The old fashioned, but I think correct view, of spending public money is to approach it as no different from that of spending your own money. Amongst a myriad of quotes confirming this view, Franklin Roosevelt summed up the principle by saying “Any government, like any family, can, for a year, spend a little more than it earns. But you and I know that a continuation of that habit means the poorhouse.”

Illustration: The Australian's Jon Kudelka

Government’s that do not manage costs end up costing the taxpayer. The pink batts disaster is the most prominent example. We are now paying to rip out or fix much of what has been installed.

The 19th century French economist, Frederic Bastiat, once suggested, in jest, that one way to stimulate the economy would be to break shop windows. At least the regulatory standards in the glazier industry may have been more up to scratch!

The Building the Education Revolution (BER) is turning into the B… Enormous Rip-off.

Mr Tanner was so correct when he said that he had to get the stimulus spending out without dotting the i’s and crossing and t’s.

Labor party management is an oxymoronic farce. Mr Tanner’s latest release of the monthly financial statements is so remarkable it is comical. The savings announced are because even they cannot manage to spend the absurd amounts of money fast enough. No increase in revenues, just that they cannot write the cheques quick enough.

The graph below shows that they are still writing them pretty damn fast, another $2.1 billion in the past fortnight.

The Murweh Shire Council in Charleville tells me that they can build a kilometre of sealed road for $200,000. So in the previous fortnight this Government has borrowed enough money to fund the construction of 10,000 kilometres of road in regional Australia.

Campbell Newman tells me that the Clem7 tunnel cost $2.2 billion, so the Labor party in the past fortnight has borrowed a little less than the cost of the biggest road tunnel ever built in Australia.

If we take the median price of a house at about $500,000, the Labor party in the past fortnight has borrowed enough to buy a third of your average suburb, and apparently this is all normal.

And what is so dangerous about this is that it is not a one-off. This is turning into rolling extensions of debt.

Their fig leaf is to say that we are not going to be $57 billion under water for 2009-10. Mr Tanner says $48 billion instead. Is this something to be celebrated?

It’s still, in raw numbers, the largest deficit in the history of Australia. We are supposed to take that as a good result. This is the Labor party’s panicked response to, in the Reserve Bank of Australia’s words, one of the mildest recessions we’ve had.

The excuse for everything from the Labor party is that spending money is a good thing. There is a vast difference between spending money well and wasting money. To go shopping is one thing, to wander home with 300 pounds of boiled tomatoes is something entirely different.

It is absurd to believe that these people can laud themselves as good economic managers, when they epitomise bad managers in all of its forms. In fact, chapter 1 in the book of How Not to Mange Your Business should give the current Labor government as a working example.

No control of costs, no control of delivery and no desire to change. This leopard can’t change its spots. The Labor party hasn’t delivered a budget surplus since 1989-90.

The Coalition delivered 10 surpluses in the last 12 budgets we delivered. The contrast is clear.

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

194 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • T.Chong says:

      06:12am | 24/03/10

      Barnaby folksy tales . Never mind the GFC, and what that did to budgets, just rollout stories that go nowhere, Abe Simpson style.
      Just like Bronny B. , totally irrevalant, and in this case just a distraction from Abbotts abysmal performance of yesterday. More LNP sideshows on the way. !!!
      Come on in conservative apologists, yur huffing and puffing make for a great light read.

    • Economic rationalist says:

      09:06am | 24/03/10

      Wouldn’t it be great if we could take fiscal policy largely out of the hands of politicians in a similar fashion to monetary policy.

      Therefore, all these vote-grabbing spending sprees and manipulative graphs would become irrelevant.

      Bit dangerous though as it does undermine “no taxation without representation” but surely something could be come up to find a better balance rather than having people like Barnaby ever getting their ignorant hands on the purse-strings.

    • Formersnag The Child Protector. says:

      09:17am | 24/03/10

      @ Tommy Chong, why not smoke another bong?

      Disclaimer, i am no, huge fan, of the liberal/national coalition.

      Typical of your excellent work. You claim that the conservative “Pollies” are talking rubbish, then go on with a few lines of allegedly “funny” jokes without anything other than sarcasm, to them. At least “Persephone” tries to put some facts, in, with the spin.

      The red/green/labour states, also had rivers of money, pouring in during the boom years. Did they have any, surplus budgets, “salting some money away for the bad times”, or did they blow it all, like “drunken sailors”?

      Do they have any fantastic “infrastructure” to show for it like “the snowy”, or the “harbour bridge”? Ben Chifley would be turning in his grave, if he could see what the red/green/labour coalition has degenerated into.

      http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/yes-minister-meets-alice-in-wonderland-20100220-omsa.html#comments

      http://www.heineraffair.info/

      http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/1030882/girl-12-prostituted-to-hundreds-of-men

      There are 4 honest politicians in Australia. Steve Fielding, Nick Xenophon, Bob Katter jr & Barnaby Joyce. The world economy may be about to go into “GFC 2”, or “Double Dip Depression” & there is no money left in the bank, is there, Tommy, so enjoy your bong, while the party lasts?

      Get all “Polly” staff stooges or “Galahs” off the net.

    • Barry says:

      12:27pm | 25/03/10

      @ T.Chong
      Despite the article being a bit of a beat up you cant escape the fact the Labour government cant seem to manage money and government expenditure. Now i am not saying little Johnny did a great job in building infrastructure but he does get bang for his buck when he finally opens the wallet. I just wish Labour would sack the guys in Finance who constantly stuff up in implementing policies that are OK in principle (not including the $900 stimulous payment)
      Mr Chong you need to look at politics subjectivly and cop it on the chin when your party stuffs up. I find this is the major problem with Australian politics - not enough swing voters to rate the actaul political performance

    • acker says:

      06:52am | 24/03/10

      Moving Bureacrats and Public Servants out of Canberra and State Capitals and re-locating them to the bush eg..Department of Environment Water staff to river towns such as St George, Echuca, Hay, Roma, Mildura, Renmark, Bourke and Wilcania would help trim the debt…and get the bureacrats on the ground where the rivers are and the issues are.

    • acker says:

      08:59am | 24/03/10

      Also move the Indigenous Affairs bureacracy out to Indigenous areas with more Indigenous bureacrats. Not open slather cheque books like ATSIC but get the Indigenous Public Servants into Aurakun, Doomadgee, Fitzroy Crossing, Brewarrina, Tenant Creek, Finke, Oodnadatta, Leonora, Canarvon, Wilcania, Barmaga, etc…

      And stop subsidising people for sending their kids to Private Schools when are not on an Isolated property and they live within 30km of a Rural Communities Local Public High School in towns such as Longreach, Winton, Tennant Creek, Cobar, Nyngan, Hay, Balranald, St George, Lightning Ridge, Coober Pedy, Quilpie, Cunnamulla, Norseman, Cloncurry, Wilcania, Clermont etc….if you are not on an isolated property and want to send your kid to a private boarding school (private schools already get government funding) pay for it yourself ! ...the government paying boarding subsidies to take kids out of rural communities which are already under stress trying to keep rural resources and services such as teachers is totally counter productive, ridiculous, unfair, wrong and Un-Australian

    • DG says:

      09:26am | 24/03/10

      People don’t want to live in the bush because there is nothing out there. Just like the Indigenous population, country kids are drawn to the bright lights of the city like a moth to the flame. Moving jobs out to the country doesn’t fix the problem. While some people move from the sticks looking for work, many are simply looking for a life.

      Growing up in a town of about 500 people I know what it’s like (I happen to be Koori as well) and I know my brothers and I wanted out at the first chance we got. It had nothing to do with jobs and everything to do with wanting access the the commercial services that just don’t exist in those small towns - things like cinemas, bowling alleys, night clubs and, most importantly, people our own age who didn’t grow up with us.

      Moving jobs to remote areas wont bring enough people to make these services viable - You’d need to move many tens of thousands of people to these area’s to make them appealing to commercial ventures, but in doing so you have made public transport a financial black hole, blown out infrastructure costs for roads and the likes in these communities, move people to areas that don’t have enough water for the existing population and so on. It’s not going to fix anything.

    • acker says:

      09:55am | 24/03/10

      @DG ..Is the suburban cave like exsistance in servitude to a bank with a huge mortgage and having a 1 hour commute to and from work so pleasurable ?...People don’t live out in these rural communities because the government does not invest enough in them. Some big advantages they have over the cities to start with are lower house prices and almost no commuting time, in fact most people living out here go home for lunch. And decentralising the Public Service would be a huge step in a more sustainable future with a better spread of the Australian population rather than having 90%+ of the population trying to live in humungous cities requiring transport networks out to the far flung suburbs of oblivion…..Remember a city only consumes and recycles primary products and resources, it has no primary production of anything and a little place up the road called China is recycling/manufacturing primary resources a lot cheaper than Australian cities/suburbia’s….I think Australian cities are doomed and totally unsustainable and our population needs to spread about in smaller population centers that require less effort to get in and out and around example ....about Ballarat size

    • d.jay.stevo says:

      10:24am | 24/03/10

      @DG i agree with most of your statements, yes my friends and I were anxious to move on to a more exciting life, just as young people before us have, but they came back eventually, now they don’t because there’s nothing to come back for.

    • DG says:

      10:38am | 24/03/10

      acker - Having done both, I would have to say the later is better. Sleep during the commute, socialise during lunch, socialise after work, sleep on the way home.

      The lower housing price thing is simple supply and demand. If the Govt moved in the those areas the price of land would increase. I know that’s quite good for those that have a vested interest (such as owning property in a small town that gets the benefit of the upgrade), but for people moving, the prices will increase to reflect the increase in demand. This happens in mining towns - the mine opens, house prices sky rocket, mine closes, houses are worth nothing.

      Cities are only unsustainable when they outgrow the surrounding primary production area that feeds them. Stupid people build blocks of flats on dairy country, buy out farms for shopping centers and so on to make money. The result is that the surrounding area can not feed the city.

      I would suggest that the ideal outcome would be a very dense core population surrounded by primary producers feeding that core. This way the provision of services to the majority can easily be achieved, water supply can be carefully managed and it is much easier to police, manage and regulate the core area concerned.

      De-centralisation doesn’t offer benefits that, in my opinion, outweigh the benefits of centralisation. The biggest benefit of decentralisation is the one you have referred to in that people can keep their own back yards, drive themselves and generally minimise their interaction with other people (by going home for lunch). However, this is much more resource intensive than a central core.

      Sydney has neither a central core nor a decertralised structure. There is no dense population nor are there regional communities. Instead we have a sprawling mess populated by people who want their own back yard close to work, but also want public transport, hospitals and police. The attempt at balance will fail, as the populations spreads it will become less stable, ultimately it will be impossible to use public transport but will be too crowded for private cars, police will be to thinly spread and hospitals to expensive to maintain.

    • acker says:

      11:04am | 24/03/10

      @DG ..the same rural people that you say limit their social interactions by going home for lunch tend to increase it with social interactions through community group involvements, possibly due to more free time by not having to commute…not to mention more time to play with the dog, kids, nintendo, frisbee, husband, wife, have sex, make love, enjoy life, etc…....And why don’t you think de-centralisation is not a success ? considering these rural places already have roads going in and out of them ? your argument does not hold water, and that is another thing most rural towns and centers do not have a problem providing drinking water to their residents, as you were alluding to before. Just because you dont like country life doesn’t mean all other urbanites won’t. Expecialy if jobs start comeing back into these communities.

    • Gin says:

      06:53am | 24/03/10

      Just a reminder Mr Rudd we haven’t forgotten about the ETS issues/the insulation issue/the promise to reduce our debt (how?)/the leaving out of hardworking middle class families in all your economic planning. Nice one with this health policy distraction mate but we are still wanting solutions for those previous problems and we want them now ‘nuff time wasted huh?

    • Gotta be says:

      06:59am | 24/03/10

      Here’s another apt quote from political theatre:
      “He would [say that], wouldn’t he!” M Rice-Davies 1963
      So let’s have a close look at what Senator Joyce has said.

      Firstly, his graph. It’s a confected distortion. No responsible, believable analyst would ever put his name under such a thing. With its tilted axes and splayed grid, it’s been designed specifically to exaggerate. The effect is to show Liberal debt falling, at a time when it was steady.  What’s that? you thought there was no debt under John Howard? Well, he would want you to think that, wouldn’t he! There was, indeed, debt under Howard and Costello.

      Then there’s the batts affair. Putting the Senator’ s thunder into perspective, four men did die in preventable roofing accidents thanks to careless employers. Some 100 houses - at far less than the usual rate - had fires from dodgy installation of batts over downlights. Thank to careless small business.  To the extent that there’s been difficulty, the fact is that it was small business that cut corners, made mistakes, and fiddled the books. On a small scale.  Despite that, overall the nation has gained much from the programmes.

