Get your red-hot budget tips here!

[Jubial Priest]

It's just another debt to add to our already burgeoning budget deficit.

Welcome to a Labor economy.

Fuckheads think they can spend their way out of anything even though history has shown it not to be the case.

When was the last time you were on hard times and you thought "oh hang on, I'll go and get myself a credit card and buy my way out of debt"

[Ethnic]

Isn't the government picking up the tab for maternity leave? Can we afford it at the moment? On top of the baby bonus - women will be picking up $600 gross a week or whatever the basic wage is for 18 weeks. It won't keep families together. It's just another debt to add to our already burgeoning budget deficit.

Not you too Mantra. This scheme won't be introduced until 2011, I'm sure we will be able to afford $260 million a year when it kicks in. Mind you we would be better prepared for it if we didn't have all this stimulus debt to pay off. Women and men (don't forget men also qualify for this) will be paid a minimum wage to look after their baby for a very short period of time. It will help keep families together - already too many are forced to go back to work straight after giving birth because finances are too tight. This provides breathing space. It's good news.

[Jovial Monk]

Isn't the government picking up the tab for maternity leave? Can we afford it at the moment? On top of the baby bonus - women will be picking up $600 gross a week or whatever the basic wage is for 18 weeks. It won't keep families together. It's just another debt to add to our already burgeoning budget deficit.

This won't happen till 2011.

Very affordable if the STUPID baby bonus is cancelled!

Stupid, stupid Tip. Crowing about the increase in fertility rates (by a small amount) BUT not including any increase to childcare etc in his forward estimates. Lazy, dull, enumerate and economically illiterate clod.

[mantra.]

Celetina - of course families need a little assistance at times, but this whole baby business has gotten out of control. We haven't even got the infrastructure to support this baby boom that we're currently experiencing.

I have to agree with JP on this. To get out of debt you don't spend more - you are careful with your spending and spend a little less. Rudd is doing exactly the same as Howard did - the difference being the previous government had good revenue, a budget surplus and the economy was doing well. I didn't agree with Howard's spending, but if the deficit is going to be $70 billion this month - what will it be next year - or the year after? Do you remember how long it took to pay off the previous $96 billion debt - ten years of services being ravaged and high taxes. How long do you think it's going to take your generation and the next to pay off this increasing debt and the high interest that goes with it?

[Jovial Monk]

OK, let us spend less, let us not stimulate the economy.

So thousands of retailers fail and tens or hundreds of thousand of retail employees are now unemployed. But we are saving money, right?

Are we? 20-30% of the stimulus moneys are returned to the govt as personal & corporate tax plus GST, so we are talking about 70-80% of stimulus moneys being spent that we shouldn't, right?

So, OK, no money spent on stimulus, all the retail companies & employees are now no longer earning an income. So, less tax coming in as tax, more money going out as umployment benefits. Which option leaves the Budget better off? You mean no right wing dirt bag has done the calculations? Why am I not surprised?

[Jovial Monk]

So the govt is getting less tax in and is spending more on social security payments. So, let us cut PS wages and also pensions. Marvellous, even less economic activity, more retailers, service suppliers, manufacturers and importers close their doors.

This stupid course of action was chosen here in the 1930s--google "Premiers' Plan" and meant the economy and people were ground into the dirt: dole payments were no longer in money but in kind, so men had to tramp tramp tramp to get a dole of flour, sugar, bacon & baccy and worry worry about their families back home.

All the Andrew Dolt, Pies Akerman etc acolytes--and that includes Sheepy & LOW_IQ--should have to estimate what the cost of not stimulating the economy would be. None are clever enough to even grasp the concept, let alone do any fucking work on envisaging alternatives to what Rudd/Swan/Tanner are doing. Bah, stupid fluffy bunnies can't even learn from history!

[Auzgurl]

Celetina - of course families need a little assistance at times, but this whole baby business has gotten out of control. We haven't even got the infrastructure to support this baby boom that we're currently experiencing.

I have to agree with JP on this. To get out of debt you don't spend more - you are careful with your spending and spend a little less. Rudd is doing exactly the same as Howard did - the difference being the previous government had good revenue, a budget surplus and the economy was doing well. I didn't agree with Howard's spending, but if the deficit is going to be $70 billion this month - what will it be next year - or the year after? Do you remember how long it took to pay off the previous $96 billion debt - ten years of services being ravaged and high taxes. How long do you think it's going to take your generation and the next to pay off this increasing debt and the high interest that goes with it?

You know mantra Im a little surprised you just dont settle down and see how it pans out...lets reserve judgement instead of buying into the rightwing nazi propoganda

[Jovial Monk]

i would just like to see one of these right wing ding bats to actually try and work out what would happen under their scenario, but they are too lazy and way too stupid, they go by the gut not the brain.

[Jubial Priest]

You know it is true Mantra

You have the two most clueless fuckwits on the internets saying that the current fucking idiots in govt who have just taken over, already selling us so far into debt it is not funny, is such a good thing!

And that clueless fluffy bunny JM thinks the more Australian taxpayers spend the more they will get back. This man is in serious need of a brain transplant- he will keep wanking over Rudd and Swan even when there is 500 billion that our children will have to pay back. Frivolous fuckheads.

Afterall, his business does stand to gain from an economic nightmare perpetuated by a Labor govt. No wonder he wants them to achieve their goals. He is a selfish prick.

[mantra.]

You know mantra Im a little surprised you just dont settle down and see how it pans out...why cant you just concede they may very well know what they are doing instead of buying into the rightwing nazies propoagnda whose only job it is ,is to pull everything apart and yet offer no solution .Theyre job is to discredit to the endth degree..they want to win the next election right?

And as for JP being right...wtf would he know..he is a slime ball who uses dog porn to get him thru the day...
Monk - yes what you say makes sense in theory, but look at it logically. If you get into debt you don't spend your way out of it. Maybe it's time to let unemployment and the market settle. Unemployment and underemployment are double the official figures we hear about and these stimulus packages are just going into a black hole.

I sincerely apologise if I don't agree with you and Monk all the time Auzgurl. I haven't been happy with Rudd for quite a while and I've made this clear on plenty of occasions. I'm not a RW nazi as you well know and I thought I had the freedom to agree with whoever makes a valid statement.

As far as settling down to see what happens Auzgurl - this is a political forum. If we all waited around to see an outcome - we'd only make posts every 3 years.

And Monk - maybe it's time for all handouts to be cut realistically. We are a greedy nation and we've got ourselves into this mess because we wanted too much of everything. Everyone sits around and waits for the government to bail them out instead of figuring out a way of looking after themselves.