The debt blame game
May 23rd, 2012 at 7:00 am by David FarrarStuff reported earlier this week:
Voters blame Labour more than National for the country’s current debt levels, according to a nationwide survey of Fairfax newspaper readers.
With the two main parties pointing the finger at each other, we asked more than 2000 of our readers who they blamed more.
Almost half of those in the survey saw it as effectively ”a plague on both their houses”, with 44 per cent blaming a combination of the Clark and Key governments.
But among those who singled out one or the other, 33 per cent saw Labour as being more at fault, while only 18 per cent blamed National more.
That is despite a huge blow-out in net core Crown debt since National took office, with a rise from $10 billion in 2008 to $50b now and forecasts it will top $70b by 2015.
However, in 2008 Treasury was forecasting a decade of deficits, though not at the level actually seen over the last few years. There was a record $18b deficit last year, which was hit by the cost of the earthquakes, and will be a likely $10b to $12b deficit in the current financial year.
The survey results are not a random sample, so should not be taken as gospel. However they do give me confidence that voters out there are smarter than assumed.
These finding have caused great howls of outrage from the normal Labour types, with graphs showing how debt fell until 2008 and rose afterwards. In their simple binary world, that means Labour was good on debt and National has been bad. They hope and pray the public are so stupid that they overlook the global financial crisis and associated world recession.
As most people will know the 2008 PREFU showed us that under Labour’s fiscal settings, New Zealand was facing a decade of deficits. But it was even worse than that. Just two months later the forecasts were for not a decade of deficits, but a permanent structural deficit that would never go away.
Now National responded to these forecasts by cancelling its planned 2010 and 2011 tax cuts, and a mixture of spending cuts and reductions in the future spending allowance. One can argue that Labour may have taken some action also to stop a structural deficit from being locked in, if they had won in 2008. But the problem for them is they opposed every single spending cut or even restraint that National did. So hence it is no wonder that the public don’t see them as credible.
It was only a few months before the 2011 election that Labour realised how badly they had misjudged the public mood, and stopped calling for massive new spending.
So as I said, the results of that survey are reassuring that many in the public can tell the difference between correlation and causation.
Related posts:
- A path out of debt
- How bad is Labour’s legacy
- GST to 15% and top income tax to 45%
- The importance of reducing debt
May 23rd, 2012 at 7:15 am
Those who endorse Labour as a viable political entity, who follow and support the claims and utterances of its poorly equipped minions – only prove themselves as being of low intellect or possessed of completely and unreasonably closed minds.
Quod erat demonstrandum.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 7:25 am
Sure, labour did not run up debt …. but, they took full advantage of a debt fuelled consumer boom and the taxes that spewed from the resulting bubble.
Why did Labour not realise that it was a bubble? Booms never last when nothing in the economy has substantially changed, and the bigger the boom the bigger the hangover.
Labour were out of control. And, left national to clean up the mess.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 7:36 am
So self-selecting polls are a completely unscientific waste of time and further they are an insult to the brain-the-size-of-a-planet polling giant that is David Farrar, unless he agrees with the result. Then he’ll post about the results in an approving way.
[DPF: No the correct thing to do is note the limitation of the poll, and that it is self-selecting. I did that explicitly. It doesn't mean you can never comment one one - but that you should be upfront about its limitations]
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 7:37 am
Labour are on the right track with this comprehensive plan to get the economy back on track.
It’s good to see such an innovative plan, I’m sure no other parties will have thought of anything like that.
That should sort out our debt problems. With some help from Russel Norman as Finance Minister to keep spending under control.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 7:44 am
If we are going to complain about Labour in opposition voicing opposition to spending cuts (which is a fair enough point) then it’s also worth noting that the NZ voter was entirely correct to reject Bill English and Don Brash in 2002 and 2005.
