Gillard vs Abbott - Who will you vote for? POLL

[Noblesse]

I have to attempt to disagree, please point out where I am mislead, but I am not a fan of labor's excessive spending. As good as money in my pocket sounds, I prefer a strong economy, strong job market and high standard of living much more than the economy going backwards.

I'm trying to look up more, but it's really difficult, on the website they say things like 'we're going to restore budget surplus in 3 years' without actually telling people HOW they're going to find the money when over $6 billion has been committed to stuff already, and the election is still weeks away.

Firstly, from what I can find, the government has a revenue in excess of 300 billion every year. $6bn is not a huge portion of that (5%), and a budge surplus can be easily achieved by SAVING elsewhere. From my understanding, budge surplus and deficit is not dependent on past year's budge (at least not directly), and it's not a running total. You can see from the previous link that labour has managed to overspend 25.6bn and 48.9bn in the past two financial years. Liberal is willing to stop spending money on non-essential crap (such as the NBN and the laptop scheme, which I will talk about later), and save money so we can start paying the debt already. If anything, that's a brilliant idea. In the meanwhile, labor is still trying to win votes by committing more money to get marginal votes off people who drive old cars, families with 16-18 year olds (FTB increase). It's a tried and true method though, more spending = more vote.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/debts-not-so-bad-in-small-doses-20100304-plnk.html
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/dont-ignore-positives-of-national-debt-20100613-y5uu.html
Or google "benefits government debt"
tldr; debt =/= weak economy, in fact the use of debt saved our strong job market.
"The report outlined that if no fiscal stimulus measures were taken, employment in Australia would be between 1.4 per cent and 1.9 per cent worse off, or around 150,000 – 200,000 less jobs by the end of 2010." http://www.current.com.au/2009/09/18/article/IGNUKFFTAQ.html
Again once again, debt allowed us to stop our economy going in reverse. Under the Liberal policy of economy management, our economy would have gone in reverse, and unemployment would have been much higher.

On the topic of immigration policy, I agree completely with stopping the boats. These aren't refugee seekers, they aren't pursued by terrorists who are going to kill them (if they are, I'm sure US would have invaded that country already). They are illegal immigrants who want to jump the queue, and bypass the criteria. As a migrant, I'm disgusted, and as a citizen, I say a fair go for everyone IS the bottom line, so get back to the back of the queue, and if you don't want to wait back in your country, you can wait outside my door.

Nice generalization. On average, 87% of asylum seekers are found to be genuine. Your outrage would be better off aimed towards "great majority" of 'illegals' who "have arrived legally, and overstayed their tourist, student or other short-term visas." http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm

[enwiabe]

I have to attempt to disagree, please point out where I am mislead, but I am not a fan of labor's excessive spending. As good as money in my pocket sounds, I prefer a strong economy, strong job market and high standard of living much more than the economy going backwards.

I'm trying to look up more, but it's really difficult, on the website they say things like 'we're going to restore budget surplus in 3 years' without actually telling people HOW they're going to find the money when over $6 billion has been committed to stuff already, and the election is still weeks away.

Firstly, from what I can find, the government has a revenue in excess of 300 billion every year. $6bn is not a huge portion of that (5%), and a budge surplus can be easily achieved by SAVING elsewhere. From my understanding, budge surplus and deficit is not dependent on past year's budge (at least not directly), and it's not a running total. You can see from the previous link that labour has managed to overspend 25.6bn and 48.9bn in the past two financial years. Liberal is willing to stop spending money on non-essential crap (such as the NBN and the laptop scheme, which I will talk about later), and save money so we can start paying the debt already. If anything, that's a brilliant idea. In the meanwhile, labor is still trying to win votes by committing more money to get marginal votes off people who drive old cars, families with 16-18 year olds (FTB increase). It's a tried and true method though, more spending = more vote.

