On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
Howard and Costello enjoyed the mining boom in WA just as much as Rudd has. I don't see how they could have possiblly done any better =="
On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
You have no clue about the Australian economic climate. You run a deficit budget during downturns in the economy, and a surplus in upswings. Costello's management of the australian economy was acceptable, but Rudd/Swan's has been perfectly fine.
Anyway, this leaves Australia with two unstable parties as the real options for election, and this troubles me deeply. That being said, my vote will probably still go to Labor, as a conservative Christian who cannot separate church and state would make a terrible PM.
edit: The 08-09 budget was projected as a surplus, but only became a deficit after adjustments made due to the GFC. It's absurd to blame the Australian government for the GFC, and a large stimulus package was necessary to avoid recession.
On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
Do you have any idea how the economy works? Generally speaking, being at a surplus is BAD. Being at a deficit is GOOD. Saving too much money = Recession. Spending money (in the right ways) = Fixing the recession.
You need to take economics 101 or something, because you are clearly demonstrating a lack of economic knowledge here. Oversimplification + bullshit = your post.
Yes, his right-wing liberal wang-stroking post wasn't accurate either, but yours was even worse.
On June 24 2010 14:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Hopefully she sacks Stephen Conroy ASAP.
This is what I'm REALLY looking for in this whole fiasco. I'm planning to vote Liberal in the upcoming election purely because of Stephen Fucking Conroy. Sack that piece of shit and I'll rethink Labor!
Well, with a cabinet shuffle up, I think Gillard may revert back to convention and elect members of different Labor Factions to have factional representation in her cabinet. Hopefully this will see a large boot given to Conroy's ass.
On June 24 2010 15:16 Licmyobelisk wrote: Is she married? Because sometimes, the pm's or president's husband runs a big part on her decision making skills.. if she's not married very good
On June 24 2010 14:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Hopefully she sacks Stephen Conroy ASAP.
This is what I'm REALLY looking for in this whole fiasco. I'm planning to vote Liberal in the upcoming election purely because of Stephen Fucking Conroy. Sack that piece of shit and I'll rethink Labor!
I think a lot of people are hoping this, I certainly am. You might be interested in this link also
Kind of sucks that Rudd will go down as the first PM who was dumped before he finished his term. I don't think he deserved this. It was quite brutal. I like Gillard, I think she will do well, but I like her a little less now from this back stab.
On June 24 2010 15:30 ayababa wrote: im glad kevin rudd is gone. we had a 20 billion surplus when liberal were in power. now its gone and we are at negative 300 billion. (a good chuck of this done prior to the economy went bonkers). gillard has been trying to sell of as much crap as possible ever she was the 2IC.
CYA ruddy boi.... bring back john Howard and peter Costello.. then well start making money again.
oh yeah one last thing ... KEVIN RUDD DIDNT SAVE AUSTRALIA FROM RECESSION .. it was the 10 years of saving that howard and costello did... enough of my rant
edit.. im obviously aware that peter costello and john howard are retired.. and wont be coming back.
Do you have any idea how the economy works? Generally speaking, being at a surplus is BAD. Being at a deficit is GOOD. Saving too much money = Recession. Spending money (in the right ways) = Fixing the recession.
Being at a deficit means not only do you have money to repay but part of your tax revenue is going towards paying interest on that deficit. There are situations where it is necessary to spend more than your budget in a given year but I wouldn't describe it as good.
On June 24 2010 14:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Hopefully she sacks Stephen Conroy ASAP.
This is what I'm REALLY looking for in this whole fiasco. I'm planning to vote Liberal in the upcoming election purely because of Stephen Fucking Conroy. Sack that piece of shit and I'll rethink Labor!
I think a lot of people are hoping this, I certainly am. You might be interested in this link also
Yeah I'm really, really hoping Kate Lundy replaces Stephen Conroy, she's pretty on top of what the industry wants/needs and importantly wants opt-in for all the filtering, monitoring and censorship stuff Conroy has been trying to introduce.
On June 24 2010 16:13 Hyde wrote: Kind of sucks that Rudd will go down as the first PM who was dumped before he finished his term. I don't think he deserved this. It was quite brutal. I like Gillard, I think she will do well, but I like her a little less now from this back stab.
