The Turnbull Government

[sptrawler]

I had my doubts about Morrison's abilities as Treasurer, and finance experts agree.

Scott Morrison's household debt remarks labelled 'inane and stupid' by finance experts


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-14/morrison-debt-remarks-inane-stupid/8121086

I have to agree, maybe Morrison is better as an ideas man rather than a facts and figures man, I certainly thought his comments were stupid or misrepresented.

Everyone with excess debt, should be using the low interest rates, to pay it down.IMO

 

[sptrawler]

This clipping suggests it was disobeying Murdoch that forced the public, peer and press calls for his head:


https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/when-tony-abbott-crossed-the-line,7334

Well that is a mute point, the reality remains, you have the leaders you deserve.

 

[noco]

I had my doubts about Morrison's abilities as Treasurer, and finance experts agree.

Scott Morrison's household debt remarks labelled 'inane and stupid' by finance experts


http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-14/morrison-debt-remarks-inane-stupid/8121086

What else would expect from the left wing socialist ABC?

What did they say about Chris Bowen the opposition shadow treasurer?......No plan to fix the economy...no new ideas ......all whishy whashy rhetoric coming out of his mouth.

 

[noco]

I have to agree, maybe Morrison is better as an ideas man rather than a facts and figures man, I certainly thought his comments were stupid or misrepresented.

Everyone with excess debt, should be using the low interest rates, to pay it down.IMO

We are paying a $billion a week in interest alone on Labor's bad management 2007/2013 and they still have to borrow $100,000,000 a day to pay for the welfare of the 90% of the 50,000 illegal boat people let in by that stupid Rudd/Gillard/Rudd....Not to mention of course all the 36,000 dole bludgers.

We are having to pay for Labor's unfunded NDIS and Gonski...That funding was supposed to come from the Goose's MRT but it never happened.

Morrison does not have to figures man according Labor as Treasury does all that work for them.

 

[sptrawler]

We are paying a $billion a week in interest alone on Labor's bad management 2007/2013 and they still have to borrow $100,000,000 a day to pay for the welfare of the 90% of the 50,000 illegal boat people let in by that stupid Rudd/Gillard/Rudd....Not to mention of course all the 36,000 dole bludgers.

We are having to pay for Labor's unfunded NDIS and Gonski...That funding was supposed to come from the Goose's MRT but it never happened.

Morrison does not have to figures man according Labor as Treasury does all that work for them.

He still shouldn't say, that an increase in house value, condones an increase in borrowing.

That is a treasurer supporting a ponzi scheme.IMO

I may have misunderstood the reporting and he may have been miss reported, if so I stand corrected.
But that is how it came across.

It is starting to look like the Country is running out of ammo.IMO

Maybe they should sell off W.A to the Chinese for a zillion dollars, relocate the sandgropers over East and Bob's your uncle.lol

 

[pixel]

We are paying a $billion a week in interest alone on Labor's bad management 2007/2013 and they still have to borrow $100,000,000 a day to pay for the welfare of the 90% of the 50,000 illegal boat people let in by that stupid Rudd/Gillard/Rudd....Not to mention of course all the 36,000 dole bludgers.

We are having to pay for Labor's unfunded NDIS and Gonski...That funding was supposed to come from the Goose's MRT but it never happened.

Morrison does not have to figures man according Labor as Treasury does all that work for them.

noco,

Let's make allowance that it's been a few years since you learned the 3 R's. But if 86,000 "illegals and dole-bludgers" receive $100 Million a day, I think I'll give up trading for a living and become one of them myself. Divide one by the other and you get $1,162.79 per person and day. I don't know about you, but on average, that's more than I make trading the ASX.

That aside, you also conveniently omit that Labor had to deal with the GFC, which they did so successfully that Australia maintained AAA credit rating, beating even the USofA at the time. And all that from a standing start, because the previous mob had squandered the fruits of a decade-long boom by creating a massive expectation of middle-class welfare - attempts to buy votes with unfettered bribes.

Finally: Take the time to read and understand the article that Tisme provided the link to:

Until now if anybody asked who was the worst prime minister Australia ever had, most would say Billy McMahon.