http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/debts-not-so-bad-in-small-doses-20100304-plnk.html
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politics/dont-ignore-positives-of-national-debt-20100613-y5uu.html
Or google "benefits government debt"
tldr; debt =/= weak economy, in fact the use of debt saved our strong job market.
"The report outlined that if no fiscal stimulus measures were taken, employment in Australia would be between 1.4 per cent and 1.9 per cent worse off, or around 150,000 – 200,000 less jobs by the end of 2010." http://www.current.com.au/2009/09/18/article/IGNUKFFTAQ.html

On the topic of immigration policy, I agree completely with stopping the boats. These aren't refugee seekers, they aren't pursued by terrorists who are going to kill them (if they are, I'm sure US would have invaded that country already). They are illegal immigrants who want to jump the queue, and bypass the criteria. As a migrant, I'm disgusted, and as a citizen, I say a fair go for everyone IS the bottom line, so get back to the back of the queue, and if you don't want to wait back in your country, you can wait outside my door.

Nice generalization. On average, 87% of asylum seekers are found to be genuine. Your outrage would be better off aimed towards "great majority" of 'illegals' who "have arrived legally, and overstayed their tourist, student or other short-term visas." http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/cib/1999-2000/2000cib13.htm

ah yes, but Noblesse, you're forgetting that the united states will save everybody and therefore there can be no oppression ever

[Mao]

Okay, I admit I have my facts wrong, especially on the topic of asylum seekers. My apologies.

On that note though, I still do not believe it should be open-arms all round. Given that the quality of living in the west-bank is better than the majority of the Arab world, I would argue that the quality of living in the detention camp is higher than the quality of living in the main refugee sources. In that case, the safety of the camp and general well-being is not all-that-bad, and I personally don't see anything wrong with keeping these people there while their identity is verified.

Illegal migration aside, there are many refugee seekers who have been in detention for a long time, if the boats are allowed into Australia straight away, in the name of fairness do you agree with releasing all of these refugee seekers as well?


On the topic of excessive spending, I am unsure whether Liberal is axing any programs or not, but I believe they will lower the spending in all programs. I say that without evidence, because I can't be bothered searching for it. What I have seen though is Wayne Swann's projection that Labor will also return to surplus next year. That I doubt, I don't have evidence for it either though, so I shall not focus on that. Personal opinion aside, next year's revenue (for some reason) is projected by the good sir Swann that it will be much higher than the previous two years, and even without cutting on spending both parties can reach a surplus.

My point is, whilst the government is in power, Liberal does not commit to stupid spending (such as purchasing the copper network from Telstra for the NBN). My bias for Liberal is based on their ability of being conservative with the money, and I'm banking on them not spending too much while they're in-term, compared to Labor's streak of spending throughout the history of Labor (this, I can get evidence for, but I can't be bothered searching).

@ Noblesse, I do agree that taking out a debt has benefited the Aust economy to a certain degree. However, in an international environment, the debtee has to have the money to give to the debtor, and this group of debtees is currently headed by China and Japan. Now I ask you, what happens when the economy of these countries falter? China has a very volatile economy, and I don't suppose we should all be banking on China being strong for our economical well-being, let's face it, if China goes under, we lose one of our primary export buyers as well as fall into a debt crisis. I would much rather if we can get rid of this debt than live on borrowed money/time.

Which brings me back to my contention, I can't trust Labor because they are prone to spending too much money on ridiculous things even at times when we don't have the money (not just in the last term, but most, if not all, of their previous terms). I therefore prefer Liberal, and as bad as Liberal is to some of you, I'm still not convinced that the Liberal policy is all that bad, and I still do not see how Labor (or any other party for that matter) can manage the concerning issues better. All I have seen are among the lines of "Tony Abbot is ridiculous" or "Liberal is a bunch of bullshit", which reminds me of the word 'pathetic' from the page before.

And this contention remains for this election, and all coming elections. And just putting it out there, I personally support work-choices given much of Australia is in a skill-shortage at the moment. I am strongly against Internet censorship, and I don't like spending money I don't have.

[enwiabe]

Okay, I admit I have my facts wrong, especially on the topic of asylum seekers. My apologies.