To save seats Labor had to do it. It's a pity Rudd was used essentially as a scapegoat. Labor tried to put the ETS through government 3 times and it was blocked everytime. They really should have gone to an early election over that and avoided all of this mess. I loved the direction malcolm turnbull was taking the liberal party. With him in the backbench I'm a bit apprehensive about an Abbot led government, just because of their climate change policies (which are still fairly sound if you ignore the fact they don't have an ETS or cabon tax proposal). Still the way things are unfolding lately the coalition could break up soon and who knows what would happen.
Anyway, Julia Gillard is more than capable of being PM. You just don't get that high in a political party in Australia without knowing what you're doing. Deputy PM for two years makes her more than qualified.
To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
On June 24 2010 14:42 prOxi.swAMi wrote: Hopefully she sacks Stephen Conroy ASAP.
This is what I'm REALLY looking for in this whole fiasco. I'm planning to vote Liberal in the upcoming election purely because of Stephen Fucking Conroy. Sack that piece of shit and I'll rethink Labor!
Ummm, hate conroy obviously, but don't think Abbott wouldn't be up for the same thing, and on top of that, he wants to scrap the NBN. So at the moment if you're voting on internet based criteria, Labor is the better choice.
Glad they elected Gillard, I thought they should have let her run for the last election tbh, but maybe she wasn't ready and this is the best transition after all. Imo, Turnbull good/Abbott bad and Gillard good/Rudd ok.
Rudd got thrown out because he had very few friends inside Labor. They only tolerated him because of his good polling numbers. When his ratings dropped, there was no reason to keep him. Sure Labor had a 52% two-party-preferred, but that's appalling when you consider that Abbott/Bishop are who you're up against. The opposition ticket is so awful that they deserve to get thrashed in the polls and at the ballot box.
I'm just glad we've got someone from the Labor Left faction in charge now. Hopefully that means a change in social policy (I'm looking at you, internet filter).
Julia is most definitely married. It's just that the guys a hairdresser who isn't a public figure like Therese Rein was so nobody really knows about him.
Julia Gillard on Question Time today had serious balls of steel. Paul Keating levels of destruction on Julie Bishop...just amazing. Honestly, she's a hell more manly and interesting than Abbott or Rudd right now...Rudd has never really been definite in anything and Abbott is basically running with "lol Rudd sux" for a long time.
She seems a million times more ideologically stable than Rudd ever was, which is a huge plus for people in general and the labour party since she'll won't be thrown under the bus by her own party before finishing a single term. Whether she'll be good, who knows but she'll probably achieve more than Rudd will ever achieve.
On June 24 2010 15:16 Licmyobelisk wrote: Is she married? Because sometimes, the pm's or president's husband runs a big part on her decision making skills.. if she's not married very good
She's not married.
She's married. Just no kids. Not that it honestly means anything.
This whole thing was a big sudden surprise for me this morning. That said I quite like Gillard, she's incredibly now-nonsense and she's had more than enough experience running the place when Rudd went around diplomat-ing.
As much as I hate the Labor stance on the net, I'm probably still going to vote for her, largely because she isn't Tony Abbot. I know I shouldn't vote based on the person, and if Turnbull was still the head Lib honcho, i'd consider him, but seriously; Tony Abbot. Seriously.
On June 24 2010 16:30 Ludrik wrote: To people bitching about "not voting for her" get real. If all you base your voting decisions on is the man at the top then you're not voting in your best interest. Vote based on who your local candidates are and their individual policies. I don't mean to not take into account overall party policies. It's just they will essentially be the same regardless of who is running the party.
This. It's essentially going to be business as usual with a Labor government, whether it's Rudd or Gillard at the helm. It never ceases to amaze me how many people of voting age in this country envisage the Prime Minister as something far more important than they actually are. They're a mouthpiece, a figurehead, and are supposed to represent the unified consensus of the party/caucus; policy-making is the last thing they're responsible for.
Having said that, I'm hoping that Gillard can disquiet any concerns people have over the recent direction of the Labor party, and swing public favour back squarely where it belongs. I'll be voting Green (a friend of mine is running), but be quite glad to see the preferences go to Labor.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://www.biocrawler.com/w/images/7/79/Jenny_shipley.jpg)
