JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[c2105026]

Thoughts on pro-Muhammad riots in Sydney this weekend just gone?

I was in Sydney at the time but unfortunately was taking in Madame Tassauds at Darling Harbour so I missed a very cranky group of people making a scene. When I walked back into the city later that afternoon I was like 'WTF, why all the police blockades'?

I believe in the right to freedom of speech; if someone made made a film about my 'equivalent' of Muhammad saying they were an idiot etc. I'd just shrug it off and get on with life. Because, friends, that is what reasonable people do.....

 

[FirstVL]

The ETS however only cost Turnbull votes within the party room. Times have changed. The bottom line is and always will be 'can this man win the next election'.

I'm not sure the Libs/Nats are that pragmatic. From what I've heard, Turnbull is hated - or at the very least, resented - within those parties. I can see personalities getting in the way of Turnbull leading the libs again and, like Costello before him, I'm not sure Turnbull will be able to get the numbers.

 

[Calaber]

Turnbull may not have the respect of his colleagues or the numbers necessary but the Coalition must soon realise that Abbott's leadership credentials are flawed. He did a good job undermining Rudd and has been a constant thorn in Gillard's side but recent polls suggest the Government is on the road to recovery. Their support has grown considerably over a number of polls covering a period when nothing basically went wrong for them. Abbott, on the other hand, seems to have run his race. He isn't hitting the government with the same impact as he had previously and his almost total lack of policies is now wearing very thin. Australians want to know what Abbott will do and how he will fund his promises. His explanations are sketchy and can be easily dismantled by a secondary school student. His party must be concerned at his lack of fire-power and, with just a year to the election, they can't continue to work on the assumption that they will win at a canter.

The state governments aren't helping either. Despite the fact that a number of them are trying to repair basketcase state economies courtesy of previous Labor governments, the unions and Feds will play on their cost cutting as proof of what Abbott will do if he wins. The fact that, if he wins, he also inherits a basketcase with monumental debt is very conveniently overlooked, of course but his random commitments to fund certain policies without explaining how, only makes him look irresponsible.

 

[DAKSTER]

Greece is a basket case with monumental debt.

Australia, and even the worst of the Australian states (QLD lol) compares extremely well against most economies in the world. Yes, we need to put on the brakes. No, we don't need to slam them on so hard that we hurt the passengers.

This is what Abbot and the state leaders just don't get. Austerity programs are useful but if you make them too painful they just wont work. The population, the voters, will not accept it. Basic fact of life.

 

[FirstVL]

Greece is a basket case with monumental debt.

Australia, and even the worst of the Australian states (QLD lol) compares extremely well against most economies in the world.

I agree with this - the Coalition argument that Australia has a problem with its level of federal debt is ridiculous and just a scare campaign. As for austerity programs in Europe, they are becoming a matter of necessity since the PIIGS are running massive deficits and are having trouble selling their bonds.

 

[Reaper]

Greece is a basket case with monumental debt.

Australia, and even the worst of the Australian states (QLD lol) compares extremely well against most economies in the world. Yes, we need to put on the brakes. No, we don't need to slam them on so hard that we hurt the passengers.

This is what Abbot and the state leaders just don't get. Austerity programs are useful but if you make them too painful they just wont work. The population, the voters, will not accept it. Basic fact of life.

The problem with *every* Labor government since Whitlam is they have been addicted to living off the credit card and beyond some fiddling of the books this year, look unlikely to pay any back into the foreseeable future. Even this years "surplus" is yet to be seen.

I agree with this - the Coalition argument that Australia has a problem with its level of federal debt is ridiculous and just a scare campaign. As for austerity programs in Europe, they are becoming a matter of necessity since the PIIGS are running massive deficits and are having trouble selling their bonds.

The level is not an issue..... yet. The problem is a life long trend by the left in high taxing, high credit living beyond our means.

Reaper

 

[vr94ss]

The problem with *every* Labor government since Whitlam is they have been addicted to living off the credit card and beyond some fiddling of the books this year, look unlikely to pay any back into the foreseeable future. Even this years "surplus" is yet to be seen.



The level is not an issue..... yet. The problem is a life long trend by the left in high taxing, high credit living beyond our means.

Reaper

I always see the righties saying that the left taxes high.. but..

Who’s a low taxing government? This one! | Market Economics

Quote: "Based on media reports today, the Treasurer Wayne Swan’s Budget will confirm that the tax to GDP ratio will be around 22.1% in 2012-13. From a historical perspective, this level of the tax to GDP ratio is stunningly low, particularly with the economy in its 21st year of unbroken economic growth.

If we take the first five Budgets of the Labor Party as a whole, the average tax to GDP will be a tick above 21% which interestingly, is a rate never approached in any of the 12 Budgets delivered under the Coalition Government from 1996-97 to 2007-08.

In an embarrassing fact for the Coalition, the lowest tax to GDP ratio reached during their 12 Budgets was 22.2% and it averaged a chunky 23.4% of GDP for the duration of the Coalition’s time on the Treasury benches. The tax to GDP actually peaked at 24.2% of GDP in 2004-05 and 2005-06 when the Howard Government took the gold medal for the highest taxing government in Australia’s history."