Now Abbott's name will appear in Australia's history as the leader who could not lead; a man who is untrustworthy, unreliable and dishonest; who shamed himself and the country he should never have been allowed to lead because he was totally unqualified by birth and by incompetence.

No sensible Australian believed his argument that Labor had left a debt crisis in its wake, that the budget cuts he demanded were ever necessary.

No sensible Australian believed Joe Hockey's ramblings about a financial disaster left in the wake of a Labor party.

Actually, Labor had achieved a great deal more than was generally recognised, the truth buried in an unfortunate set of leadership changes, seen by a majority of the party as necessary at the time but punished by an irritated electorate.

The election of 2013 was the result of shameful dishonesty, shared between the Murdoch newspapers and the claims the Liberal-Nationals used ruthlessly in their pre-election desperation and then in their post-election incompetence.

Tony Abbott, maintaining his obsequious relationship with Rupert Murdoch, over dinner in December, allegedly blamed bad advice from his communications staff for the failings of the Government Murdoch himself had installed.

That's when Murdoch said: get rid of them ”” including Peta Credlin.

Abbott took Murdoch's orders and overhauled his media team, including dumping his press office director Jane McMillan and appointing the ABC's Mark Simkin in his place

But Abbott demurred on Credlin and tried to save her. Murdoch allegedly took to phoning Abbott demanding Credlin's head.

Abbott refused and so Murdoch used Twitter to reinforce his demand.

Predictably, this unleased the dogs of war and his sycophantic retinue of hacks for hire immediately took up their master's call.

It is easy to forget that when Labor was in office, Australia achieved triple A financial ratings on a level with Germany, Canada, Sweden and Switzerland ”” and even better than the USA at that time.

When the Abbott Government took power, Australia had one of the lowest levels of government debt in the western world. The debt is still relatively low, though the Abbott and Hockey financial team managed to double the debt in their first six months in power.

In 2008, the Labor Government under Rudd allowed the Budget to go into deficit because of the global financial crisis. This immediately stimulated the Australian economy, kept us out of recession and maintained a record high employment level.

The simple truth is that in 2014 Joe Hockey deceptively inflated Australia's debt level to produce panic. His Budget projections raised the deficit peak of $68 billion, when Labor's highest level had actually been $54 billion. Under Labor, spending growth was locked at less than two per cent per year, the lowest in 23 years.

The fiscal outlook for Australia was praised by no less than the Nobel laureate Joseph Stiglitz, who congratulated the Labor government's financial stimulus as one of the best designed programs in the world.

At the same time, Labor maintained one of the lowest tax takes in the western world, at just 22.5% of GDP, compared with John Howard's average rate of 25%.

Put more simply than the figures above, Australians can now accept that their country has been subjected to a government that lied its way into power ”” and now seems intent on lying its way back to oblivion.

Amen to that.

 

[boofhead]

There seems to be a little bit of ignorance in this thread about how some aspects of welfare in Australia work. Newstart recipients are required to participate in negotiated activities. Failure to do so can result in suspended payments. Howard privatised much of the system. Centrelink has minimal involvement now even though they pay the recipient the welfare payment. The agencies that get assigned the unemployed handle most of the reporting. People do get payment suspensions. Where is the Newstart payment % of population highest? Suburbs with low socio-economic backgrounds and regional/rural areas which have higher unemployment.

Centrelink will find it difficult to suspend payments if they're unaware of someone turning down work without suitable justification. Centrelink has no idea where you are applying, if you have an interview, if you have a job offer etc.

Now on to the non-government agencies that do the bulk of the face to face handling of the unemployed - many are income earners for their owning organisation. ABC's 4Corners program last year or so had a bit of coverage of some of the crap they get involved with. It is more about bureaucratic paperwork than doing something in the best interest of the job seeker. I spent some time in the past and know plenty that have been clients of the system. Far too many of the case handlers have a chip on their shoulder and more interested in their KPIs with minimal effort. A cousin worked in one for a little while. What she learned is the system ruins people that rely on it for more than a few months. A small number will put in the extra yards to understand the person and do things to help them get in to work.

