+ Reply to Thread
Page 20 of 24 FirstFirst ... 101819202122 ... LastLast
Results 191 to 200 of 238
  1. #191
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,200
    Thanked
    16,892
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    You are twisting my words bc you cannot refute the truth. I didn't say every year. I have clearly said I'm talking about the 2 terms outlined in the worldwide study I linked. beebs has given facts and yep, for 2006 that's pretty much the whole surplus.

    And most of those years you list aren't even Howard terms? I am talking about Howard.

  2. #192
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,200
    Thanked
    16,892
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Quote Originally Posted by Father View Post
    I would suggest that it wasn't because they were spending beyond their means.
    I didn't say they were spending beyond their means. That to me, says they spent money they didn't have. Clearly they had it. My argument, which I feel I've been clear on, is that Howard 'wasted' more than the current government. That is fact, not opinion.

    Admitting Howard spent a lot of money doesn't necessarily mean he was a bad leader. hell I'd prefer him any day over Abbott. But your staunch refusal to concede that the libs like to spend too only weakens your argument not strengthens it.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (20-05-2013)

  4. #193
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    You are twisting my words bc you cannot refute the truth. I didn't say every year. I have clearly said I'm talking about the 2 terms outlined in the worldwide study I linked. beebs has given facts and yep, for 2006 that's pretty much the whole surplus.

    And most of those years you list aren't even Howard terms? I am talking about Howard.
    2003, and 2005-2007? Is that what you mean? How do these add up to beebs numbers?

    Which years were not Howard's?

  5. #194
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,200
    Thanked
    16,892
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    It identifies only two periods of Australian "fiscal profligacy" in recent years, both during Mr Howard's term in office - in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politi...#ixzz2TpryVKd7

    According to your figures, the surplus for 06/07 was just over 17 bill. The sale of Telstra for 15.4 bill came in Nov 06, within that financial year. And that was but one sell off. Even if he didn't sell off anything else for that financial year that would have left a surplus of around only 1.5 billion. So 90% of that surplus that financial year was from Telstra....

  6. The Following User Says Thank You to delirium For This Useful Post:

    beebs  (20-05-2013)

  7. #195
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    10,012
    Thanks
    14,124
    Thanked
    7,612
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 posts
    Awards:
    100 Posts in a week
    RE: The 96.3b dollar defecit that was left by Keating. THat wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the fact that we had a major recession would it? Never.

  8. #196
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    According to your figures, the surplus for 06/07 was just over 17 bill. The sale of Telstra for 15.4 bill came in Nov 06, within that financial year. And that was but one sell off. Even if he didn't sell off anything else for that financial year that would have left a surplus of around only 1.5 billion. So 90% of that surplus that financial year was from Telstra....
    I don't think that is how underlying cash balance is determined. I would suggest that the sale did not affect the surplus at all, but went into 'the bank'. The net debt had already been paid off by then.

    Happy to be corrected.

  9. #197
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by beebs View Post
    RE: The 96.3b dollar defecit that was left by Keating. THat wouldn't happen to have anything to do with the fact that we had a major recession would it? Never.
    I do love the excuses. But it was the 'recession we had to have'!

    Feel free to have a look at table D4 in http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/con...appendix_d.htm and point out the debt at the start and the end of the recession.

  10. #198
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,200
    Thanked
    16,892
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Well my background is not in politics so I'm happy to admit I'm not sure 100% on that. But that's not in my experience how things work. The sale of telstra would have been deemed a credit to the ledger. I doubt they would have popped it in the bank without taking it into consideration on the balance sheet?

  11. #199
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2,603
    Thanks
    126
    Thanked
    267
    Reviews
    0
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by delirium View Post
    Well my background is not in politics so I'm happy to admit I'm not sure 100% on that. But that's not in my experience how things work. The sale of telstra would have been deemed a credit to the ledger. I doubt they would have popped it in the bank without taking it into consideration on the balance sheet?
    I'm not an economist either, but looking at the budget papers, the underlying cash balance is pretty much the difference between receipts and payments (revenue and expenditure).
    Table D2 in the above link then breaks these receipts into taxation and non-taxation receipts.
    If you look at the year in question, at the non-taxation receipts (as the sale of telstra is not a tax), you will see it is not unusual at all. In fact, nearly identical to the other years around it. If, however, you look at table D4, you see some pretty dramatic changes.
    Happy for some feedback.

  12. #200
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    22,848
    Thanks
    6,200
    Thanked
    16,892
    Reviews
    10
    Achievements:Topaz Star - 500 postsAmber Star - 2,000 postsAmethyst Star - 5,000 postsEmerald Star - 10,000 postsRuby Star - 15,000 postsDiamond Star - 20,000 posts
    Awards:
    Bubhub Blogger - Thanks100 Posts in a week
    Re Keating, I don't care he was labor, I couldn't stand him. Many grass roots labor supporters like my fathers side said he was a lib wolf in labor sheeps clothing. My blue collar grandfather would scream at the TV how dare he call himself a labor pollie He ironically was a big fan of privatisation and deregulation.

    This really sums up my thoughts on Keating

    http://www.solidarity.net.au/51/labo...keating-years/


 

Similar Threads

  1. Am i in labor?
    By jessTJ in forum Birth & Labour Questions
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 17-02-2013, 06:50
  2. Nappy bins, essential item or waste of money?
    By Leahmaree in forum Pregnancy & Birth General Chat
    Replies: 79
    Last Post: 09-11-2012, 19:23

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
free weekly newsletters | sign up now!
who are these people who write great posts? meet our hubbub authors!
Learn how you can contribute to the hubbub!

reviews
learn how you can become a reviewer!

competitions

forum - chatting now
christmas gift guidesee all Red Stocking
Bamboo Lulu
Super soft, fun prints & basics for baby, made from bamboo & organic cotton plus non-toxic wooden toys. • Hypoallergenic - perfect for eczema relief • Everything needed to shop for a baby shower • 10% off + FREE gift with purchase. Use code BUBHUB
sales & new stuffsee all
Pea Pods
Buy 2 Award Winning Pea Pods Reusable One Size Nappies for only $38 (in your choice of colours) and receive a FREE roll of Bamboo Liners. Don't miss out, we don't usually have discounts on the nappies, so grab this special offer!
Special Offer! Save $12
featured supporter
Carmels Beauty Secrets
An online beauty and wellness site which offers simple and effective time saving methods and tips which help you look younger for longer.
gotcha
X

Pregnant for the first-time?

Not sure where to start? We can help!

Our Insider Programs for pregnancy first-timers will lead you step-by-step through the 14 Pregnancy Must Dos!