Rudd's $42 billion 'nation building' plan (1 Viewer)

[withoutaface]

Not getting my hopes up. I don't expect to qualify for it, although it would be nice

I think it's a great idea to hopefully stimulate the economy a little bit and encourage people to spend more. What nobody seems to realize, is that the less they spend, the worse the downturn will eventually be! Consumer confidence needs to be boosted and this is a good way to hopefully encourage that.

However, what I don't seem to understand, is where is all of this extra money coming from??
We are apparently in an economic crisis, and yet the government appears to be plucking billions of dollars from the sky with all of their new plans and visions.

It's all great news, and definately a nessecary measure if they want to reduce the impact of the recession; although I am just curious as to where all of this extra capital is coming from

The government is printing money to hand it out. It's unsustainable and, frankly, retarded.

 

[loquasagacious]

Defecit spending. E.g. the government borrows money usually by the sale of Treasury bonds (IOUs).

Seriously. Google.

 

[iRX]

Defecit spending. E.g. the government borrows money usually by the sale of Treasury bonds (IOUs).

Seriously. Google.

Yes. Retarded nonetheless.

 

[impervious182]

Which the majority of Australians support in various forms. What do you think Medicare and Centrelink and graduated income tax are? Honestly, you sound like one of those grossly out of touch Republicans in America.

You don't like cash handouts? Fine, wail about them all you want. Keep your stupid misleading catch phrases out of it though.

No Trefoil, it's not misleading at all.

Medicare and Centrelink are welfare nets, which provide vital services to qualifying Australians. A cash handout is not a vital service, and does not result in any kind of useful legacy, such as educational/health infrastructure. More than this though, there is NO equity when it comes to a cash handout.

Some Australians are eligible for $950, yet others who will recieve no money, will still have to foot the bill.

Quite simply, what Rudd's 'national building' plan is, is wealth redistribution, because it's high income earners who, although not benefiting from the handouts, will be paying for it.

It's not misleading at all, Trefoil. It is a sure indicator though, of a socialistic behaving goverment.

 

[Trefoil]

The government is printing money to hand it out. It's unsustainable and, frankly, retarded.

It's only unsustainable if done repeatedly for long periods of time and without heed to the current economic conditions.

Slively: Oh great, another gold standard advocate. And do you mean the same Alan Greenspan who at the start of this crisis admitted he'd made mistakes about the economy and that more regulation of lending institutions is needed in future?

 

[Trefoil]

No Trefoil, it's not misleading at all.

Medicare and Centrelink are forms of welfare nets, which provide vital services to qualifying Australians. A cash handout is not a vital service, and does not result in any kind of useful legacy, such as educational/health infrastructure.

Quite simply, what Rudd's 'national building' plan is, is wealth redistribution, because it's high income earners who, although not benefiting from the handouts, will be paying for it.

It's not misleading at all, Trefoil. It is a sure indicator though, of a socialistic behaving goverment.

You contradict yourself. Medicare and Centrlink are still wealth redistribution. Just because you think they provide services to society (and I agree) doesn't change that fact.

And thus it is obviously foolish to label wealth redistribution as 'socialist' in such a negative blanket fashion.

The fact is, yes, social democracy parties like Labour incorporate elements of socialism (and in fact, so do the Libs, to a lesser degree). But that's the whole point. That's why people vote for them. Some elements of socialism are very good things.

Don't confuse social democracy (e.g. Australia, Western Europe) with democratic socialism (e.g. Venezuela), btw.

 

[КГБ]

ok, lets not beat around the bush.

people who are whinging are those who arnt getting a cut.

like myself.

i want my fucking share. i swear im an islam. that should mean something to the govt and ASIO

 

[impervious182]

You contradict yourself. Medicare and Centrlink are still wealth redistribution. Just because you think they provide services to society (and I agree) doesn't change that fact.

Or service redistribution, because subsidising is very different to handing people cash and allowing them to spend it how they wish.

And thus it is obviously foolish to label wealth redistribution as 'socialist' in such a negative blanket fashion.

The fact is, yes, social democracy parties like Labour incorporate elements of socialism (and in fact, so do the Libs, to a lesser degree). But that's the whole point. That's why people vote for them. Some elements of socialism are very good things.

Don't confuse social democracy (e.g. Australia, Western Europe) with democratic socialism (e.g. Venezuela), btw.

Let's get this straight. You and I both know, that wealth redistribution is socialistic. By definition, that's what it is, because this redistribution of wealth is based on government intervention and not private individual earnings.

Of course, as I've already said, welfare nets, if used moderately are indicators of a compassionate society. However cash-handouts are indicators of a jealous and unequitable one.

Basically, hard-earned money (and money yet to be earned) is being given away, to the future detriment of all Australians, and in particular, future Australians (who will not see the benefit of this spending). This is a very very short-term strategy and a superficial way to influence private capital and the market.

Whether it will actually result in anything positive is yet to be proven.

 

[impervious182]

ok, lets not beat around the bush.

people who are whinging are those who arnt getting a cut.

like myself.

i want my fucking share. i swear im an islam. that should mean something to the govt and ASIO

No, that's not why at all.

Yes, it would be great to receive $950. HOWEVER paying it off over the next 3 decades won't be pretty and especially not when we actually need the money!