Many of the organisations will prefer to do internal training - they will get government funding to do so. It will be all prepared stuff which is reused month after month.

The agencies have two types of preferred client. One that is on their books for a few weeks and finds a job which they can claim credit for to get some government money. The other is the client that will have many identifiable issues and long term unemployed so they can get extra money. If you're inbetween you're too much effort without a dollar carrot for them.

 

[moXJO]

noco,

Let's make allowance that it's been a few years since you learned the 3 R's. But if 86,000 "illegals and dole-bludgers" receive $100 Million a day, I think I'll give up trading for a living and become one of them myself. Divide one by the other and you get $1,162.79 per person and day. I don't know about you, but on average, that's more than I make trading the ASX.

That aside, you also conveniently omit that Labor had to deal with the GFC, which they did so successfully that Australia maintained AAA credit rating, beating even the USofA at the time. And all that from a standing start, because the previous mob had squandered the fruits of a decade-long boom by creating a massive expectation of middle-class welfare - attempts to buy votes with unfettered bribes.

Finally: Take the time to read and understand the article that Tisme provided the link to:

Amen to that.

What a crock of ****e.
Labor sunk us through overspending in the wrong areas. Libs failed to pass tough measures. Hockey was right to warn of trouble

 

[Tisme]

It is starting to look like the Country is running out of ammo.IMO

It does sound desperate. For a treasurer of a party that is vehemently opposed to deficits, the "good debt" versus "bad debt" sounds ominous.

However having said that, Howard didn't seem to acknowledge that selling off the farm to pay down debt, is not the same as the farm making a profit to pay down debt, but the public seemed happy that 1.3% of GDP ~$20bn was sitting in treasury vaults rather than remaining in a performing asset portoflio. Peter got robbed by Paul who was then robbed by Rudd.

Triple A Morrison needs to shut his mouth for once. Even his 2GB mates Hadley and Jones won't be able to save him if he continues to come up with simpletonomics.

 

[sptrawler]

noco,

Let's make allowance that it's been a few years since you learned the 3 R's. But if 86,000 "illegals and dole-bludgers" receive $100 Million a day, I think I'll give up trading for a living and become one of them myself. Divide one by the other and you get $1,162.79 per person and day. I don't know about you, but on average, that's more than I make trading the ASX.

That aside, you also conveniently omit that Labor had to deal with the GFC, which they did so successfully that Australia maintained AAA credit rating, beating even the USofA at the time. And all that from a standing start, because the previous mob had squandered the fruits of a decade-long boom by creating a massive expectation of middle-class welfare - attempts to buy votes with unfettered bribes.

Finally: Take the time to read and understand the article that Tisme provided the link to:

Amen to that.

I guess it depends where you source your opinion from, pixel.

Did spending “save” Australia?

Firstly, this was a financial crisis. In the US and Britain, financial institutions were collapsing. It was not the case in Australia. No bank made a loss for one quarter. We had a well regulated prudential system with a dedicated regulator. The government was able to guarantee banks on wholesale borrowing markets when it was needed because it had a AAA credit rating to back it.

If the banks had been unable to continue credit lines for companies, that would have affected the real economy. But they could, and did. Government spending put more money into household budgets, but there is no evidence they spent it. In fact quite the reverse. The real stimulus to the Australian economy came from soaring terms of trade – or the China effect.

Even at the trough of the downturn, Australia’s commodity prices were still higher than they had been at any time before 2007. And they surged and peaked at all-time records in 2010 just about the time that the killing season got into full swing. Of the era, the part I like best is the Treasury explanation of the benefits of the stimulus in the 2009 Budget. It showed that without “temporary” stimulus, unemployment would peak in 2010 at 10 per cent, but with it the outcome would only be 8.5 per cent. In 2010 unemployment turned out to be 5.25%

In other words, Treasury completely overestimated the effect of the crisis then completely overestimated the response required to deal with it. Spending didn’t make the difference. What really mattered was we had a strong and well-run financial system. And far from following the US into a downturn, we were following China in a boom.

