Liberal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg said he was not restrained by ideology when framing his 2021, Josh thinks another $100 odd billion will be added to debt this year, but it seems to be of little concern to the government, with any thought of a surplus or balanced budget a distant memory, where are those coffee mugs of a couple of years back? The free spending government has certainly splashed the cash to support the economy. An estimation of a near trillion dollar debt looms as early as 2024. Lots of winners, and few losers this time around, Morrison could be eyeing an early election later this year.

Hi Paul,

There's always winners and losers in every government
budget but Josh Frydenberg has delivered a federal
budget that "could have been brought down by a
Labor Treasurer," according to 9News political
Editor - Chris Uhlmann.

Of course - we can always find things to criticise.
But we need to maintain a balance and say that this
budget does target big welfare programs and plugs some
problems - including jobs, aged care, and women's
issues.

The government is in a $53 billion better position than
it thought it would be. It's investing in massive rail
and road projects that will require hundreds of labourers,
engineers, and skilled tradies.

It's providing for low and middle-income earners
by extending its low and middle income tax effect for
another year. Apprenticeships and tradies - the government will
fund new apprenticeships and traineeships as well as new
training places to help employed people upskill.

There will be child-care subsidies for working families.
First home buyers are provided for as are senior Australians
in the government spending more on aged care - and the
list goes on.

Of course international borders won't re-open this time
next year and the travel industry must be worried - but
what is important - there is enough in this budget to make
quite a few people happy.

cont'd ...

Of course the PM must eyeing an early election.
He's be silly not to.

It's a Socialist budget alright. The Liberals really should start writing their moniker with a small 'l', because they are socialists. They have spent more money than Labor ever did; and they have incurred more debt than Labor ever did. They have arsed out the few conservatives left after Tony Abbott, and Comrade Morrison and his puppy dog treasurer will spend whatever it takes to bring us a one-party state, seemingly with the approval - or disinterest- of the Australian electorate. We need not look to China for an enemy; our biggest enemy is within.

This post shows how easy it is for governments to fool their subject population.

Economic illiterates show themselves by confusing “money” - as in, currency, with “money” - as in, physical wealth.

Now a moment’s reflection will show that, if the government increased the amount of currency overnight, they would not thereby double the amount of physical wealth, would they?

But most people can’t really understand this, because they never think in those terms.

So how do they think of it?

When the government says they’re injecting money - as in, physical wealth - into the economy, the sheeple never turn their brains on, to actually *think* where is the government getting the money - as in, physical wealth - from?

Paul1405’s post shows where he thinks they’re getting it from. The government is just showering the benefits of physical wealth onto society. It’s all benefits, with no corresponding cost anywhere in sight or cognition. Presumably the state gets the physical wealth from a secret pocket hidden in the universe somewhere and which only the government can access. Physical wealth is a mysterious genie that has no obvious connection with productive activity, and only government knows how to rub the lamp. Don’t laugh. This kind of magical superstitious thinking is very common in the popular cult of government-as-god which the state can cultivate among the ignorant, who think of the government the way an infant thinks of the breast.

If there's "lots of winners and few losers", then what is the obvious question that a rational approach would want an answer to, Paul?

The old paradigm of Australian politics was that Labor spent like drunken sailors and the Libs cleaned up afterwards.

Whitlam throws money around and leaves the country in a mess. Howard cleans it up.

Keating pisses the country's wealth up against the wall. Howard, again, fixes it.

Rudd spends like there's no tomorrow. Abbott, sort of, fixes it.

But now...
But now we have a Liberal government that wants to spend like a drunken sailor or more precisely, like a Labor Government. Throw the bucks around and leave someone else to fix it. But who? There ain't no one left.

Now this of course angers people like poor old Paul. How will Labor ever win government if we already have a government that is prepared to screw up just as bad as Labor.
So here we are, left with two utterly irresponsible major parties, each competing to give away as much of the future wealth as quickly as possible.

There's an old saying along the lines of "If something can’t go on forever, it won’t."

Unfortunately, its our kids that will suffer when it stops.
Unfortunately many (most?) Australians are just fine with that.