Thread: Comparing the Parties

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.

Right, Howard et al stuffed it in their mattress to look good and bribe voters at the next election, whilst labor used the money to save our economy.

Originally Posted by DominorVobis

Right, Howard et al stuffed it in their mattress to look good and bribe voters at the next election, whilst labor used the money to save our economy.

AHHH AHA AHAHHHAAA!!! we won't let the truth get in the way of our political propaganda will we DV.

Originally Posted by DominorVobis

Right, Howard et al stuffed it in their mattress to look good and bribe voters at the next election, whilst labor used the money to save our economy.

Sending out small cheques to the poor and giving unneeded contracts to union mates is as vote buying as you can get, it sures up the lower class heartland of the ALP, keeps the union mates afloat and supportive and allows the ALP to point at 'something' as taking action.

The reality is it was the capacity of interest rates to move downwards (after several quick rises right before the election by the 'independant' body making Howard look bad) so much that actually kept the wheels turning. This was because of the health of the banks which was a direct product of Howard/Costello's long term in government. Though in retrospect I think perhaps if we had not had such a surplus to be raided then the ALP might have actually done something less damaging considering the GFC effect on Australia is so much lower and drawn out then what the ALP expected and reacted for.

Originally Posted by Adultmale

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.

I don't think you can find anything to suggest labor sold assets to the extent you say. I certainly can't.

malena, I rest my case on your iron clad conclusion on costello's report. It says it all!

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

I don't think you can find anything to suggest labor sold assets to the extent you say. I certainly can't.

malena, I rest my case on your iron clad conclusion on costello's report. It says it all!

You're not looking hard enough vegie. They sold Quantas and the commonwealth bank for starters and you didn't read Peter Costello's speech did you. Pray tell what was my 'iron clad conclusion'??

Originally Posted by Adultmale

You're not looking hard enough vegie. They sold Quantas and the commonwealth bank for starters and you didn't read Peter Costello's speech did you. Pray tell what was my 'iron clad conclusion'??

6 billion compared to 72billion! hmmmm

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

6 billion compared to 72billion! hmmmm

So now you know, Labor DID sell billions of dollars worth of public assets. And it wasn't 72 billion it was 46 billion. Get it right mate. Now go and read Peter Costellos speech so you can learn what was so bad about what Labor did with the $6 billion proceeds from public asset sales.

Originally Posted by Adultmale

So now you know, Labor DID sell billions of dollars worth of public assets. And it wasn't 72 billion it was 46 billion. Get it right mate. Now go and read Peter Costellos speech so you can learn what was so bad about what Labor did with the $6 billion proceeds from public asset sales.

it is still a take from costello. they state whatever they like. he says labor did this or that. do u really think this is gospel?.....lol

Originally Posted by truthvigilante

it is still a take from costello. they state whatever they like. he says labor did this or that. do u really think this is gospel?.....lol

Facts are facts mate. Which facts are you disputing? Are you trying to say that Labor didn't sell over $6 billion worth of public assets? Are trying to say that they didn't use the procceds from those sales as operating capital? Are you trying to say that Labor didn't use any of those funds to retire existing debt? You would be wrong in very case. Are you trying to say that we have been given gospel by Keating and Swan but not from Costello? Ahhhh ah aha aha!!!! Surely you are not that stupid.

Originally Posted by Adultmale

Facts are facts mate. Which facts are you disputing? Are you trying to say that Labor didn't sell over $6 billion worth of public assets? Are trying to say that they didn't use the procceds from those sales as operating capital? Are you trying to say that Labor didn't use any of those funds to retire existing debt? You would be wrong in very case. Are you trying to say that we have been given gospel by Keating and Swan but not from Costello? Ahhhh ah aha aha!!!! Surely you are not that stupid.

The source is still from costello. Politicians constantly paint a picture that is far from the truth. Costello's article is the only place i've seen this information, now this is not an evidence fact, it's from a personal bias. In any instance 6 billion is a far cry from 72 billion. Basically, your article cannot be considered fact.