Don’t expect to hear that from Rudd or Gillard or the various Treasury officials on tonight’s program. There was one thing Rudd and Gillard always agreed on. Whether it was Pink Batts or school halls, pensions, Gonski education funding or parental leave, they always agreed on more spending. The real killing season was on the taxpayer.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...d/news-story/86d7af0e1f3cdb8ee1837b60b6e4e7d4

 

[SirRumpole]

Did spending “save” Australia?

Are they your own words ? If not kindly quote your source.

 

[Knobby22]

Spending did save our economy. The company I worked for was a case in point as we avoided having to lay off staff due the money spent on schools. A lot of our regular work dried up. Once unemployment starts rising and fear takes hold all bets are off and the economy goes into recession leading to loss of more jobs. This is how it works and is proven. It's easy for some to say everything would have been OK if we had done nothing but I have no doubt that this is a fallacy.

I do think though the second handout by Rudd was not required and if he had of been more prudent we would be in a better position now. And of course the ceiling batts rollout was completely mishandled.

 

[sptrawler]

Spending did save our economy. The company I worked for was a case in point as we avoided having to lay off staff due the money spent on schools. A lot of our regular work dried up. Once unemployment starts rising and fear takes hold all bets are off and the economy goes into recession leading to loss of more jobs. This is how it works and is proven. It's easy for some to say everything would have been OK if we had done nothing but I have no doubt that this is a fallacy.

I do think though the second handout by Rudd was not required and if he had of been more prudent we would be in a better position now. And of course the ceiling batts rollout was completely mishandled.

I have no doubt you are correct, but if it was as easy and simple as people try to make it out, a similar handout would remedy the issues we have currently.

The underlying strengh of our economy at the time, and the massive resources boom that took hold from 2008-2014, kept our economy bubbling along, we had to import workers to cover the shortfall.

What is the difference between now and 2009? The resources boom has fallen off a cliff, if Rudd saved us by throwing money at school halls and pink batts, all we need do is the same.

But I think we all know, that isn't the real issue, the real issue is the money was spent in non productive areas.

Now we find ourselves in a position where we need to spend money on infrastructure, but we don't have any and we are in hock.

If Rudd had spent the money on infrastructure, to improve the nations underlying efficiency instead of pork barreling, we may be in a better position today.

But as I said, it depends whose opinion one wants to listen to, from what I'm hearing, Labor were brilliant for the two terms of office they were in power.

A case in point regarding spending on school halls, it hasn't seemed to have improved our education level.

 

[Tisme]

I guess it depends where you source your opinion from, pixel.

Did spending “save” Australia?

Firstly,

I admit I through the other article in as bait, but you just can't reference the Courier Mail as a reliable source. Even in the blue ribbon seat where I have my big house, the locals are critical of the long drawn bows and blue collar bashing. It's juts not a credible/reliable source to reference...... which is probably why you chose it to contrast the other?

 

[Tisme]

Spending did save our economy. The company I worked for was a case in point as we avoided having to lay off staff due the money spent on schools. A lot of our regular work dried up. Once unemployment starts rising and fear takes hold all bets are off and the economy goes into recession leading to loss of more jobs. This is how it works and is proven. It's easy for some to say everything would have been OK if we had done nothing but I have no doubt that this is a fallacy.

I do think though the second handout by Rudd was not required and if he had of been more prudent we would be in a better position now. And of course the ceiling batts rollout was completely mishandled.

Yes it did save many in the commercial construction industry too, but it also bank rolled the uber large building and development companies with high incomes to play project managers who in turn dripped what was left after the consultants and govt syphons to the actual sub contractors and suppliers. It enabled those companies to the international stage, which must be good for GNP...right?

 

[Tisme]

Fills my bosom with pride when you look back at our fair go Australia, full of mature opinion leaders who still to this day voice their distaste at the rotten uncouth way Tony and Malcolm are being treated by the leftie press....




https://www.facebook.com/TheLabourCoalition/videos/914530838683499/

 

[McLovin]

We are paying a $billion a week in interest alone on Labor's bad management

Gross government debt when Labor left office was around $250b. I guarantee they weren't borrowing at ~20% interest.

Of course we won't mention the GFC. I'm sure if the Libs had been running the show we would have sailed through with surpluses at 5% of GDP.

