Debt and Deficit - Coalition Budget Emergency

Remove this Banner Ad

Mr Hockey said the government’s determination to rein in entitlements was designed to shore up the sustainability of our quality of life.

“It is about what we want to be in 5, 10, 20 years' time and I often ask myself if there's a drug that's going to save my child's life in 10 years' time and I couldn't afford it, I would expect the government to help me out,’’ he said.

“Now in 10 years' time is the government going to have the money to be able to afford that drug? They might have it today but they won't have it tomorrow unless we actually start fixing the budget now.”

Hockey has lost the plot. He is talking about an irrational fear of an unknown disease and some miracle drug not even being developed at the moment.

And he feels entitled to the Government helping him and his multi million dollar banker wife out.

******* HYPOCRITICAL FEAR MERCHANT.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

You mouthed off about the ADF going into Indonesian territorial waters and the Navy navigation skills which I had to laugh at; always learning I think you said!

OMG!


do you think the captain of the ship sails the ship? or do you think an officer of the watch sails it?

then do you think the officer of the watch steers it? or do you think some junior sailor steers it?

now, why do you think they call them junior sailors? I will give you a clue.........they are inexperienced young guys who have recently joined or are hopeless and can't get promoted!



OK, I retract calling you a liar on this one, just a bad call.

what about the CEO call?
 
Funny you took that graph from an article, but didn't link to the actual article, even though it said Hockey's claims were correct. Was it because the graphs Hockey used don't seem consitent (using different countries from graph to graph)? Or because the article also mentioned how low our debt was overall? Given Hockey is now pointing at G20 countries and saying they're too far in debt to use fiscal policy to improve their economic situation, maybe no Liberal wants to point out just how far lower Australia's debt is?
How can debt NOT increase when you inherit a budget deficit?

Imagine if Hockey actually did the right thing and cut spending by 4%gdp. The fanbois would go in to a Keynesian rage and say he was destroying the economy.

You cant have it both ways.
Actually in this case you can. But then you'd actually have to read and comprehend what people wrote in order to understand that.
If we say Hockey increasing the debt is hypocritical because he has claimed it's an emergency, even though we don't really believe there is an emergency then there is no inconsistency. Why? Because we are pointing out Hockey's inconsistency, not agreeing with him. Comprehend?

Hockey has gamed the figures to give Australia "the fastest budget deterioration over the past six months of any of the world’s 29 most advanced economies tracked by the International Monetary Fund". He is creating the budget emergency so he can then react to it. Now how about you provide some links for your claims?
Produce whatever graph you like, the result is the same. Zero net debt left by the Libs.
I've been asking for ages why RBA figures had us still in $60B debt, but the Libs say they paid off the debt. Can you illuminate us on this seemingly simple question, given how often you claim to be an economic guru? I figure asking a question where the answer should be a positive for the Liberals might actually get you to show off some of your so called knowledge, rather than your usual unverified claims of intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Actually in this case you can. But then you'd actually have to read and comprehend what people wrote in order to understand that.

No, not in this case. In can actually happen (as per UK) if you accelerate repayments ie debt paid back is > new debt via running a deficit.

Hockey has gamed the figures to give Australia "the fastest budget deterioration over the past six months of any of the world’s 29 most advanced economies tracked by the International Monetary Fund". He is creating the budget emergency so he can then react to it. Now how about you provide some links for your claims?

The ABC link refers to the IMF. Read the graph.

I've been asking for ages why RBA figures had us still in $60B debt, but the Libs say they paid off the debt.

Which RBA figure? Are you confusing gross vs net?

He is creating the budget emergency so he can then react to it.

That simply isn't correct. The structural deficit that he inherited was substantial

Do you have any idea what a structural deficit is? What is was when the ALP came to power and what it was when they left?
 
Last edited:
Just a small question.... What currency does Australia use to pay off it's debt?
If in Australian dollars, why not buy US$ when it was at it's highest and even now, than change back to AUD when the time is right?
Does Treasury go into the money market?