EDIT 1:

Kevin Rudd admitted that people might spend it to pay their mortages off, and if so, there can always be a third round stimulus package. These little pathetic ants have no idea what they're doing; throwing billions of dollars around without any idea what the possible benefits or disadvantage might be. Pathetic. Absolutely disgraceful.

EDIT 2:

And I mean, this is such a short term solution. People run around exclaiming 'I'm just glad to be given a few more bucks for the wallet.' Of course, they don't take into consideration how little cash we'll have in the next few decades when it is vitally needed. What Rudd's doing is plunging Australia into billions upon billions of dollars of debt. PRAY, that there will be no national emergency; because in 20 years, I doubt, we'll have enough money to address it.

 

[Trefoil]

Or service redistribution, because subsidising is very different to handing people cash and allowing them to spend it how they wish.

That's a euphemism. Centrelink and Medicare are directly funded by taxpayer money collected through a graduated income tax. It's a fairly clear redistribution of wealth.

But whatever, I don't like handouts anyway. I'd much prefer the money be spent on infrastructure, education, and health services (which is actually the case for 2/3rds of this stimulus package anyway).

 

[Smithereens]

No, that's not why at all.

Yes, it would be great to receive $950. HOWEVER paying it off over the next 3 decades won't be pretty and especially not when we actually need the money!

EDIT:

Kevin Rudd admitted that people might spend it to pay their mortages off, and if so, there can always be a third round stimulus package. These little pathetic ants have no idea what they're doing; throwing billions of dollars around without any idea what the possible benefits or disadvantage might be. Pathetic. Absolutely disgraceful.

and whats your strategy?

 

[Trefoil]

Yes, it would be great to receive $950. HOWEVER paying it off over the next 3 decades won't be pretty and especially not when we actually need the money!

You needn't worry about that. Australia's got the lowest level of public debt of all Western countries and a deficit of $40 billion is rather small, certainly easy to pay off. Perhaps more strikingly it exists largely because of falling tax revenue more than government spending.

 

[impervious182]

You needn't worry about that. Australia's got the lowest level of public debt of all Western countries and a deficit of $40 billion is rather small, certainly easy to pay off. Perhaps more strikingly it exists largely because of falling tax revenue more than government spending.

Per capita, it's not actually that small a deficit. However we've also got to remember that this isn't going to be the only stimulus package. As Rudd and Swan have already indicated, there's going to be even more government spending, more deficit.

And then there's the carbon emissions scheme, which has drifted into the background... but which, if Labor sticks to its promise, will cost us billions more.

 

[withoutaface]

You needn't worry about that. Australia's got the lowest level of public debt of all Western countries and a deficit of $40 billion is rather small, certainly easy to pay off. Perhaps more strikingly it exists largely because of falling tax revenue more than government spending.

Laffing p hard.

 

[impervious182]

and whats your strategy?

We need to limit reckless spending and as I've said all along (a point which Trefoil concurred with), we need to spend more on long term projects such as infrastructure.

In the end, I think government interference here should be kept minimal.

Instead of trying to stimulate through cash-handouts to one group of Australians, the government should make an even greater effort to create new jobs in the public sector for those growing number of unemployed Australians. These jobs could be infrastructure projects which have already been scheduled (i.e. we could move the scheduling forwards.)

There are plenty of alternatives. What we need is a group of people willing to do what's best in both the long and short-term; with limited vested interest in the outcome.

What we have, is a group of intellectuals who see this crisis as an opportunity to further their political careers and redefine Australian politics and economics. Kevin Rudd has been using fear to turn public opinion against the rich, labelling them greedy,'extreme capitalists'. It seems that wealthy Australians are Labor's latest scapegoats.

What's more though, this redefining of Australian public thinking; through primarily scare-mongering and comparisons with the Great Depression (during which time hardships were much much greater than they are today due, mostly, to poor living standards) is very worrying. 'Extreme capitalism'? Radical captalists? These platitudes mark Kevin Rudd's latest attempt to change Australia, and unfortunately, I fear, not for the better.

 

[Trefoil]

Laffing p hard.

Oh. Why?

 

[iRX]

ok, lets not beat around the bush.

people who are whinging are those who arnt getting a cut.

like myself.

i want my fucking share. i swear im an islam. that should mean something to the govt and ASIO

I'm getting a cut. Still whinging.

 

[withoutaface]

Oh. Why?

Someone will get it.

 

[greekgun]

The cash bonuses announced today will be paid in March and April.

About 8.7 million workers will get a lump sum tax-free bonus, depending on their annual income.

Those earning up to $80,000 a year will receive $950, those earning between $80,000 and $90,000 will get $650 and those earning between $90,000 and $100,000 get a $300 bonus.

thats fucking jibbi. The people in the higher tax brackets get less of a bonus than the ones in the lowest tax bracket, despite the fact that they olbviously worked hard to earn what they earn now, and contingue to work hard for that money, pay heaps of tax and get a shit all for their bonus.

largely because of falling tax revenue more than government spending

They must be spending shit loans cuz all the government does is tax.

 

[impervious182]

thats fucking jibbi. The people in the higher tax brackets get less of a bonus than the ones in the lowest tax bracket, despite the fact that they olbviously worked hard to earn what they earn now, and contingue to work hard for that money, pay heaps of tax and get a shit all for their bonus.

Thank mulit-millionaire Kevin for that one.