      Then there’s his raw numbers. I’ll take the 48 billion any day over 57 billion - already a 16% a reduction, but the Senator wold rather you saw just the large raw numbers. Well he would, wouldn’t he. 

      But worse than that - and Senator Joyce knows it - he has carefully omitted to mention the initial estimate, in excess of $100bn. Still an affordable amount, already reduced by more than half! And thanks to prudent government action. 

      Senator Joyce would rather you only heard about the raw numbers, so he carefully won’t compare them in “constant dollar” terms (adjusted for inflation) let alone in proportion of GDP, a measure that takes account of our overall growth. He wouldn’t do that, either because he can’t manage the maths or because the results don’t suit his aim of deceiving the casual reader.

      We have seen off the worst of a global recession that threatened to freeze our banking system, by at one off tax-cut, by insulating a million homes, by building large numbers of school facilities that will be of use for decades to come. All constructive things that have kept unemployment to around 5%, and kept our banks, our savings and our stockmarket in good shape.
      All for a level of government debt at the lowest end of the scale,  and an economy on any measure in better shape than every other like country in the world.

      In short, the Liberal Senator from Queensland has taken his carping into the far stratosphere of distortion. Well, he would, wouldn’t he.  The Liberal Senator for Queensland has shackled his credibility as shadow Finance Minister to this debt nonsense. Straight talker is he? Uh huh. Sure he is. He would say that, woulnd’t he…

    • Gotta be says:

      08:44am | 24/03/10

      Oh my! National Party Senator for Queensland, I meant. Not that it makes any difference.

    • Tails says:

      10:42am | 24/03/10

      The tilted axis also makes the blown out current spending look massively smaller. So, what’s your point?

    • Gotta be says:

      12:23pm | 24/03/10

      Hardly. Its an area chart, not a line chart. Usually a poor choice, being easy to misinterpret. Here its to deliberate advantage, and it includes two other matching tricks.

      The tilted horizontal axis creates an artificial falling trend in Liberal debt. The splayed grid then expands towards the current end of the chart: artificallly inflates the red area, current borrowings.

      The distorted chart is a disgrace. Its a cold-blooded and deliberate distortion.  A Finance Officer or Accountant offering up such a deception in the commercial world would be liable to prosecution for fraud.

      Who sanctioned it? Joyce, apparently. I guess he could try and plead ignorance.  But whose work was it? That’s the question. Who did it?

      Prediction: wait for this sort of deception to appear again, at budget time. Disgraceful.

    • Mark says:

      12:57pm | 24/03/10

      Like T all I read here is I am scared of Barnaby so i will attack the splay on his graph. I will then lie about the batt scheme and i will then spin the other non achievements. Also, just in case people are still asleep, I will claim that the GFC was the biggest financial ever!! like wow man it was really huge you know, justy because I say so.

      So full of lies and spin. Zero points You need to try harder with less bs.

    • Gotta be says:

      02:18pm | 24/03/10

      Your choice.  In that case, do your own check of all the facts. All of them. Do your own graphs, too. Then what will you have? My summary. Plain truth from me.

      These issues are too important for lies and spin. That’s why lies and spin are worth exposing. Senator Joyce is not a straight talker. He’s repeat offender in the tatty deception stakes. Uncritical readers like you two are letting him get away with it. 

      Cuts no ice in the broader electorate, or with me.

    • Paul Horn says:

      04:00pm | 24/03/10

      Total tripe Gotta be! While not the most mathematically accurate graph it is a rough approximation of a 3-D isometric area graph. If you look closely it actually works to Labours favour! The right hand “vertical” axis is angled away from the “horizontal’ axis at an obtuse angle (greater than 90 degrees). This serves to “smooth” the curve out at the right hand end or diminishes the steepness of the treasury debt curve. The area underneath means nothing as it is actually the value of the debt each year that counts. By angling the “vertical” axis away from the ‘horizontal"axis you actually have the effect of increasing the horizontal time frame and therefore the debt does not rise as aggressively. If the right hand axis was drawn parallel to the left hand axis at an acute angle then the debt curve would be much much steeper or sharper creating the “illusion” that debt under labor increases exponentially which would actually be much much much closer to the truth!!! Looks like dear Barnaby has been attending lessons in a Wayne Swan freakanomics course! But I am sure his eminently sound logic will be no matter how you present the analysis debt under labour skyrockets and no amont of mathematical trickery can disguise the fact even by would be trotskyites with limited numerical education. You must have spent too much time listening to Paul Keatings economic rantings.

    • Mark says:

      04:03pm | 24/03/10

      Saying you are telling the truth when you are are fibbing GBS means your nose will grow longer.

      Doesn’t mean repition will make it correct. To summarise;

      Graph, is fine. See how debt has gone up, see the projections of it rising. Backs up Barnaby’s point. If you cannot read it then sorry to say the problem is yours dude.

      Batt scheme huge fail - proof, let us play a game of “Where’s Peter”, spin that one. Why is Combet fixing it then if it a great success?

      Affordable debt - great mate, you have the countries finances all sorted. Where is the proof this debt is affordable? Where is the return on capital? Where is the cost benefit analysis?  Where is the social return - 4 deaths ....hello in there knock knock anyone home? Where is you forward estimates and certainty on interest rates making it ffordable next year, the year after and so forth? Just because you say it is affordable doesn’t mena it is.

      The raw number thingy you go on about. You accuse Barnaby of not doing the maths through siome inability of his to understand it. Do we level the same charge at you for not giving it to us? I mean really you make a claim without even giving us the numbers then say Barnaby didn’t do it because he is dumb. Pot meet kettle in that case.

      Saw off the worst of a global recession. I concur. Because JWH and Pete had the economy rip roaring hot. it was sexy. I get a tingle in my pantaloons when I think how good the economy was. Thanks to them KRudd had an easy ride. He just spent the savings.

      So basically from having a quick look at your post again it is either a lie, a concoction of spin or a throwing out of some party bias beliefs/fantasies with no factual basis to back it up. You do what you accuse the author and claim moral and intellectual wisdom above his just because you say so. Uh huh. Sure you are. You would say that, woulnd’t you…

    • Gotta be says:

      04:41pm | 24/03/10

      Utterly and completely unmoved by either personal attack of P Horn or Mark. The graph is a total fudge.  You can have your opinion, I’ll do my own research and reach my own conclusions and put them down truthfully. 

      So, eg, on affordable federal debt remarks: reliable sources in wide agreement,  too numerous, too wide spread,  and too long standing to be bothered with more than a single one.

      It;s this. Stevens, Governor, RBA 19 Feb 2010 to Standing Committee on Economics.
      “The second challenge is the increasing focus on sovereign creditworthiness. We saw a brief period of turmoil regarding Dubai late last year, and more recently the public finances of Greece have been under the spotlight, with some other European countries just in the background. Going beyond just these instances, government balance sheets in numerous countries have taken on considerable burdens as a result of the crisis, and markets are beginning to focus on issues of sustainability. It will be a very delicate balancing act for those governments to strengthen their fiscal positions without undermining the upturn in their economies.

      Happily, in both these areas, Australia is relatively well-placed. We are located in the part of the world that is seeing the most growth. And in terms of fiscal sustainability, Australia’s position is, by any measure, very strong indeed.”
      http://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2010/sp-gov-190210.html

      Senator Joyce is elected to represent the interests of Australians and Queenslanders, for which he is paid a very large amount. His duty is to do the best he can, as honestly and as accurately as his ability permits.  He is failing in his duty to the electorate by misrepresenting fundamental economic and financial measures. It’s a disgrace.

    • Mark says:

      09:31pm | 24/03/10

      Lawl. So Australia has a good sound economic base courtesy of 12 years of good economic management from the Liberals.

      Thanks for giving them a wrap mate. Cheers.

      We shall not point out Ross Greenwards excellent article below on affordable debt ... or sahle we Gotta raspberry

    • John A Neve says:

      07:06am | 24/03/10

      Barnaby,

      At last you have got it right!! You say the “correct view of spending money, is to approach it as no different to spending your own money”.

      That is of course just what the government is doing. Australia has the highest plastic money debt in the world. At last count that I am aware of $3700 for every man, women and child. Sadly Barnaby, it was a coalition government that oversaw this tragedy

    • Adam Diver says:

      07:47am | 24/03/10

      Good point australian consumers are no better than the government. By to blame a government for the individual spending decisions has nanny state government all over it which I detest

    • John A Neve says:

      08:27am | 24/03/10

      Adam,

      We are a “nanny” state have been for some time and it’s getting worse.

      Regarding your suggestion that I’m blamming the coalition for “individual” debt, your right I am.  Governments can if they desire guide the actions of the people, in fact they do it every day. Twelve years of coalition government was about growth at all costs. Aided by tax cuts, health fund rebates and lax credit controls e.g. “buy now and make no payments for two years” !!

      Come on Adam, what sort of message does that send?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      10:18am | 24/03/10

      John Neve :  Are you suggesting that the Howard government was responsible for individual Australians using their plastic to indulge in debt. ?  Surely not ! 
      Rudd’s ” Whitlamesque ” style of irresponsible spending is the REAL tragedy John. We will be saddled with debt for decades and if you find solace in being strangled by debt & tax increases to service that debt ,
      I suggest you take a long holiday John.

    • Economic rationalist says:

      10:37am | 24/03/10

      Wayen, We’ll be out of debt by 2014. Debt that was necessary to pump back into the economy to provide it the boost we needed to stave off recession. It’s simple Keynesian economics. Please do some research and some reading.

    • John A Neve says:

      11:07am | 24/03/10

      Wayne,

      Until today I did not realise you had a sense of humour, for that I apologise.

      Yes, as I have already stated I do hold governments responsible for the way society goes.  Tax cuts were a bad move, starving infrastructure to pay off debt quickly was a bad move, limiting the number of doctor training positions was a bad move. Allowing the acceses of “live now pay later” was a bad move.

      Sadly Wayne the coalition government is guilty of all these things.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      11:15am | 24/03/10

      Economic rationalist :  ” Its simple Keynesian economics. “
      Is that so. ?  Hmmm ,  The Howard/Costello govt. took 6 years to pay off Keating’s $96 Billion debt. We are looking at a Rudd $300 Billion
      projected debt , which , you are suggesting we will be out of 4 years.
      ” Please do some research and some reading. ”  ,  that is something you should discontinue immediately. Take a course in simple mathematics , you need it. ! 
      Oh , by the way , the money spent to stave off the recession was made possible because of the Howard/Costello govt’s legacy of an economy in good order and a budget in surplus.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      11:38am | 24/03/10

      John Neve :  The last time society was controlled in the way you suggest was Hitler’s manipulation of the German public 1938 .
      Uganda’s former President , Idi Amin , was good at it with Ugandans too. ( He would have been a great Health Minister in the Rudd govt. )
      The Coalition govt. paid off the $96 Billion Keating debt using measures which exempted the public from having to pay higer taxation.
      The reward for the public , after the debt was paid , was lower income taxes and better family support measures.
      John , if a govt. could control minds in Australia as you suggest Howard did , he would be still in office , wouldn’t he. ?

    • Economic rationalist says:

      11:51am | 24/03/10

      Wayne
      The forecasts are using simple mathematics. Projected taxes collected vs projected revenue spent means we will be debt free by 2014.

      Using your historical analysis only shows you don’t grasp the concept.

    • tonyF says:

      12:06pm | 24/03/10

      It would be a good thing if economic rationalists knew the difference between a balnced budget and debt. Out of debt by 2014? Ha.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      02:24pm | 24/03/10

      Economic rationalist :  If Rudd has the debt repaid in 4 years , there would only be one concept to grasp my friend , higher taxes to cover
      the projected revenue spent . You seem to forget that the govt spending has pushed & continues to push into deficit . , which leaves one option ,
      increased taxes. Their spin has certainly given you a false sense of economic security . My ” historical analysis ” , as you put it , is based on facts , not improbable outcomes. The debt can’t be turned around until revenue , current or projected , is increased.  Which way do you wan’t to cop it ?  G.S.T. or income tax .  Some claim that Costello paid off Keating’s debt by discontinuing infrastructure spending , perhaps that is partly right , what will Rudd’s decision be ?

    • SD says:

      02:25pm | 24/03/10

      Wayne, the reason the coalition was able to pay off debt was because the resource boom started to kick in, increasing government revenues. This was assisted by assett sales. Our resource prices are increasing significantly again as are volumes.  Therefore governmenet revenues will increase signifcantly, expenditure will be reduced because of fuller employment. By the way we are talking gross debt, not net debt. Big difference. According to Barnaby’s chart above, gross debt has increased from $50 billion at the end of the coalitions regin to around $100 billion now. Net debt I understand is actually around $25 billion.

