DoesTony Abbott deserve to be called 'embarrassing'

[donnashuggy]

Is he living up to your expectations?

http://www.skynews.com.au/topstories/article.aspx?id=944574&vId=

[izabsmiling]

---

@icyfroth wrote:

"DoesTony Abbott deserve to be called 'embarrassing'"

No more so than the way Ms Gillard acted like a lovestruck calf to President Obama:

or Mr Rudd saluting President Bush

---

OK so in your eyes...no one can ever call Tony Abbott embarrassing because You were embarrassed by our Former leader sharing a laugh and a smile with the leader of the USA ......do both of those leaders offend you I wonder ?

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@boris1gary wrote:

I don't understand what your post's have to do with the topic, the topic isn't about internal ALP decisions, or what the now opposition did or did not do.

---

I was responding to whatever comment I quoted.

apologies if you lack the ability to answer them, or to note that it was not just myself that commented on past governments.

So in reality, I don't understand why you have singled me out, although I surmise it's because the truthful answers are too difficult to admit and would only serve to further highlight the inadequacies of the orevious government that the current government has to somehow rectify.

[i-need-a-martini]

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

And did you notice the word "balance" in that quote from the IMF?

Not hold onto your money and never spend anything on essential services in order to build up a massive surplus whilst the country's infrustructure falls appart ala Howard.

Balance.

Rudds projection went beyond the short term GFC spending. The governement, and economists, talked about getting back to surplus once the the crisis was over and there were policies in place for this.

He did what had to be done at the time.

---

ok, so Mr Rudd "talked about" getting back into surplus, so why didn't he? and how did it come about that he was replaced by Ms. Gillard? and even more confusing to me, how come she was in turn replaced by the reinstatement of Mr Rudd?

---

Haven't we been building slowly up to this? We are riding the other side of the GFC wave so whatever strategies were in place to increase the surplus should be operational now. We should be building up a surplau as we speak.

Unfortunately I can't find any of the policies or media releases related to this. They have been wiped from Treasury website.

[i-need-a-martini]

There is this: http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2010/Pre%20Elect...

that was already showing economic improvments in 2010.

But the policies have all gone (the previous governments and there are none for the current government).

[*mrgrizz*]

i spent my money on a new TV............was made in japan

i stimulated their economy

[boris1gary]

Crikey,

actually i am still waiting for your reply in the thread about Tones plans for Medicare, so apologies to you to if you lack the ability to answer and in reality if you choose to only speak about the previous government well that is your choice.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

---

@crikey*mate wrote:

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

And did you notice the word "balance" in that quote from the IMF?

Not hold onto your money and never spend anything on essential services in order to build up a massive surplus whilst the country's infrustructure falls appart ala Howard.

Balance.

Rudds projection went beyond the short term GFC spending. The governement, and economists, talked about getting back to surplus once the the crisis was over and there were policies in place for this.

He did what had to be done at the time.

---

ok, so Mr Rudd "talked about" getting back into surplus, so why didn't he? and how did it come about that he was replaced by Ms. Gillard? and even more confusing to me, how come she was in turn replaced by the reinstatement of Mr Rudd?

---

Haven't we been building slowly up to this? We are riding the other side of the GFC wave so whatever strategies were in place to increase the surplus should be operational now. We should be building up a surplau as we speak.

Unfortunately I can't find any of the policies or media releases related to this. They have been wiped from Treasury website.

---

ok, I wasn't being mean. I'm genuinely interested to learn. You probably know that I've only recently taken any kind of interest in the nitty gritty of politics, so have a lot to catch up on.

[*crikey*mate*]

---

@i-need-a-martini wrote:

There is this: http://www.treasury.gov.au/~/media/Treasury/Publications%20and%20Media/Publications/2010/Pre%20Elect...

that was already showing economic improvments in 2010.

But the policies have all gone (the previous governments and there are none for the current government).

---

thank ou.

now, to me, getting intio surplus. means having some savings in the bank after all committments have been paid for (you know, bills and stuff), does politics consider surplus to be the same thing?

[*crikey*mate*]

If it is my choice, then why did you attempt to dictate the direction of my interaction within this thread?

[boris1gary]

Crikey,

This might answer some questions re: budget surplus

please note this was written while the ALP were in govt.

and i am now way off topic

“The obsession with returning the federal budget to surplus is damaging industry and job creation programs which are all the more important to Australia’s economic recovery in the wake of the Queensland floods,” Australian Manufacturing Workers Union national secretary Dave Oliver said. A number of economists and business representatives have joined trade union opposition to this budget surplus obsession.

Amongst them is conservative economics professor and Reserve Bank Board member Warwick McKibbin who identified three possible sources of revenue: “One is to raise taxes. One is to cut spending. And the third is to run a budget deficit.”

If asked in a first year university economics exam which of the three a student would choose, McKibbin said students picking the first or second option would be failed. The first two would reduce demand and “crunch” the economy.

“This is like an economic slow-down coming from Mother Nature. And the natural thing to do is not to crunch the economy. It’s to borrow and to spread the cost of this over many future generations. The issue is to get the Queensland economy and Victoria back on their feet and to put in place the infrastructure that’s been destroyed by this natural event.”

Historically, Australian governments have borrowed to fund infrastructure and other programs. There is nothing wrong with borrowing or debt in itself.

Individuals, businesses and other organisations borrow money and carry debts – the economy would grind to a halt if they didn’t. The Australian government has far larger assets than those companies or individuals to secure loans. The question comes down to the size of the debt, whether it is manageable and what the benefits are.