AUD.

Hockey/RBA has already gambled $8 Billion on that very prospect.
 
AOFM.gov.au has all your answers.

Regards

S. Pete

Too complicated, couldn't see the answer to my question, also Power Raid posed a good question about the rate it was locked in at. Doubt that would be available as they could easily manipulate the market to suit them.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

So Hockey is currently $150 million in the hole then based on the interest payments from that article.

assuming it has been a buy and hold and in addition not receiving interest on bonds held
 
I really can't understand how Abbott and Hockey think that introducing a $6 GP visit is good for the budget. Yes it may save $750m in bulk billing fees, but at what cost? Those on or below the poverty line will now forgo a doctors appointment because of the cost, others will roll up to already overcrowded emergency rooms at hospitals seeking treatment for something trivial.

I have long said that people going to an emergency room for unnecessary treatment should be charged a fee. This would push them back to medical clinics thus improving our hospital system.

Instead they will continue to allow tax concession on superannuation contributions of the rich which is costing the budget billions.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...at-are-killing-the-budget-20140421-zqx7p.html

But I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that a Liberal government would want to screw over the poor and disadvantaged to help line the pockets of their mates.
 
Abbott telling the people prior to the election that he's not shutting Medicare Local



But..

The ABC has learned a number of Medicare Local chief executives have been told the Federal Government plans to shut down the current system.

Speculation has been mounting that the local health bodies, which were set up under the Rudd government in a $1.8 billion initiative to organise community-specific health programs, will be scrapped in next month's budget.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-04-22/medicare-locals-like-to-face-the-axe-in-budget/5402414
 
I really can't understand how Abbott and Hockey think that introducing a $6 GP visit is good for the budget. Yes it may save $750m in bulk billing fees, but at what cost? Those on or below the poverty line will now forgo a doctors appointment because of the cost, others will roll up to already overcrowded emergency rooms at hospitals seeking treatment for something trivial.

I have long said that people going to an emergency room for unnecessary treatment should be charged a fee. This would push them back to medical clinics thus improving our hospital system.

Instead they will continue to allow tax concession on superannuation contributions of the rich which is costing the budget billions.
http://www.theage.com.au/federal-po...at-are-killing-the-budget-20140421-zqx7p.html

But I guess that I shouldn't be surprised that a Liberal government would want to screw over the poor and disadvantaged to help line the pockets of their mates.

The $750m is being rolled back into health, which may provide better quality service.

oh and the $6 is capped at $72 a year so no big issue.
 
The $750m is being rolled back into health, which may provide better quality service.

oh and the $6 is capped at $72 a year so no big issue.
This is the first that I have heard that it will be rolled back into health and that it will be capped. Source?
 
This is the first that I have heard that it will be rolled back into health and that it will be capped. Source?

just heard it on the news tonight and same; it was the first time I heard the cap and the re-investment being reported.

I guess media and the "news" focuses on the hype and fear rather than providing information.
 
just heard it on the news tonight and same; it was the first time I heard the cap and the re-investment being reported.

I guess media and the "news" focuses on the hype and fear rather than providing information.
Not so sure about your last statement as last time I heard it was going into consolidated revenue just like Medibank.
 
The $750m is being rolled back into health, which may provide better quality service.

oh and the $6 is capped at $72 a year so no big issue.
$72 might not be much to you, but take a person living under the poverty line in this country, they struggle to put food on the table each day for themselves and their families, struggle to pay the rent and keep a roof over their head, every single cent is counted, food is brought not on quality but on price, $6 is the price of a meal for a family of 4, so do you go without food or do you feed your family? This is a very realistic situation for many people in our society and if you don't believe it then get out from behind your computer and go do some volunteer work with the Salvos and see how many in society really live.

Legalising euthanasia and would save more than $750m a year, rather than this ridiculous idea which may only deliver this over 4 years, without delivering any improvement in the level of care provided to the community.

Abbott and Hockey are looking for ways to save money that don't hurt their core voters.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top