Foxy, thanks for your kind words elsewhere.

There are good reasons to oppose this package, quite apart from purely political ones. As I read it Turnbull does not oppose a stimulus package, merely this prematurely ejaculative one.

The assett/debt bubble has burst; will it really help if government incurs more debt on our behalf? Taking Treasury or IMF advice on this is.... aren't they the ones who lead us headlong into this anyway? Discussion is needed, not submission to Kevins will.

There is nothing in the record of the NSW government to indicate that they can spend the proposed sums in an honest or effective way. We have had huge windfall revenue gains over the last 10 years (GST and property levies) without commensurate improvements in infrastructure, schools etc. Why believe they will do any better now?

The money might be better spent seeding a bank that acts for our common wealth? A bank that sets the standard for responsible lending practises? A bank that will act as a moderator for all banks.

Has it been considered that the govt. should print the money rather than loan it?

I'm with Meridith, we're phlocked for years to come. The levels of debt we hold are unsustainable. There is only a fraction of the money required to meet debts available. Asset values are dropping and no longer cover our debts.

In short, let's have a whole lot more debate. One week aint gonna hurt.

On the bright side, no more leveraged buy outs, no more Private Equity buy outs, futilely inflating prices without adding productive value.

“Rudd thrills me”

One would be tempted with the response….

“A cheap thrill”

However, considering the perilous state the Krudd government t is pushing the nations economy and the burdern it will place on the tax payers, “cheap” is not an appropriate adjective to apply.

Horus makes the all important point.

Ludwig promotes a conservatory view, responsible and immediately actionable but will Krudd & Co respond… I doubt it, he will see ignorant immigrants from third world countries the ideal fodder for the labor voter machine,
Although the “money directly where it is needed.” Wrong

Leave it in the pockets of taxpayers who have always known how to spend it better than politicians and their bureaucratic flunkies.

Ajray comments correctly on this becoming a spin-doctor fest… more money spent in the pointless pursuit of popularism and ego (the essential ingredients when substance and objectives are missing, to say nothing of the direction in which to lead the nation out of this crisis).

Somehow I cannot see John Howard as ever panicking in the manner of our glorious St Kevin in this , his hour of trial

I suppose it is appropriate to suggest

“the honeymoon is well and truly over “

And “Little Kev” (“Big Kev” is already taken… and he went bust as well… maybe it’s the “Kevin” word… has a kiss of fiscal death about it) is about to turn us all out (pimping style) onto the street corners to let him fund his socialist spending addiction.

Trying to maintain the economy with “stimulus packages” is as sane as giving a kid red candy before bed time… it over stimulates with consequences when they come down of the sugar rush…

Every Nanny knows that, except this Nanny state…. More hypocrisy from the socialists, incapable of following what the preach.

Palimpsest talking of LBO’s… I see Warren Buffet, the king of effective/successful LBOs is not sweating… the “Oracle of Omaha” knows something….

I think Obama should go sit on his knee…

and certainly Krudd would do better listening to him than the Pallbearer (Keating), father of the last recession.

Both stimulus packages won't work - so at the next election the Libs and Repubs can say they voted against, and easily win the election.

I don't think that having any more debate on this
subject is going to help the situation. They've
spent entire nights debating it in Parliament...
It's time the package was passed.

Michelle Grattan in The Age, Sat. Feb. 7th 2009
points out:
"This is a difficult situation - with a political
agenda in the foreground: in the early stages
governments win kudos when they take decisive
action to appear in control. But when recessions
start to really hurt, governments become culprits,
and get thrown out by voters.

Economists never agree about anything, so its not
surprising that there have been arguments over the
size and composition of Labor's spending spree.

However Kevin Rudd can quote solid economic opinion
to back his case for pumping up support for the
economy now, and for doing it the way he has.

In these dire days business is looking for a combination
of certainty and stimulus, not political jousting."

Treasury secretary, Ken Henry said,

"Were it not for the package, there would be an additional
90,000 people who would not have a job."

"If the package was about $20 billion (the size that
Turnbull is proposing), there would be greater risk of
negative growth at some point."

Treasury also advanced the case "to act now," rather than
the Turnbull line of keeping some shots in the locker for
later.

"The circumstances confronting Australia are simply unprecedented,"
Henry said.

Foxy
I understand what you are saying and I am not against handouts to the most needy. My preference would be to recognise the inadequacy of some of those barely surviving on pensions and increase them. This should have been done much earlier and not part of a stimulus package.

Under the Howard government increases to the aged pension/carers etal were long overdue. While Howard was handing out huge amounts of funding to sport, a needless war and corporate welfare the truly poor were overlooked for far too long.

But back to the stimulus package: according to one news item a large proportion of those who are to receive handouts reported that the extra money will be spent on reducing personal debt because of the current crisis. This is the choice I would make in their shoes too but it won't stimulate spending as such. Financial crises create insecurity and insecurity tends to make people spend less.

To maintain spending people need to feel secure. That jobs are safe and unemployment does not rise too high. That is what a stimulus package should aspire to do. Handouts do not, in my view, achieve the desired outcome.

Personally I think we need to re-think the whole economic system but that is another topic.

“Although the ‘money directly where it is needed.’ Wrong”

Col, could you please explain this. Thanks.

.
“Personally I think we need to re-think the whole economic system but that is another topic.”

I’m not sure that it is another topic pelican. I’d suggest that it is of the utmost relevance and importance to the manner in which any economic rescue or stimulus package is undertaken. In fact, we should be working out what the fundamental flaws are, right now with the highest priority, planning on how we fix them and then organising expenditure and jobs accordingly.

Rudd has strongly criticised the system that has led us to this crunch. But he seems to only be interested in propping it up rather than fixing it.