    • John A Neve says:

      02:32pm | 24/03/10

      Wayne,

      I have never suggested Howard controlled minds.  What I have said and what I believe. is that the Howard government set the scene and made the rules of the game.

      It is true they paid of the national debt without increasing the taxes, rather they sold of our assets!!  Of the two options I’d rather have paid more tax, or better still not had the tax cuts. But having no children, why shoulfd I care?

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      03:08pm | 24/03/10

      SD :  Yes you are corrrect.  The economic boom during the Howard rein and asset sales did pay off the Keating debt but to hang your hat on the possibility of another resourses boom and resulting increases in revenue from increased employment , is risky business indeed.
      China is the current world powerhouse for another resourse boom but they are experiencing their own difficulties in their economy.
      This latest spin from Wayne Swan on debt repayment & a budget surplus by 2014 is designed to enhance Labor’s electoral chances in the looming election.  The Swan claim to debt repayment is based on possible , but doubtful future outcomes , not tangible sourses of income.  Every Labor govt. in the history of Australian Federation has left a legacy of debt to the incoming govt. The Rudd govt. will be no differrent.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      07:27pm | 24/03/10

      John Neve , Yes , under the Howard govt. the resourse boom & asset sales paid off the Keating debt . ( bet your happy now that i answered that question from previous posts , i was just teasing you. ) I do see where you are coming from on an individual view John , but obviously the decision to cut income taxes was taken on the benefits to those with families.  I am in your group John ( i think )  aged 65 , kids grown up , you & i would tend to favour keeping the family jewels .  However ,
      the big economic decisions are generally based on what provides the majority benefit , be it Liberal or Labor govts.  I guess we look for the same goals through differrent paths . Therein lies the battle between us i guess. John , i have only recently started posting on Punch and i find it to be a hotbed of Socialism after scrutinising many of the subscriber’s opinions.  One only needs to sneeze on here and can finish up in a very involved argument.
      Even if Howard set the scene and made the game rules , it would be still a personal decision on behalf of an individual , to run up a debt on plastic.  Plastic debt has been rife since the system was introduced .
      Personally , i detest cards , if you don’t have cash , you should not buy.

    • Shane From Melbourne says:

      07:40pm | 24/03/10

      Actually Wayne, John is right. By splurging on middle class welfare while simultaneously cutting taxes on luxury goods (replacing the higher wholesale tax on luxury items with the flat 10% GST) the Howard Government encouraged private debt. Not to mention the FHBG which grossly inflated housing prices and equity.

    • Lee says:

      10:54pm | 24/03/10

      Barnaby says that spending government money should be treated no differently to spending your own, in that case the government should be spending more quickly public debt comapred to private is miniscule. Australia has private debt in excess of 150% of GDP. Get spending Ruddy, Barnaby says so.

    • Wayne Fehlhaber says:

      09:01am | 25/03/10

      Shane From Melbourne :  if you based your your decision to run up a personal debt on plastic , on the machinations of any govt. , you would have to be foolish indeed.  Decisions to accept debt are personal and that decision should be based on your own ability to repay your debt.
      If you can’t accept personal responsibility for managing your own affairs , you should take a pair of scissors to your cards. Seeking a scapegoat for your own foolish decision to spend beyond your capacity to repay , is even sillier.

    • persephone says:

      07:10am | 24/03/10

      OK, let’s quote Roosevelt, then:

      ‘Our policy is succeeding. The figures prove it Secure in the knowledge that steadily decreasing deficits will turn in time into steadily increasing surpluses, and that it is the deficit of today which is making possible the surplus of tomorrow, let us pursue the course we have mapped.’

      So Roosevelt recognised that going into deficit in the short term led to long term prosperity.

      To use your council road analogy: the council can wait until it has a spare $200k to build that kilometre of road, putting away a couple of thou a year. Meanwhile, it will cost the ratepayers who use that road money in lost time, worn tires, accidents etc.

      Or they can borrow money, build the road now, and have ratepayers benefit for the next ten to twenty years.

      Waiting until you have the money in the bank to do something can be false economy, as every mortgage holder in the country knows.

      And every mortgage holder in the country knows that, financially, you’re better off buying a house as soon as you can, even if it means going into debt for the next twenty years, then renting and putting aside money until you can afford to buy a house outright.

      Going into debt because of the GFC (and yes, its impacts were mild here, precisely because the government was prepared to go into debt) kept more people in jobs. This kept them off the dole. This also meant that they continued to earn income, some of which came back to the government in the form of taxes.

      So going into debt meant that the government both made savings and retained its revenue base.

      That the government has not had to go into much debt as it projected shows that the strategy worked.

    • acker says:

      07:49am | 24/03/10

      Roosevelt’s thinking is 80 years old, used on a bigger continent, a more populated nation and in a pre - WW2 World. I hope Rudd and Labor’s thinking has progressed since then. Debt always has to be repaid, unless you have the most Nukes.

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:00am | 24/03/10

      hmmmm how to respond. I think once again you are making a false argument. You argue that you need to spend now (go into debt) for future growth. The argument the libs have always put forward was a need to spend but not excessively which is easy to do in hindsight.

      I wish you would argue whats presented and not go on your diatribes. I like to see some reasoned argument on this site.

    • The Mood says:

      09:57am | 24/03/10

      The effect of the GFC was mild here and even less so in China which is the reason, with other export markets in Asia, that we came through in the manner we did. Do we believe that our so called stimulus package, restructuring the economy around new school halls and ceiling insulation, was going to make a discerning difference if these export markets evaporated. Are we to believe that our stimulus package kept China afloat. Labor always talk about surplus in the cycle but when guys when how big is their cycle, appears for Labor a more apt description is a surplus possibly in a generation.

    • A Bob says:

      11:32am | 24/03/10

      We were definitely helped by China’s stimulus. That’s one of the characteristics of the GFC that separates it from the Great Depression. In the 1930’s protectionism set in and each country took an every man for itself approach. This time we got our heads together and acted in a way that kept trade flowing. We all coordinated our stimulus and in so doing ameliorated the effects of the market crash.

      Our small stimulus of cash splashes and short/medium term projects kept employment levels up. Employers also had the sense to just reduce hours rather than lay off entirely. That reduced the cost of redundancy payouts and kept the skills rather than losing them. Now that things are improving we are seeing a rise in total hours.

      The indicators at the time of the crash were that the world was heading towards a massive depression. But a quick response all round made it the mildest of downturns for us in Aus.

      The modern consensus in economics is that Keynesian style stimulus is appropriate when there is less than full employment and a free markets approach to economic management during full employment. That consensus appears to have been justified so far.

      Roosevelt was right.

    • Mark says:

      12:46pm | 24/03/10

      Sigh…... learn to read peresphone. Learn to comprehend.

      All that nicely formed prose is drivel. Read the column again. When did Barnaby say ONCE that you had to have the money in the bank. When did he say once that borrowing was stupid/dumb/evil whatever. Roosevelt quote fight? Spare me.

      Your examples are just plain wrong. You look at the article and say to yourself well how best to spin this. Ahh he doesn’t want any borrowing. That is a lie.

      If you actually read it you can clearly see that Barnaby is syaing the labor party is borrowing for the wrong reasons and what it spends is going on shonky deals and over priced assets - indeed in the case of the schools into assets that are not even wanted. How the hell is that improving the capital stock of Australia? Roosevelt would turn in his grave with all the waste and mismanagement your bosses carry on with.

      So know we have debunked your rant lets have a close look at the road example. Hmmm pay a few billion to install batts into private homes thereby increasing the value of a private asset that in a lot cases will be tax exempt on sale and then do it so the result is 4 deaths, numerous injuries, a scheme so flawed the minister is acked, untold number of safety issues, a new guy sent in to fix the mess and millions more needed to clean it up. Or spend a few billion on some (rural or whatever) roads increasing efficiency and providing a forward stock of public capital infrastrucure.

      Hmm peresphone? What to choose. Stop making stuff up. It was never suggested by Barnaby to not borrow. The idea that you go into a huge amount debt so the punters can buy some flat screens etc is a joke. That money is gone pal. Gone. Never to be seen again. Roads, hospitals, ports rail , telecommunications all sorts of things for the 900 buck cheque never to be seen. But you are happy we were “saved” whatever that means form a mild downturn. You are pleased that the largest deficit in Australian history will not be as big as first predicted. Unbelievable.

      Growin and building debt for useless, wasteful and rorted items is not good governance.

      Learn to comprehend and get back to me ok.

    • persephone says:

      06:19pm | 24/03/10

      Sorry, been out all day. Don’t feel all neglected.

      OK, acker, so it’s fine for Barnaby to quote Roosevelt, but when I do it shows Labor’s out of touch.

      Let’s rephrase your post so that it’s fair:

      Roosevelt’s thinking is 80 years old…I hope Joyce and the National’s thinking has progressed since then.

      Hmm. Except that doesn’ t make sense. Let’s try again.

      Roosevelt’s thinking is 80 years old. It is entirely appropriate that Joyce and the Nationals should be looking to him for inspiration.

      There. Fixed.

      Adam DIver

      No, you can’t read. I’m arguing that it was worthwhile going into debt to save jobs, because this cushioned our economy.

      That by going into debt we also got some much needed infrastructure was really just a bonus.

      Given the extent of the GFC, debt was almost inevitable.

      If the government had not borrowed a cent for the stimpac, more people would have lost their jobs. This would have meant massively higher payouts in the form of unemployment benefits and related services, less money in the system and thus further downward pressure on spending and employment.

      There was the other alternative, of massively cutting government services to meet this inevitable drain on resouces - which would have created more unemployment.

      The only way to maintain government services and stem unemployment was to invest in infrastructure which would create jobs.

      It worked.

      The Mood

      Sorry, I’d prefer to listen to international economists on this one.

      Undoubtedly China helped, but the mining industry is only one part of our economy. It sort of sits off there in the corner, creating jobs, yes, and bringing in money, yes, but it’s not our only or main driver.

      Retail makes up a huge % of our employment. Major retailers have clearly stated that the stimpac stopped them from having to lay off employees and kept them going until household spending normalised.

      There also needs to be a recognition that recessions are psychologically driven as well as fiscally. We did, for example, have a nervous month or so when the banks didn’t trust each other enough to loan each other money.

      The stimpac was important phychologically; it brought home to Australians that there was a crisis and that they had a role in overcoming it, that it was important that they showed their faith in the Australian economy by going out and spending money.

      I certainly got that feedback from people around me.

      It also gave many small businesses the courage to hold on to their workers longer than they intended when the GFC first hit, as many have gone on the record as saying.

      Mark

      And I’m saying that Labor borrowed for the right reasons and that, if you compare Labor’s actions to those of the ordinary householder, as Barnaby does, the government acted in the same way ordinary householders do - it went into debt now because there was a long term benefit in doing so.

      Roosevelt was ‘into’ waste, btw - he’s on the record on several occasions as saying that he knew a lot of the projects he was shovelling money at would be failures but that the important thing was to get the money out there, knowing other schemes would work so well the failures would be irrelevant.

      He put keeping people employed above fiscal responsibility.

      As for learning to comprehend, you’ve done a very good job of taking a few of my statements out of context as well…which probably means my prose is not as nicely formed as I would like.

    • Jane says:

      09:04pm | 24/03/10

      Persephone:

      “That by going into debt we also got some much needed infrastructure was really just a bonus”

      What infrastructure would that be?

      Jerry built School buildings @ around 10 times the standard building cost?

      Insulation that has created havoc and enormous costs in repair?

      There are few among the dinosaurs, like me, who would dispute the need for stimulous spending BUT, with our personal credit cards paid off each month, absolutely dispute the targets of the massive, panicked overspend of this superficial, disorganised, irresponsible rabble we call the Australian Government.

    • Mark says:

      10:09pm | 24/03/10

      Oh we don’t feel neglected peresphone.

      Now let us relook at your post. I took nothing out of context mate.

      “To use your council road analogy: the council can wait until it has a spare $200k to build that kilometre of road, putting away a couple of thou a year. Meanwhile, it will cost the ratepayers who use that road money in lost time, worn tires, accidents etc.

      Or they can borrow money, build the road now, and have ratepayers benefit for the next ten to twenty year”

      So what was your point? I am now lost. You now recognise that Barnaby will respect responsible borrowing that adds to the national capital stock? Well good - you have uturned nicely from the above little ditty- thank god we convinced you.

      So my dear peresphone explain to me how batts and overpriced school halls have added to this nation for the future. Explain how the money was well spent. Explain how a mild economic downturn (from the RBA) is to be compared to the Great Depression.