 

[Ves]

Of course we won't mention the GFC. I'm sure if the Libs had been running the show we would have sailed through with surpluses at 5% of GDP.

A billion a week in interest? Geez, not even Heinz would be able to supply all the sauce added to come up with that figure.

 

[Tisme]

Gross government debt when Labor left office was around $250b. I guarantee they weren't borrowing at ~20% interest.

Of course we won't mention the GFC. I'm sure if the Libs had been running the show we would have sailed through with surpluses at 5% of GDP.

Actual figures:

Rudd/Gillard


Underlying Cash Balance

The underlying cash balance includes cash from operations and net cash provided by investing activities in non-financial assets but excludes the net cash earnings for the Future Fund.

The underlying cash balance for the year to 31 August 2013 was a deficit of $10,563 million, compared to the Budget profile deficit of $9,317 million. The difference of $1,246 million relates to lower underlying cash receipts partially offset by lower underlying cash payments.

Fiscal Balance

The fiscal balance for the year to 31 August 2013 was a deficit of $5,719 million, this is $164 million lower than the Budget profile deficit. The difference relates to lower expenses and net capital investment, partially offset by lower revenue.

Revenues

Total revenue was $3,074 million lower than the Budget profile primarily due to lower taxation revenue. This reflects lower company, superannuation fund and individual and other withholding taxation revenue compared to the Budget profile, together with other minor variations including timing of taxation revenues.
Expenses
Total expenses were $2,600 million lower than the Budget profile primarily due to lower grants and personal benefit expenditure. This is in part consistent with reduced expenditure during the election caretaker period.

Assets and Liabilities

The net worth of the General Government sector is a negative net asset position of $205,908 million at 31 August 2013. The net debt of the General Government sector is $161,253 million at 31 August 2013.

https://www.finance.gov.au/publications/commonwealth-monthly-financial-statements/2013-08/

Howard

Underlying Cash Balance
The main components of the underlying cash balance are cash from operations and cash movements in the
net investment in non-financial assets.
The underlying cash balance for the year to 31 December 2007 was a deficit of $300 million. This
underlying cash balance is $7.7 billion lower than the 2007-08 MYEFO pro rata. The difference reflects a
number of individual variations including the following:
Movements in underlying cash receipts:
Lower receipts compared to pro rata MYEFO estimates from:
• Taxation due to collections typically being higher in the second half of the financial year.
Movements in underlying cash payments:
Higher payments compared to pro rata MYEFO estimates for:
• Personal benefit payments mainly influenced by seasonality factors; and
• Education grants due to the timing of higher education payments.
Fiscal Balance
The fiscal balance for the year to 31 December 2007 was a surplus of $4,609 million. This fiscal balance is
$3,372 million lower than the 2007-08 MYEFO pro rata estimate.
FINANCIAL OUTCOMES

Revenues and Expenses

GFS Expenses are $889 million lower when compared with a pro rata of the 2007-08 MYEFO estimate
whilst GFS Revenue is $4,447 million lower when compared with a pro rata of the 2007-08 MYEFO
estimate.
The main reason for the lower expenses is due to the timing of grant and personal benefit payments whilst
lower revenue is due to the seasonality of revenue collections.

Assets and Liabilities

The net worth balance within the General Government sector is a positive net asset position of
$15,442 million at 31 December 2007.


Lindsay Tanner MP Ian Watt
Minister for Finance and Deregulation Secretary to the Department of
Finance and Deregulation
14 March 2008 14 March 2008

Contact: Lindsay Tanner MP’s Office: George Wright 0419 556 616
Department of Finance and Deregulation:

https://www.finance.gov.au/sites/default/files/mfs_nov-dec2007.pdf

Abbott and Turnbull

as of May 2016:

Assets and Liabilities

The net worth of the General Government sector is a negative net asset position of $343,889 million at 31 August 2013. The net debt of the General Government sector is $284,657 million at May 2016.

 

[SirRumpole]

We have a government so adverse to increasing revenue that it's threatening our ability to deal with a structural deficit.

MYEFO: Deficit expected to deepen in mid-year budget update

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-12-19/deficit-expected-to-deepen-in-myefo-report/8130842