Monday, February 9. 2009Australia Is A Harsh Country In The Best Of Times...John Linton ....it doesn't deserve to also have the total inexperience, incompetence and doctrinally derived stupidity of a Krudd, Whine and Guillotine when the country is fire and drought ravaged and also facing the worst economic problems of its existence. Krudd's 'first' priority after being elected was to waste a great deal of time and money running his "ideas" summit, saying "sorry" to someone on behalf of someone and signing a 'protocol' that Australia was already adhering to while immediately repudiating the future requirements of that protocol which was why the previous government deemed signing it was a waste of time. And by the way - where is Krudd's "list of implementations from the "ideas summit"? Nowhere of course. It was a chilling reminder of just how stupid the man that some of you had elected to an office he had zero credentials and abilities to hold actually was and how little he understood about the office he now held. Whine's contribution to Australia's financial well being, and his clear demonstration that his knowledge of finance and economics equated to something less than zero (naturally he was made treasurer!) was to trumpet that "his" budget was all about "getting the inflation genie back in the bottle". Apart from the crassness and sheer inapplicability of using such a truly dumb phrase and being TOTALLY wrong about Australia's financial situation he showed himself to be a total wanker with no more knowledge of finance than pond scum. Where's the inflation genie now, Whine? - is it back in the bottle? La Gillard's screeching voice (which must rate as one of the major noise pollutants in the ACT - God I hope whoever is giving her elocution lessons makes some progress soon) and her juvenile hopping and skipping while she tore up some Work Choices pamphlets was only done to disguise that, after all her rhetoric, she WAS KEEPING MOST OF THE WORK CHOICES KEY PROVISIONS and only throwing 'some bones' to the Union running dog commo's that her parents had indoctrinated her to idolise. What she has tried to do by her stupid changes is to ensure that unemployment in these difficult times becomes even worse by her doctrinaire stupidities. And then there's the f***ing "stimulus packages" with their inclusions of p***ing away other tax payers earnings in cash give aways. This article in today's SMH outlines how Rudd has lied outrageously since his second day in office and how his wild distortions get ever more ridiculous. Krudd is a compulsive liar with a sociopatic attitude to his lying which he clearly believes no-one notices: Do the lunatics that still approve of Krudd in those opinion polls actually listen to his constant lying or do they think he tells the truth? As I can have no credibility in my comments that such pointless populism is as I wrote previously, simply a modern day "Panem et circenses", let me quote from today's WSJ (the most read article in that paper today): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123396623933859023.html "A dollar doled out in jobless benefits may well be spent by the worker who receives it. That $1 of spending will count as economic activity and add to GDP. But that same dollar can't be conjured out of thin air. The government has to take that dollar away from someone else -- either in higher taxes, or by issuing new debt in the form of a bond. The person who is taxed or buys the bond will have $1 less to spend. If the beneficiary of that $1 spends it on something less productive than the taxed American or the lender would have, then the net impact on growth will be negative. Some Democrats claim these transfer payments are stimulating because they go mainly to poor people, who immediately spend the money. Tax cuts for business or for incomes across the board won't work, they add, because those tax cuts go disproportionately to "the rich," who will save the money. But a saved $1 doesn't vanish from the economy, unless it is stuffed into a mattress. It enters the financial system, where it is lent to others; or it is invested in the stock market as capital for businesses; or it is invested in entirely new businesses, which are the real drivers of job creation and prosperity." Obama is having a lot of trouble getting his "p*** away as much money as quickly as possible plan" passed and that's not because the Republicans are against its composition but also some Democras are against it! - something that doesn't happen in Australian politics. Sure its only another opinion but it does serve to underline the same problem we have with Krudd et alia - Obama is a very inexperienced "leader" with no knowledge of finance who is taking bad advice and trying to use his 'popularity' to do some really bad things. As the article notes "That's rhetoric for a campaign, not for a President hoping to rally bipartisan support." - exactly what Krudd and Whine are doing with their attacks on Turnbull - they are playing really bad politics instead of addressing real problems in the best possible way. As the opinion goes on to note (and the same applies in Australia): "because the size and waste of the stimulus means we won't have much ammunition left. The spending will take the U.S. budget deficit up to some 12% of GDP, about double the peak of the 1980s and into uncharted territory. The tragedy of the Obama stimulus is that we are getting so little for all that money" Krudd's uneducated and totally ridiculous lack of knowledge and his childish posturing and antics (and his shameless serial lying) are removing any hope of sensibly dealing with the financial situations in Australia. Trackbacks
Trackback specific URI for this entry
No Trackbacks
Comments
Display comments as
(Linear | Threaded)
I partly agree with what you are saying about the spending (I am not going to get into a political debate) but what do you propose? You are quick to slag off about the problems but how would go about trying to recover from the current GFC (I love that saying - it makes the mess sound so much nicer).
