JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[c2105026]

On which point(s) exactly?

Do you really want to know? We could be here a while.......and I don't think folks here would agree with it anyway

 

[Reaper]

Do you really want to know? We could be here a while.......and I don't think folks here would agree with it anyway

Don't worry - I'm sure you are wrong but am interested to see anyway. Will give me something to read at work tomorrow

 

[c2105026]

Don't worry - I'm sure you are wrong but am interested to see anyway. Will give me something to read at work tomorrow

Since you have that attitude you'll have to keep on guessing .
(Hint, refer to list of leftist causes I posted earlier. I align with most of them. There has been at least one government comment or action that has marginalised each of these. Guess which ones. If you guess correctly you will get a prize of leftist flavour).

 

[Calaber]

You asked - after election I was concerned, but cautiously optimistic. But now.....nup. Just....nup.

The thing is what makes up 'The Left' is a collective of various causes, and Abbott & Co have rubbed all of them up the wrong way. workers rights, social democracy, gay rights, Aboriginal rights, asylum seeker support, womens rights, environmentalists, secularists/humanists/atheists, Australian republicans, civil libertarians, those who work in healthcare and education (usually), peace activists etc. Abbott and/or his ministry either during the past years in opposition or since coming to power have said things to piss people off in each of the above causes. Most on the left align themselves with combinations of the above causes, multiplying the anger. Giving credit where it's due, Howard didn't do that, I don't recall such anger levelled at Howard. Abbott has simply gone in way too hard too fast. It's like the Whitlam years, but from the opposite direction.

The way I see it, Howard inherited a 96 billion dollar deficit. He took about eight years, with the capable administration of Costello, to redress the situation, at a time when the world economy was much stronger and we were riding on the back of the biggest mining boom in our history. His task was easy compared to Abbott and Hockey's.

The government now is faced with a situation that the last government seemed either unwilling or unable to anticipate. Debt is far greater, the world economy is still weak and the mining boom is diminishing. I don't think this government has any option other than to "go way too fast and too hard" - time is not on their side. Tough, really tough policies will alienate and annoy people, but the electorate spoke back in September and they want the situation fixed. Warm and fuzzy feelings about the environment don't have a place when the economy is going pear-shaped.

As for the various interest groups you nominate, well, yes, he probably has pissed a lot of them off. But some of them, such as civil libertarians, environmental groups such as the greens, asylum seekers and their supporters, peace activists and various others, piss a lot of people off, too, and under Labor, they seem to have a much stronger (disproportionately so?) voice. I guess they had all pissed off enough people last year for the electorate to say "enough".

 

[c2105026]

The way I see it, Howard inherited a 96 billion dollar deficit. He took about eight years, with the capable administration of Costello, to redress the situation, at a time when the world economy was much stronger and we were riding on the back of the biggest mining boom in our history. His task was easy compared to Abbott and Hockey's.

The government now is faced with a situation that the last government seemed either unwilling or unable to anticipate. Debt is far greater, the world economy is still weak and the mining boom is diminishing. I don't think this government has any option other than to "go way too fast and too hard" - time is not on their side. Tough, really tough policies will alienate and annoy people, but the electorate spoke back in September and they want the situation fixed. Warm and fuzzy feelings about the environment don't have a place when the economy is going pear-shaped.

As for the various interest groups you nominate, well, yes, he probably has pissed a lot of them off. But some of them, such as civil libertarians, environmental groups such as the greens, asylum seekers and their supporters, peace activists and various others, piss a lot of people off, too, and under Labor, they seem to have a much stronger (disproportionately so?) voice. I guess they had all pissed off enough people last year for the electorate to say "enough".

I really could take that apart and critically analyse but don't have the time for 5-on-1 flame wars today. Peace be with you and good day.

 

[Reaper]

The way I see it, Howard inherited a 96 billion dollar deficit. He took about eight years, with the capable administration of Costello, to redress the situation, at a time when the world economy was much stronger and we were riding on the back of the biggest mining boom in our history. His task was easy compared to Abbott and Hockey's.

I actually beg to differ on that point. Although not on the scale of the more recent GFC, it was right on our doorstep and had the potential to do far more damage to Australia than it did. Significant credit should be given to Costello, the then finance minister (can't remember his name) and relevant departments for their handling of the situation. It's also interesting to reflect in hindsight that post this economic shock, the Australian budgetary situation went from strength to strength whilst post GFC the then Government had a complete inability to wind back it's (although I disagree with much of it's execution, spending was needed to keep thinge moving at the time) spending causing near systemic deficit's far into the future.

The government now is faced with a situation that the last government seemed either unwilling or unable to anticipate. Debt is far greater, the world economy is still weak and the mining boom is diminishing. I don't think this government has any option other than to "go way too fast and too hard" - time is not on their side. Tough, really tough policies will alienate and annoy people, but the electorate spoke back in September and they want the situation fixed. Warm and fuzzy feelings about the environment don't have a place when the economy is going pear-shaped.

