by Squawk » Tue May 08, 2012 12:51 am
by Jimmy_041 » Tue May 08, 2012 1:20 am
by Grahaml » Tue May 08, 2012 12:22 pm
Jimmy_041 wrote:Bit early mate
But I see Swan is already trying to claim accolades about bringing in a surplus before he has even given it - talk about premature *************
Mind you - it is a great achievement for a Labor Govt, especially this incompetent one
by Q. » Tue May 08, 2012 12:28 pm
by GWW » Tue May 08, 2012 1:39 pm
by Bully » Tue May 08, 2012 8:04 pm
by Squids » Tue May 08, 2012 10:05 pm
by Q. » Tue May 08, 2012 10:21 pm
Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy
hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.
by Gozu » Wed May 09, 2012 12:25 am
Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy
hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.
by Grahaml » Wed May 09, 2012 12:35 am
Gozu wrote:Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy
hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.
They certainly did when the Howard government were in.
by Grahaml » Wed May 09, 2012 12:37 am
Grahaml wrote:Jimmy_041 wrote:Bit early mate
But I see Swan is already trying to claim accolades about bringing in a surplus before he has even given it - talk about premature *************
Mind you - it is a great achievement for a Labor Govt, especially this incompetent one
Getting a surplus is actually pretty easy. Just increase taxes and cut things until you've got more coming in than going out. If they've done it without creating problems simply to be able to say "we got a surplus" then let's pat them on the back.
Bully wrote:here here!!
love it when both sides bring their views to the budget, they get up and clap and hug and shake hands like they have won a grandfinal or something while the opposite side sits their staring at the walls and shaking heads
by Gozu » Wed May 09, 2012 12:55 am
Grahaml wrote:Gozu wrote:Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy
hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.
They certainly did when the Howard government were in.
The surpluses the Howard government delivered were a massive reason why we're in such good shape now. Paid off a massive government debt and built up reserves that went to paying for the future fund. Now, whether Howard et al were responsible for it or just happened to be in power at a good time is a different matter but anyone who thinks those surpluses weren't great for our country has no understanding of economics.
by mick » Wed May 09, 2012 8:04 am
Gozu wrote:Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy
hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.
They certainly did when the Howard government were in.
by Grahaml » Wed May 09, 2012 12:52 pm
Gozu wrote:Grahaml wrote:Gozu wrote:Squids wrote:Surplus - just a political ploy
hopefully the plebs dont fall for it.
They certainly did when the Howard government were in.
The surpluses the Howard government delivered were a massive reason why we're in such good shape now. Paid off a massive government debt and built up reserves that went to paying for the future fund. Now, whether Howard et al were responsible for it or just happened to be in power at a good time is a different matter but anyone who thinks those surpluses weren't great for our country has no understanding of economics.
Um, no. Surpluses have nothing to do with being 'in such good shape now'. It's called a mining boom. If you or I were Treasurer then we could've run up surpluses too (Treasury does all the work). What was the last Howard govt surplus $20 Billion? What did we borrow for the stimulus packages to keep us afloat something like $240 Billion? We've got China and a few other countries to thank for our financial standing.
by OnSong » Wed May 09, 2012 12:54 pm
by Mad Mat » Wed May 09, 2012 1:17 pm
OnSong wrote:Found Andrew Bolt's summary in today's Tiser pretty much summed up my thoughts.
Not sure if that diminishes any credibility I may have had previously or not.
Ack.
by OnSong » Wed May 09, 2012 1:19 pm
Mad Mat wrote:OnSong wrote:Found Andrew Bolt's summary in today's Tiser pretty much summed up my thoughts.
Not sure if that diminishes any credibility I may have had previously or not.
Ack.
You'll get howled down in this forum for agreeing with Andrew Bolt! If you want credibility you'll have to quote from GetUp or Fairfax and agree with their views.
by Gozu » Wed May 09, 2012 2:14 pm
Grahaml wrote:Are you trying to prove yourself wrong? Nobody is claiming Howard was responsible for the surpluses and nobody is in denial about what the mining sector contributed. Yes, the last surplus was around $20b. In fact I think over the Howard government's life they delivered surpluses around $120b. Without that we slip into recession and aren't able to borrow as we did. Your grasp of the situation is frighteningly poor and really just a symptom of being a chronic synic.
by Q. » Wed May 09, 2012 2:35 pm
OnSong wrote:Mad Mat wrote:OnSong wrote:Found Andrew Bolt's summary in today's Tiser pretty much summed up my thoughts.
Not sure if that diminishes any credibility I may have had previously or not.
Ack.
You'll get howled down in this forum for agreeing with Andrew Bolt! If you want credibility you'll have to quote from GetUp or Fairfax and agree with their views.
Ah well. Seems like I'm f#@%ed then.
by Gozu » Wed May 09, 2012 2:41 pm
Q. wrote:Massive lol at Blot pretending to care about foreign aid. As if that racist **** hole gives a ****?!
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |