ALTRAV,

I don't have the time to argue economics with you
and the importance of proceeding with providing
services to people, developing infrastructure,
providing school, health, education, transport,
and the good results that come
out of that economically. I've lived under
Jeff Kennett's reign - and Victoria dried up.
He got rid of so many things with his cuts that
it's taken this long to recover.

Anyway, I don't want to argue. I speak from
experience of living in this state. I'm glad that
I live in Victoria. I wouldn't live in Sydney.

Here's a link of what Victorian voters can expect
in the next 4 years under Labor and Dan Andrews.
This may not be your cup of tea. But the voters
in Victoria re-elected his government which
speaks volumes. If you're happy in Sydney, or
where ever you live. I'm happy for you.
I happen to love Victoria and am happy with
the Andrews government.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-11-26/victoria-election-what-voters-expect-dan-andrews/10550054

Enjoy your Christmas and I'll talk to you again in the New Year.
I'm now off to party.

Foxy, that's fine, have a good xmas, I'll still be around to annoy one and all when you get back on the keyboard again.
In the meantime, and in your absence I will leave this response in advance, as something to come back to on your return.
A couple of things are of concern to me about the article you linked.
The first has to do with the introductory paragraphs.
As if to fall straight into my trap he begins with the unashamed brag about borrowing 'big'.
Then I note a glaring factual mistake, at least at face value.
And that is where he brags about 'building 1000 new public housing' for $200,000,000.
Now I may not be the best at math, but I'm pretty sure you can't buy a house and land package for $200,000, at least not within a 'reasonable' or useful distance from the CBD.
Anyway I do not subscribe to this buying votes mantra that seems to be all the go these days, and what is even more incredible, is the people are so blinded by these promises and so stupid to not see the serious flaw in this type of irresponsible economic management.
Sure let's borrow the money, who cares, we're not going to be around to give a sh!t, because it will be someone else's problem.
What they mean is it will be the Libs problem, and of course not to be outdone, the libs will go 'well stuff them, labour created the problem, we'll borrow money as well, just to be bitchy and so as to get their slice of blood money, not wanting the other side to go one better.
Irrationality aside, I find this type of mind set to be economic suicide.
Now unless there is an international 'correction' and the lenders are prepared to right off what will amount to trillions of dollars world wide, the Rothschilds will not allow this to happen as they want their blood money.
The net result of this kind of irresponsible spending is WAR.
Records show that Rothschilds have been responsible for most conflicts.

ALTRAV,

I don't think you read the link I gave properly.

It was $200 million "that will also be used for
new public housing properties." Not $200,000.
And public housing in Victoria is made up of units
in high-rise buildings - not house and land packages.

As for good economic management. The Andrews government
is doing great so far. The economy is strong. Employment
is high. Investment is also strong.

I wouldn't knock it. As I said - I speak from experience
living in this state.BTW - it's the Libs who cut everything,
and then Labor has to come in and fix things. Not the other
way round as you're suggesting.

You really have a fixation with the Rothschilds.

You need to get over that and not bring them up in
every discussion. It's not rational.

Foxy Quote "public housing in Victoria is made up of units
in high-rise buildings - not house and land packages."

Just out of interest have you ever visited or spoken to any of the residents of the Flemington, Nth Melbourne, Carlton commission flats?

They are a disaster area that is happening now, drugs, crime, vandalism etc.

500 or more people in the same area that used to house 6 or so families, what could go wrong?

Trust me the people living there if they had a viable alternative they would be out quicker than you could count to ten.

If you think it is such a good idea, when will you be moving into one?

Build more stupid idea.

Philip S.,

I have seen the new public housing that's
being built. The old ones are being replaced
and the new ones certainly look so much
better. The courtyards and gardens are also
extra additions that add to a better appearance.
Kids are now playing in those areas and they
look so much more liveable. It's a good sign
all round.

Some of the Eastern Suburbs are having high
rise public housing units built in their areas.
They look liveable and there's no difference
in their appearance from the other high rise
units. A good look is being introduced.

Perhaps you need to get out more and see what's
really going on. The old style of public housing
is definitely being replaced at least here in
Melbourne. Eventually all the old buildings
will go. Which is a good thing.

Foxy, sorry but I do not subscribe to the high density, high chaos, crowded living environment.
It is not and will never be, despite your putting a 'pleasant' spin on it, the preferred and best life style, no matter how many courtyards and gardens you want to push.
It is still people being squeezed into little boxes.
It's not a good look.
It's a bad look, no matter how you package or market it.
Foxy, I did read it correctly, now you are guilty of what you accuse me of.
Take the amount of $2,000,000, divide it by 1000, the number of dwellings being suggested for that sum of money, you get $200,000 which is the amount per dwelling.
Now where I live, even a $200,000 'apartment' will see you living in the 'sticks'.
Furthermore any high rise flats or apartments are located within the CBD, and their prices start at $500,000.
Lastly, again you answer the wrong question or mis-read the post.
My reference to bad financial management was about J Howard and the federal coffers.
When labour came in after Howard, they raped and pillaged to the point where they took Australia from a surplus country to a deep in debt one.
It is all to do with the lefts Marxist ideologies and that wealth must be distributed amongst the poor.
The problem is, it's a moronic and foolish mantra, because it relies completely on borrowed money.
That is the sad thing about the left and labour, it cannot stand the thought of saving money, it has to spend it quicker than they can earn it.
Just look at the debt level, per capita in this country, and if you don't think it is shameful, disgusting even, then you've made my case.
Any fool can 'look good' with someones else's money, especially when you have no intention or means of repaying the debt, I think it's generally classified as fraud or theft, but it appears that those words do not apply to labour in this case.
As long as he lines his pockets whilst in office, it's alright.