The Government is treating the voters like dummies.

If they are giving the lower paid in our society $10-50 a week as reported it is only to blind people that they want to repay their major backers with a huge Company tax cut.

Families are doing it tough... Companies aren't!

The fact that they claim the budget will be in surplus soon is a step forward but it hardly addresses the cuts they will have to make in other areas to pay the Company tax cuts.

They are using smoke and mirrors to blind people.

What we as citizens need really is a balanced budget. However, due to the National debt we really need surpluses to pay down the debt or it is just passed on to our chil;dren and our children's children.

The dishonest aims of the Loony Liberals have put the strength into the hands of the Loony Laborites in that Labor are against, and rightfully so, the costs to the bottom line created by the proposed tax cuts for the rich and companies.

If the company tax cuts would cost $50billion then that is $50billion Labor has up it's sleeve.

I hope that families spend their 10.50 in the economy to promote some sort of momentum or as a second option pay down their debts with it. Sadly families have been forced to live beyond their means, (in many cases), by recent times and so the $10.50 won't go far.

Good luck Australia... The Libs are now the big spenders and Labor are the economic moderates until they waste moneys when they get in.

we need to cut back on education where the more we spend the dumma we get.

I think they keep on borrowing and spending because they know
the debt will never be repaid.

ttbn,
HTH means Hope This Helps.

>We are all aware of your attitude to debt,
Yet you don't share it. What word it take to dispel your fear of it?

> am fully aware that 'quarters' refer to quarters of the year.
Good - I was concerned you may have been going senile!

>try explaining how reaching “ surplus in the coming quarters” represents a professional, definitive comment... It seems to me that he hasn't got a clue.
Apart from a few statements concerning what's possible, no economist's statement is definitive - events always get in the way. I expect his "surplus in the coming quarters" comment is based at least partly on extrapolation, as well as the link to historical trends that he highlighted in his graph. But there are good reasons to think he's right.

The phenomenon of economic cycles means that it was always likely to be a case of when, not if, we return to surplus. Had the government tried to stimulate the economy rather than attempting the futile task of cutting its way to surplus, we'd probably have been running a big surplus by now. Conversely without any form of stimulus, the task could take decades. But now the surge in exports from rising commodity prices has started to stimulate the economy, increasing opportunities for business and pushing us to the next stage of the economic cycle - meaning surpluses are likely to come sooner rather than later.

>you are always giving your opinions on the economy, but I don't recall you ever revealing you qualifications to do so.
Because my opinions are based on logic, not qualifications. Although there was an economics component of my engineering degree, much of what I know I've learned since then from books and the internet. Crucially never just take anyone's word for it, regardless of their qualifications. Instead I look at the validity of the arguments their arguments are based on - and where possible, do the same with their opponents' arguments. Reliance on false assumptions is rife in the field of economics, so qualifications count for little.