Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has expressed alarm at the size of Australia's national debt.
Mr Beazley today told the NSW state Labor Conference at Sydney's Town Hall that Australia's $425 billion foreign debt was a risk to the economy and called for more investment in training and infrastructure.
"Over the long term no economy can sustain a mix of spiralling debt and slowing growth," he said.
"I believe John Howard and Peter Costello are taking us to the edge of the debt cliff.
"I fear Australia's credit card is nearly maxed out."

I never knew.
The X files was also here not just on TV

Belly>>I never knew.
The X files was also here not just on TV<<

Labors last three years profit and loss statements:
2009/2010 have shown a $54 billion loss.
2010/2011 a $49 billion loss.
2011/2012 $22 billion loss.
This was achieved while receiving record prices for our main sale items of coal and iron ore and a PROMISE that it would come in balanced.

This is fact Belly:

By the end of the Howard Government in November 2007, net debt was negative at minus 3.8% of GDP.

BUT

Howard oversaw a net debt as Fraser’s treasurer of a whopping 7.5% of GDP.

The Hawke / Keating Government slashed government spending and net government debt fell to a trivial 4.0%.

Today it is +9.6% of GDP.

If I was a member of this forum when Howard was treasurer I would have belted him relentlessly because he was a dismal failure along with the policies of the party he represents. The ones you defend are dismal failures and your delusions of camaraderie are misplaced.

Belly, 579, Poirot, Wobbles,Pericles, I am not whacking Labor because of my political ideology. I am a Social Democrat; along Lassalle’s lines of thought…there is no party in Australia that represents my views.

Fabian ideologues have infiltrated all global Socialist movements. They carry a class structure that moves elitism from the wealthy to the administrating autocrats, just like the Commo’s.

Belly stick your hand over your heart and tell me that the local branches have the control over their party they had thirty years ago...they have been stacked....

That Sussex Street survived intact after NSW threw the lying self-serving abominations out is proof enough that your party is fundamentally corrupt.

With or with out Obeid, the entire Labor machine have more than just a whiff of bowel movement about it.

579>> Federal Opposition Leader Kim Beazley has expressed alarm at the size of Australia's national debt. "I believe John Howard and Peter Costello are taking us to the edge of the debt cliff."I fear Australia's credit card is nearly maxed out."

Is that it comrade? That’s the response?

Kim feared that Howard would “max out” our credit card…….he did not.

BUT RUDD AND GILLARD ACTUALLY DID….THEY RAISED THE BORROWING LIMIT….NOT HOWARD.

I would not have used that 579, it showcases your reasoning.
Reasoning is important, even primary evaluation helps. Using Kim’s prognostication on an event that your own lot eventually did is ridiculously naïve.

Herein, I think, lies the fatal flaw of the Democratic system. Every three years or so, the people get the opportunity to vote for the party which offers the most services (government expenses) for the least tax (government income).
As a result, income tax as a percentage of income has been steadily -and inevitably- falling.
http://www.ato.gov.au/individuals/content.aspx?doc=/content/73969.htm
As a profit and loss statement, no business would envy that.
And to make matters really bad, the philosophy of Neo Liberalism (first promulgated by the Labor Party under the guise of “Economic Rationalism” -can't think why they felt they needed to change the name) demands that government stays out of business; the only other legitimate way to make money outside taxation.
Shame really; there are certain businesses, by nature bureaucratically top heavy, that are just perfect for governments to run; such as:
Banking -what possible better way to control (and benefit from) the money supply?
Insurance
Telcos are apparently immensely profitable...

So we are left with successive governments which can only get elected by promising more while collecting less, and have no other means of raising funds apart from borrowing, and selling off assets (which can only be sold if they generate income. If they make a loss, we get to keep them).
Historically, about the only time people in Democracies have accepted higher taxes is in time of WAR.
The pattern of popular democratic government seems -to me at least- fairly obvious.
Step one, offer more while charging less -and then act surprised at the deficit
Step two, tax surreptitiously (indirect taxes)
Step three, sell off as many assets as possible, even if they are money makers
Step four, introduce a tax to “replace other taxes” (and then don't replace them)
Step five, tax voting minorities on a believable excuse (smokers and drinkers, health concerns)
Step six, tax rich minorities (can't get blood out of a stone)
Step seven, WAR
Would the USA even consider plunging into a war just for political expediency?
Have they ever hesitated?
Worked for Thatcher didn't it?

425 billion was Au highest debt not a mere 250 billion. Ask treasury about Au debt, not the bloke at the bar.
The public at large are not worried at AU debt, more worried at their own debt. Leave is to the experts at treasury, that is what they are employed there for. There is to much involved for it to be a meaningful discussion here.
Why not trust treasury, to manage expenditure and income, that is their purpose, AU bonds have around as long as debt has been around. Every state sells bonds to raise money, NT bonds always paid the best interest. There is to much bull getting around, so invite a treasury spokesperson to inform you. Why would you borrow from overseas when you can sell bonds here to raise cash. That way payments on maturing bonds can be spread over a particular time.