Just some quick responses, SM:

1. Your analysis ignores almost all of the pertinent facts.
Including that Labor after the 2010 election did not have a majority in the House, let alone the Senate.
So there are clearly far more excuses for Ms Gillard failing to deliver the promised ETS than there are for Mr Abbott failing to reduce the deficit and debt.
Correct?

2. Again, SM, there were no "Labor forecasts" of revenue or spending or deficit or debt. There were Treasury and Finance Department projections. These are always inaccurate precisely because they are forecasts of likely future outcomes - as Mr Hockey is now discovering to his dismay.

3. So we are agreed that Fitch is one of the Big Three? At last.

4. The $8.8 billion transferred to the Reserve Bank was real money. It is part of the reason the deficits have doubled over the levels Treasury and the Reserve Bank projected had Labor stayed on.
And it is part of the reason the debt has increased by $24.36 billion in the Abbott Government's first ten months.

Cheers, AA

AA,

1 While you would like to airbrush Gillard's lie, the single most pertinent fact is that Juliar failed to deliver the iron clad guarantee of no carbon tax.

Juliar no more promised an ETS than grocery watch, but did promise an East Timor solution.

2 The underlying revenue assumptions in every Labor budget were criticised at the point of issue as wildly optimistic as were the pre election predictions. The MYEFO done under Hockey a few months laters also by the same treasury used different more accurate assumptions and predicted a different fiscal outcome. That Labor exceeded every expenditure target didn't help either.

3 As the RBA is another branch of government, giving the RBA $8.8bn is like moving money from your savings to your cheque account. Hockey could reverse it tomorrow, but he is not an idiot like Swan.

3 Yes it is agreed Fitch is the third biggest rating agency and that from 2003 to 2011 no ratings reassessment was done. Noting that even in 2003 Australia's long term debt had a AAA rating from Fitch.

Okay, SM,

1. So we agree that Mr Abbott and Mr Hockey are liars for doubling the deficits and increasing the debt by $24.36 billion? And they are liars for every other promise blocked in the Senate?

2. Projections are still merely forecasts, aren't they, SM?

3. No, the $8.8 billion was borrowed from overseas, as part of the $24.36 billion debt blow-out in the first 10 months.

4. Yes. Correct.

Cheers, AA

AA,

1 Hockey and Abbott cannot be called liars for Labor's budget legislation of 2013/14 blowing out the budget, only the economic ignoramuses trying to pin it on the coalition.

2 If projections are deliberately over optimistic to justify unnecessary expenditure, then it is not only reckless but deceitful.

3 Do you think the RBA has the $8.8bn sitting around in big bags with $$$ on them? No, they buy liquid assets like government bonds. So the money given to the RBA is funded by borrowings from the RBA.

This is where your complete ignorance of economics is blatantly evident.

4 I am glad that we agree that the 2011 rating by Fitch was meaningless.

SM,
1. No, the opposite is true.
2. Treasury's and the Finance Department's projections were not overly optimistic and hence neither reckless nor deceitful. They were simply proven inaccurate by subsequent outcomes.
Precisely as is happening now with Mr Hockey's budget projections.
3. The $8.8 billion could have been given to the Reserve Bank, or it could have been applied to debt reduction.
4. I'm glad we agree that AAA ratings with the Big Three was achieved for the first time in November 2011.
So, a question for you, SM:
Was it irresponsible for Labor to achieve the deficits over the forward estimates at the level it did ($54.6 billion), and the debt at the level it chose ($178.1 billion for 2013-14)?
Yes or no?
If yes, then how much more incompetent, reprehensible and evil is the present Government whose spending and revenue decisions in its first 10 months have doubled the projected deficits (to $122.7 billion) and blown out the debt by 13.7% (to $202.5 billion)?
Thanks. AA

AA,

1. So you are claiming that the budget legislation to June 30 2014 was not Labor's legislation? Whose was it then? The spending and revenue decisions of the first 10 months were entirely Labor's.

2. So Labor's budget projections in 2012 and 2013 showing a > 8% revenue growth when all indicators from practically every economic organisation were showing a slow down. This is not just a case of 20/20 hindsight, as these budgets came under a lot of criticism for just this reason at the time. The PEFO figures were similarly optimistic as demonstrated by the more accurate MYEFO done a few months later under Hockey. Now either the treasury department suddenly got a brain or a competent treasurer.

3 The RBA needs a cash reserve to perform its function properly. As I showed before, it attracts no additional interest and the cash gets written up as an asset with a result of zero net debt increase.

4 As the election projections were entirely based on Labor's incompetent forecasts, blaming the coalition for the results of labor's crappy forecasts is hypocritical.