On that note though, I still do not believe it should be open-arms all round. Given that the quality of living in the west-bank is better than the majority of the Arab world, I would argue that the quality of living in the detention camp is higher than the quality of living in the main refugee sources. In that case, the safety of the camp and general well-being is not all-that-bad, and I personally don't see anything wrong with keeping these people there while their identity is verified.

Illegal migration aside, there are many refugee seekers who have been in detention for a long time, if the boats are allowed into Australia straight away, in the name of fairness do you agree with releasing all of these refugee seekers as well?


On the topic of excessive spending, I am unsure whether Liberal is axing any programs or not, but I believe they will lower the spending in all programs. I say that without evidence, because I can't be bothered searching for it. What I have seen though is Wayne Swann's projection that Labor will also return to surplus next year. That I doubt, I don't have evidence for it either though, so I shall not focus on that. Personal opinion aside, next year's revenue (for some reason) is projected by the good sir Swann that it will be much higher than the previous two years, and even without cutting on spending both parties can reach a surplus.

My point is, whilst the government is in power, Liberal does not commit to stupid spending (such as purchasing the copper network from Telstra for the NBN). My bias for Liberal is based on their ability of being conservative with the money, and I'm banking on them not spending too much while they're in-term, compared to Labor's streak of spending throughout the history of Labor (this, I can get evidence for, but I can't be bothered searching).

@ Noblesse, I do agree that taking out a debt has benefited the Aust economy to a certain degree. However, in an international environment, the debtee has to have the money to give to the debtor, and this group of debtees is currently headed by China and Japan. Now I ask you, what happens when the economy of these countries falter? China has a very volatile economy, and I don't suppose we should all be banking on China being strong for our economical well-being, let's face it, if China goes under, we lose one of our primary export buyers as well as fall into a debt crisis. I would much rather if we can get rid of this debt than live on borrowed money/time.

Which brings me back to my contention, I can't trust Labor because they are prone to spending too much money on ridiculous things even at times when we don't have the money (not just in the last term, but most, if not all, of their previous terms). I therefore prefer Liberal, and as bad as Liberal is to some of you, I'm still not convinced that the Liberal policy is all that bad, and I still do not see how Labor (or any other party for that matter) can manage the concerning issues better. All I have seen are among the lines of "Tony Abbot is ridiculous" or "Liberal is a bunch of bullshit", which reminds me of the word 'pathetic' from the page before.

I never said that all the asylum seekers shouldn't be vetted first. I completely agree with minimal detention until their status may be determined. But what currently transpires is excessive by any measure.

FURTHER - if you're going to say "I can't be bothered doing the research" - then honestly, why are you debating this? You're just talking out of your ass. It is pointless to debate you if you do not have even the simplest grasp of the facts, it won't lead to any new enlightenment - all it will do is expose your lack of knowledge.

[Mao]

FURTHER - if you're going to say "I can't be bothered doing the research" - then honestly, why are you debating this? You're just talking out of your ass. It is pointless to debate you if you do not have even the simplest grasp of the facts, it won't lead to any new enlightenment - all it will do is expose your lack of knowledge.

If you read my reply, you would realise evidence would strengthen my point, and if no evidence exists, the logic still stands. As for things I can say with confidence, I do not have time to dig up references to support my case. In any case, I'm trying to get an opinion out of anti-liberal about why liberal is so bad, not provide a compelling argument why Liberal is better than Labor, and so far I only have Eriny's response which I do not agree with.

Also, please don't degenerate into a discussion on 'valid forms of argument', I want to talk about this issue, not about how to provide an infallible argument. If some of my logic/reasoning is bad, please point out a counter-case (doesn't have to be factual, a scenario is okay) rather than "THAT DOESN'T LEAD TO THAT REDUCTIO AD INFINITUM" or something like that.

[enwiabe]

FURTHER - if you're going to say "I can't be bothered doing the research" - then honestly, why are you debating this? You're just talking out of your ass. It is pointless to debate you if you do not have even the simplest grasp of the facts, it won't lead to any new enlightenment - all it will do is expose your lack of knowledge.

