Malcolm Turnbull's reason for opposing the Rudd stimulus package is that he doesn't want to saddle future generations with a burden of debt. Whilst that makes for an easy and simple headline it is the wrong reason to oppose the legislation.
The central argument either for or against the legislation has to be whether the proposed measures will result in economic growth which in turn will enable future generations to repay that debt.
For example if you go into debt to fund an overseas holiday is very different to going into debt so that you can travel overseas to further your career. Or for that matter a business will go into debt to purchase machinery that it needs to remain productive - it will always be a risk but it is a calculated risk.
Where the opposition is letting the Australian public down is in not examining the proposals to see if the debt will be a productive debt or unproductive debt. Some of the proposed measures will clearly benefit both present and future generations for example the education measures, others ought to be viewed with a great deal of scepticism.
A responsible opposition will do more than just fulminate against creating a debt burden for future generations.

*Where the opposition is letting the Australian public down is in not examining the proposals to see if the debt will be a productive debt or unproductive debt.*

Well it seems fairly obvious to me, for the Govt to borrow money,
to give to people to waste, is more about trying to buy brownie
points with some of the electorate and more like bandaid economics.

Australia is not short of run down infrastructure that needs
upgrading, this is a great time to do it.

So if people spend their lollipop giveaway money on consumer
goods, alot of it will land up in China.

They could buy a good car, it will go to Europe or Japan.

They could buy a new computer, it will go to Taiwan.

Best they spend it on beer, wine or prostitution, for then
the money will at least stay in Australia :)

Yabby "is more about trying to buy brownie
points with some of the electorate and more like bandaid economics."

Where is your sense of history Yabby,

you do not need to invent new words or similes what is

Blatant Vote Buying and

Pork Barreling

I find the wholle "stimulous" package is a bit like stimulating a child with candy....

a moment of sugar induced hyperactivity followed by the tantrums of the come down after...

and the nanny state is so good at telling us not to over stimulate the kiddies, it seems, as in most things, these socialists are completely incapable of following their own preachings.

Well, if The Aussie govt is wrong with it's actions, so is just about every other wealthy country taking action with stimulus packages. So, pretty much the entire first world must be wrong then!

Are they wrong? I think "not". It will of course not "solve" the problem, as govts fully realise. What it will do, long term, is lessen the severity of the crisis. Is there a price to pay for this? Of course. In the "real world" nothing, even improved economic conditions, comes for free.

TZ52HX "Well, if The Aussie govt is wrong with it's actions, so is just about every other wealthy country taking action with stimulus packages. So, pretty much the entire first world must be wrong then!"

For a start Australia is in a different position to UK most of Europe or the USA...

Australia as a is Free of gevernemnt Debt, following aa decade of Liberal Coalition responsible economic management and prudence...

The rest is not debt free.

This crisis is like a "Perfect Storm" where a crisis in banking CONFIDENCE came together with a surge in borrower defaults (jingle mail) due to government tampering in bank lending policies set up under Clinton, follwoing on from the downturn initiated in USA by the spike in oil prices.

The particualr storm has dumped on the interbanking sector and their "confidence" in the ability of borrowers and other bankers to repay the current debts they owe, let alone long term debts.

Anyone who reads about financial matters know companies like General Motors and Chrysler and to a lesses extend Ford, have been economic basket cases for almost a decade and the referee has been counting them out for a long time.

Anyone who is old enough to remember previous recessions knows throwing money at "government infrastructure" helps building workers and other who own the union movement, which in turn owns the labor party but it does nothing for the "self funded" retirees, whose prudence in the past is rewarded with financial ruin in the present.

So YES "The Aussie govt is wrong with it's actions"

and we (you and me) will pay for it and so too our children and grand children.

Of course we have had a surplus, anyone who doesn't fully realise that is living under a stone.

Whether or not a country is in surplus, packages designed to stimulate within the context of the current "unique" world events, will lessen the consequences and severity of the crisis. It's "unique" because the convoluted events that precipitated this crisis have never once had the same cause/affect in previous history.

Now Col, you may possess all the answers, and know that almost all first world governments are wrong, wrong wrong, but you're not in charge and no consequences or risk results from your "opinions"; you can say and believe whatever you want, and there's no responsibility on your shoulders. However, the leaders of the first world MUST act, and the broad worldwide agreement amongst governments in power, is that the various stimulus packages in tandem will reduce the severity of the crisis. This reduction in severity also comes at a cost, as EVERY government fully realises. You get NOTHING in life for free.