Yep. TBH though.... Although the raw numbers are ####ing huge, we are looking at spending cuts roughly in the order of 5% across the board which is relatively low IMO. This was possibly the biggest lie of the previous Rudd/Gillard/Rudd government. Wayne Swan and Penny Wrong repeatedly stood up in front of Australia claiming it wasn't their fault, rather a "dramatic collapse of revenue". It was simply not the case and nothing more than utter bullshit. When Howard/Costello left office in 2007, revenue was at $294 billion. It dipped to $284 in 0910 (to be expected as a flow thru from the GFC) however by 10/11 it was back to $302bil and climbing in the order of 5 - 10% pa all the way out to 14/15. The problem is that budget spending is accelerating at a greater rate.

Table D2: Australian Government general government sector taxation receipts, non-taxation receipts and total receipts(a)

Taxation receipts Non-taxation receipts Total receipts(b)
$m Per cent of GDP $m Per cent of GDP $m Per cent of GDP
1970-71 7,193 17.8 1,097 2.7 8,290 20.6
1971-72 7,895 17.8 1,240 2.8 9,135 20.5
1972-73 8,411 16.9 1,324 2.7 9,735 19.6
1973-74 10,832 18.0 1,396 2.3 12,228 20.3
1974-75 14,141 19.9 1,502 2.1 15,643 22.0
1975-76 16,920 20.3 1,807 2.2 18,727 22.5
1976-77 19,714 20.5 2,176 2.3 21,890 22.8
1977-78 21,428 20.4 2,591 2.5 24,019 22.9
1978-79 23,409 19.7 2,720 2.3 26,129 22.0
1979-80 27,473 20.4 2,848 2.1 30,321 22.5
1980-81 32,641 21.4 3,352 2.2 35,993 23.6
1981-82 37,880 21.6 3,619 2.1 41,499 23.6
1982-83 41,025 21.7 4,438 2.3 45,463 24.0
1983-84 44,849 21.0 5,132 2.4 49,981 23.4
1984-85 52,970 22.5 5,847 2.5 58,817 25.0
1985-86 58,841 22.6 7,365 2.8 66,206 25.4
1986-87 66,467 23.3 8,257 2.9 74,724 26.2
1987-88 75,076 23.1 8,415 2.6 83,491 25.7
1988-89 83,452 22.7 7,296 2.0 90,748 24.7
1989-90 90,773 22.4 7,852 1.9 98,625 24.4
1990-91 92,739 22.3 7,488 1.8 100,227 24.1
1991-92 87,364 20.6 8,476 2.0 95,840 22.6
1992-93 88,760 20.0 8,873 2.0 97,633 22.0
1993-94 93,362 20.0 10,462 2.2 103,824 22.2
1994-95 104,921 21.1 8,537 1.7 113,458 22.9
1995-96 115,700 21.8 8,729 1.6 124,429 23.5
1996-97 124,559 22.4 9,033 1.6 133,592 24.0
1997-98 130,984 22.2 9,752 1.7 140,736 23.9
1998-99 138,420 22.3 13,643 2.2 152,063 24.5
1999-00 151,313 22.9 14,887 2.2 166,199 25.1
2000-01 170,354 24.1 12,641 1.8 182,996 25.9
2001-02 175,108 23.2 12,481 1.7 187,588 24.8
2002-03 192,131 24.0 12,482 1.6 204,613 25.5
2003-04 206,091 24.0 11,683 1.4 217,775 25.3
2004-05 223,314 24.2 12,669 1.4 235,984 25.6
2005-06 241,215 24.2 14,728 1.5 255,943 25.7
2006-07 257,392 23.8 15,245 1.4 272,637 25.2
2007-08 278,376 23.7 16,540 1.4 294,917 25.1
2008-09 272,627 21.8 19,973 1.6 292,600 23.4
2009-10 260,973 20.2 23,689 1.8 284,662 22.0
2010-11 280,839 20.1 21,185 1.5 302,024 21.6
2011-12 309,943 21.1 19,931 1.4 329,874 22.5
2012-13(e) 339,209 22.2 27,832 1.8 367,041 24.0
2013-14(e) 371,393 23.0 21,201 1.3 392,595 24.3
2014-15(p) 389,236 22.9 20,806 1.2 410,042 24.1
2015-16(p) 411,538 23.0 23,086 1.3 434,625 24.3
(a) Data have been revised in the 2012‑13 MYEFO to improve accuracy and comparability through time.
(b) Receipts are equal to receipts from operating activities and sales of non‑financial assets.
(e) Estimates.
(p) Projections.

(MYEFO 2012-13 - Appendix D: Historical Australian Government data)

IMO, the sooner we get things back to a sustainable level with (say) 7 - 8 small/medium surpluses and 2 - 3 small/medium deficits per decade, the better Australia will be. That means we will be able to knock a few % off the principal of our debt and ensure that the high level of services (and in a world context we are up near the top) that we enjoy.

 

[Tasmaniak]

Reap? This you mate? lol

 

[Reaper]

Reap? This you mate? lol

I look at all the evidence and then draw a conclusion based on that. Which bit of my post do you consider incorrect?

 

[c2105026]

Post no longer relevant

 

[Tasmaniak]

I look at all the evidence and then draw a conclusion based on that. Which bit of my post do you consider incorrect?

You just read way too much into a little light hearted ribbing.