I remember years of complaints from National about a mean finance minister sitting on massive surpluses. Those surpluses were used to pay down massive quantities of government debt. English and Brash’s proposals were to give it all away in massive tax cuts (during a property boom and period of high inflation meaning half the tax cuts would end up getting lost to successive OCR hikes anyway).
Cullen did a great job to hold his nerve for as long as he did and pay down the amount of debt he did – the country ended up far better placed to handle the financial crisis than most of the OECD as a result.
His legacy of pouring a big chunk of those surpluses into the NZ Super fund and Kiwisaver was also a great way to refocus the economy towards savings and invest the surpluses in a way that didn’t stoke inflation. I’m glad the National government have recognised his achievements through making good use of him in a senior government appointed role (even if they can’t admit it publicly).
Unfortunately the pressure to reduce surpluses did eventually get to him and the last three year of Labour saw greatly reduced surpluses as a result of big spending increases way out of step with the previous 6 years. That was seen as reckless and the electorate punished Labour accordingly.
*enter libertarian nutters arguing that Cullen was trying to turn NZ into North Korea*
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 7:47 am
@pete George — I take it you are being sarcastic
Russel norman as finance minister, shudder to think.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 7:52 am
The blame game starts but the reality of it is that National have had the reins now for 4 years. They have been hit by the earthquakes in Christchurch but are still only tinkering without any real vision. Chopping civil service jobs is not visionary it is simply business as usual and cutting your cloth so to speak but what is national done in 4 years to address the revenue line. It is interesting to look at IPO’s on the NZX over the past 4 years and compare that to Australia.
We are not growing a robust economy here national Is simply shuffling the deck chairs on the
Titanic. We all know what a disaster a labour lead government would be but National is more interested in being popular than leading some real growth initiatives. No wonder the young bright kids are leaving in their droves.
we have to ask and expect more visionary leadership from National rather than continually just carping about what labour is doing or not doing.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 7:52 am
wreck1080 – I think Russel Norman is deadly serious about having a finance role, he has openly suggested it. Whether Labour would give him one is another story.
It’s ok, Green economic policies grow on trees.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 7:58 am
@richard29– you are quite deluded.
Cullen had enough money to pay off ALL debt, and reduce income taxes.
Instead, he only reduced debt by a bit.
He introduced Working For Families, invented new ministries and non-core governmental roles, gave free money (billions) to students, bought a multi billion dollar train operation, ran down ACC by a billion bucks, threw tons of money into health (resulting in large waiting lists because the money was poorly spent ).
I’d have preferred lower taxes and no government debt.
Now, the bubble has burst, and there is no money to pay for all these things labour invented. So, Cullens debt reduction was only going to be temporary due to the ongoing expenses of the structural changes they made. And, that, is hardly good fiscal management.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 8:17 am
Labour can be forgiven for they know not what they do. Being largely financially illiterate and hell bent on socialism, during the bom years they enacted low quality expensive spending policies like Kiwisaver, workings for families, interest free student loans. National has kept every one of these policies.
Vote:National, which is really the new Labour, will probably lose the next election because of their failure to do so.
As much as I despise Labour and what it stands for, I don’t see much difference between them and John Key’s Govt
At least we have ACT’s spending cap in place now which will help but all we can hope for is that National scrapes home next time with a strong ACT party to givei itr some balls.
May 23rd, 2012 at 8:46 am
wreck1080 that is exactly it and I just cannot for the life of me understand how anyone could so blatantly ignore this when they talk about the situation we are in now. It absolutely has a bearing on where NZ is at today. In saying that I do agree with Mark that there needs to be strong focus on what is happening now rather then just putting all the focus on the mess Labour left us in and using it as an excuse. At the end of the day what is done is done, we need as a country to clean it up and try to move on. National is doing well but I think they could do better in some areas.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 8:50 am
However they do give me confidence that voters out there are smarter than assumed.
They give me confidence that lots of voters are suckers. Your post would make sense if Stuff had asked “Who would be responsible for current debt levels if Labour had been elected instead of National in 2008?” But it didn’t. It asked who is to blame for our current debt levels, the answer to which is the people currently responsible for running the country.
