First home owner's grant boost

[JW Frogen]

Having laid out the cost of deficit spending and despensed with the ridiculous idea it has no cost either in future tax burdens or inflationary pressure I must state I do not think it always unjustified.

It is all in relation to GNP and the ability to pay back (which will determine the cost of such borrowing) and where the money is going.

If the money is spent on long term infrastructure which produces economic benifit, it can be an investment that brings greater returns, if it is just thrown at the consumer (in a country riddled with personal debt) and they are told to spend it, it might produce a short term boost but at a greater long term economic cost.

[JW Frogen]

Quite, the tax cuts and pork barreling they did put quite enough extra money into a booming economy!

Imagine they kept all that tax revenue, we would have a $400Bn sovereign fund to finance Australian industry, make investments abroad to boost national income etc. But we had the bad luck to have as PM a truly little man who got scared by the 1998 election result and simply went out and bought elections with our money and a spineless Treasurer who let him.

I did not agree with all Howard's spending, especially on ads talking about how great the government was, but the fact remains he provided surpluses, which both Labor depended on when the economic crises hit and which provided Australia with a sounder economic shelter to weather the crises than debt ridden America had when Obama (who has made it much worse) inhereted.

Howard gave Labor the luxery of breathing time.

[Jovial Monk]

They did not have surpluses. Oh, the China boom allowed Tip to crap on about cash surpluses but bloody Howard spent all those! All that is left is about $45Bn in the Future Fund and Education endowment fund.

The rest was spent by Howard.

[JW Frogen]

They did not have surpluses. Oh, the China boom allowed Tip to crap on about cash surpluses but bloody Howard spent all those! All that is left is about $45Bn in the Future Fund and Education endowment fund.

The rest was spent by Howard.

Howard did leave a surplus; this is why Labour announced it would have to go into deficit spending.

Labour may have to, but it is boring arguing with partisan zeal in disregard of facts.

[Jovial Monk]

It is Froges, so go and get some facts.

Peter Hartchers article in yesterdays smh is a good start.

[JW Frogen]

"The Federal Government generated an underlying cash surplus of $17.3 billion in 2006/07.

The outcome was $3.7 billion higher than expected at the time of the 2008/07 budget."


http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/awa ... 35983.html

[Jovial Monk]

More starkly, the Treasury reported that from the 2004-05 budget to the 2007 election, the China boom and a robust economy had added $334 billion in windfall gains to the budget surplus.

Of this, the Howard government spent, or gave away in tax cuts, $314 billion, or 94 per cent. Again, for perspective, this is the size of the entire annual economic output of South Africa or Denmark. Effectively, the extra revenue from the commodity boom has been spent or provided as tax cuts, summarised the Treasury in its summer 2008 Economic Roundup. The study compared Howard's fiscal policy with that of that touchstone of recklessness, prime minister Gough Whitlam.

Recent Howard budgets resembled "Christmas night at the pirate cave", in the phrase of a former budget analyst with the Treasury and Department of Finance, Stephen Anthony, of the consultancy Macroeconomics.com.au. . . .More starkly, the Treasury reported that from the 2004-05 budget to the 2007 election, the China boom and a robust economy had added $334 billion in windfall gains to the budget surplus.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/fiscal-f ... tml?page=6

[JW Frogen]

added $334 billion in windfall gains to the budget surplus.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/fiscal-f ... tml?page=6[/quote]

[Jovial Monk]

Of this, the Howard government spent, or gave away in tax cuts, $314 billion, or 94 per cent.

[JW Frogen]

Yes, even if we are to accept ape-like partisan notion that Howard can claim no credit for economic growth and Labor is not responsible for economic contraction a little math is in order here: 100% would be breaking even, 101% would be a deficit, anything under is a surplus.