      Actually just read the article and say whatever it is you mean. basically you seem to make it up as you go along, but hey thats what Krudd does, birds of a feather and all I guess mate smile

    • persephone says:

      11:07pm | 25/03/10

      I know of schools in our area who have been trying to get together enough money to build themselves school halls for years.

      One has been fund raising for something like forty years.

      Not having a hall meant kids standing outside for assemblies in all weathers, no place to do concerts, debates or drama properly, no proper stadium to play indoor sports in (or simply do sport in on wet days) and no showers (so kids who played sport at the start of the day smelt like old socks until they got home).

      These schools will now be able to spend their hard earnt money for other purposes; kids now and in the future will benefit in a myriad of ways.

      As for insulation: lower energy usage is good for everyone, as it reduces greenhouses gases; lower energy usage also means cheaper power bills, so those million households are experiencing a real and ongoing benefit

      The insulation industry as a whole has benefitted from clearer safety guidelines, improved standards, and staff training.

      Mark, even the RBA recognises that, whilst this country experienced a mild economic downturn, the rest of the world experienced the greatest recession since 1930.

      In fact, I’ve just come back from a meeting where the CEO was congratulating his company for getting through ‘the worst economic conditions we’ve experienced since the thirties’ and cited several similar companies in the local area who experienced multi million dollar losses because of the GFC.

      He said his company survived because their cash assets were invested only in Australian banks.

      Even the RBA recognises that the stimulus package was necessary and that it worked.

      You would do well to also get in touch with reality.

      And I’m sorry, I simply don’t understand what you’re trying to get at when quoting my road analogy.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      07:08am | 24/03/10

      Not one hint of an alternative, just Liberal spin by the Nationals spin-doctor. The fact is the home insulation program was part of a program that helped save us from a recession. You can spin it all you like, coz I love seeing your purple face when you try so hard but feel no one is listening…. well that’s what it looks like. Similar to my 4 yr old when he want a lolly but there are none left. You can pull out these charts whether doctored or not but at the end of the day Labor has done a fantastic job with the economy.

      You like Abbott will be smacked with Rudd’s big wooden spoon; you’re not a hard target to hit either. In the debate yesterday Rudd replied to every question put to him. Abbott on the other hand had nothing, except for the negativity with no alternative option to bring to the table. People are starting to see he has no policy on anything and they have had a couple of years to at least formulate something. But no every question put to Abbott he would spin off in the other direction or freeze like a roo caught in headlights. And you want this idiot to run the country. Tell me of one person who wants a party of negativity, taxes dressed up as levies with no substance or policy, which is plainly driven by hate and drunk on the self righteous belief that only the Liberals can run this country. The Liberals don’t look anywhere near like a party you can trust to run the country. Re-enforced by the bellowing laugh by Abbott, that kind of sealed my opinion of Abbott and the Liberal party as a whole.

    • Mavis says:

      08:53am | 24/03/10

      ... and you’re not spinning, staffer?

    • Dingo says:

      12:26pm | 24/03/10

      Rob, could you explain the advantages of Rudd’s policy?

      So far he’s going to change the funding mix from 40/60 to 60/40. The funding will then be based on casemix…oh hang most of it, unless that doesn’t work and Rural hospitals close, in which case they’ll be switched back to their current funding arrangements.

      That is the extent of Rudd’s great plan to fix the hospitals. A plan he said he had in 2007 before he was elected, over two and half years ago. 

      It beggars belief that you consider this a good policy.

      I expect the opposition to detail their policy when an election is called and they are asking the people to vote for them.

      In the meantime, I expect our current Government to write their own policies and when they fail, as they have with health, I expect the opposition to hold them to account. That’s how our parliamentary system works.

    • Victor says:

      07:22am | 24/03/10

      Barnaby, mate don’t waste your time doing this, go and learn to add up. Your amusing Barnaby, we all prefer you to be just the class clown. You lost the debate, from what I have read The Liberals cooked the books on the Liberal website , adding $500 million that the Labor Government had contributed. Please stop assuming we are all ignorant fools, some of us can and do read. you might want to look at the link below
      http://www.smh.com.au/national/a-day-of-lies-damned-lies-and-statistics-20100323-qu4j.html

    • Ben says:

      02:42pm | 24/03/10

      Nobody “added” $500 million to any graph you twit, Abbott just didn’t edit it and add a big red mark to it when there was a change of government for the benefit of the ignorant.

      Abbott was using the graph as one of many arguments to illustrate the fact that Rudd’s repeated lie about him “ripping a billion dollars” out of the health system is absolute garbage, and Labor desperately trying to cry foul about an almost insignificant amount at the end of it (we’re talking about nearly 10 billion dollars here) doesn’t change a damn thing.  You could knock out almost the entire second half of the graph and still use it to prove Rudd wrong, so how about focusing on the real issue and not the sideshow.

    • Victor says:

      03:26pm | 24/03/10

      Ben like most Liberals your aggressive and you think name calling makes you right and more of a man. I think your a rude young boy with an extremly big…mouth The whole world is wrong and your right!! There are places for you to check into, I would do so today

    • Mavis says:

      03:40pm | 24/03/10

      Ben will need that mouth if he ever meets a mad monk HA HA HA

    • Ben says:

      04:45pm | 24/03/10

      Seano -
      “do you ever post anything other than personal attacks against those who don’t agree with you?”

      Yes.  I also sometimes ‘personally attack’ people who carpet bomb the comments section with a lot of words that don’t really say anything of substance at all and don’t even attempt to back up what they’re saying with even a single example of what they’re talking about.

    • Ben says:

      05:04pm | 24/03/10

      Victor, It’s you’re not your, and I called you a name because nothing you said comes even close to addressing anything Barnaby was writing about, and you completely miss the big picture of the point you did try to make anyway.  Re-reading what I typed do come across as a bit smug though, so i’ll give you a tip - to embarass people like me, prove what I said wrong instead of avoiding the point or you’ll just get another smug response.

    • persephone says:

      06:25pm | 24/03/10

      Ben, the Liberals admitted doing so and removed the graph from their website. It was not used or referred to in the debate.

      Abbott also admitted during the debate that the Federal government had not delivered $11 billion in health spending to the States as promised, but $10 billion.

      When your own side throws in the towel, you really should stop fighting.

    • Ben says:

      08:27pm | 24/03/10

      persephone, if you’re implying to the Liberals “admitted” that they added $500 million to the graph you’re dead wrong, they changed it because Labor complained it didn’t obviously point out their own spending and if they didn’t change it they would continue use it as a distraction.  Maybe fair enough that it could have been clearer, but it’s a stupid argument because it hardly makes any difference to the reason the graph was being used anyway.

      I don’t see anyone throwing in the towel here and I never even mentioned the debate, and as long as Rudd keeps trying to give people the idea that Abbott “ripped $1billion out of the health system” when spending was clearly increased Abbott will rightly keep correcting him.  It’s based on the fact the liberals set a certain percentage for growth in health spending (before Abbott was health minister) and it wasn’t quite met, fine.  The reasons for this aside (hindsight is wonderful and throwing money at things no matter what doesn’t fix problems), not good.  Why can’t Rudd just tell it like it is instead of blatantly trying to give people the impression that spending was reduced when clearly the opposite is true, just because it didn’t meet a percentage target set in 2003?

    • persephone says:

      08:43pm | 24/03/10

      Ben

      They changed it because it was wrong. If it wasn’t wrong, they wouldn’t have needed to change it.

      And Abbott’s failure to meet the targets set in 2003 wasn’t just a paper shuffling problem, as you seem to suggest. In the real world, it had consequences - it meant that the States had to find extra money for health out of their own budgets, and shifted the balance between Federal and State funding from roughly 50/50 to 37/63.

      People aren’t upset about the billion dollars on a matter of principle. They are upset because it had real effects on the health outcomes of real people.

    • iansand says:

      08:10am | 24/03/10

      Mr Joyce - Did you save up to buy your house for cash, or did you borrow and pay it off?

    • AFR says:

      08:42am | 24/03/10

      The scary thing is that apparantly Barnaby’s an accountant.

    • Economic rationalist says:

      10:43am | 24/03/10

      I hope Barnaby isn’t an accountant. All accounting courses require you to do Introductory Macroeconomics. In Introductory Macroeconomics you learn about John Maynard Keynes, Milton Friedman and Galbraith.

      Surely if you knew what these guys were on about, even at an introductory level, you wouldn’t be spouting this sort of “debt is bad” drivel.

      Maybe Barnaby slept through that course.

    • John says:

      11:49am | 24/03/10

      You borrow what you can afford, and allow for a increase in interest rates, government should be doing the same thing…

    • Arnold says:

      12:31pm | 24/03/10

      I assume he borrowed, but I also assume he didn’t pay $800,000 for a gazebo either.

    • Mark says:

      12:57pm | 24/03/10

      iansand /sigh to you to. You suffer the same comprehension deficit peresphone does. Where in the above article did Barnaby say borrowing was bad. Where did he say not to borrow. Wasteful spending of borrowed money is bad.

      Your question makes no sense when taken into context with the article and your primary school teachers will be angry that you forgot the lessons they taught.

      To see all the Barnaby haters rush out en masse here only convinces me more and more he is hitting a raw nerve.

    • iansand says:

      01:24pm | 24/03/10

      Mark, Mark, Mark.  So much sound and fury.  It seems you are as simple a soul as fellow toiler Barnaby.  The second anyone who has any pretension to running a country’s finances rolls out the “household finances” analogy you know they are completely out of their depth.

    • Paul Horn says:

      01:37pm | 24/03/10

      Oh really Economic rationalist tell that to Greece, Spain, Portugal, Dubai. I guess they must have been wide awake when this Keynesian crap was being taught. Any economist who advocates that you can avoid a depression by getting people to dig holes and them fill them in must be incredibly charasmatic or have a following of idiots!

      That is exactly what this Government is doing! Spending your money on projects that neither create wealth or serve to foster its creation in the future!!! Economic growth can never be achieved by extreme Government spending. The role of Government is to create a legislative and taxation framework that is favourable to encouraging entrepreneurship with investment capital to make it happen. Nothing more. This Government by bits ridiculous spending has crowded out private investment and distorted the market!!!  Howard did the same thing but to a much lesser degree.

      I suggest that you discard your fallacious Keynesian tripe and start studying the Austrian school of economics. It was these economists that predicted the “GFC” but that will be nothing by comparison to what is waiting for us in perhaps 5 to 10 years. The real GFC will make the Great Depression look like an economic boom time and this Government is spending its way directly into this impending cataclysm!!

      Within five years American debt will require 50% of all American taxation receipts just to pay the interest bill. You can bet your life the treasury will print money as it is doing now like some failed South American Socialist State ramping up inflation to frightening levels making the American Dollar worthless within the next 5 to perhaps 10 years. The timeframe may be difficult to pin down but the outcome is certain if present behaviour continues!!!

      Bring it on I say we deserve it!!!

    • Mark says:

      02:01pm | 24/03/10

      Lawl. Sound and fury. Keep trying.

      Anyways was not your question in the OP relating to purchasing a house? Is that not aboput household finance? Are you you now calling yourself out as unqualified and out of your depth to comment here by your own definition?

      Or is it just a case of the old leftie “I left my argument in the other brain so I resort to ad homien attacks” form of debate again.

      You missed the point of the article and your come backs are boring and easy. I want you to try harder please. Really I do. get back to us when you can form a point for us to chew over. Later mate.

    • iansand says:

      02:30pm | 24/03/10

      Oh dear Mark.  I was just trying to keep it simple for Barnaby.

    • A Bob says:

      02:36pm | 24/03/10

      Paul Horn, while I agree with some of your ideology, the way you express it is unlikely to win any converts. But, as you seem to want a financial apocalypse maybe that’s the idea. You might think ‘we’ (who is ‘we?’) deserve it but I would differ.

    • Mark says:

      04:06pm | 24/03/10

      Simple for Barnaby. Lawl iansand. You didn’t even get the point of the article. And you call the author simple hahahahahaha.

      You did read it din’t you? Or you just skimmed some stuff from peresphone and got led astray. You can admit it mate it is ok. We will not rouse on you.

      Still, anytime you want to comment on the article feel free. I wait with bated breath.

    • Paul Horn says:

      04:22pm | 24/03/10

      Sorry Bob but when the average Aussies debt level is someting like 150% of their income I must say drastic punishment is necessary!! That is why I would never become a politician as the longer the cataclysm is delayed the worse it will become.

      Our economy is dependent on a massive Chinese Government stimulus programme which is 1.5 times greater even than the American Stimulus. None that is none of this is being driven by private investment. It us all driven by Government spending which crowds out private investment and creates massive distortions in the market eg useless investments such as real estate. Coupled with the fact that the Chinese Yen is grossly undervalued by 50% due to disgraceful Government manipulation and you have a massive tidal wave of financial disaster waiting to wash over the world.  Betta learn to surf Bob it’s gonna be a big one.