I know politicians only like to take responsibility for good news, but the fact is the govt is captain of the ship and is by definition responsible. In this particular case, there’s not even the possibility of claiming they inherited the debt from the previous govt – they didn’t. The current govt inherited a very low level of public debt by local standards and has proceeded to quadruple it. Labour’s involvement in that approximates to 0.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 8:51 am
Well said, wreck @ 7:58. You’ve correctly pinpointed the principal flaw in Cullen / Clark’s fiscal strategy that was driven entirely by political ends, not by the best interests of the country.
That flaw was to ramp up structural spending dramatically, i.e. spending of a type that becomes entrenched in an economy. Much of that increased spending was in social handouts (eg WFF, student loan interest) and in “capacity” expansion (explosion in publicly-funded employee numbers), the type of spending that is political suicide to unwind at anything like the rate that it was created.
So what became the ultimate legacy of Cullen / Clark? Big Government that (politically) can be unwound only gradually or in the face of a Greek-scale economic crisis. Cunningham sums up well the political dilemma now faced by National, and he’s right in seeking a less cautious approach.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 9:00 am
PM @ 8:50,
1 I’d., need any help with that?
db..
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 9:30 am
National’s main problem is that they are not explaining the situation well to the public. They need to pick up their PR and explain what the economic situation is, how we got into this situation and what their plan is to get us out of it. Also why they are using this plan and not using other alternatives.
Vote:The public will feel more comfortable if they know what is going on and it helps relieve some uncertainty, which people do not like.
May 23rd, 2012 at 10:11 am
Jimbob
National can’t relieve of you of your uncertainty when it has no idea where it is going itself – except deeper into recession as its regressive tax switch slowly strangle any recovery.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 10:26 am
Pete George
Labour will almost certainly have to give Dr Norman whatever he wants, which besides Finance he wants deputy PM and Turei to have Social Welfare.
Vote:Labour cannot achieve Power without the Greenpeace party – the number cannot stack up otherwise, unless the Greens get more seats than Labour, and that is still an outside possibility, along with Winston, to have balance of Power.
Norman is certainly the MSM favourite Leader of the Opposition.
May 23rd, 2012 at 10:44 am
The poll does show how misinformed voters can be, even a self-selecting group of Stuff readers – I only go there when I’m following a link, for example.
National boxed itself into corner of its own making over Super, WFF and interest-free student loans. If we accept the political reality that the current policy settings on these issues are popular, except for minor fiddling, surely this emphasises the irresponsibility of National in pushing through its regressive tax “switch” (in reality, increasing the tax burden on the lower paid in society).
However, help is on the way as regards WFF. Let’s see National get behind this: Campaign launched for ‘living wage’
Increasing wages for those at the bottom of the heap will lessen, even remove, the need for taxpayer subsidy of wages and make it easier for National to wind back on the middle income welfare of the better off.
One of the unfortunate consequences of WFF was to reduce pressure on employers to realistic wage and salary rates. If National supported this campaign, the whole country will benefit.
And just to get one rebuttal in first, the only cost pressures that would result are internal. We no longer have labour intensive export industries – at least, those that depend on cheap labour – therefore, like with GST increases, there would be a one off hit of inflation which the Reserve Bank can ignore, and government spending can be reduced in one fell swoop without any need for austerity.
And perhaps the tide of Kiwis flooding into Australia can be stemmed at last.
Alternatively, the government could try reading The Big Kahuna.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 10:45 am
Paulus, if Labour and Greens need Winston, they should give him to National and sit back and enjoy the ride form the opposition benches!
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 11:18 am
“Just two months later the forecasts were for not a decade of deficits, but a permanent structural deficit that would never go away.”
