Labor Government

“seems strange though that with the economy running better than it ever has that we are about to embark on a gamble with an unkown factor”

The economy might be running well, but have you not noticed everything else is up the sh*t?

Libs save money, sell of assets, reduce debt etc. Then we (the voters) get sick of the fact that everything costs and it swings back the other way to labor who spend on welfare and health/education etc. After a while, it goes back again.

I do work for the government and I am in Canberra. Yes, there are people that are time wasters and there are those that are over worked as well. But I’ve worked in private sector and seen the same things.

Personally I’d love to see a change of government just to see what happens…

Wayne, I still don’t know if your point is any more than cliched rhetoric.

So, yes. Enough said.

cli·chéd also cliched ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kl-shd)
adj.
Having become stale or commonplace through overuse; hackneyed: “In the States, it might seem a little clichéd; in Paris, it seems fresh and original” (Nina Martin).

rhetoric

Rhet”o*ric, n. [F. rhtorique, L. rhetorica, Gr. ???? (sc. ???), fr. ??? rhetorical, oratorical, fr. ??? orator, rhetorician; perhaps akin to E. word; cf. ??? to say.] 1. The art of composition; especially, elegant composition in prose.

2. Oratory; the art of speaking with propriety, elegance, and force. –Locke.

3. Hence, artificial eloquence; fine language or declamation without conviction or earnest feeling.

4. Fig. : The power of persuasion or attraction; that which allures or charms.

Sweet, silent rhetoric of persuading eyes. –Daniel.

***************************

Puleeze!

But if you’d accused me of making mischief, I would have to plead the 5th[}]

http://www.tradingforaliving.info

Any party would have had a budget surplus over the last 2 terms of office, so to say that the Libs have done well is not really that true and yes it is largely due to selling assets like Telstra. There really doesnt seem to be a viable party that will balance things well by not wasting our money as well as improving what is important to us (Health, Education, Infrastructure). Picking the best of a bad bunch seems too often to be the only choice – how sad is it that the world has come to this.

Spot on, Houses. Equally, if the Coalition had been in power in the late-80’s you can bet that they would have seen very high interest rates.

Hi James,

Please don’t get me wrong, I am not at all criticising the present Government and its achievements.

My criticism was simply of those who are quick to jump to conclusions and sprout off about things they really haven’t researched.

Lisa

The gap will always be too large if you don’t at least try to make the jump.

hehe landlordtobe- no kidding. As if Labor is any different to Liberal anyhow. As for me, I can’t wait until we buy those $55 million war things the Feds are looking at- will make us all much better off! []

Yeah, there’s a real “sky is falling” attitude around here. But landlordtobe- we’re on a property forum- it’s to be expected that there’d be a number of dry Liberals on here.

kay henry

Is this another one of your riddles, Chan? You know I can’t do riddles!! [!][][]

kay henry

SuperTed, what has buying or selling the farm got to do with a budget surplus or deficit?

In your Economics 101 textbook you will see that deficit has its economic place (e.g. to stimulate and economy) – contrary to the Costello line that it is the root of all evil. It’s just that right now, we don’t need the stimulus and people swallow the “Defecit = Bad; Surplus = Good” line that the Coalition use because it suits them politically.

In chapter two of that text, you will find a synopsis that will demonstrate that the macroeconomic environment when CBA was sold was very different to the one when Telstra was sold. A lot of this is cyclical – and cyclical for reasons outside of Australia’s direct control.

The issue of who is the better economic manager is more complex than simply looking at the last few years of what has globally been largely a positive economic period.

Even Pauline Hanson’s 1% tax would have worked for a while when things are good. Are you going to argue that she’s a good economic manager?

I am so not a liberal voter that I have been scared to join in this post[fear]. Flak jacket on[lmao]

In regards to the abolishing of negative gearing in the 80’s, wasn’t it that it wasn’t retrospective? ie, if you had them when it ‘died’ you could still use the losses, but you could not ‘create’ any more by further borrowings?

The losses per property were similar to any losses incurred in a trust (or company?) – they are simply carried forward until there is a profit from that asset.

In the states, they limited negative gearing to about $25K of losses, or something similar. I would guess that that would be the line taken here if they were to go down that path again – and again, I doubt it would be retrospective.

Personally, I would like to see negative gearing abolished (I can say that – I’ve got no salary income to offset anymore[ohno]). That would probably put a stop to a lot of the ‘investment seminar gurus’, and would stop so many people getting into property.

Rents would rise (yay for investors who have properties already), and prices wouldn’t be so unachievable.

Mum was saying the other day that when they bought their house (in Canberra in ’79) it was cheaper to buy than to rent. I seriously doubt that that would be the case for quite a while in Aust.

Cheers
Mel