      If you want to read expert economic commentary I suggest you have a look at http://www.Brookesnews.com.  He gives you a very lucid analysis of the future state of the American economy and it is looking disastrous under the present administration.  Have a nice day.

    • A Bob says:

      05:48pm | 24/03/10

      Thanks for the link Paul. You sound like a real expert. If it comes to pass I’ll make sure I give you braggin’ rights.

    • iansand says:

      06:06pm | 24/03/10

      Mark - Do try to maintain at least the vestiges of civil discourse.

    • Mark says:

      10:22pm | 24/03/10

      Aww iansand - you feelings get hurt when the truth is shown to you? Man up.

    • Paul Horn says:

      11:14am | 25/03/10

      Dear Bob if it does come to pass nobody will be interested in bragging rights as we will all be scared crapless!!! And I am no expert just an average idiot with an interest in trying to grasp how it all works.

      One thing I do know is that all the International Keynesian economic experts were laughing their heads off at the Austrian school of economists who were predicting the so called GFC, chaps such as Peter Schiff. In fact these “expert” economists were telling people to invest heavily in fantastic stocks such as Lehmann Brothers and the other banks up to a month before the “big” bang happened and they all went under! International experts? Give me a break!! 
      One thing that is clear is that every depression or recession is preceeded by massive credit expansion which is due solely to bad Government fiscal policy and not nasty greedy bankers etc etc. It is loose fiscal policy that generates these financial “dips” and Western Governments are hell bent on adopting the same approach now that got us into this madenss in the first place.   

      Time will tell.  We need ot ditch the fiat system of money and go back to the Gold Standard!!

    • Mavis says:

      08:18am | 24/03/10

      As the coalition’s loose cannon, you are one of Labor’s biggest assets.

    • Rob r Charteris says:

      08:33am | 24/03/10

      Here! Here!! but shuuuuuuush!!!! they might actually read that.

    • Bingo says:

      10:11am | 24/03/10

      Yes that is why the Labor supporters are so hot under the collar with him in the responses above because he is obviously not a threat !? Their is so much frustration that Barnaby has currency but the reality is he does.

    • persephone says:

      06:28pm | 24/03/10

      No, Bingo, but sometimes it’s fun shooting fish in barrels.

      Look at the kind of responses Bronnie B gets, and I don’t think even the Libs think Laborites regard her as a threat.

    • Seano says:

      08:34am | 24/03/10

      “The Coalition delivered 10 surpluses in the last 12 budgets we delivered. The contrast is clear. “

      And how many major problems did you leave us with Barnaby?

    • Rob r Chareris says:

      08:41am | 24/03/10

      Yes one would wonder what help the mining boom, housing boom, GST, work choices…etc…etc… had on all that. Big business had a field day using the Australian worker as canon fodder. While demonising the the less fortunate in the community.

    • Economic rationalist says:

      10:46am | 24/03/10

      Yeah it’s not like we would have liked that money to be spent on health, schools or infrastructure.

      But the Libs can always blame the States because those are State issues.

    • Bruce says:

      11:03am | 24/03/10

      Oh Yes, the Coalition left with me a great problem. I was RICHER 2.5 years ago than I am now. Do not believe me, then check your superannuation balance now, and then look at the balance as what it was 2.5 years ago.

    • A Bob says:

      12:07pm | 24/03/10

      So Bruce, your individual position is indicative of the general case?

      And the drop in super was due to the stock market crash. That is neither parties fault. Try another example.

    • Mark says:

      12:28pm | 24/03/10

      Hahahaha me old mate comrade Seano.

      To answer buddy - none, nil, zip, zilch.

      There ya go question answered.

    • Arnold says:

      12:33pm | 24/03/10

      A Bob, maybe Bruce’s super dropped because he is no longer allowed to put as much in anymore?

    • A Bob says:

      02:06pm | 24/03/10

      Think about what you just wrote Arnold. “If I add a smaller, but still positive number, the result gets smaller.” Really?

    • Ben says:

      02:18pm | 24/03/10

      Why don’t you tell us Seano, if you ask me the Coalition left us with a well oiled machine.  Do you ever post any comment that’s nothing more than an empty assumption or just hinting at something you can’t be bothered saying, without having to bother with pesky facts?

    • Broke says:

      02:32pm | 24/03/10

      @ Bruce.  Agree totally.  I was much richer 2.5 years ago contracting and was “forced” to take a temporary full time contract as our economy was supposedly trashed.  My partner lost his job and is no longer working.  Therefore both of our superannuation is much lower. 

      But that’s okay, I’m sure the labor gov will help us by spending, spending, spending….

    • Gotta be says:

      02:35pm | 24/03/10

      Yes indeed, Bob. When your existing super investment portfolio drops by 30 to 50 percent compared with 2 years ago, your tiny positive annual contributions are a drop in a leaking bucket.

      We’ve had a very narrow escape from the GFC, but many of us will carry the bruises for some time. The Government has done pretty well, in supporting the finance sector and the labour market. Result: employment growth, low to moderate unemployment, low to moderate interest rates,  plus returning growth in capital/stock markets and super portfolios. On top of that, returning minerals growth - thanks to similar strong swift action in China.

    • A Bob says:

      02:50pm | 24/03/10

      Bruce, if personal anecdotes are going to be the rule, I lost my job completely during Howards years. Now, post GFC, I just got a 30% pay increase. What does this mean? Absolutely nothing. I am sorry to hear of your plight though. I lost my home and almost everything else. It sucks and I wouldn’t wish it on anyone.

      But whatever happened to us on account of the GFC is irrelevent to this topic. Some are worse off, some better. The question was what problems the Libs left us with.

      And Seano, I’d like to hear what they are, too. The only one I can think of was that the budget was in structural defcit. I believe the Libs did a good job overall. Not too keen on the amount of middle-class welfare that got rolled out, though.

    • Seano says:

      03:11pm | 24/03/10

      @Mark - using the term comrade to describe anyone in lieu of an actual point is moronic, as is pretending there were no problems left by the Howard government.

      @Ben - do you ever post anything other than personal attacks against those who don’t agree with you?

      The coalition had 11 years mostly in boom times to fix major problems and set us up for the future.  Health, Education, Schools, infrastructure and indigenous disadvantage are all still problems. I do no accept the “it’s a state problem” as an excuse.

    • A Bob says:

      03:08pm | 24/03/10

      My comment to Bruce was meant to be directed to Broke. Sorry for the confusion.

      @Gotta be: I’ve said the same thing earlier. But this little patch of discussion isn’t about the GFC and the effect on super. It’s about Seano’s claim that the Libs left us with problems. The GFC is neither their fault nor Labors.

    • Arnold says:

      03:31pm | 24/03/10

      Depends if he is on a transition to retirement pension, A Bob.  Do you know Bruce’s personal circumstances?  I don’t.

    • Mark says:

      04:20pm | 24/03/10

      Yes I am moronic. I am sorry seano for calling you comrade. You really have a shallow skin but I digress.

      I stand by my comment. I cannot think of 1 major problem the former government left us. You see I had a point. You, iansand and peresphone should get together for some comprehension refreshers.

      Pray dear seano enlighten me as to the woes the Australian population suffered as a result of their tyranny. Your general Health,schools etc etc is just a vibe you have I guess.

      You guys got to come to the tables with some facts buddy. Not some random I hate the right stuff cause they were bad at doing stuff and well I hate them all just because they were bad. It gets a bit boring. Remember “major” problems mate…see how you go champ.

      And PS - do you have anything relevant to say about the article or is it a little hard to answer?

    • Seano says:

      08:14pm | 24/03/10

      @Mark: “Yes I am moronic”. Well on that we can agree. Mate, if you feel the need to paint someone as a communist because you don’t agree with them you have no point.

      @Ben: Despite your arrogant claims otherwise champ, I actually had a point. I didnt expouse on it in great detail, primarily because I’m time poor and this is a blog not my job, but I said what I meant and meant what I said. I’ll draw you a picture. 11 years the coaltion had power and the only real acheivement that they point to or that seems to matter to them or the vitriolic cheer sqaud is that they banked the cash during a boom time. That’s great, but in my opinion, and god forbid that I should be allowed to have an opinion in the face of so much windy rhetoric, that acheivement was not good enough. But do keep following me about, I’m sure I’ll have other opinions you wont like.

    • Jane says:

      09:27pm | 24/03/10

      Seano.

      You really are a naughty boy sometimes, reasonably clever, but naughty nonetheless.

      For 11 years the ALP State Governments dragged in unprecedented funding as a result of a GST the Federal ALP fought against tooth and nail (until they got elected) Funds that were not spent on State responsibilities (just look how much NSW spent in order for Morris Iemma to kiss the Popes ring for starters) Or an Olympic event we are still paying for, or a Harbour Bridge toll that was extended past its use by date (ie, when the bridge was paid off) and then increased. etc, etc, etc.

      For 11 years the ALP obstructed every initiative at both State and Federal level.  Let’s look at the little political game played over the Murray-Darling as one example.

      Are we better off now? Nope.

      Have our taxes, and future taxes gone into substantial productivity building infrastructure? Nope.

      Are our children or streets safer? Double Nope.

      How is our Border Security?  (Looked at the UN figures and compared it to the surge in Australia?)

      Any charges been laid against the people given permanent residence before they went before a Coronial Enquiry?  Nope.

    • Mark says:

      10:35pm | 24/03/10

      Lawl Seano you really got me there.

      Continue not answering the questions put it is a good tactic when you have no answer I guess :D.

      Kthxbai

    • Seano says:

      01:16pm | 25/03/10

      @Jane.

      Speaking of naughty, I don’t remember defending the states? Hmmm let me check…nope didn’t actually defend the states. I’m quite looking forward to a change of government in NSW, although I fear we will only be swaping one bunch of no hopers for another.

      Howard had a chance with two houses of parliament, he could have used that opportunity to do good. But instead he rammed through unfair work place laws. Nice prioritising of self interest over the common good. And as I remember it Howard’s idea of working with the states was along the lines of comming up with an idea on a back of envelope and expecting them to swallow it.

      PS. OMG less that 3000 people arrived here as refugees last year we’re all doomed.

      @Mark: What question? I’m not particularly interested in discussing anything with someone who thinks their best argument is to call you a communist for holding a contrary point of view.

    • shere khan says:

      08:38am | 24/03/10

      “in the Reserve Bank of Australia’s words, one of the mildest recessions we’ve had.”
      Barnaby, this quote by the Reserve Bank was AFTER action by Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan.
      Like most statistics, yours are “slippery”.
      Do not despair of you blundering ways; Mr Downer was similar once until they made him Foreign Minister.

    • Your name:tonyF says:

      11:55am | 24/03/10

      There’s Rudd and Swann claiming credit for my work again. It’s east to talk up a problem then claim to be the cure. Talking about slippery statistics.

    • Poseidon says:

      09:09am | 24/03/10

      Acker:
      Two thirds of the indigenous population is in urban Australia not regional and remote Australia as seems to be implicit in your proposal to move the bureaucracy to the bush. I doubt you could fill the posts as well.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:37am | 24/03/10

      Acker,

      You are right, most of the indigenous population resides in our cities.
      However, most of the earlier Australians live in rural regions, although what for I don’t know.

      The idea of moving government utilities and staff out to regional centres is a good one and should have been done years ago, in fact I think Gough started to do it.

    • acker says:

      09:21am | 24/03/10

      At the end of the day Barnaby is always going to get plenty of media coverage because his opposite Lindsay Tanner has a marginal seat (Melbourne under pressure from The Greens) and Labor are trying to give him high media exposure to help pump him up. And probably also spending more resources on spin doctors to attack Barnaby as well. I don’t see anyone of note or a sustained spin drive attacking other Shadow Ministers such as Greg Hunt or even Joe.

    • acker says:

      09:31am | 24/03/10

      @P’don ..well that is 33.3% too many bureacrats located in the wrong places, and considering Jenny Macklin parted company with $70 million dollars and failed to build an Indigenous house, I doubt the bureacratic employment critera standard is very high. Perhaps if who ever hires these people (public bureacrats) takes off their blinkers and looks to hire someone who is not already a public servant ..eg with private sector work experience, results on the ground might actualy start happening wink

    • brad says:

      09:34am | 24/03/10

      barnaby, it’s hard to tell… are you really such an idiot, or are you just trying to con the electorate with this crap?

    • Ben says:

      02:56pm | 24/03/10

      OK Brad here’s how it works.  You read the article, form an opinion, and then if you’re really that annoyed by what was said you post a rational argument explaining your position.  You don’t just see if the author is a member of the Liberal party and then post some generic comment that doesn’t even scratch the surface of addressing what was written.