If you read my reply, you would realise evidence would strengthen my point, and if no evidence exists, the logic still stands. As for things I can say with confidence, I do not have time to dig up references to support my case. In any case, I'm trying to get an opinion out of anti-liberal about why liberal is so bad, not provide a compelling argument why Liberal is better than Labor, and so far I only have Eriny's response which I do not agree with.

Also, please don't degenerate into a discussion on 'valid forms of argument', I want to talk about this issue, not about how to provide an infallible argument.

... You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you're unwilling to provide evidence to back your claims then no that is not a valid argument.

"Historically, Liberals have been good with the economy" is NOT a valid argument. In fact, it is incomprehensibly daft coming from you. Now either buck up and start evidencing your arguments, or stop expecting people to do your own research for you. "I don't agree with Eriny" isn't valid when eriny has provided FACTS. You've already conceded being wrong on other points.

We're just not willing to put in the time to school you on basic shit if you're not going to do us the basic dignity of doing some simple reading. The only reason why I even replied to your diatribe before was to prevent anyone from reading your utter bilge and forming an opinion from it because they thought you were informed (hint: you're not).

Conclusion: People don't like debating people who are ignorant by choice and expect everyone else to do their work for them..

[Mao]

FURTHER - if you're going to say "I can't be bothered doing the research" - then honestly, why are you debating this? You're just talking out of your ass. It is pointless to debate you if you do not have even the simplest grasp of the facts, it won't lead to any new enlightenment - all it will do is expose your lack of knowledge.

If you read my reply, you would realise evidence would strengthen my point, and if no evidence exists, the logic still stands. As for things I can say with confidence, I do not have time to dig up references to support my case. In any case, I'm trying to get an opinion out of anti-liberal about why liberal is so bad, not provide a compelling argument why Liberal is better than Labor, and so far I only have Eriny's response which I do not agree with.

Also, please don't degenerate into a discussion on 'valid forms of argument', I want to talk about this issue, not about how to provide an infallible argument.

... You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you're unwilling to provide evidence to back your claims then no that is not a valid argument.

"Historically, Liberals have been good with the economy" is NOT a valid argument. In fact, it is incomprehensibly daft coming from you. Now either buck up and start evidencing your arguments, or stop expecting people to do your own research for you. "I don't agree with Eriny" isn't valid when eriny has provided FACTS. You've already conceded being wrong on other points.

We're just not willing to put in the time to school you on basic shit if you're not going to do us the basic dignity of doing some simple reading.

What? I have provided fact in my rebuttal also. I have addressed my disagreement in terms of the budge surplus with evidence (Labor is also predicting a budget surplus, you claim Liberal is spending 2 extra billion than Labor, and so even by Labor's budget they're still getting a surplus, before any savings on spending [note, not axing, saving]), I've addressed my disagreement in terms of the alleged increase in business tax (with evidence), and I have backed away from my radical point of view in terms of asylum seekers. I have also provided evidence for the NBN. Have I missed something?

On the other hand, I haven't seen any evidence for why Labor is going to manage the economy better, or why Liberal is not going to manage the economy better, or even a solid argument against why my stance on the economy is invalid.

And at your request, evidence for my argument:

http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Economy.aspx
In the pdf on page 32, you can see the biggest deficits are in 1990-1993 and current, both managed by Labor. The 1990 southeast-asia economical crisis can explain the drop, and it took Paul Keating to kick Bob Hawke out and restore the economy at the cost of a massive international debt (page 36). The Howard Government managed to repay that debt completely, and then Rudd happened. Read through that section if you are unconvinced, which gives the liberal government's current policies (running surplus to repay debt, limit spending, redirecting revenue from sale of assets directly to the debt, lower interest rates). I had a search on Labor's website, and I have failed to find anything solid on repaying the debt (note that this debt is not interest free).

As for why the debt is bad and it is important that we pay it off, see previous post and the pdf, and again to emphasize, NOT INTEREST FREE.

So I'm still asking the same unanswered question, what is so bad about Liberal's policies? [Again, if you'll ignore my radical point of view in terms of immigration and border security]

[Mao]

On the topic of my radical point of view on illegal boat arrivals.