Comment (1)
That argument is completely circular.
On one hand it claims that the handouts have to be paid for by some parties, who now have less to spend. On the other hand it claims that a saved dollar doesn't vanish from the economy because it enters the financial system. That same financial system that funds government bonds. It doesn't seem to care that money spent by the "poor" in the first instance, also goes back into the coffers of businesses, and maybe "rich" people who may choose to save it (again). The short of it is that any analysis of a single "cycle" of money flows will always be flawed. Comment (1)
It wasn't an argument and it certainly wasn't circular but if you see it that way that's up to you.
I thought it was an opinion that how the "give away" dollar was spent increased or decreased the value to reviving the economy. Business seldom if ever invests in Government bonds by the way - other country's governments are the major investors in T Notes. Comments (3)
1) No p***ing away on cash hand outs
2)Only target money that will create new, on going, jobs. .....but then i didn't run for office claiming I had the credentials to run an economy the size of Australia's and I certainly didn't vote for the current no nothing wankers to do that on my behalf. Comments (3)
John,
You are NOT alone in your severe comments about the Rudd Govt spending all the money in the cupboard. Here is a link to Alan Kohler's comments today. http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Cheques-without-balances-$pd20090209-P3RST?OpenDocument&src=kgb Comment (1)
I goto tafe every day with idiots. I go on the internet(facebook, youtube) and read how stupid people are. It is really nice to finally read something from someone who seems to have a better grasp on how things really work than those of the labor party and most fools at tafe.
On ABC local radio they had someone on(a guest, not talkback) who was talking about how bad the idea was. If people at the ABC are allowing someone with sense to have a word then you know it's probably a bad idea. I called ABC local radio one morning before the election when they had a phone topic on who you were voting for and why. I stated i was voting for the coalition and because labor state governments are very bad and that kevin rudd screwed up water in Queensland. Was somewhat entertaining as i am 19(18 then) and they were expecting me to say K Rudd because they actually called me back(after i said i was 18 and wanted to share my view) after saying we can't fit you in. The host was not pleased with the result of that call, i could hear it in her voice. Labor governments.... Proping bludgers up on the back of Hard Working Australians. Oh and pissing away money on shit. Comment (1)
Thanks for this post. Mostly I wonder what Howard and Costello would have done differently and usually can't think of a good idea.
But the quote about where the money is coming from, either bonds or tax finally hit a spark in my head. I pay tax, they're taking money out of my pocket to give to someone to piss away. If I kept the money, it would be, like you say saved and invested in actual job creation instead of some DVD/TV or other consumerable. I'm renovating one house and building another and the money would be far better spent But to think that Liberals would do any better I think is nieve. Here in WA we have a bunch of idiots who have decided to not fund all new projects that the departments have been planning, and stop funding existing projects over 4 million. How can a federal government decide that spending billions of dollars will fix things, when the state governments all want to spend money on infrastructe and other projects which would be job creators, but can't because they're all worried about having a deficit budget. I wish I could have better granularity to where my taxes go besides one vote every 3/4 years. Maybe like Super, you can say what percent of your tax goes to each spending item in the governments list.. to defence, education, public works etc... My money would go into tafe and unis Comment (1)
A Coalition government (Turnbull) has stated what would be done diferently - it would be less and no pointless cash give aways.
I think they sum it up as "jobs, jobs, jobs" - but who can really tell. The fact is that Krudd has decided how to spend your money (taxes) and not let you do that. He has also decided to take more tax money from you in the future to pay back the other money he is now borrowing. Have it any way you like but you are now worse off than before Krudd decided to piss your money away. Comments (3)
|
Calendar
QuicksearchArchivesCategoriesBlog AdministrationExternal PHP Application |