      I’ll help you. Barnaby was writing about how there’s a massive difference between spending responsibly, and recklessly paying for things we don’t need at inflated prices.  Do you think the government paying twice or three times as much for things as it should is still an acceptable way to ‘stimulate’ the economy, or is there a more responsible way to do it?

    • Pinkie says:

      09:56am | 24/03/10

      Barnaby is abosolutely right and most ordinary Australians who have to work hard for their dollars, think he is right as well. Our debt is not only huge, it has been spent on ill thought out and bungled projects and it is owed to countries such as China and the Middle East. Our future will be beholden to the aspirations of the money lenders in these countries. Time to face up to reality everyone. Keep up the good work Barnaby.

    • Shell says:

      10:01am | 24/03/10

      Here here Barnaby….all this money is being wasted and who knows on what (although I’m guessing $1 billion in consultancy contracts wouldn’t help)....
      We all know they haven’t delivered anything of substance - only two operational superclinics of a promised 31, a botched sun solar funding program that left small business in the lurch and I won’t even start on the so called education revolution - more like an education in revolutionary spin.

    • acker says:

      10:41am | 24/03/10

      Why dont we put a stop to the ridiculous public service hiring mantra of asking the potential applicant “how much public service experience have you had ?” ..Put a broom through the public service and inject some outside people in key positions please.

    • JJ says:

      10:38am | 24/03/10

      No-one likes their tax dollars being wasted on overpriced school buildings or dodgy insulation batts from other countries when our Literacy and Numeracy levels are rapidly declining and our health system is in crisis. Please give us an alternative to vote for…Money had to be spent quickly to avoid the worst of the GFC however it was spent on the wrong things. If there is another GFC as some analysts predict,then we are in for a very hard time as a country as we have no money left and have built nothing that will produce an income for us. (or save money,or save lives)
      Barnaby,you don’t need to convince us of any of this-just give us a workable alternative.

    • Al Hammond says:

      11:13am | 24/03/10

      Barnaby, when using the term ‘myriad’ the word ‘of’ is not required. I stopped reading affter that

    • Ben says:

      03:10pm | 24/03/10

      Mirriam-Webster:
      “Recent criticism of the use of myriad as a noun, both in the plural form myriads and in the phrase a myriad of, seems to reflect a mistaken belief that the word was originally and is still properly only an adjective. As the entries here show, however, the noun is in fact the older form, dating to the 16th century. The noun myriad has appeared in the works of such writers as Milton (plural myriads) and Thoreau (a myriad of), and it continues to occur frequently in reputable English. There is no reason to avoid it.”

      OK you can start reading again now.

    • Von says:

      11:18am | 24/03/10

      “correct view, of spending public money is to approach it as no different from that of spending your own money” - but aren’t most Australians in (record) debt? So really this is the same as how the labor government is spending our money!

      The rate at which they’re spending though is scary. They really need to rein it in. Maybe that means we need to switch back to the Liberals although this alternative is just as bad.

    • A Bob says:

      11:14am | 24/03/10

      I once worked for a company that bragged about how it had no debt. We were constantly beset by cash flow problems and frequently lost sales opportunities because we didn’t have the capacity to take on the work. But we were debt free and therefore “couldn’t go broke”.

      I left when they were going broke. The lost opportunity costs associated with refusing to borrow money to fund growth opportunities is what did it.

      By keeping our head above water during the GFC the debt incurred makes us more competitive. It’s productive debt. Such growth capacity is our best defence against the possibility of a GFC2.

    • Dingo says:

      12:44pm | 24/03/10

      Nice story Bob, but in fact productive debt is money that is borrowed to acquire an appreciating asset or produce future income, such as the increased sales in your little yarn.

      The problem with the Rudd government’s debt is that none of it was spent on anything that makes Australia more competitive, nor has it improved our productive capacity. It has been wasted on popularist vote buying schemes.

      The irony is, having spent it at this “retail ” level, a lot of Joe public is aware of the waste and is becoming increasing cynical with Gillard’s attempts to tell them there are only a few isolated incidents with the BER.

      Whilst our school happily took the $2 million granted (what school is going to knock back money) to upgrade some classrooms - yes, that’s rebuilding existing classrooms - everybody in the school knows it was a gross misallocation of resources. At least our school self-managed the project, so we actually got value for the spend.

    • A Bob says:

      02:31pm | 24/03/10

      Preservation of social capital in the form of retained employment is productive. In advanced societies development of knowledge is considered critical to economic growth. Money spent on schools contribute to this.

      You may say the money was wasted but you cannot prove it, just report on suspicions and you own anecdote. Just another ‘nice story.’

    • C H Ainsworth says:

      11:33am | 24/03/10

      Commonsense says you do not spend more then you earn and if you have to borrow you borrow to obtain an asset.
      In the case of this Government not only are they spending more then they earn from Taxpayers they are also borrowing huge amounts of money , spending it , but have absolutley nothing to show for it .
      I guess Rudd has never had to worry about money as he has been able to spend his wife’s money knowing that she is a multi millionaire.

      Rudd has no idea of fiscal responsibilty - an abject failure is this man .

    • SD says:

      02:49pm | 24/03/10

      If this approach was adopted many of our businesses would go broke. While businesses borrow to buy assets, the most common reason is to manage their cash flow. In any business you have peaks and troughs of income, these do not always coincide with the peaks and troughs of costs. You may have a wonderfully profitable contract but you will be paid at the end of the work. In the meantime you have to pay suppliers, pay staff, pay the rent and keep your business afloat. So you take out an overdraft to cover this. Many people who have little real experience of running a business see borrowing only in terms buying assets. Those who have run business understand cash flow. At present we can let the country go down the drain, or we can borrow to keep us afloat until the money comes in again.

    • Dingo says:

      09:53am | 25/03/10

      True SD, but money for short term (cash flow) purposes should be borrowed short term. When payment comes in the debt is repaid and the overdraft is available again to fund cash flow.

      This Government has long term debt with little to show for it and no payment due anytime soon to extinguish the debt.

      I have a lot of experience with small business and a couple of the most successful actually manage their cashflow so well they don’t have an overdraft and they fully pay their credit card each month. I’d love some of these guys to give Rudd and Swan a few lessons in money management.

    • Russell in the wilderness says:

      11:45am | 24/03/10

      It really is a pity the only thing Kevin hasn’t declared war on is Government debt.
      Kevin’s ability to spend taxpayers money is the only thing he has achieved since taking office.
      He is currently running on economic credibility on how the country dodged the recession bullet by his excessive spending.
      Surely economic credibility is judged on how effectively you spend public funds. To this end he has been a complete failure, a dud Rudd. The fiasco of the burning bats and the Julia Gillard duplicated school halls. The only thing that Kev and his mates are good at is thinking up elaborate titles for each of their programs. 
      Go for it Barnaby keep highlighting this Governments burning the plastic policy.

    • Moggy says:

      11:45am | 24/03/10

      You are wrong about the batts being ripped out. They are not even being inspected. The only thing that Rudd & Co are doing is looking at & fixing the foil insulation. There have been many fires caused by shoddy batts & istallation but Rudd says that’s not his problem, mainly because nobody’s been burnt to death yet in a roof fire cause by batts. If you don’t believe me then ring the government hotline on 131 792. SPIN SPIN SPIN!!

    • SD says:

      03:09pm | 24/03/10

      Report just out says that energey consumption in NSW and Vic dropped over the last few months compared to the previous year, despite it being one of the hottest summers in years. Increased insulation in over a million homes having an effect by any chance?

    • Spider says:

      11:48am | 24/03/10

      Well said Barnaby. The bungles in the Labor party economic mismanagement which have come to light recently would have had any other privatley run business out of business and deservedly so. Hard working Australians do not deserve such inept management of their hard earned dollars.

    • Harquebus says:

      12:11pm | 24/03/10

      This is only half the story Barnaby and you know it. Not one mention about oil or energy and how it affects ability to repay debt. Coward!

    • tonyF says:

      12:22pm | 24/03/10

      You can borrow to build infrastructure. You then need to pay interest. Can that same money spent as interest be used to build infrastructure? No. How much interset will we be paying for pink batts, school halls and other projects? Exactly the same amount we will NOT be able to spend on infrastructure, or schools, or health, or public transport, or pensioners, or anything. Yes, it’s about $12,000,000,000 per year. That would buy a few hospitals, schools (whole schools not just halls), roads etc. I hope the pink batts and school halls are worth that much; if not, it was a bad decision.

    • Brian Connor says:

      12:52pm | 24/03/10

      I cannot believe people do not care about the debt the current Government are racking up….....doesn’t anyone remember Keating as Treasurer and the reckless spending and subsequent interest rates in the mid - late 1980s???????

      I am seriously considering a “Tea Party” type movement here…....tell me why the insulation or school halls idea is sensible?? Please stop spending - it is more frightening than the ETS, health, paid maternity leave put together.

      I guess having bureaucrat (Rudd), Ambulance chasing lawyer (Gillard), party hack (Swan) and a graphic designer/ALP staffer (Tanner) running the showing, business acumen is non-existent.

      STOP THE UNNECESSARY SPENDING.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      07:06pm | 24/03/10

      Still cheaper to own and pay off a mortgage under Keatings 17% interest, even though less than 25% of mortgagees were paying those rates, than under Howard. We have the lowest debt of all of the advanced economies, our debt to GDP will sit around the 11%, we never went into recession, our schools received valuable maintenance and upgrades that were neglected during the Howard years.You might not like that but hundreds of thousands of parents did. Businesses were kept afloat with two stimulus packages, you may not like that but small business did. Tradies are over the moon with the government and their ability to keep them employed during the GFC. You might not like that either Brian but the tradies and their families do. The point I’m trying to make Brian is that while you are entitled to your opinion, your opinion is but one. There are many, many people out their that are grateful for the quick and decisive measures the government put in place to keep them in gainful employment or to keep their businesses afloat which in turn allowed them to pay their mortgages and put food on the table.

    • 4 Freedom says:

      01:08pm | 24/03/10

      Thanks Barnaby.
      Debt is debt.  A lot of people these days have been brainwashed and think debt is something to aim for.  Trouble is they probably won’t be around to see the end result.  Tears for years.
      Keep up the good work you are appreciated.

    • Angie says:

      01:48pm | 24/03/10

      Exactly. Thanks for maintaining the rage.

      Rudd will not mind as he will sail in to the sunset cashed up like a predecessor of his, unaware of the human carnage of his tenure. They will probably make a musical about him too and then he might pontificate on the development of the Brisbane (as opposed to Sydney)  waterfront, despite having no qualifications in architecture, town planning, modern art…....just a sycophantic media i.e. ABC, Fairfax.

    • Jeff says:

      01:39pm | 24/03/10

      Whether Tony Abbott won the debate or not, he made some excellent points that Barnaby has also raised in this article. To achieve good long term outcomes for Australia a well managed economy is absolutely essential. The current government seems bent on poor quality, low for money value spending. That’s, in part my tax money going towards the multi millions of dollars needed to rip out insulation from ceilings. I’m not happy about it.
      On the worm - Judging what course of action is best by an emotive response is a mistake. Rudd’s health plan needs some critical thought & debate, not people blindly singing the praises of Rudd’s, yet to be finalised policy with their hand out waiting for their extra chunk of the budget.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      06:51pm | 24/03/10

      My taxes are going to unsustainable welfare that the previous Liberal government has lumbered me with. 30% rebate for private health, and I can’t even afford private health, but I’m so happy to be paying for other people’s insurance. First home owners grant, an extremely short sighted policy that has put home ownership out of reach for me. Not that I mind too much because if your silly enough to tie yourself down to that much debt for the next thirty years of your life, then it ain’t going to be much of a life! Baby bonus, wonderful. Let’s pay sixteen year old girls to procreate. At least Labor addressed the social and fiscal responsibilities by making the payment fortnightly instead of lump sum.

      So Jeff if you want to talk about wasting money let’s talk about the previous government whose policies will drain the public purse for many decades to come for absolutely no productivity gain. And at least under Rudd my sons school received a lick of paint, something it desperately needed and something Howard was too much of a tight arse to do, even with hundreds of billions of dollars in tax revenue flowing into government coffers.

    • TIMFROMTHETOPEND says:

      01:50pm | 24/03/10

      “I take exception to people saying that Rudd, Gillard, Swan and Tanner are spending like drunken sailors.
      When I was a drunken sailor, I quit spending when I ran out of money.”

    • TIMFROMTHETOPEND says:

      01:55pm | 24/03/10

      Alan Jones Comment - this is frightening: Hmmmmm??

      He continues… a note that was sent to me which explains that the six leading members of the Government from Mr. Rudd down, the top six have a collective work experience of 181 years, but only 13 in the private sector.

