Budget blowout time

Remove this Banner Ad

Maggie and Gough are probably the two most vocal advocates of government spending programs in the whole of BF. Bizarre seeing you two populating a debt and deficit thread. Its like you cant see that spending more than you earn = debt.
 
Xsess said:
Maggie and Gough are probably the two most vocal advocates of government spending programs in the whole of BF. Bizarre seeing you two populating a debt and deficit thread. Its like you cant see that spending more than you earn = debt.
Click to expand...
I'll take that as a comment and a compliment couldn't think of nicer company than Gough
 
Maggie5 said:
Forget about estimates I am referring to actual cuts especially in the area of say the The Alcohol and Other Drugs Council of Australia (2014 budget) and other agencies (mental health), I think I recall a figure of some $400 Million.
I can't recall where I read it but to say that there haven't been cuts and in fact increases, is inaccurate I believe.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-...ace-closure-after-health-funding-cuts/6357164
Click to expand...
Come on Maggie. Cut me some slack. I even quoted the ABC for you! o_O
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Lebbo73 said:
Come on Maggie. Cut me some slack. I even quoted the ABC for you! o_O
Click to expand...
I much prefer when you actual post on topic and even sometimes when either of us may have to accept that we are wrong still makes a much better experience on the forum than the one liners.
There was quite an outcry about some of the cuts in those areas by the media, I don't always take notice of what the opposition or government spin, like to make my own mind up after reading various media reports.
 
The Rudd/Gillard government budgeted for increases in health and education funding to the states in their last budget, and those increases were reduced in the first Abbott/Hockey budget. State governments had made budgets based on the Rudd/Gillard figures.
 
The Punter said:
The Rudd/Gillard government budgeted for increases in health and education funding to the states in their last budget, and those increases were reduced in the first Abbott/Hockey budget. State governments had made budgets based on the Rudd/Gillard figures.
Click to expand...
Didn't Abbott also promise no cuts to health/education?
Maybe he should have used the word reduction?
 
I just think the situation needed to be stated as clearly as possible. Calling it a cut can lead one to believe that the funding was at a certain level one year and then was lower the next year, and this never happened. Commitments were certainly lowered, but the funding continued to increase, just not at the rate promised by a previous government.
 
OK, so from purely a logic point of view, without assuming any knowledge of the goings on inside people's head, the Coalition said one thing before the election and did another thing after it.

Ms Gillard said there would be no carbon tax under any government she led, and then something else happened after the election.

Now one of my main criticisms of Ms Gillard in this area is she never successfully attempted to explain that the circumstances of the election result had meant that the situation had changed and this was what was achievable. But I do her the courtesy of making that assumption - the ground shifted on her and she negotiated a package that could and did pass the parliament. Her ability to get legislation passed through two negotiated houses of parliament is her greatest legacy.

Things change, and decisions are made on new information or circumstances.
 
The Punter said:
OK, so from purely a logic point of view, without assuming any knowledge of the goings on inside people's head, the Coalition said one thing before the election and did another thing after it.

Ms Gillard said there would be no carbon tax under any government she led, and then something else happened after the election.

Now one of my main criticisms of Ms Gillard in this area is she never successfully attempted to explain that the circumstances of the election result had meant that the situation had changed and this was what was achievable. But I do her the courtesy of making that assumption - the ground shifted on her and she negotiated a package that could and did pass the parliament. Her ability to get legislation passed through two negotiated houses of parliament is her greatest legacy.

Things change, and decisions are made on new information or circumstances.
Click to expand...
What were the new circumstances?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Gough said:
What were the new circumstances?
Click to expand...

Well, every time we get a budget update the deficit is bigger than the last update.

Ice-Wolf said:
But that isn't what happened in the Liberals case they just lied/intentionally mislead to get votes.
Click to expand...

This is purely opinion. I'm pretty sure you weren't in the room when any decisions were being made.
 
The Punter said:
Well, every time we get a budget update the deficit is bigger than the last update.
Click to expand...
But they haven't cut spending. In fact they have spent more than in all but one of the ALP's budgets, including the ones that saw us through the GFC, so that's doesn't really hold much water.
 
Well, the deficit would be even larger without those cuts. I'm not going to come on here and suggest that the government are not spending too much, but am suggesting that these are the priorities of the government, and they chose not to fully fund the 2013 budget increases.

It was all a suggestion rather than the name calling that gets us nowhere but makes some individuals feel better some of the time. Circumstances change, they did for Ms Gillard (and Messrs Hawke and Howard), and perhaps they did for the newly election Coalition government.
 
The Punter said:
The Rudd/Gillard government budgeted for increases in health and education funding to the states in their last budget, and those increases were reduced in the first Abbott/Hockey budget. State governments had made budgets based on the Rudd/Gillard figures.
Click to expand...
That's just not true. Would you like to provide a link?
 
Suggest you read what Joe says more carefully. The 80 billion funding was never in the Labor budget - it was for the years outside the forward estimates in which Labor had pulled a neat trick of loading the numbers.
Apparently Joe was being a smart arse when he put it in his budget papers as a "saving'

ABC belled the cat here:

"The verdict
The Abbott Government claimed in the budget it would achieve $80 billion in "savings" over 10 years by changing funding for schools and hospitals. That figure assumes the Coalition will spend less than Labor's policies would have cost.

Labor never produced a 10-year plan for hospitals, although there were some long term funding projections for schools. As Mr Abbott said, "there was no $80 billion in any Labor budget to be cut". This contradicts the claim in his budget papers of $80 billion in savings.

The Government did not cut $80 billion from schools and hospitals in this four-year budget period. By trumpeting long term savings, it has left itself open to accusations of funding cuts from Labor.

Neither the Abbott Government nor the Labor Opposition can accurately predict the costs of hospital or school funding 10 years out.

There is too much uncertainty for this long-term estimate to be used as a reliable measure for cuts or savings.

The debate over the $80 billion figure - whether a cut or a saving - is hot air"

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-07-...cut-80-billion-from-schools-hospitals/5562470
 
Well, this is the money that is being talked about when people accuse the Coalition Government of cutting funding to health and education money to be given to the states, and during that period without the increases, funding for health and education continue to grow larger. That was the only point I was attempting to make.
 
The Punter said:
Well, this is the money that is being talked about when people accuse the Coalition Government of cutting funding to health and education money to be given to the states, and during that period without the increases, funding for health and education continue to grow larger. That was the only point I was attempting to make.
Click to expand...

Well people don't know what they are talking about, do they?

There never was 80 billion of funding for Joe to cut. It was all just Labor created bullshit as a ruse to win the '13 election. Obviously succeeded in taking you in.
 
GuruJane

Read very carefully - I'm trying to make the point that the contention that it was a cut to funding is contestable. Funding kept increasing - not just at the levels proposed by the Rudd/Gillard increases included in the (very) forward estimates.

Perhaps you should just go back to the people you should be disagreeing with, instead of the people trying to make your point for you in a way that makes other people think the way you do, rather than make yourself feel smug and superior.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Budget blowout time

Similar threads

anchor man
Budget reply
Replies
0
Views
266
anchor man
anchor man
#23 Hill
The Budget
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
3K
NonPhixion
NonPhixion
HurleyHepsHird
It is time to end the consultancy gravy train and rebuild the public service
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
Demonic Ascent
Demonic Ascent

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top