.....I'm sure you would have much preferred a recession, high unemployment and soaring interest rates.

No, not at all Poirot.

I have no problem with spending to stimulate the economy, and avoid reseccion, but surely even you and your supporters acknowledge that there's a huge difference between spending and waste.

It's the WASTE that's has caused the mess we have, unless of cause you are one of this who think we are in great shape.

Now if you do think we are in great shape, then please tell me why we are robbing Peter to feed Paul?

Now as for unemployment, sure, we have very low unemployment, if you support the measure of a job being ONE HOUR PER WEEK.

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it for me, as I live in the real world, the one that says that it's an every day struggle just to survive on the basic minimum wage of $600 per week.

You don't earn that in a ome hour week and, it must be recognized that anything less than $30K per year is considered UNDEREMPLOYED.

A legacy created by labor.

rechtub,

"Now as for unemployment, sure, we have very low unemployment, if you support the measure of a job being ONE HOUR PER WEEK.

Sorry, that just doesn't cut it for me, as I live in the real world, the one that says that it's an every day struggle just to survive on the basic minimum wage of $600 per week.

You don't earn that in a ome hour week and, it must be recognized that anything less than $30K per year is considered UNDEREMPLOYED.

A legacy created by labor."

Ahem!

I think you'll find that the "ONE HOUR PER WEEK" was instituted under the government of one John Winston Howard.

Double Sheeesh!

Poirot, the legacy I was referring to was the now all too common world for many of, underemployment.

The one hour per week has been a joke for as long as I can remember and not the doing of labor.

It's just like all governments, that they use this to their advantage, but at the end of the day, the only ones being fooled are themselves, and a few of their supporters.

I hope for your sake you're not one of them.

Dear rehctub,

Try this on for size.
It's to provide a bit of balance to your arguments
taken from the Main Stream Media.
It's always good to read a variety of opinions
from different sources. Unless of course you've got
a closed mind, which I don't believe you have.

http://newmatilda.com/2013/09/03/biggest-lie-election-2013

Key Coalition policies "not" submitted for costing.

"But missing from the independent costings will be the analysis on three of the Coalition's key policies: broadband, Direct Action and the plan to stop asylum seekers coming to Australia by boat."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/key-coalition-policies-not-submitted-for-independent-costings-20130905-2t6dm.html#ixzz2dyRiNOo6

Lexi, cost of living pressures, in many cases, are self induced.

My argument, the same one I put up in 07, is that confidence would be rocked by labor, and it has been.

The problem with no confidence is that people, be they big business, small business or even little people, they are all reluctant to spend money, if they are not confident of replacing it.

So, I would suggest the two hardest hit by this fall in confidence has been retail, and tourism.

So while your link may be a worthwhile one, it's not what I am on about.

Poirot.....Key Coalition policies "not" submitted for costing.

Yes well it appears you may have a short memory, or just convenient thinking, as as I recall, labor didn't release their costings until the night before the election, so in effect, the coalition is in front on that stage.

As for the missing links, I would suggest it would be near on impossible for anyone to come up with a reliable figure, as not even labor themselves, or their faithful new leader have a real handle on just where we are here and now.

I just hope for Kevins sake that there is a $70 billion black hole, otherwise he will be running short of face space to fit the eggs.