Poirot, of that $430 billion in debt we have now, how much of that debt was due to interest paid on labors borrowings, and pre committed spending?

Furthermore, while I accept the current government has not had a GFC to deal with, and has not provided the stimulus, they have also not had the luxury of a huge mining boom.

So considering all things equal, to do the comparison we need to star with a zero debt balance as at 07, calculate the gross earnings, then the spending (borrowings) to come up with a true figure of where they started and finished.

You then take where the coalition started from, factor in their gross earnings, then the pre commitments that they could not avoid, then subtract their net borrowings to come up with a true comparison.

Hope you can provide this as it would provide a much clearer picture.

rehctub,

You do see, don't you?

You pull out all the variables to defend this govt's ramping up of debt - yet you always completely dismiss the GFC when you're bagging Labor's governance.

You do realise that our handling of the aftermath of the GFC is lauded worldwide. Yes, we ran up debt (small debt by world standards)...but we were one of the few industrial economies to have avoided recession. If we'd gone into recession, our "debt" would have been much much larger.

I'll stop so fulsomely reminding you of this govt's woeful performance if you at least acknowledge the reason for Labor's debt - and stop acting as if it was merely run up for the fun of it.

You can look up the answer for all of that yourself. How much forward spending did Howard leave for labor.

There was no mining boom. The only boom was in quantity not money. There is no money boom in any of the figures. The profits were given to Singapore.
All mining ever done for the East was rob the states of workers. Now those people have returned and our GDP has never been bigger.

Like all Abbott worshipers you have lost it big time and come up with anything to try and save face.

rehctub,

Furthermore...

Care to explain why private business investment has collapsed under the Coalition?

"Australian Bureau of Statistics data released over the past few days shed a stark light on private sector business investment and company profit trends over the past few years. It shows that rather than being anti-business, investment and profits boomed under Labor, and rather than being pro-business, they have collapsed under the Coalition."

"In the two and a half years since the 2013 election, company profits have fallen 11% to their lowest level since 2010. This has occurred with the global economy registering decent growth and interest rates at record lows. In the six years of Labor government to 2013, company profits rose 28% despite the global financial crisis which plunged the world economy into a deep recession.

On business investment, the credentials of both sides of politics are even more extreme. Since the September 2013 election, private sector capital expenditure has fallen a thumping 26% and the outlook for the next year is for a further fall of between 5% and 10%. The fall in business investment is set to be more severe than during the early 1990s recession.

Under the previous Labor government, business investment rose a robust 67% to reach a record high proportion of GDP. It seems the policy settings which included the carbon price and mining tax did nothing to discourage the private sector from going out and investing."

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/04/the-anti-business-labor-hyperbole-wrong-just-look-at-the-facts?CMP=share_btn_tw

So much for the govt's line about Labor being anti-business.

Poirot, one of the finer achievements of the Labor Governments term in office was their handling of the GFC, their approach has been proven to be spot on. The conservative opposition were demanding a 1930's style austerity program of belt tightening and expenditure cuts In time of financial crises/ Those that are willing to take the risk of increased spending to boost the economy and therefore maintain employment levels, generally weather the storm better than the alternative. There is also the philosophical aspect that the people need protection in times of hardship, something the conservatives give little if any regard to, simply relying on the dysfunctional free market to right itself eventually, which invariably results in a longer and deeper recession/depression than otherwise need be. But then for the conservatives with their approach it is mainly the ordinary people and small business that suffer the most and not their backers in big business.

There is little doubt we are headed for another recession, much larger than would have occurred back in 08. There is no doubt that if/when this recession hits it will be extremely hurtful and there won't be too many sectors that avoid it.

Perhaps 2008 was the recession we should have had but I know im a bit of a lone wolf with that train of thought.

As for labor's spending, there spending/borrowing was not the problem, its the lack of outcomes that has caused so much damage.

Now they are asking us to trust them again.