This is the best political rant I've seen. It sums up what's wrong with the West. Dylan Ratigan on MSM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tL6xpKJgpVw

rehctub,

You don't have to be an expert in that field; if you merely understood that the choice was between more debt and the combination of economic collapse and more debt, you'd conclude that there was (at most) little POSSIBILITY that Rudd caused more harm than good. He prevented a collapse in business activity and tax revenue during the biggest bust since the 1930s, and made each Australian $900 better off.

Some people subsequently wasted their money, but your nanny state restrictions on how the money could be spent would've been a much bigger waste.

The Abbott government set up a Royal Commission into the home insulation scheme in the hope that it would implicate Rudd. It didn't. And while with hindsight the scheme was a debacle, there were two strong positive outcomes: the safety problems in the industry have been fixed, and many homes have been insulated.

Border security is not border protection. Preventing invasion is one of the most important duties of a government, and Rudd did not fail on that. He did fail on border security, but even his policy was better than the current policy. Actively persecuting asylum seekers is far worse than letting them risk their lives at sea.

Most of the debt was not incurred during boom times, but in the time of the biggest bust since WW2. And though in the years after Rudd's intervention the mining industry returned to boom status, none of our other industries did. And the mining industry's successful campaign against the mining tax limited the amount which everyone else benefitted from the mining boom.

Regardless of whether we are taking on debt faster than we pay interest on it, WE CAN AND ALWAYS WILL BE ABLE TO REPAY THE INTEREST ON OUR DEBT.

Spending on infrastructure, even if poorly managed, will never come back to bite us. Poor economic management will in the long term lead to a lower value of our dollar, but there will be no day of reckoning but rather a slow, ongoing process that can be reversed by good economic management.

......What's your opinion of the govt dolling out $1.4 million "a day" to abuse people on Manus and Nauru?

Two words Poirot, Rudds mess, our present government is trying to deal with the fallout.

The other thing you convenient,y forget is that these people arrived uninvited, again, as a direct result of Rudds mess.

Paul, if you go over my post history you will see that I have never had a problem with spending, it's how the spending has been mostly wasted that's my beef.

Another search of my post history will show that I thought Swans endeavor to return to surplus were not only unachievable, but irresponsible. But with a track record lime labor have, who could have trusted them to continue spending money without results.

While I accept the GFC was a real issue, it didn't cause any of the waste, waste we are still paying for today.

I do not know what you were doing during the 'Global Financial Crises' of 2007/08 but if you were in employment or running a small business at the time, there is a likelihood that it was government action that saved your bacon.

I had a butcher shop that was greatly effected, more so from the reaction of the land lord. One thing I can tell you that I had never seen such cues at the pokies (waiting fir the pub to open) and the cigarette counter at Coles. In fact, an operator to,d me one lady spent $900 in one go on fags.

The fact of the matter is that the Rudd/Gillard government was not clever enough to do what they set out to do, and nor was Abbott, and we will pay for that period for decades to come.

Since the last election governments have become too focussed on minor issues and spend more time watching the polls and adjusting accordingly.

As I say, the race to the bottom continues, perhaps Turnbul will be better but only time will tell.

Aidan,

Unless you run a business, have done the homework and are as sure as you can be that you will make a profit after you have repaid the loan, you should not live on debt. I apply this simple code to governments - who do not have any money of their own: they use ours - and to individuals

Yes, I do really mean that governments should balance the budget, as one side of the the political divide often has. You say that "nearly all money is debt" and only a "small fraction is cash". I suppose you are talking about wealth 'on paper'; and, of course, some of us do have to save to that others can borrow. But, no matter what form wealth takes, you have to have it to spend it. If you don't have it, you can forgo you immediate want, or you can borrow it. I maintain that, unless your life depends on it, you don't borrow. "Never a lender nor a borrower be". I don't know who wrote that, but it used to have 'currency' in the 'old days'.

Governments should not spend money they don't have on 'make work' schemes; governments are not supposed to do that, and when they try, they make a total pig's ear of it. Private enterprise is the only creator of jobs. If they see an opportunity for growth and profit, they might very well (and they do when they see their way clear) expand their enterprises and supply more jobs. They might even borrow money to do that, and that's fine: they are not risking public money as politicians do with their unqualified meddling. We are a free enterprise society, not a Marxist collective.

I don't agree with you that the private sector is weak "now". It's still there, rearing to go, but fettered by interfering governments more interested in globalisation and cheap goods (bread and circuses for the plebs) than it is in our own society and economy. We have broken one of the basic rules by separating, further than ever, supplier from the consumer.

rehctub

"Two words Poirot, Rudds mess, our present government is trying to deal with the fallout."

But they're "not" dealing with it.

No-one on Manus has been resettled. In fact more asylum seekers have died on Manus than have been resettled. The Abbott govt, when it took power, decided to halt processing on Manus.

And they only ramped up processing on Nauru when a High Court case came looming into view.

The only thing they have been doing on those islands is presiding over abuse - $1.4 million dollars a day...$280 million dollars a quarter...and over $1.2 "billion" dollars a year funnelled to a couple of companies to do little more than oversee the abuse of human beings.

That's what it is.

You whinge non-stop about your bloody taxes, yet not a squeak about that sort of waste - and that's obviously because you couldn't give a toss.

Catherine Austin Fitts says there are 3 possible outcomes. Economic collapse, war or change.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K73gNKjFx0I
Perhaps we'll get all 3.
Very intelligent lady.