said:
did the Labor Government learn from that ? No, they go and borrow millions per day and live beyond their means, as many Australians do.
Federal Govt debt is actually very manageable despite the mind boggling 'billions of millions' figures thrown around by some people in the media
http://www.budget.gov.au/2011-12/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst7-01.htm
_'Australia's level of net debt remains extremely low by international standards (Chart A). Australian Government net debt is expected to peak at 7.2 per cent of GDP in 2011-12, which is less than one tenth of the average net debt position of the major advanced economies in 2011\. The peak in Australia's net debt compares with the net debt position of the United States, which the IMF projects will continue to increase until at least the end of 2016.'_
\
\
\

\
@Balmain Bobby said:
Gillard and Co are doing it on the basis that the minerals boom won't slow down anytime soon, but while that does wonders for tinkies and twiggy's in adding billions to their coffers, and the governments, it does very little for low and middle income earners in Australia, many of whom will not be able to heat their houses this winter because of the rising cost of energy thanks to the carbon tax.
Low income earners will benefit from a trebling of the tax free threshold. It remains to be seen whether anyone will freeze to death, but on current estimates I very much doubt it.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2012/04/12/what-electricity-will-really-cost-under-a-carbon-tax/
_For example, the impact of the carbon price on the average annual household electricity bill in NSW in 2012-13 will be: $23 x 0.89 x 1.0 x 7 x 1.05 x 1.1 = $165 (or $3.18 per week). (This assumes that 100% of the carbon price is passed onto consumers.) To put this in perspective, it constitutes 0.18% of average household income in NSW._
\
\
@Balmain Bobby said:
We missed the GFC because of Peter Costello's handling of our economy, and his understanding of World Economics.
He warned mid 2007 of a " World Financial Tsunami " heading our way, and had taken necessary steps to insulate our economy.
He also said that unsustainable growth in China would be the main cause of this 'tsunami'
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2007/10/25/1192941243214.html
\
\
Chinese growth and inflation has now largely stabilised
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/05/07/uk-china-economy-inflation-idUKBRE84608720120507
\
\
So I guess in that sense he got it almost as wrong as Gillard and Swan did.