If you take into account superannuation liabilities, we still do have a structural deficit that will not go away. The question to ask is – When will we get back to a level of surplus that allows us to save at a rate that will meet future superannuation liabilities, accounting for demograhphics? The answer, currently, is never.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 11:25 am
Labour were largely fine pre 2005.
Cullen correctly resisted the claims from National that the surplus was structural. He was correct to pay down debt at this time.
In 2005 though, they performed an about face and spent money stupidly, WFF and interest free student loans, this was for blatantly political reasons.
In 2012 though, we have a National government that refuses to face basic facts prime amongst them is that non means tested universal pension payments from 65 fixed at 67% of average wage will bankrupt the nation. This simply put is criminal. No one in National thinks it’s true and the entire nation is now being held hostage to Keys promise to quit rather than change it.
I’d be interested to know just what buy in he had before he made this pledge, or if it was an off the cuff bit of policy.
In balance, they are both crap.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 11:28 am
Milt, the government who goes into debt is not necessarily the same one to blame for the debt. Debt occurs when the government doesnt have enough tax revenue to cover costs. Labour spent their last term ramping up spending, deliberately eliminating the surplus. Do you remember that cunt Cullen gloating about it?
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 11:35 am
Alan Johnstone,
Agreed.
I believe future superannuation liabilities for current taxpayers should be included on the government’s balance sheet. That would force the government to either deal with the problem, or explicitly accept they are leading us to Debt Mountain.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 11:50 am
Luc, you’re even more misguided this morning than you usually are:
10:11 – “National …. has no idea where it is going itself – except deeper into recession as its regressive tax switch slowly strangle any recovery.” In other words, we’re in recession (not true at all, incidentally), but give us more taxation from the small group of taxpayers already paying 90% of total tax and we’ll have Government spend its way to greater NZ prosperity.
10:44 – “……. surely this emphasises the irresponsibility of National in pushing through its regressive tax “switch” (in reality, increasing the tax burden on the lower paid in society).” So a repeat of the “regressive tax switch” allegation that is claimed to be the cause of all NZ’s fiscal challenges (same response as above to that) plus the hilarious claim about “increasing the tax burden on the lower paid in society”. Luc, the lower-paid in society don’t pay net tax in reality.
10:44 – “One of the unfortunate consequences of WFF was to reduce pressure on employers to realistic wage and salary rates.” Firstly, do tell us about the other “unfortunate consequences of WFF”; we’ll be interested in your acknowledgement of that gross political failure by the previous Government. Secondly, you seem to think that the present Government should be making existing employers / producers / taxpayers use their own money to pay higher wage and salary rates. Your answer then is simply: “Stuff our long-established market economy that has funded a generous welfare state and a national standard of living that is envied by much of the world, just make local fat cats pay more tax for Government to spend.”
10:44 – “We no longer have labour intensive export industries – at least, those that depend on cheap labour ….. ” So you don’t think things like dairy farming, pip-fruit, kiwifruit, grape-growing and winemaking (to name but a few) are labour-intensive, and depend critically on lower-paid workers? You really need to get out from behind your keyboard into the real economy of NZ, after taking off your rose-tinted glasses.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 11:50 am
The main stream spin is working it seems, especially if only one local rag publishes about a lecture given by Associate professor Dr Sue Newberry about what bankster John Key and his Finance minister have been up too. Borrowing billions to invest in Derivatives. In fact NZ now has a staggering $ 112 billion in off the books Derivatives.
When the derivatives bubble blows and it will NZ will be on the hook for the money borrowed to invest in these gamling debts.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 12:35 pm
“Milt, the government who goes into debt is not necessarily the same one to blame for the debt. Debt occurs when the government doesnt have enough tax revenue to cover costs. Labour spent their last term ramping up spending, deliberately eliminating the surplus. Do you remember that cunt Cullen gloating about it?”