Firstly, do you claim that there are more people suffering hardship at this present moment than say, two years in the past?

Secondly, do all these refugee have to go through illegal channels?

Thirdly, how do you explain the recent spike in boat arrivals?

Take Sudan, for example, the war begun in 2003, the number of arrivals of illegal boat people were less than 500 per year in the period 2003-2008. This year, we're in excess of 7000. What's changed? And what is wrong in wanting to restore order and reduce the number of boat arrivals? Do you propose we promote boat arrivals instead? The Labor government's [lack of] policy has encouraged illegal boat arrivals.

On the other hand, assuming that arrival of these asylum seekers are not a problem. Should these asylum seekers be placed in off-shore processing centers as Labor has promised (and still haven't planned yet), or let it overflow into the Australian jails? Christmas island had 8 people in detention in 2008, this figure now has four numbers. There is no information on the Labor website with regards to this, so if Labor wishes to not stop the boats and accommodate these asylum seekers, where's the action?

[enwiabe]

FURTHER - if you're going to say "I can't be bothered doing the research" - then honestly, why are you debating this? You're just talking out of your ass. It is pointless to debate you if you do not have even the simplest grasp of the facts, it won't lead to any new enlightenment - all it will do is expose your lack of knowledge.

If you read my reply, you would realise evidence would strengthen my point, and if no evidence exists, the logic still stands. As for things I can say with confidence, I do not have time to dig up references to support my case. In any case, I'm trying to get an opinion out of anti-liberal about why liberal is so bad, not provide a compelling argument why Liberal is better than Labor, and so far I only have Eriny's response which I do not agree with.

Also, please don't degenerate into a discussion on 'valid forms of argument', I want to talk about this issue, not about how to provide an infallible argument.

... You cannot have your cake and eat it too. If you're unwilling to provide evidence to back your claims then no that is not a valid argument.

"Historically, Liberals have been good with the economy" is NOT a valid argument. In fact, it is incomprehensibly daft coming from you. Now either buck up and start evidencing your arguments, or stop expecting people to do your own research for you. "I don't agree with Eriny" isn't valid when eriny has provided FACTS. You've already conceded being wrong on other points.

We're just not willing to put in the time to school you on basic shit if you're not going to do us the basic dignity of doing some simple reading.

What? I have provided fact in my rebuttal also. I have addressed my disagreement in terms of the budge surplus with evidence (Labor is also predicting a budget surplus, you claim Liberal is spending 2 extra billion than Labor, and so even by Labor's budget they're still getting a surplus, before any savings on spending [note, not axing, saving]), I've addressed my disagreement in terms of the alleged increase in business tax (with evidence), and I have backed away from my radical point of view in terms of asylum seekers. I have also provided evidence for the NBN. Have I missed something?

On the other hand, I haven't seen any evidence for why Labor is going to manage the economy better, or why Liberal is not going to manage the economy better, or even a solid argument against why my stance on the economy is invalid.

And at your request, evidence for my argument:

http://www.liberal.org.au/Issues/Economy.aspx
In the pdf on page 32, you can see the biggest deficits are in 1990-1993 and current, both managed by Labor. The 1990 southeast-asia economical crisis can explain the drop, and it took Paul Keating to kick Bob Hawke out and restore the economy at the cost of a massive international debt (page 36). The Howard Government managed to repay that debt completely, and then Rudd happened. Read through that section if you are unconvinced, which gives the liberal government's current policies (running surplus to repay debt, limit spending, redirecting revenue from sale of assets directly to the debt, lower interest rates). I had a search on Labor's website, and I have failed to find anything solid on repaying the debt (note that this debt is not interest free).

As for why the debt is bad and it is important that we pay it off, see previous post and the pdf, and again to emphasize, NOT INTEREST FREE.

So I'm still asking the same unanswered question, what is so bad about Liberal's policies? [Again, if you'll ignore my radical point of view in terms of immigration and border security]

I already told you that the liberal party's policies don't make sense

Their projected spending on new programs minus their cuts/axes to current programs = $2 bn

AND they're decreasing taxes.