Click the link to read the rest.

edit: Maybe if they taxed us like the coalition they could balance the books quicker but then the righties would need a waaambulance to bring some cleenex for all the crying they'd do.

quote: "Looked at from a different angle, if the Budget tomorrow were to have a tax to GDP ratio at the average of the Howard Government, the Budget surpluses would be above $20 billion each year and cumulatively, be close to $90 billion over the total of the forward estimates."


edit2: Here's a graph for the people who like pics

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/tax-revenue-percent-of-gdp-wb-data.html

 

[Calaber]

Let's look at this aspect of taxation -v- debt policies for a moment.

Coalition supporters will claim that Labor governments always overspend, seldom managing a budgetary surplus. The extent of the current deficit is worrying for those of us who believe that it is far better to run within your budget than to repeatedly overspend and the current debt is worrying from that perspective. Disregard the rest of the world for a minute - we are just concentrating on our own dogpatch. We might have a tiny deficit compared to other nations, but we also have a tiny population. I don't really think you can justifiably compare the US, with around 350 million people, to Australia with 22 million. The debt ratio per head is currently around $8,000 - I have no idea what it is for the States or other severely indebted nations.

Labor supporters will say that Labor invests in infrastructure, social services, improved pensions, new insurance schemes for the disabled, improved education standards etc. Fine, we need all those things and it would be nice to have them NOW. But in recent weeks, we have seen one scheme after another proposed by Gillard and Co, without any real explanation of where the funds will come from. Given our current debt position, it's a fair bet that the money to fund those schemes will also be borrowed initially to kick them off. Is it really responsible governance to indulge in so much large-scale expenditure simultaneously?

Labor supporters will claim that Coalition governments tax at higher rates, as per the post above. They will also say that Costello and Co accumulated the 20 billion surplus through a combination of excessive taxes, reduction in government services and insufficient investment in infrastructure. I have to agree that the Howard Government, whilst prudent managers of the national purse, did little to improve our national infrastructure and services were cut back to the detriment of the community.


However, given recent history, which position was more prudent when the GFC occurred? How can we be sure it won't happen again and what position will we be in if it does? How can we be sure that our debts won't be called in by China or any other financier if the need arises in their own countries? China's growth is slowing and we are starting to feel the effects. How much more can it slow before it really starts to hurt us?

 

[vr94ss]

Let's look at this aspect of taxation -v- debt policies for a moment.

Coalition supporters will claim that Labor governments always overspend, seldom managing a budgetary surplus. The extent of the current deficit is worrying for those of us who believe that it is far better to run within your budget than to repeatedly overspend and the current debt is worrying from that perspective. Disregard the rest of the world for a minute - we are just concentrating on our own dogpatch. We might have a tiny deficit compared to other nations, but we also have a tiny population. I don't really think you can justifiably compare the US, with around 350 million people, to Australia with 22 million. The debt ratio per head is currently around $8,000 - I have no idea what it is for the States or other severely indebted nations.

Labor supporters will say that Labor invests in infrastructure, social services, improved pensions, new insurance schemes for the disabled, improved education standards etc. Fine, we need all those things and it would be nice to have them NOW. But in recent weeks, we have seen one scheme after another proposed by Gillard and Co, without any real explanation of where the funds will come from. Given our current debt position, it's a fair bet that the money to fund those schemes will also be borrowed initially to kick them off. Is it really responsible governance to indulge in so much large-scale expenditure simultaneously?

Labor supporters will claim that Coalition governments tax at higher rates, as per the post above. They will also say that Costello and Co accumulated the 20 billion surplus through a combination of excessive taxes, reduction in government services and insufficient investment in infrastructure. I have to agree that the Howard Government, whilst prudent managers of the national purse, did little to improve our national infrastructure and services were cut back to the detriment of the community.


However, given recent history, which position was more prudent when the GFC occurred? How can we be sure it won't happen again and what position will we be in if it does? How can we be sure that our debts won't be called in by China or any other financier if the need arises in their own countries? China's growth is slowing and we are starting to feel the effects. How much more can it slow before it really starts to hurt us?

How about we encourage Labor to tax like Howard since no-one on the right complained about that and pay for those infrastructure projects etc with the proceeds? It's funny, if Labor taxed like the Coalition the right would scream EXCESSIVE TAX as they do now when it's lower! Reapers post shows what seems to be a right wing maxim, the left is tax and spend when in fact they tax less and spend on things that need money spent on them. Simple answer is to let them tax like the Coalition and not whine about it, let the money be spent on the infrastructure we need.

Edit: To answer the last paragraph, we know because no country "calls in debt" owed as it would push the world economy over the edge. It's either trade or war, calling in debt would kill world trade and the result would probably be war on the scale of the 20th century.. The tighter trade links are the less liklihood of war.

 

[Reaper]

How about we encourage Labor to tax like Howard since no-one on the right complained about that and pay for those infrastructure projects etc with the proceeds? It's funny, if Labor taxed like the Coalition the right would scream EXCESSIVE TAX as they do now when it's lower! Reapers post shows what seems to be a right wing maxim, the left is tax and spend when in fact they tax less and spend on things that need money spent on them. Simple answer is to let them tax like the Coalition and not whine about it, let the money be spent on the infrastructure we need.

If you think the ALP generally tax than the LNP you are kidding yourself.

Edit: To answer the last paragraph, we know because no country "calls in debt" owed as it would push the world economy over the edge. It's either trade or war, calling in debt would kill world trade and the result would probably be war on the scale of the 20th century.. The tighter trade links are the less liklihood of war.

Great excuse to live beyond your means indefinitely :thumbsup:

Reaper