Thread: Comparing the Parties

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

Your right KT, the Hawke government inherited $40 billion debt from the fraser government of which howard was treasurer. Also, $70 odd billion of the debt paid by the howard government was due to the sale of assests!

Be truthfull now vegie, the $70 billion is an 'adgusted' figure in 2007 dollar values. The actuall sale values were around $46 billion. Labor sold off billions of dollars worth of public assets too but where Howard used ALL the procceds from sales to retire debt, Labor used NONE of the procceds from their sales to retire debt.

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

If keating/hawke sold assests, it would have been the case. 13 years is alot longer than 7 to accumlate debt,

Mate, only bad governments accumulate debt and Hawke/Keating did sell assets, billions of dollars worth.

icluding inflation. Howard governed under a properous national and global environment, but still failed to deliver on roads, hospitals and schools etc

How many times do I have to tell you, the States are responsible for roads hospitals etc. They had plenty of funds but it was the Labor states that DID NOTHING.
Anyway, you just finished telling us "Educational outcomes were high. Health nsw had more beds in private and health sectors other than SA. Hopital admittance was low. The elective surgery report had nsw higher than all other states. Transport acheivement include, the m2, m5, eastern distributer and cross city tunnel". You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by Adultmale

Be truthfull now vegie, the $70 billion is an 'adgusted' figure in 2007 dollar values. The actuall sale values were around $46 billion. Labor sold off billions of dollars worth of public assets too but where Howard used ALL the procceds from sales to retire debt, Labor used NONE of the procceds from their sales to retire debt.

I think you'll find it was around 70 b from recollection. The gold reserves were sold for a ridiculously low price, which cost billions. Great economic managers these two were.

I don't think you'll find that billions were sold in assets under hawke/keating, they wanted to, but the base wouldn't let them.

We're not just talking NSW malena, NSW aren't the only federal jurisdiction that requires consideration. Infrastructure essentials are requirements that the labor government have commited to in their funding to improve health systems. Howards whole ideology was for small government! Which simply meant they didn't want responsibility for it. Australians were being hoodwinked by them and the media. Time to get a grip dude and start to face some facts about a government that only cared for the top echelon. They weren't the economic managers they were portrait to be, and you obviously got caught up in the illusion.

Originally Posted by Adultmale

Mate, only bad governments accumulate debt and Hawke/Keating did sell assets, billions of dollars worth.



How many times do I have to tell you, the States are responsible for roads hospitals etc. They had plenty of funds but it was the Labor states that DID NOTHING.
Anyway, you just finished telling us "Educational outcomes were high. Health nsw had more beds in private and health sectors other than SA. Hopital admittance was low. The elective surgery report had nsw higher than all other states. Transport acheivement include, the m2, m5, eastern distributer and cross city tunnel". You can't have it both ways.

The NSW government did quite well in the circumstances. I think part of your rant about the state labor party was based on illusions as well, or should I say blissful ignorance

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

The NSW government did quite well in the circumstances. I think part of your rant about the state labor party was based on illusions as well, or should I say blissful ignorance

Read this, it might shatter some of your many illusions. http://www.petercostello.com.au/spee...stralia-sydney

Originally Posted by Adultmale

Read this, it might shatter some of your many illusions. http://www.petercostello.com.au/spee...stralia-sydney

You are joking aren't you. Need an unbiased analysis, not one from the man himself! This is your problem malena.

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

I think you'll find it was around 70 b from recollection. The gold reserves were sold for a ridiculously low price, which cost billions. Great economic managers these two were.

I don't think you'll find that billions were sold in assets under hawke/keating, they wanted to, but the base wouldn't let them.

You haven't done much research have you?

Originally Posted by Adultmale

You haven't done much research have you?

are u calling your article research.....lol! Common malena!

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

You are joking aren't you. Need an unbiased analysis, not one from the man himself! This is your problem malena.

I reckon Peter is spot on. What facts in the speech are you disputing as being incorrect?

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

are u calling your article research.....lol! Common malena!

I'm not calling it anything execpt what it is, a speech my the treasurer of the federal government of the day. The lack of research I referred to was in regard to your ignorant statement, "I don't think you'll find that billions were sold in assets under hawke/keating, they wanted to, but the base wouldn't let them." When someone says "I don't think" they are saying 'I don't know', and in this case you most certainly don't know.