Kind of like how George Bush and Dick “deficits don’t matter’ Cheney spent eight years pissing money away on wars and tax cuts, as well as letting the housing and financial markets implode. Then as soon as Obama takes over the Republicans start wailing about how awful deficits are.
http://crooksandliars.com/jon-perr/reagan-proved-deficits-dont-matter
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 12:51 pm
@travellerev – using derivatives to manage (hedge) risk is actually a good thing. It is the same as insurance, basically. A currency put option for instance has a cost and can simply be not taken up but if there is a currency movement in an adverse manner can be used to protect against the movement. The NZ Rugby Union famously made millions of dollars (more accurately protected against a risk that eventuated in to millions of dollars) through the use of hedging.
That article you refer to shows the author’s knowledge of derivatives is inversely proportional to the square of the number of words in bold in that article. All the original article says in the SST is that the risk of the other party defaulting in the derivative contract is not shown and its value thus is stated as net zero, which it is if no default. In accounting terms that is standard practise, There is however, a risk that the other party defaults but no reasonable way to measure that risk. The way to show that it is to show the value of derivatives. More accurately, the statement should be that the NZDMO are managing risks potentially totaling $112 bn.
Taking bets on the market to make money using derivatives is high risk. So it depends very much on the approach. The NZDMO is about debt and risk management so only has the power to use derivatives to manage risk.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 1:07 pm
For those of you who need to brush up on their banking lingo here is a link to a dictionary I use if lost in the bankster lingo wilderness. Here are few key words you might brush up on and pay attention to the words naked shorts and no it doesn’t mean transparent shorts.
And Slimebal, I’ll tell Associate professor Dr Sue Newberry whose research covers two main areas, financial accounting and standard-setting, and public sector financial management reforms, you didn’t think too highly off her skills eh? As it was she who pointed out that the picture painted by our Government was an off the books, fraudulent and convoluted picture.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 1:40 pm
@travellerev
just realised you’re link whoring to your own ‘blog’ – funny I criticised it without knowing it’s yours but stand by my comments.
That’s terrific spin there – tried to read the original article she published but it’s restricted to subscribers. What the abstract says is “It identifies the changing mix of assets and liabilities, the tendency for complex WGA financial reports to obscure, rather than to reveal, portfolio changes resulting from privatization, and the growing involvement in financial market activities.” All of which is true. Accounting practises don’t show derivatives and any exposure from derivatives well and can be used to fiddle the books ala Greece and their hidden debt by using currency trades. This is a problem with accounting practises that needs to be fixed. …. and a problem with Greece deliberately circumventing EEC rules.
The academic’s article was then given a spin by the SST journalist to be a criticism of NZ government’s accounting practises but those are the standard ones in the way hedges are reported and are not fraudulent (that’s your spin) – at least they reported it. You then preceded to spin that to the end of the world is nigh with a million and one unfounded conclusions. I’m criticising how this has been spun in a manner that is shambolic and hugely biased.
My original point that derivatives used to manage risk are a different kettle of fish to those used to make money or hide liabilities.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 2:12 pm
@ Slimeball,
No the article is not just for subscribers but I recognise damage control when I see it. Here is the link to the original article for those who want to read it.
Greece circumvented the EEC rules with the help of Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs then bet against Greece and in fact against al of Europe taking over the most powerful posts in Europe.
The journalist did no such thing but asked the treasury to give a response to the critisism of Dr. Sue Newberry which last time I looked was proper journalistic behaviour. The criticism came from Dr Sue Newberry who is a specialist in the field not a journalist putting a spin on it.
Must be hurting if you have to try and counter spin it. Even the use of the word spin and link whoring are sooo government. Lol.
