Your arguments are so non-sensical that I almost can't be bothered to rebut them, with the knowledge that I'll just recieve more diatribe back, which is equally as non-sensical.
Trefoil said:
Actually, if you bother to comprehend what you read, it's because they work them too hard, not because of temper.
No, actually that's not true. Numerous staff have complained about Rudd's temper, here's just one example though, of Rudd behind-the-scenes:
Rudd branded a 'foul-mouthed MP'
Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's pristine image is about to be blown away with the release of a new book which claims he is foul-mouthed and launches into expletive-ridden rants in his office when things go wrong.
Author Dr Peter van Onselen says Mr Rudd is more complex than the church-going politician Australians see in public.
He told News Ltd the PM is known for his vile temper, is "somewhat of a potty-mouth" behind closed doors and uses the f-word in private.
Dr van Onselen says there are two Kevin Rudds -- the smooth talking public operator and the private one that only his staff get to see.
The claims are made in the book `Howard's End', which looks at the unravelling of John Howard's coalition government and the rise of Mr Rudd.
Trefoil said:
Myself and spiny norman pulled you up on this before: deficit is a non-partisan thing (both politically and in Australia's history).
And last time, I recall contradicting you, to the point where you refused to reply with any substance, unless meaningless platitudes suddenly count as that.
Trefoil said:
In fact, any leader not willing to go into deficit during an economic crash is not fit to lead (Turnbull), as any economist will explain to you.
Personally, I think it would depend on the situation Trefoil. That's something any economist would tell
you, but again, that's not the point.
I didn't say it was bad of Rudd to go into deficit, because admittedly, he had no choice. What I said was, it's going to backfire on him in the future with voters.
That's why Swan and Rudd went to such great lengths to avoid saying that 'd word'. It's because as soon as voters hear the words 'Labor' and 'deficit' together, they automatically sigh and tick the Liberal box.
When the money is gone and the government is struggling financially and failing to implement any meaningful new policy, that's when the Liberals will step in, with their record of solid economic management and push Labor out of power.
Trefoil said:
a) We aren't in recession yet, and probably won't be because of this economic stimulus you just earlier derided.
I'll repeat what I wrote:
"Just announced today; it's predicted the farm industry will be the only one not to go into recession." Here's an article on it, Trefoil:
Economists sound recession warning
"Economists have declared the non-farm economy is heading into recession after a National Australia Bank (NAB) monthly survey found business confidence is at a record low.
The NAB index dropped one point in November to a new low of negative-30 as forward orders fell to 1991 levels.
Confidence is down across all industries and all sectors apart from mining and transport are reporting their actual business conditions worsened last month.
NAB chief economist Alan Oster now says the total economy will contract this quarter."
Trefoil said:
b) If it's avoidable, then why are you complaining about the fact that Rudd has avoided it so far?
Hahaha... misunderstanding my words again.
Rudd has made vital errors in his economic management to date, and the steps he has taken, the ones which have worked, were already suggested by the opposition under Turnbull as well!!!!! So don't bullshit about Rudd avoiding recession single-handedly and being a great economic manager, when anyone with half a brain has been suggesting the same moves. i.e. stimulus packages to increase liquidity etc.
What Turnbull warned however, was that Rudd shouldn't guarantee all bank deposits for all banks. Rudd ignored that and it was a completely stupid decision. That move hurt confidence in the economy severely and took away the competitive edge of larger banks.
Trefoil said:
c) If stimulus doesn't work, then it's not avoidable... which political party is in power makes no difference in that case. It is the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. You don't just glide over those easily.
Look stop being alarmist, as John Howard aptly suggested, it's alarmist to keep comparing this with the Great Depression because the reality is that this depression will not lower living standards the way the GD did, because they have markedly increased since 1929.
What's more Trefoil. If this stimulus doesn't work, that doesn't necessarily mean that the recession would have been unavoidable. It means that this exact stimulus package was not effective.
It might surprise you to know, that there are different types of stimulus packages and not all of them will have the same effects. Whether or not this package is successful will depend, partially, on whether the families and individuals who recieved dough actually end up spending it quickly, as Rudd has asked and whether the states use the money they recieved quickly as well.
Trefoil said:
Still, considering Turnbull's plans have mostly consisted of telling Rudd that a deficit isn't needed and that he's spending too much on stimulus, I shudder to think how much worse off we'd be right now if he was in power.
Erm... no he's just being a clever politician, reminding voters of the fact, that Labor deficits are never temporary. He's trying to sow the seeds for an election victory, and he's hardly undermined economic confidence as Swan and Rudd did in the early days of this economic crisis.
What's more, Turnbull did say Rudd was spending too much on the stimulus, but also that the stimulus should be directed at other more effective areas. It's impossible to now know if he was correct in suggesting what he did, or if Rudd was. Again, it will depend on whether or not those who have been given money, actually spend it quickly and hence increase liquidity in the economy.
I've bolded your drivel, by the way. It's impossible to know where we would be if he were not in power, however without doubt, the early mistakes Rudd made would not have occurred. His performance has been mediocre at best; he's been pushed along by competant advisors and a competant opposition.