      If you take out of those 13 years the number that were spent as trade union lawyers, that total 11, of the 181 years only two years were spent in the private sector.

      So the people who will rack up a net Federal debt of a minimum of $188 billion, the highest in our history, have virtually no experience in business.

      So out of those 181 years:

      - no years spent running their own business
      - no years spent starting their own business
      - no years spent as a director of a family business or a company
      - no years as a director of a public company
      - no years in a senior position in a public company
      - no years in a senior position in a private company
      - no years working in corporate finance
      - no years in corporate or business restructuring
      - no years working in or with a bank
      - no years of experience in the capital markets
      - no years in a stock-broking firm
      - no years in negotiating debt facilities with banks
      - no years running a small business
      - no years at the World Bank or IMF or OECD
      - no years in Treasury or Finance.

      God help us!!

    • Kate says:

      02:17pm | 24/03/10

      I cannot imagine anyone who runs a business, works for a business, runs family household budget, lives on superannuation annuity and/or pension….....would vote for such inexperienced people.

      I always laugh when I hear politicians (Aust, American, UK etc) say “you cannot underestimate the intelligence of the voter” ..........oh yes you can. However the old Abraham Lincoln addage balances it out:

      “you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can not fool all of the people all of the time”

      Lets hope ol Abe is right…..

    • persephone says:

      06:43pm | 24/03/10

      And the other side are full of lawyers.

      Politicians are not expected to be experts in any particular field. They are expected to be able to look at advice objectively, ask intelligent questions, weigh up the options and make a decision.

      Anyone who has trained in any field knows that it is impossible to become an expert in all aspects of that field, let alone have a grasp of all the other areas of knowledge out there.

      Politicians seek advice from these specialists; they don’t have to be specialists themselves, and indeed, if they were, their understanding would be blinkered by the particular prejudices inbuilt in that area of specialisation.

    • Robbie says:

      10:11pm | 25/03/10

      Persephone,Iam not a lawyer and I am not an expert in any particular field.However I can look at advice objectively,ask intelligent questions weigh up options and make a decision.To clinch the deal (1) I’ll do the job for half the money and half the perks.(2) I CAN organise fornication in a brothel.So fellow punchers at the next election Vote[1] ROBBIE.

    • Jason says:

      02:07pm | 24/03/10

      It is not unreasonable for taxpayers to expect a reasonable return on investment.  If I asked my financial manager why my funds were being wasted on poor chosen or managed investments, I would not expect him to blame the financial manager I sacked two years ago.

    • Abe Frellman says:

      02:09pm | 24/03/10

      I’d have more sympathy for your position, Senator Joyce, if you had not been part of a government that frittered away the vast majority of the tax revenue windfall arising from the last commodity boom. No you didn’t pay off all government debt - it never fell below $50bn - and yes, you accumulated some assets. But you didn’t have a whole lot to show for the tax windfall that economists like Saul Eslake estimate to be as much as $400 billion. That’s B.I.L.L.I.O.N.

      Perhaps you might recall your government’s fiscal strategy, which was to maintain a balanced budget over the cycle. That means you accumulate surpluses in the good times and run deficits in the bad times.

      The main reason that the recent downturn was so benign is that fiscal stimulus was used to cushion the blow. Imagine how good it would have been to have had those bullets to fire without having to borrow them from the Chinese government. Alas, your government chose to p*ss much the bulk of the procceeds of the last commodity boom against a wall.

      But today your only solution seems to be to reduce the appetite for Australian Treasury Bonds by talking up the chances of default and trying to out foreign investors who want to remain anonymous for entirely valid reasons. This is about as helpful as a doctor who prescribes a dysentery sufferer with a cork.

      Inevitably, if any investors do listen to you, they will sell their bonds and steepen the yield curve, driving up interest rates in the process.

      So when you see the cost of funds going up will you declare your scare campaign a success?

    • Evan Findlay says:

      07:10pm | 24/03/10

      I Agree Abe. God forbid the Australian electorate allows this economic buffoon to call the shots. He will scare off international investors quicker than you can say thousand of millions. Go back to the country Barnaby, your only making an ass out of yourself in the city.

    • acker says:

      02:21pm | 24/03/10

      The day city people started paying more for a coffee than a beer was the day I lost total faith in city based bureacrats. Now they pay up to twice as much more than a beer, I reckon they have become twice as stupid. Put the Public Service back out the bush :

    • Evan Findlay says:

      07:24pm | 24/03/10

      Hey Ackies, a litre of water is dearer than a litre of petrol, what is your point! Isn’t that what the free market is all about. Supply and demand! If you don’t like coffee, drink more beer. Your comment is ridiculous at best.

    • Tim says:

      02:55pm | 24/03/10

      Quoted by : Ross Greenwood of Money News.
      “Right now the Federal Government is at pains to tell everyone - including us the mug-punters and the International Monetary Fund that it will not exceed its own, self-imposed, borrowing limits. How much? $200 billion.

      And here’s a worry. If you work in a bank’s money market operation; or if you are a politician; the millions turn into billions and it rolls off the tip of the tongue a bit too easily. But every dollar that is borrowed, some time, has to be repaid. By you, by me and by the rest of the country.

      Just after 5 o’clock tonight I did a bit of maths for Jason Morrison. But it’s so staggering its worth repeating now. First though; here’s what Chairman Rudd has been saying about - what he calls - these temporary borrowings. Remember Those Words : Temporary Deficit. but the total Government debt could end up around $200 billion. So here’s a very basic calculation ... I used a home loan calculator to work it out ... it’s that simple. $200 billion is $200,000 million. The current 10 year Government bond rate is 4.67 per cent. I worked the loan out over a period of 20 years.

      Now here’s where it gets scary ... really scary. The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year ... $733 for every man woman and child - every year. The total interest bill over the 20 years is - get this - $108 billion.

      Remember, this is a Government that just 18 months ago had NO debt . NO debt. In fact it had enough money to create the Future Fund to pay the future liabilities of public servants’ superannuation ... and it had enough to stick $20 billion into the Building Australia Fund last year ..”.

      How can the majority of people been such fools?

    • Gotta be says:

      03:28pm | 24/03/10

      Perhaps Ross Greenwood is from the same accountancy firm as Sen Joyce. At best, he needs a new calculator. Without bothering to agree with or check his basic premise, there’s a glaring error in his maths.

      1.25bn/month is *not* 154bn/year, at all.
      Its 15bn.

      But hey, whats the odd 140bn beween mates, eh Tim? Eh, Senator Joyce? Eh, Mr Greenwood?

    • Kim says:

      03:33pm | 24/03/10

      Don’t ask me Tim, I’d never vote labor.

    • Tails says:

      03:39pm | 24/03/10

      Gotta be a public servant. Picking on the colour of the umbrella in the middle of a cyclone.

    • Kim says:

      03:46pm | 24/03/10

      @ Gotta be.  Maybe you should have read Tim’s piece properly.  He states “The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year”. 
      Did you forget to read the interest *and* principal part?

    • SD says:

      03:50pm | 24/03/10

      Obviously maths wasn’t your strong point!

      I just worked out a repayment schedule in Excel. Interest on $200 Billion at 4.67% is $9.34 billion per year. Assume repayment of principal of $20 billion per year. Principal drops to zero after about 15 years. Total repaid is $355 billion.

      So talking about paying $154 billion per year on a $200 billion loan for 20 years is Cr*p.

    • Gotta be says:

      04:08pm | 24/03/10

      Nup. Read it again, Kim.

      “The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every month.” Meh. maybe.

      “we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year”
      Nup. 1.25*12=15, not 154

      $733 for every man woman and child - every year.
      Meh, maybe. What’s that add to? 733*21million
      Aaah! 15bn. Per year!

      Dear oh dear. Don’t go buying me any brollies. I’ve got $15 bucks to spare for one, not the $154 you’ll blow on it.

      140 billion dollars is a whole lot of blunder.

      And no, not that its any of your God-damned business, I’m not a public servant.

    • Mark says:

      05:00pm | 24/03/10

      I helped you maths whizzes out in Gotta be’s post below where he…errr….how to put thi…..got it wrong.

      Really guys learn to actually think and look critically at stuff. Surely SD you can see that the decimal is missing from the 15.4 to show it as 154. Like wow. Maths is hard.

      Check your facts indeed.

    • Mark says:

      05:07pm | 24/03/10

      Please stop Gotta be. You are wrong. Your link below proved it. The maths proves it.

      Retreat my son. You lost.

      facts are always good to finalise stuff don’t you think.

    • Gotta be says:

      05:05pm | 24/03/10

      Nup. Got it right. Mark’s either blind or being cute.

      Tims quote and the linked article both say 154 billion per year, and both *should* say 15 billion per year. it doesn’t even take 2 minutes, with or without calculator.

      If you can’t see it, and still don’t get it, too bad. You’re going to get done over, bug time, by the likes of Senator Joyce.

    • Mark says:

      09:11pm | 24/03/10

      Sigh Gotta

      “The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter
      billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as
      taxpayers - will be repaying $15.4 billion in interest and principal
      every year ... $733 for every man woman and child - every year. “

      Copy and paste direct from your link. See the 15.4. Hahahahahahaha. Get it right on the third attempt please.

      For the love of all that is good read….comprehend….extrapolate.

      Gawd Tims’ reference missed a decimal point. The maths is so blatantly obvious a child could see.

      Use your own link lol. Neither blind or cute.

      Go on dare ya….its not that hard. So much fail in such a small space.

    • Lloyd says:

      03:40pm | 24/03/10

      Barnaby -  You are a maveric, but you manage to tell it just how it is.
      Well done..

    • Gotta be says:

      03:54pm | 24/03/10

      Fascinating thing is, and though its a tick hard to find (thought i’d best check, after all), Ross Greenwood really did come out with this ridiculous blunder.

      Here it is, repeated in another rather loose media outlet
      http://www.northern-truth.com/2010/03/ross-greenwood-of-money-news-writes.html

      All his own work, apparently. And this coot is a “leading” finance flack. Seriously!

      So there you go. As I’ve said before…best check your facts!

    • Mark says:

      04:45pm | 24/03/10

      Oh

      M = P [ i(1 + i)n ] / [ (1 +  i)n - 1]

      Where M is the monthly payment.
      i = rate%/12
      n is the number of months.

      If you want to scientific calculator it.

      You choose. Works the same. Sometimes actually doing the maths the long is good don’t you agree.

      Comments? Observations?

    • Gotta be says:

      05:08pm | 24/03/10

      Mark is being cute. 1.25 billion per month is not 154 billion per year. Its 15 billion.

      Tim’s quote and my link are the same Greenwood piece and both repeat the same basic error. Its a very large error.

    • Mark says:

      10:52pm | 24/03/10

      “The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter
      billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as
      taxpayers - will be repaying $15.4 billion in interest and principal
      every year ... $733 for every man woman and child - every year. “

      Straight from your link mate.

      Get it right. it is starting to get embarrassing for you.

      i can link it more if it helps lawl.

    • luke09 says:

      04:16pm | 24/03/10

      I still don’t understand the logic(from labor supporters) that debt is better than no debt. If the Rudd government was in surplus would they be still chanting the same mantra? Surely, no debt is better, regardless of own’s political bias.  :-s

    • persephone says:

      06:58pm | 24/03/10

      Of course, in an ideal world, there would be no debt, luke, and I don’t think anyone here is advocating throwing money around for no reason.

      But we don’t live in an ideal world, we live in the real one, and the real one experienced a rather major financial crisis, which is having ongoing reprecussions.

      Common sense and basic economics say that it’s better to have people employed than unemployed, even if that means going into debt.

      The government could have probably achieved much the same ends simply by giving people money on a continual basis. They chose, instead, to use at least some of that money to do useful things, whilst keeping people employed.

      Similar schemes in the Depression resulted in long term benefits for us all (The Great Ocean Road, for example).  However, in other cases, people did just dig holes and fill them in.

      That the projects committed to by this government go beyond painting rocks white just shows that they took a sensible approach to the need to spend money and got twice as much bang for their buck.

    • Mark says:

      04:42pm | 24/03/10

      Err the maths is correct.

      Want me to help. Here we go.

      Go to google. Plug in home loan calculator. Pick one. Anz is blue and looks good.

      Punch in 200 as principal.
      $.67% as the rate
      Term 20 years.

      Now we get total repayments of $308.09 billion.
      Lets break it down.

      308/240 months is $1.28 billion per month.

      $1.28 billion per month is 15.4 billion per year.

      Which is (again) $308 billion repaid or $108 billion in interest.

      Exactly what the link you gave tells us.

      the only thiong wrong was the missing of a decimal point in Tim’s cut and paste that change 15.4 to 154. But seriously it took like 2 minutes to check it out.

