Mhaze, I can not be "offended" by something claimed that I know never existed, that being a nonexistent surplus. I would be no more offended had the lying fools claimed to have (nonexistent) rainbows to dole out to the populace. What is offensive is claiming something that you know to be a lie, and feeding that lie to the public.
You and I must be in the same boat, I also didn't vote for Liberal or Labor at the last election.

BTW, I don't agree with this leftwing/rightwing tag, to me there are only moderates, and orbiting around the moderate centre are the radicals or extreme, A bit like the solar system. The moderate political view, is whatever is the prevailing dominant political philosophy accepted by the majority at the time. Nazism in Germany, started out as a extreme political philosophy at its inception, but with power and time, acceptance of that philosophy become the norm, therefore it become the moderate political principle that then applied, and social democrats and others who were once seen as the moderates, had then become the radicals.

runner,
I think most people are smart enough to know that's not true.

The number of people coming here by boat was tiny compared to the number coming by plane. And they were locked up anyway while they were being security screened, so quarantine would not be much of a problem.

Nor have any boat people ever committed terrorist acts against the Australian population. And as for the economy, this lot were even worse at running it than Swan was, and that's saying a lot.

I think your claims are the result of cognitive dissonance - you know Australia's refugee policy is strongly contrary to what Jesus advocated, so you grasp at every straw you can to try to convince yourself that it's really a good thing. But your arguments are increasingly ridiculous - sooner or later you're going to have to face the truth.

BTW everyone pushing against zero emissions are total frauds or ecological vandals or both - but that's even more off topic for this thread!

___________________________________________________________________________________

mhaze,
So why, exactly, do you think Australia will eventually have to eliminate its government debt?
Which generation do you think will be obligated to do so?
By what mechanism do you think "Future generations will pay for current borrowing in lower standards of living than would otherwise be the case"?

'BTW everyone pushing against zero emissions are total frauds or ecological vandals or both - but that's even more off topic for this thread!'

Yeah Aiden like this guy

'The EPA’s highest-paid employee and a leading expert on climate change was sentenced to 32 months in federal prison Wednesday for lying to his bosses and saying he was a CIA spy working in Pakistan so he could avoid doing his real job.'

Must say no one would be surprised.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/climate-change-expert-sentenced-32-months-fraud-says-lying-was-f

Aidan,

* "So why, exactly, do you think Australia will eventually have to eliminate its government debt?"

Did I say that?

* "Which generation do you think will be obligated to do so?"

Oh the task of rectifying the debt position will fall to several generations.

* "By what mechanism do you think "Future generations will pay for current borrowing in lower standards of living than would otherwise be the case"?

Higher inflation, higher interest rates, weaker dollar.

Why do you think we can borrow unlimited sums without some consequences? If such borrowing is consequence-free why not advocate that we borrow enough to give every Aussie $1 million instead of a measly $750?

mhaze,
>Did I say that?
You implied it, both in your utter rejection of my position and in your initial ridiculing. Are you now denying it?

Before we go any further, let's get one thing straight: I NEVER said there would be no consequences. My point is the consequences occur in real time when the debt is incurred. So the higher inflation/interest rates and weaker dollar depend on the deficit, not the debt.

And that wasn't always the case. Forty years ago, borrowing more did have the consequences you've described. But things changed when Paul Keating floated the dollar. Importantly, the government implemented a policy of only borrowing in Australian dollars.

Can you see why that made such a big difference? Borrowing in a foreign currency increases our dollar's present value at the expense of its future value. But borrowing in Australian dollars decreases our dollar's present value. And because it's floating, that decrease is self correcting.

Aidan,

I've never said I think we will repay our full debt. At least not under the current economic paradigm.

" I NEVER said there would be no consequences. "

So what are the consequences?

"...decreases our dollar's present value. And because it's floating, that decrease is self correcting."

Self correcting via a declining (weakening) dollar. Which is inflationary. And which causes higher interest rates.

As I said.....