Rudd calls for era of "social capitalism" (1 Viewer)

[katie tully]

Elissa Sutherland wroteabout an hour ago
Josh,
Wells said Lyndon and Godfrey.
BTW, Keating floated the Aussie dollar, deregulated markets and in the initial period afterwards things were bumpy - 'the recession we had to have' - something that was a forgone conclusion if we wanted to join the world financial markets more fully. So that's what is meant by Howard riding the economic wave created by the Labor govt - the benefits that flowed from that opening of our national borders to international trade etc..
Thing is the further dereg of markets under Howard put the risk onto individuals (esp through the labour market changes) some of whom had to resort to credit to get by in lean times - hence the personal debt blow out of recent times. The debt has simply transferred from govt to individuals and I know what I reckon is better.
Now Rudd left with the mess of having to build up infrastructure and funding for public institutions, something left to whither by Howard....
And has anyone noticed how much Turnbull sounded like Costello the other night on the national address? Hmmmmm........

 

[bwendan]

Which is greedier?
(1) Wanting to keep your own money
(2) Wanting to take someone else's money by force.

http://home.exetel.com.au/brendan/socialism_explained.jpg

 

[bwendan]

How do you propse we govern then?

But do you accept that the consequence of your argument? Do you accept that 49% should be thrown to the lions if the other 51% say so?

 

[Lentern]

But do you accept that the consequence of your argument? Do you accept that 49% should be thrown to the lions if the other 51% say so?

I do not think that 51% should say so, however I can't see a more fair way of governing than at the behest of the majority.

 

[Lentern]

Which is greedier?
(1) Wanting to keep your own money
(2) Wanting to take someone else's money by force.

Not for once self.

 

[bwendan]

I do not think that 51% should say so,

But that's not the question. Nor is it relevant. It's like saying I'm all for a dictatorship with the dictator having absolute power, but I don't think the dictator should abuse his power.

Democratically forced, the democratic part of it makes it ok.

So, do you accept the consequence of your argument, that if 51% say so, the other 49% must oblige to their every command? What if the government democratically forced rape your mother? Does the democratic part of it make it ok?

 

[Lentern]

But that's not the question. Nor is it relevant. It's like saying I'm all for a dictatorship with the dictator having absolute power, but I don't think the dictator should abuse his power.




So, do you accept the consequence of your argument, that if 51% say so, the other 49% must oblige to their every command? What if the government democratically forced rape your mother? Does the democratic part of it make it ok?

It doesn't make the decision right, but ulimately democracy is putting faith in the majority to make the right decision. I thought the majority got it wrong over mandatory detention of asylum seekers, but I still recognise that it was what the people voted for and a high court/ governor general intervention to stop it would have been wrong.

 

[Lentern]

The initial stuff is correct, about Keating. The rest is pretty much categorically 100% incorrect.

Have you ever been critical of a liberal policy, or supportive of a labor one? About anything? Ever?

 

[kkyle]

I do not think that 51% should say so, however I can't see a more fair way of governing than at the behest of the majority.

Because it's the majority doesn't indicate that it is right, hence the lion analogy works well. You can't rule the country by vote, in the end the people with the higher credentials and the higher places in government are looked upon to make the call.

Yes I am placing some people's opinion higher than others, education and experience are decent yardsticks imo.

 

[katie tully]

I knew Keating floated the dollar and deregulated the market, but she's seriously fucking confused if she thinks Costello then rode on the coat tails of Keatings success.

Costello had a fucking mess when Keating finished fucking everything.

 

[whatashotbyseve]

I agree.

So when Laborites whine about Costello's smugness, they show their ignorance. He has every right to be smug. If you were Treasurer for the better part of twelve years and in the year since you were turfed out your substantial surpluses have been so badly eroded that we are now in deficit, you would be smug too. You spend over a decade erasing $96 billion worth of debt and the socialist bastards come into government and waste tens of billions on projects that will make little discernible difference to the economy - in one year.

So, once again, our economy is fucked and will be so until a Liberal government comes in and exercises prudent investment and expenditure.

 

[Lentern]

I for one, hope to see Costello as PM within 2 years.

You may hope for it but you shall not have it. This isn't a left wing rant either it's simply that governments allways get re-elected, we have not had a one term government in post war history. And that Rudd would blow his one "in the bag" election seems nigh impossible, Whitlam, Fraser, Hawke and Howard all had very different ways of taking control and still were all returned to government.

But I've long thought Costello to be the cleverest politician on either side of politics and think it unlikely he'll rush his leadership bid.

I agree.

So when Laborites whine about Costello's smugness, they show their ignorance. He has every right to be smug. If you were Treasurer for the better part of twelve years and in the year since you were turfed out your substantial surpluses have been so badly eroded that we are now in deficit, you would be smug too. You spend over a decade erasing $96 billion worth of debt and the socialist bastards come into government and waste tens of billions on projects that will make little discernible difference to the economy - in one year.

