Comments on: Garrett’s comments probably positive for Labor

By: Richard

Richard — Sat, 17 Nov 2007 19:11:50 +0000

Is it me? Am i missing something? they are all trying to buy us..with our own money!..Why cant we have it at times other than than the ones which put THEM in power..??..

By: Arjay

Arjay — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 19:43:36 +0000

Russell regardless of the semantics of the numbers,Labor still believes in reducing tarrifs as does the Coalition.The deficit will continue to grow unless we either lower our wages to compete with India/China or raise tarrifs.
The electorate and superficially Labor are in denial.We cannot have cheap products from OS and expect not to pay a price.That is the reality that the electorate will not face and Labor are trying to sugar coat this election with promises of a watered down IR system when in fact they will keep most of what the Coalition has instigated.It is classical hypocracy and slight of hand.
Labor will keep the the harsher aspects of IR,ie individual contracts and keep unfair dismissal,which is a rod for the back of small business.
No one has a right to a job.In our society you can very easily be self employed,but that for many,it is a bridge too far.

By: Russell

Russell — Sun, 11 Nov 2007 16:09:34 +0000

Arjay,
Are you confusing the current account deficit( 4-5%) with our foreign debt,which has been growing as a % of our GDP? The current account deficits have created the massive foreign debt.

By: Arjay

Arjay — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 18:55:14 +0000

Russell the Balance of payments deficit was $300 billion when keating was in power This was 50% of GDP.Our GDP is now $1000 billion so our deficit is really the same.

By: Russell

Russell — Sat, 10 Nov 2007 07:32:47 +0000

Arjay,
The coalition is certainly not perfect they have left us with a foreign debt time bomb, Howard’s time bomb. Labor would have made some efforts to promote exports and not relied on neo-liberal ideological fantasies and short term considerations.

By: Arjay

Arjay — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 18:01:37 +0000

Russell, both the major parties believe in lowering of tarrifs,so the balance of payments deficit will continue to grow no matter who is in power.
Who said that the Coalition were perfect?Labor both Federally and at a State level are just pathetic!

By: Russell

Russell — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 16:50:54 +0000

Arjay,
the Coalition also brought us a chronic long term current account deficit and a foreign debt of 50% of the country’s GDP, very impressive. We’ll see whether private debt matters.

By: Arjay

Arjay — Fri, 09 Nov 2007 06:51:19 +0000

Substance Shade?Paying off labor’s $96 billion debt and producing a $90 billion surplus.Unemployment at 4.5%,Aussie dollar at 30 yr highs,93c US compared to Labor which had our dollar approaching 40c US,inflation rate now 3.5%,Keating’s inflation and unemployment rates 10% plus,interest rates are now about 7% and under Keating/Hawke,17%,the Coalition brought us through the Asian economic meltdown in the late 90′s,the European and US recessions of 2001,we are weathering the sub-prime US mortage crisis presently.
Federal Labor’s past track records have been absymal just like all their present State Labor Govts.You Labor voters are in denial.Tinsel town has stolen your ability to reason.

By: Curaezipirid

Curaezipirid — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 18:09:27 +0000

Try to be more cautious in respect of the “Get Up” organisation, since in their business to assert that they are not a political party, and run no candidates for election, they seem to be only to complicit with ASIO processes: and in that might be a front for promoting the concept that labour will rapidly prove worthless after being elected.
Mind I am not saying this lightly either, and have a bit of real world evidence, but of the sort that might take about five hundred pages to divulge.
The overt absurity is that they are all in favour of discrimination against folk for our appearance: eg hairdos and clothing, (our ‘get up’) as though anything other than a police uniform is a silly buggers dress ups game.
Not that such a thing ought to prevent us from enabling their ample resources to work to promote real social justice, of course.
Can anybody verify where their resources are coming from; perhaps to prove me one way or the other, or not?

By: Chade

Chade — Thu, 08 Nov 2007 13:53:11 +0000

Er, Arjay… substance? What substance…?