Fozz,

The $100bn deficit over the next 2 years is the biggest deficit in the history of the country. Considering it took the Coalition 10 years of higher taxes to wipe out the deficit left by the previous labor administration.

While there is need for a stimulus package, the size and allocation of the funds will both get less future return, and leave a larger debt than necessary, which will slow any recovery.

As the median income of the Aus worker increased more than virtually any other OECD country during the previous administration, the claim that only the rich benefited is fatuous.

The ratio of debt to GDP was between 20-30% in the '50's and 60's. Since then it has risen exponentially to 170%+ in Australia. There have been mini credit bubbles in each decade along the way fueling the mega bubble which has just burst.

Rudds deficit has a few good points. The broadband rollout regigged today will pay it's way. School halls will give less tangible benifits in the medium term. Cash giveaways are shortsighted and populatist. Keynes recognised the need for deficit spending to pay for itself over time.

When taxes rocket up in the near future to pay the compound interest for this 'freebie' instead of services the 'confected one' aint gonna seem so sweet.

This article makes me feel forbiddingly tired, dispirited, full of ennui; the assertions and language are so fabulously predictable. One only has to register the 'IPA' after this person's name and all is clear. "Monster government" indeed!
The claim by Democritus, above, is rubbish, more propaganda. I think my memory is quite good - didn't Howard and his mate Peter repeatedly offer tax cuts, usually in a pre-election period, during their term of office? Didn't the massive tax windfall from the 'resources boom' wipe out any deficit in no time? The only people who suffered relatively 'higher taxes' were the lower income earners and those affected by the regressive GST; the higher income levels were given quite substantial tax reductions. Apart from anything else, the whole question of whether a budget deficit is an awful thing is begged. Whatever the deficit was, and this was disputed at the time, the Libs did everything they could to exaggerate it and use it as an excuse to cut services and browbeat the electorate about Labor's alleged 'black hole' profligacy. It all seems so pathetic and petty now, with the neo-liberals' bubbles bursting around us.

Democritis: And what was the real inflation over that period?
Transport cost, medical costs, rental all soared yet official inflation remained at 3%. It is not fatuous to claim that Howard was good for rich and bad for the poor, it is factual.
Last time it took the conservatives only a term to pay off the "irresponsible" debt and they were lining the pockets of their industry mates in no time.
They also thought that debt that could be paid off quickly was worse than a third world health system and a 2 tier education system.
Look at the USA people! they are falling apart because of this "greed is good" mentality. Money is not virtue.
Those who benefited from the generational theft don't get it. the last decade has been utterly wasted, and has emboldened some pretty mean, selfish people.
I have no sympathy for the "gimmie" crowd who drive BMWs.

One way to reduce debt is to sell off assets. For the government this means privatization. And what self respecting corporation would not want to get its hands on our public monopolies or virtual monopolies? They are practically licenses to print money unless well regulated for the public good.

IMO what successive governments have done is swap Australia's productive assets for cash and then consumed the cash (in a big big way at present). What the public has lost as a result of these asset sell offs is the ability to apply them for the common good.

And what is this efficiency that privatization is supposed to bring? I say to Ms Novak of the IPA prove it. Prove that privatization has brought about these wondrous efficiency benefits claimed as if just saying that is the case makes it true.

And even if privatization does happen to result in improved efficiency (whatever that means), that is not the be all and end all of everything. I question whether converting labour costs to increased CEO remuneration benefits and profits translate to a better outcome for the country as a whole.

The problem is is that once governments have sold off our public assets they are very difficult to get back. Only a Hugo Chavez type revolution will do it. Not surprisingly his revolution is spreading throughout Latin America which had Milton Friedman's neo liberal policies thrust on them by cruel dictatorships in the first place.

Also, I can't resist adding, another way to reduce debt is to reduce the quantity and quality of of public services such as health, education environmental protection.

The Ruddites should not be lulled into thinking that his anti neo liberal pronouncements are anything but words. He may represent a slightly milder type of neo liberalism than did Howard but he is driven by the same basic ideology. Ask him about free markets, privatizations and growth at all costs? See where he stands.

Rudd is an accomplished wordsmith - his actions don't usually follow; eg the Carbon Emissions Reduction (question mark) Scheme.

Why should someones opinion be written off because they belong to
a right wing organisation ?

Sounds like shades of Stalin to me.
Frankly I find some of those comments offensive and certainly not
democratic.

Some of the left wingers on here need to take a Bex and have a nice lie down.