|
>> I see. I just put my faith in John Howard. Given the anti PC backlash since his
>> election, he only just managed to disband ATSIC. For the smooth operator he is,
>> he hasn't had a chance to get rid of the office in question? I think he has
>> (special interests) political advantage in keeping it. It's in the nature of conservative politics that things happen slowly.
Johnny will disband the the Office for the Status of Wimmin when he can do so
without suffering electoral backlash. Likewise he will rewrite the mandate of
the Family Law Court when he same applies. >> It's all about Ricardian equivalence to me. I don't care if the Government
>> funds it's spending by debt or taxation. The level of taxation is what the
>> Government actually spends. B+ for economic theory, but there are two pragmatic concerns, which the
perfectly-informed fully-lubricious marketplace in the wet dreams of our
economics professors didn't have: - Would you rather some steal $1 from you now, or steal $1.00 + $0.10
interest from you next year? Clearly it depends on the rate of interest, and
your opportunity cost. Don't assume governments will get this right. I would
rather pay $1 now than $1.10 next year. Don't assume equivalence in the real
world.
- A zero deficit keeps the governments (somewhat) honest. People are made
aware how much the subsidies for retarded lesbian feminist Aboriginal
immigrants are costing because they are paying it (even if the government tries
to hide it as much as possible). Borrowing money just creates a fool's paradise
in which everyone (who doesn't know the definition of government deficit)
thinks all is rosy. Last time the ALP were well on the way to Argentine-style
meltdown. I don't want to see that happen again.
>> Why will encouraging welfare dependent families to expand help my income to
>> rise if this has to be funded in some way? I never defended welfare payments. Yes Johnny should have handed the creeping
tax bucket back, not given it out in welfare, but he should have done the same
with all other forms of welfare too. Johnny had some cash left in Treasury, and
used it to bribe voters in the most efficient (vote/cost) method he could find.
I don't think anyone is denying that (except maybe Liberal Party members).
| 