      Soooo anyway Gotta be looks like you guys need to learn to maths as well.

      The end. /gloat

    • Gotta be says:

      05:07pm | 24/03/10

      Ah.

      So declaring 154 billion per year instead of the correct 15 billion a year is OK with you. Fine.

      It’s still a massive error. A stupid error. A repeated error. You can gloat all you like. Its still a massive error.

    • iansand says:

      06:11pm | 24/03/10

      Those decimal points are so small they really don’t make a lot of difference, do they?

    • Mark says:

      10:44pm | 24/03/10

      lolololol

      You guys are just mean. So the quoted passage in Tim’s missed a decimal point.

      the good old Gotta gets on the high horse and Don Quixote the real passage only to misread it and accuse Ross of being a so and so.

      Even after it is pointed out they fail to to read the boyos try another one on.

      Again for the back row, Ross in the article linked by Gotta made no errors. The error was Tim’s if anything. And such an obvious error that it was easily calculated out.

      Lets get it straight people. Learn to read and extrapolate out. Seriously. if you couldn’t work the maths get off the interwebz.  Gotta Ross was right all along. Ross was right all along. Ross was right all along. Did it sink in lawl.

      Barnaby has you guys spooked out of mind. You are over reaching by the proverbial country mile.

    • Mark says:

      05:03pm | 24/03/10

      Well rate fail by me. wanting to buy edit button - rate should read 4.67% NOT $.67 :D

      Happy maths you nice people you.

      It is sort of scary when you look at it like the good and mathematically correct Ross Greenwood puts it.

    • Gotta be says:

      08:35pm | 24/03/10

      Ross Greenwood mathematically claimed that $1.25billion/month was $154 billion per year. He was wrong. Its $15 billion a year.

    • Mark says:

      10:49pm | 24/03/10

      “The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter
      billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as
      taxpayers - will be repaying $15.4 billion in interest and principal
      every year ... $733 for every man woman and child - every year. “

      Copy and pasted again form your link.

      Lawl i am having a blast seriously.

      Ross was right. Sing it with me kids. Ross was right. take up the cause. Ross was right!!!

      Yippeeeeeee. Lets do it again gotta this is fun.

      i do know a good optometrist if you need one mate - thats the truth, real nice guy.

    • Paul Horn says:

      12:00pm | 25/03/10

      Mark Mark Mark don’t waste yourt time on this bloke mate as he isn’t worth it. He is a hard headed labor stooge and will refuse to believe the truth even if it flew down in a mini skirt and offered him a lift with fringe benefits.

      It is a typical labor union tactic. When you are beaten by the facts you start screaming and chanting until the facts can’t be heard. Who was it that said “lies get half way around the world before the truth gets a chance to put her stockings on!!!” Dear old Winston Churchill I think. He also said “The truth is so precious that it must be protected by a bodyguard of lies”!! What a man!!!.

      I have been to many a union punch up and let me tell you when the facts are presented thier behaviour suddenly devolves into something our distant ape ancestors would be proud of. You can never win with them they are that far gone!

      Did you know Gotta be that children wre actually thrown overboard by asylum seekers. Read the parliamentary report my friend. Did you know that life threatening behaviour towards children was commonly engaged in by these asylum seekers and if not for the quick response by the Navy children would have been killed.  Adult Asylum seekers both men and women had to be physically restrained by Naval personnel from attacking defenceless children. Their behaviour was reprehensible but that did’nt warrant any media attention as they were so focused on attacking John Howard.

      You belong to a diseased political philosophy Gotta be and decent people are fed up to the hind teeth with progressive 60’s trotskyists quoting from the commo manifesto. Escape the dark side and come to the light my friend! Johnny Howard would be only too happy to make you a cup of tea and engage in a civilised fireside chat.

    • Dave in Perth says:

      05:18pm | 24/03/10

      Great work Barnaby. I’m hoping you’ll have something to write about every day till the election.

      Just to clarify on the debt.
      Is that Net debt?
      Or gross debt?
      Or net-gross debt?
      Or net-gross-public debt?
      Or net-gross-public-private debt?
      Or net-gross-public-private-secured debt?
      Or net-gross-public-private-secured-unsecured debt?
      Or is it something else?

    • Simon the pieman says:

      10:42am | 26/03/10

      OOOh no one likes a showoff.  How about detailed questions for all politicians - how come they are only for Joyce?  Conroy would certainly be clueless if asked some detailed data communications questions and are we really that stupid that we think politicians know anything other than how to be a politician and fill in the expenses forms.  Barnaby upsets the cosy status quo that both parties cling to and long may he continue.

    • Natalie says:

      05:38pm | 24/03/10

      I went to an industry breakfast 3 weeks ago now and Barnaby was the guest speaker - this was pretty much the context of the presentation. I was unaware prior to the event that Branaby has an Accounting degree and worked in a commercial capacity as a Chartered Accountant for many years, so he does know numbers, and infact he is the only Accountant in parliament.  I was impressed with his logic and his delivery.

    • Mr Samuel DiGiovanni says:

      05:59pm | 24/03/10

      Barnaby fair dinkum if small and large business together with the population took the advice of yourself together with libs and Nat’s in terms of having no debt the entire economy would collapse amnd furtehr how do you think the opear haouse got built or the snowy mountian scheme or the tennis tennis in melbourne or people buy houses they go into debt Your coaliton shout form the roftops in repsect having no debt under howard but you left the lagerst social debt in the history of the fedaeration with education health and pensioners almost collapsed and furtehr the lack of investment in infracture spending and will cost all us biliions and billions extra because of your lack of understanding of economic management

    • Steve says:

      06:12pm | 24/03/10

      The Maths (as stated) may be correct although it makes some extraodinarily dubious assumptions. There is absslutely no reason to choose 20 yrs as the repayment period, it has merely been done to exacerbate the final figure. It also assumes that only “Men, Women & Children” pay off the debt. This is far from the case with corporations (private via tax & public via dividends) as well as rent resources & various other sources of income will contribute. I suspect Mr Greenwood was playing up to his old pal Alan Jones whom was a bit upset that the little guys were receiving the stimulus money, not just him receiving a dirty great Howardesque tax cut.

    • Mark says:

      11:05pm | 24/03/10

      Okay Steve finally someone can do that tricky multiplication stuff gratz fella.

      So, pick the period. How long? Tell us the terms.

      As far as i am concerned he was very generous with the interest rate of under 5% over 20 years.

      Tell us what to use mate. Please :D

      Then I can use my mad l33t math skillz.

      Kgo.

    • Anti sledge says:

      08:57pm | 26/03/10

      Last laugh to GB, I reckon!


      More to come!

    • Mark says:

      05:02pm | 29/03/10

      Last laugh to GB?

      How champion? Still waiting on the parameters to plug in…

    • Just Sayin' says:

      09:40pm | 24/03/10

      “Government’s that do not manage costs end up costing the taxpayer.”

      Perhaps if our Governments spend more money on education, our future Senators will know that plurals do not require apostrophes.

    • Mark says:

      11:15pm | 24/03/10

      Barnaby.

      thanks so much for your plain speaking article that cut to the chase so succinctly.

      A pleasure to read and it is good to see you are onto the waste and awful management of our hard earned under Labor.

      oh keep the posts coming. It seems to upset the natives and it becomes a real fun time on the boards.

      Thanks mate all the best.

      Well done sir. Continue on.

    • Saskia says:

      12:52pm | 25/03/10

      Great article Barnaby.  Keep up the concrete examples of what our money could buy.  That is the best way to clearly show Aussies how truly fiscally insane the ALP are.

      I would provide an example and a graph every day if I was you.  Make it a ritual!

      Can’t wait for the election.

    • SD says:

      05:37pm | 25/03/10

      For the final vote of confidence in Barnaby’s financial skills Abbott has just booted him out the job. Says it all!!

    • iansand says:

      05:56pm | 25/03/10

      Oh well.  That was a bit of entertainment while it lasted.

    • Dave in Perth says:

      07:02pm | 25/03/10

      Very saddened to hear this.

      I was really looking forward to the election with Barney shooting himself in the foot every 24 hours. And anyone foolish enough to stand close by.

      Who’s left to make the election entertaining?
      Bronnie?
      Not nearly as funny. (And frightening to small children)

    • Seano says:

      07:41pm | 25/03/10

      Hey Barnaby apparently you aint all that on economics….appparently you need to get out more.

    • Dave in Perth says:

      05:33pm | 26/03/10

      The Elephant in the Cabinet Room.

    • Anti sledge says:

      09:07pm | 26/03/10

      He he he! Looks like there’s more to come on this billions mega-blunder yet.  GB was quick to point out the mistake
      “Tim says:02:55pm | 24/03/10
      Quoted by : Ross Greenwood of Money News.
      “The repayments on $200 billion come to more than one and a quarter billion dollars - every month - for 20 years. It works out we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year ... “”
      Well, as GB said, its not. Its 15 billion.

      GB copped a shellacking from Mark and a coupler smart alecks for putting up another link. Bit odd, there the number was right - $15 billion. Hmmm.

      Well, cop this little lot.  Turns out (thanks Google!) Greenwood’s idea of one and a quarter billion a month somehow being 154 billion a year does indeed cop up all over the place!

      Here for example -
      au.messages.yahoo.com/news/politics/723852/
      we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year

      and again
      http://www.topix.com/world-leaders/kevin-rudd/2010/03/go-it-alone-abbott-sorry
      we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year

      and again
      http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/its-time-mckew-outgrew-ministerial-lplates-20091219-l6kz.html
      (comments, not grattan) we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year

      and again
      http://www.activeboard.com/forum.spark?aBID=127609&p=3&topicID=34553072
      we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year

      and again
      http://imacrankyoldman.blogspot.com/
      we - as taxpayers - will be repaying $154 billion in interest and principal every year

      And gues where else? Hmm?
      Forums :: Senator Steve Fielding

      So who’s a maths dill now then?  The answer is not 154 billion but 15 billion. It looks like the data gnomes were a wee bit sloppy in trying a quick tidy up after Mr Greenwoods monumental blooper.

      Now, mates, on all these sites google shows as saying 154 billion right now. How many of them will remain by morning? But then, the google cache number will be…..

    • GUERRAStella says:

      04:12pm | 23/05/11

      One remembers that our life is very expensive, however people need money for various issues and not every man gets big sums cash. Hence to receive some mortgage loans and just secured loan would be a right way out.

    • BrittneyWalton18 says:

      10:59am | 07/10/11

      Utilizing writing companies you provide your academic success. Furthermore, that is easier to purchase essays buy services. According to the confidentiality system of academic papers writing, your private information will not be disclosed.

    • AngieReilly21 says:

      07:53am | 17/10/11

      It is well known that cash can make us disembarrass. But how to act when one doesn’t have money? The one way is to get the loan and just college loan.

    • MalindaHess says:

      07:31am | 28/10/11

      Come to a writing service. Don’t afraid to turn to an Essay Writer. That makes your life much easier.

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Lucy Kippist

RT @JenBrockie: A take on social media from India http://t.co/5XCerDTB @tehelkadotcom

Lucy Kippist

RT @alaindebotton: So many of our problems would be alleviated if we had 3 or 4 exceptional friends living within a 2 minute radius.

Paul Colgan

RT @latikambourke: Yes, @PeterSlipperMP is genuine.

Anthony Sharwood

It's terribly unfashionable to admit but my Cityrail train just left on time again

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Interest rate barney barely even rates as interesting

Stop all the cheering, cut off the champagne. Prevent the pollies from barking and silence the drums.…

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Life slips away while you’re filming it on your phone

Some friends of mine had lunch on Saturday with a mate who spent so much time artfully composing photos…

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

Other stuff to be angry about today (with chorizo pic)

That dopey Spaniard. Three-time Tour de France winner Alberto Contador has been banned for two years,…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: City vs country: What would you change your life for?

Dieter Moeckel says:

We made the tree change from Darwin to Wonbah more than 15 years ago. After fencing, a road, and couple of dams our money was gone. Super is enough to live comfortably. We have geese growing old and stringy the only one that made it to the pot committed Kamakazi by flying into a tree; the chooks are… [read more]

From: I’d rather have a piece of toast than listen to crap lyrics

Erick says:

Led Zeppelin are responsible for my all-time favourite mixed metaphor: "There you sit, sit and stare, like a book on a shelf rusting." (Misty Mountain Hop) I laugh every time I hear it. Hmmm, I believe I've decided what to play on the way to work today. [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

No wuckin forries. These nuckin futs are tuckin fops

Well, puck me with a fitchfork. The F-word is apparently an acceptable part of Australian speech. That’s… Read more

150 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter