rehctub,

But Abbott didn't put the brakes on. He was booted because he was an incompetent embarrassment to the govt.

Spending as a percentage of the GDP by the Abbott and Turnbull govts, despite cutting hundreds and hundreds of programs and funding in general, is right up there approaching Labor's spending at the height of their GFC stimulus spending.

Labor:

2008-09 - 25.6%
2009-10 - 26.0%
2010-11 - 24.5%
2011-12 - 24.9%
2012-13 - 24.1%

Coalition:

2013-14 - 25.6%
2014-15 - 25.6%
2015-16 - 25.8%
2016-17 - 25.8%

And projected Coalition budgets into the future track the same.

Again I ask, why, when the Coalition has cut so much and attempting to cut some more, is spending in the same vicinity as Labor's when it was delivering a recession-avoiding stimulus?

.....

Suse,

You'll be disappointed to read this:

Election 2016: Malcolm Turnbull captured headlining fundraiser at Cory Bernardi's conservative foundation

"The CLF's shop boast an array of Cory Bernardi merchandise, including "Hardcore Conservative" T-shirts and the senator's five books. His most recent is The Conservative Revolution, in which Senator Bernardi labelled women who have abortions as "abhorrent and pro-death."

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2016/election-2016-malcolm-turnbull-captured-headlining-fundraiser-at-cory-bernardis-conservative-foundation-20160602-gpaekk.html

Poirot, of cause there is another angle at which to view your information, that being that Labor (Kevin 07) was left with money in the bank and ZERO DEBT, yet still spent so much and achieved so little.

While I accept Tony kicked a few 'own goals' his predecessor did leave a great set of numbers, and Tony inherited a basket case. Happy to be proven wrong though Poirot.
given you are a good collector of data, perhaps you can do the math again but separating the interest on labors debt, along with the the pre committed spending left behind by labor, then we would have a much clearer picture.

It would certainly be a far more transparent way to look at it, don't you think. I am sure those on this forum would appreciate the effort as well.

I will look forward to your numbers Poirot.

No you don't, rehctub,

Since when is 10% debt to GDP a "basket case".

If that's a basket case, then what are the Abbott/Turnbull govt's figures telling us...their debt is approaching 17%.

With no GFC - and no stimulus.

Reminding you that Costello in the boom times left a piddling amount in the coffers, being more interested in pork barrelling tax cuts and leaving us with all the structural problems we have now.

You harp on and on about a debt that saved us from recession, even though evidence has been presented to you time and time again that those industrial economies who opted for austerity during the GFC ended up with debt anywhere between 40% and 100% - some with much more.

If we include the financial years 2008-09 and 2009-10 as those encompassing Labor's GFC stimulus:

Government spending during the GFC was 25.5% of GDP.

Government spending now is 25.8% of GDP

How is that?

Labor's 2012-13 spending was 24.1%

Regarding "pre-committed spending":

Would that include things like Gonski - which prior to the 2013 election, the Coalition assured us they were on a ticket with?

They promptly dumped the overall agreement - like everything else they promised, cut savagely everything they could without having to go through parliament, gave nearly $9 billion to the RBA which it didn't want, need or ask for, etc....

The above are only a few of the examples of this rabidly incompetent outfit.

And still Coalition spending is 25.8% of GDP.

That is the very same man . Bill. and the one you supported for doing the right thing. Thuggery doesn’t wash with the public. Employers need strong supervision or else they get out of hand, nothing new there.
Coles being a publically listed company does not prevent fraud or any other illegal activity.
Howard sold everything that he could get and for a fire-sale price. Then built a railway to no where.
Abbott’s basket case was invented between him and Hockey, but all that was forgotten about when Abbott was under pressure.
The company tax drop is a dud Jobs and growth from this is only in Turnbulls head. One lot says the extra money will go overseas. The other says the modeling was done on wishful thinking.
The changes to super is incorrect and will not happen.

You guys know I'm not that savvy with financial stuff.

They are always mentioning % of GDP, (I wish they would just tell us the exact figure, down to the dollar, they could also tell us how much they paid off each time) but is it really a good indicator of anything without knowing the profitability of that gross domestic product.
For example the car industry?

What would the % be in it was compared to gross domestic profit?
Why do these numbers even matter when those same big companies that make up the bulk of the market don't even pay tax?
Isn't debt relative to the money the government actually receives, not how much companies that don't pay tax produce?

Why is debt compared to GDP when many of those producers don't pay tax?

Armchair Critic,

"Isn't debt relative to the money the government actually receives.."

Yes, that why it's given as a percentage of Gross Domestic Product (GDP)

However if you want me to give you a dollar figure for the difference between Labor's 10% debt to GDP (2013) and the present govt's debt to GDP of around 17%...

Gross debt in 2013 was $279 billion.

After nearly three years of Coalition govt, it's now around $430 billion - with no Global Financial Crisis or stimulus spending.

The problems related to debt are directly related to a country's ability to pay for the luxury. Japan, for instance has a worse debt to GDP than Greece (175%). Japan's is 229% of GDP, but has the ability to carry it. Germany's is around 70%. Britain's around 90%, etc....

As a comparison, Australia's is around 17%