Tell me how the fuck you get a surplus from that.

..

[enwiabe]

On the topic of my radical point of view on illegal boat arrivals.

Firstly, do you claim that there are more people suffering hardship at this present moment than say, two years in the past?

Secondly, do all these refugee have to go through illegal channels?

Thirdly, how do you explain the recent spike in boat arrivals?

Take Sudan, for example, the war begun in 2003, the number of arrivals of illegal boat people were less than 500 per year in the period 2003-2008. This year, we're in excess of 7000. What's changed? And what is wrong in wanting to restore order and reduce the number of boat arrivals? Do you propose we promote boat arrivals instead? The Labor government's [lack of] policy has encouraged illegal boat arrivals.

On the other hand, assuming that arrival of these asylum seekers are not a problem. Should these asylum seekers be placed in off-shore processing centers as Labor has promised (and still haven't planned yet), or let it overflow into the Australian jails? Christmas island had 8 people in detention in 2008, this figure now has four numbers. There is no information on the Labor website with regards to this, so if Labor wishes to not stop the boats and accommodate these asylum seekers, where's the action?

Yes because 7000 asylum seekers means the floodgates are opening. We get 240,000 immigrants each year who come through legal means.

Asylum seekers make up 2.5% of that. This number would not keep increasing so rapidly as there are only a finite number of resources to ferry the refugees to our waters, not to mention the difficulty of getting out of their countries in the first place, the associated risks and the associated costs. It would not rise unabated, it would cap at a number determined by these factors.

[Noblesse]

@ Noblesse, I do agree that taking out a debt has benefited the Aust economy to a certain degree. However, in an international environment, the debtee has to have the money to give to the debtor, and this group of debtees is currently headed by China and Japan. Now I ask you, what happens when the economy of these countries falter? China has a very volatile economy, and I don't suppose we should all be banking on China being strong for our economical well-being, let's face it, if China goes under, we lose one of our primary export buyers as well as fall into a debt crisis. I would much rather if we can get rid of this debt than live on borrowed money/time.

To be quite frank, IF China falters, we have a LOT more problems that our meager debt. However I agree that debt reduction is a good thing, primarily as it makes us more able to offset any incoming economic downturns. The Labour party has shown how they will do that in the next three years, the Liberals however must not have released their entire economic campaign as the figures clearly do not add up. In addition, a majority of their proposals have not been through independent proper costing yet, so the figures we are hearing are simply based on their projections.

[Mao]

Their projected spending on new programs minus their cuts/axes to current programs = $2 bn

AND they're decreasing taxes.

Tell me how the fuck you get a surplus from that.

..

And I reiterate, saving, not axing.

http://www.andrewrobb.com.au/Media/PortfolioMediaReleases/tabid/71/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/1092/categoryId/1/Coalitions-Plan-to-Rein-in-Rudds-Reckless-Spending.aspx

You can find the figures in the links in that article (Coaling savings 1 2.pdf). A projected saving of $42bn over the next three years.

Now, where is your evidence for Liberal committing more money than Labor? Or, if I have understood you incorrectly, where is your evidence that Liberal is spending more than they are saving?

[enwiabe]

Reading the newspaper helps:

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/surplus-blunder-reveals-coalitions-economic-woes-20100803-115g5.html

[Eriny]

The Liberals have actually promised to spend more in this election than Labor according to the Australian. Labor probably would spend more in the long run, but that doesn't bother me because looking after people is more important than looking after the economy (within reason). And yes, the ALP have wasted a shitload of money, but ideologically speaking I think it was good things to buy, just really awful negotiations, and I'm not really sure who to blame for that?

I think we also do need a national broadband network because network coverage is abysmal in Australia. This is going to cost a lot of money, but infrastructure is there for long-term gain, I think it's worth it.

I should note that I'm finding it difficult to defend Labor, because they are bad. But there is no way I can vote for the Liberal party.

[littlebecc]

I should note that I'm finding it difficult to defend Labor, because they are bad. But there is no way I can vote for the Liberal party.

Agreed.