rehctub,

"As for middle class welfare, what, do you expect these people to work hard, pay their taxes to help support the bludgers, and get nothing. You're kidding!"

The one and only reason that Costello introduced middle-class welfare is because, at the time, Australia was rolling in it. We were at the apex of the biggest boom we'd ever seen in this country. So the brilliant Mr Costello and Mr Howard decided to use our good fortune to buy some votes...it's really as simple as that.

So instead of using "the good fiscal times" to store away, he spent it...leaving a mere $20 billion to show for the mega-billions we were making. Simultaneously he created a huge structural problem that was set to impact us the minute the resource boom ran out.

Whoops!

And that's leaving out all the govt asset sales that filled the coffers as well.

One the one hand you whinge about the debt left in the wake of the GFC. On the other you say you support it, but have a problem with the way it was directed and managed. The main thrust of any stimulus is to keep the economy growing. Our stimulus was introduced quickly and powerfully, It's the speed and oomph of the delivery, according to economists, that made all the difference in helping us avoid a recession....which would also explain why parts of it were not delivered as well as they could have been.

We learn.

Hopefully if we ever need to introduce another similar type stimulus, we can apply the lessons we have learned.

well we agree on one thing Poirot, lets just hope we do learn from the lessons and not make such poor choices with tax payers money, I mean, why on earth would a new born need a 56" plasma!

Loosers are usually loosers for a reason, and although the baby bonus was a libs brain fart, it was still able to be wasted time and time again. Same goes for the so called school kids bonus, and you talk about vote buying.

Blind fereddie knows if you want to stimulate any part of the economy, you need to make sure the stimulus hits its mark, and doesn't get flushed down the toilet. But that's common sense, which doesn't seem to be taken into the equation unfortunately.

Just one major problem with your argument Poirot, your one eyed lefty ideology.

The peak of the mining boom was, as you so easily ignore, during Rudd & Gillard's disastrous management. Even with that, they managed to not only run up huge debts, but lock in spending on ridiculous "causes', while undoing many of the Howard changes that had helped produced our wealth.

I don't expect any honest argument from you, but I do get tired of your twisting of fact.

further to hasbeens post Poirot, Rudd also removed the border protection laws that saw very few illegals get through, in fact, I memory serves me correctly, there were THREE when Rudd took over. On top of this there were the billions spent/wasted on stopping the boasts, something Rudd/Gillard/rudd couldn't achieve in six years, yet Abbott achieved in about six months. But it sure must have cost billions, and still does cost billions looking after those who Rudd invited in. Of cause you have conveniently failed to recognise that, which doesn't surprise me at all.

So before you crow about the added debt, do the math and remove the money spent on illegals (minus THREE) the billions spent managing Rudds problem and the billions in pre commitments left behind.

Then compare the revenues from the six years of labor to that of the past three and see where you end up.

Until then your argument has no credibility.

you are right Rechtub

we will be paying for Gillard/Rudds treachery for a long time. Thanks again Mr Abbott for doing what the regressives said was impossible. No wonder they hated you so much.

Hasbeen,

".... but lock in spending on ridiculous "causes', while undoing many of the Howard changes that had helped produced our wealth."

Which Howard changes helped to produce out wealth?

The mining boom began in 2005 with an extraordinary rise in commodity prices driven by China (and India)...was interrupted by the GFC and continued after that.

Let's examine what the brilliant Mr Costello did, shall we?

Here's a start...

"Rather than stockpile the windfall, Costello and Howard introduced permanent tax cuts in response to a temporary increase in revenue. Costello cut by half the tax payable on income from capital gains. He trebled the threshold for the top tax bracket. He made income from superannuation entirely tax-free, even for those who earnt millions per year. He also handed out tens of billions of dollars worth of benefits to middle- and high-income earners, while arguing that the government couldn’t afford to increase unemployment benefits, disability benefits or the age pension.

The windfall revenue was so great that, despite his largesse, the budget was still in surplus.

With repetition, and with vocal support from a cheer squad of “business leaders”, he convinced people that simply delivering a surplus proved that he was doing a great job.

The idea that a budget surplus is proof of good policy has no basis in economics."

"According to the pinko lefties at the IMF, Peter Costello hosed the mining boom up against a wall. Indeed, according to the Reserve Bank of Australia, Costello’s tax cuts and middle-class welfare pumped so much money back into the booming economy of the late 2000s that he forced it to increase interest rates to “take the heat” out of the economy..."

"Costello must have known his tax cuts and middle-class spending splurge was economically irresponsible. Treasury told him. The RBA told him. And the IMF told him. He wasn’t doing economic policy; he was doing politics.."

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2015/july/1435672800/richard-denniss/clowns-and-treasurers

Explain to me,Hasbeen, how any Howard/Costello "changes" helped "produce" our wealth. They certainly helped to give us the structural headache we've got now...does that count?