rechtub,

"I do recall he putting a few billion into banks of some kind."

You mean like this?

"In a speech at a Sydney investment conference this morning, Stevens backed up comments by the RBA deputy governor last week that the bank was happy to rebuild its capital reserves over time. The RBA certainly didn’t ask for Hockey’s $8.8 billion capital injection and didn’t think it was necessary."

http://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/joe-hockey-blowing-hundreds-of-millions-to-make-himself-look-good-20131029-2wcy3.html

"The RBA wanted to rebuild its capital over several years by retaining its profits and not paying the government dividends.

Hockey’s $8.8 billion injection this year means dividends will be paid to the government over the next few years."

One of the lowest debt to GDP ratios in the OECD.

You guys think Hockey is a guru...he's a fake, full of nothing but swagger. Did you see his speeches for the G20....they were pathetic - wall-to-wall motherhood statements - something even commented on by some of those involved.

Poirot, i acpect the likes of 579 to dodge the question, but surely you can accept that the debt left behind, thts being the dollar value, not the comparison to some other nation, has to be serviced.

So how do you propose he services this inherited debt without spending money?

Now as for the lowed debt ratio, where do you think we would be now had we not taken a risk on Rudd?

Do you, or anyone else for that matter, honestly think we would be where we are today?

if so, why?

rechtub,

"Now as for the lowed debt ratio, where do you think we would be now had we not taken a risk on Rudd?"

Well, in the wake of the GFC, if we'd opted for austerity...you can pretty well take your pick from some of the European countries in this graph.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg

Poiret, i don't have so much of a problem with labors idea to stimulate the economy, rather, my concern was always the way they went about it with too much haste and not enough planning, or, acknowledgment of industry experts.

Insulation, a disaster of mammoth proportions, in fact a royal commission is under way i believe.

Cash hand outs, again, not a silly idea, but why on earth did they one, allow for such waste of much of the splash, twice!, and two, how could they have possibly given money out to dead people.

School halls. How could they possibly allow million dollar contracts to proceed on jobs worth way less?

The answer is a combination of incompetence and aragonce.
Three, where would they have been had they started,as Abbott has, with no money and a huge debt?

There are many reasons they got booted out, with the main one being that they were incompetent.

The GFC did not happen for some. We are still in a very strong position given our GDP is up 275 million on this time last year. Abbott's guaranteed unemployment of 70,000 will not be helpful. Stop the boats has a gigantic cost attached to it and ongoing. all i can presume is that is where the extra 185 million $ / day is going. Malaysia would have been a far cheaper option. Still could happen yet. Abbott's abandonment of the rets will put more pressure on the conglomerates like origin, who are battling with electricity generation as it is. This will likely put upward pressure on electricity pricing. When and if they get rid of the carbon price the generators will swallow it and nothing will change.

......Malaysia would have been a far cheaper option.

Oh dear 579, what a hide you have, knowing FULL WELL the only reason we have this VERY EXPENSIVE mess, is thatks to the brain fart of one Kevin Rudd. To think you and your supporters still worship this guy defies logic. Of cause thats where the waste is going. And of cause his and Julias $180 grand a year FOR LIFE. Thanks for that, my grand kids will learn of what hate means,as they are taught about the incompetence of australia's worst government in modern history.

I wonder if you lot will ever take responsibility for the mess you encouraged with you unconditional support of such incompetence. I doubt it, because after all, you appear to have still voted for them, despite the waste and miss management they repeatedly displayed.

If they were company CEO's they would be most certainly bankrupted as they would have signed personal guarantees no doubt, as is usually the case of risk takers.