So, once again, our economy is fucked and will be so until a Liberal government comes in and exercises prudent investment and expenditure.

What would you have had them done? I don't agree with the way the package was put together, but are you honestly telling me you think Costello or Howard or Minchin would have kept the budget in surplus?

And don't you dare call that weak, conservative little prat Rudd who has sold down the river what was once the party of the working class, of the left, of social progression, don't you dare call him a socialist, I wear the tag with pride, he shrinks from it.

 

[withoutaface]

COSTEL10
[comment]sdaf[/comment]

 

[whatashotbyseve]

What would you have had them done? I don't agree with the way the package was put together, but are you honestly telling me you think Costello or Howard or Minchin would have kept the budget in surplus?

From a purely anecdotal perspective, tax cuts are proven to stimulate the economy. All up tax cuts would have cost $20-30 billion. The surplus would have been eroded, probably to a break-even point. Yes, the Liberal government under whoever would probably, inevitably, gone into deficit but only through reduced revenue. In these economic times, now is not the time to experiment with fiscal strategy.

Rudd/Swan would rather use an empirical strategy of infrastructure and 'one-off' handouts. Now, I am sure school infrastructure is important but in these times, we have to prioritise. $20b is just overkill. The $12.7b in handouts is a chronic waste of money that - as Liberals have pointed out - wise recipients will save, pay off their mortgage/credit card. Not buy a Louis Vuitton handbag.

Can you honestly tell me that the Labor party has not displayed breathtaking arrogance over this issue? It calls for bi-partisan support during the crisis, but announces a $42 billion package and demands it be passed within one day. Of course any responsible Opposition has a right and a duty to further scrutinise it.

I have no doubt the package will be passed next week - to what extent of its original proposal is the question - but, if nothing else, Turnbull and the Liberal party have got back their economic credentials that were questioned by the electorate after the last election. The big question is what happens at the end of the tunnel - does a Labor government know how to reduce a deficit?

 

[Lentern]

From a purely anecdotal perspective, tax cuts are proven to stimulate the economy. All up tax cuts would have cost $20-30 billion. The surplus would have been eroded, probably to a break-even point. Yes, the Liberal government under whoever would probably, inevitably, gone into deficit but only through reduced revenue. In these economic times, now is not the time to experiment with fiscal strategy.

Rudd/Swan would rather use an empirical strategy of infrastructure and 'one-off' handouts. Now, I am sure school infrastructure is important but in these times, we have to prioritise. $20b is just overkill. The $12.7b in handouts is a chronic waste of money that - as Liberals have pointed out - wise recipients will save, pay off their mortgage/credit card. Not buy a Louis Vuitton handbag.

Can you honestly tell me that the Labor party has not displayed breathtaking arrogance over this issue? It calls for bi-partisan support during the crisis, but announces a $42 billion package and demands it be passed within one day. Of course any responsible Opposition has a right and a duty to further scrutinise it.

I have no doubt the package will be passed next week - to what extent of its original proposal is the question - but, if nothing else, Turnbull and the Liberal party have got back their economic credentials that were questioned by the electorate after the last election. The big question is what happens at the end of the tunnel - does a Labor government know how to reduce a deficit?

And why is it any less likely that these tax cuts will just go into paying off mortgages as would be prudent from an individual perspective? The advantage behind the the one off handouts as far as labor will be thinking, is that they are one off whereas tax cuts meen prolonged loss of revenue until someone decides to raise taxes, Has any politician dared since Whitlam?

I think labor has been supremely arrogant as politicians allways have been. It was supremely arrogant to introduce the GST after criticising Keatings attempt to implement and distancing himself from Hewsons attempt and yet Howard did and it was a good thing he did.

Finally can labor reduce a deficit? I was under the impression that prior to the recession we had to have which many somehow come to the conclusion was induced by Keating through gross missmanagement, Keating had made signifcant inroads into the deficit inherited from the Howard treasury. And that in 1993 the projected outcomes of the budget had it returning to surplus in four years.

 

[Progressive]

Comrade Kevin Rudd very good speech, Labor party brilliant party Labor prime ministers Gough, keating wonderfull comrades.

 

[tinfoilhat]

hmm liberalism is running pretty high at the moment, i say rudd will win next election but will do something after which will make voters run to the conservatives

 

[Lex152]

Lentern I'd love a link of that information (returning to surplus within 4 years). I really agreed with the keating reforms but don't know much about that period.

 

[Progressive]

I just want to congratulate Comrade Rudd again... for his speech and wonderfull hard work, and decisive action on the economy. You deserve 5 smiles .

 

[kkyle]

Do explain how this is going to benefit the economy in any way?

10 years of Liberal work, namely Costello work, and we're up to $60 billion surplus a single year of Kevin Rudd and his Labor deficit train and we're down into deficit.

It's the wrong direction to head in...

Tax cuts FTW.