Try to “counter spin” this one. Everytime a banker opens his mouth he lies
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 2:38 pm
@travellerev
the original article from the academic is for subscribers – try and read what I wrote – it’s why I said original article SHE published – you are either being deliberately obtuse or avoiding my points. The SST article had some mild spin on that as they do “Government in $112b barney” and your blog spun it so much it was impressive
Last attempt in simple sentences
Vote:- the issue is with accounting practises and derivatives
- derivatives can be used to manage risk, make bets or hide stuff – if the former is good – others are either high risk or bad
- the abstract from the academic states it’s an accounting issue
- your blog was the highest level of gibberish I have read in a while
- ‘”taking over the most powerful posts in Europe”!?!?!?!? Hierophan perhaps?!?!? more gibberish
- I pointed you at the example of Greece using derivatives to do bad stuff as an example so we actually agree on one thing
May 23rd, 2012 at 3:24 pm
Labour spent their last term ramping up spending, deliberately eliminating the surplus.
They had a surplus to spend and a mandate to spend it (see the current govt’s mandate to part-sell public assets for an explanation of the term). The current govt had no surplus but maintained the surplus-era spending, borrowing to do it, hence the debt – the responsibility for that lies with the incumbents.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 4:01 pm
On a related note to debt (as it’s why we have taken on debt).
Does anyone believe modern Keynesian economics works? Though is has been simplified to fiscal stimulus during recessions. Tried to research this. The capitalist in me says it sounds like bollocks but it was being pushed by economists who tend to be more in favour of capitalism as a group.
Did the usual googling and it seems I can find plenty of examples where it presented as working but just as many for failing. Kept digging and as with lots of these theories they get over simplified.
I came to the belief that if there are no major underlying structural major problems in the specific economy then fiscal stimulus basically borrows to protect jobs that may not be economically viable during a recession so that they can survive to the end of the recession. It being supposed to be cheaper and less disruptive to protect the job than change job or re-create another job. If there are significant structural problems then it’s a waste of money and a way to produce more debt.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 4:05 pm
Oh come on, Psycho Milt. You know very well that the present Government barely won a parliamentary majority under our crazy MMP electoral system – despite strongly out-polling its predecessor. It achieved its slim majority only after avoiding politically counter-productive policy settings that could have stripped hundreds of thousands of eligible voters of their WFF, “free” student loans, Kiwisaver subsidies and other poor-quality forms of redistribution.
The public spending legacy inherited by John Key and Bill English had become structural, not something that could be turned off like a tap by any Party that had aspirations to control the Treasury. Remember the defiant boast of Michael Cullen that National would find nothing left to spend. (He also knew how difficult it would be to unwind any of the new forms of public spending.)
There was only one governing Party responsible for the profligate spending that originated and became entrenched in Helen Clark and Michael Cullen’s final term – an increasingly-desperate Labour Party. The same governing Party that was responsible for NZ going into recession prior to the start of the GFC.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 4:42 pm
Yes, how awful of Cullen not to make things easy for his political opponents. You’d think they were his opponents or something.
The public spending legacy inherited by John Key and Bill English had become structural, not something that could be turned off like a tap by any Party that had aspirations to control the Treasury.
There’s nothing structural about interest-free student loans, WFF, etc. They can be switched off at the whim of govt, same as they were switched on. What you’re actually saying is that National prioritised re-election above doing what needed doing. That choice was theirs to make and they made it, but they can’t then try and pretend that the resulting debt somehow isn’t of their making.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 4:53 pm
Psycho? You are crazy ….. you can’t turn the taps off to a constituency just like that. Just as a government could not ditch the social welfare system.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 6:36 pm
Not necessarily crazy, wreck – but very determined to spread the blame around for Labour’s irresponsible final term fling. Note how Psycho ignores how Helen Clark’s Government led New Zealand into recession before the onset of the global financial crisis. All their own proud work.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 6:53 pm
I don’t care who’s to blame. It’s irrelevant in the context of my kids and grandkids having to pick up the tab. The real questions are:-
Vote:1. Based on that statis quo, how long before we reach the edge of the precipice?
2. Is there a possibility that the mayhem that we’re about to see in Europe will be sufficiently horrible that we’ll start rejecting election year bribes from those desperate to retain power?
May 23rd, 2012 at 7:16 pm
KK
Why worry about your kids and grankids? You are doing your best to see the planet fried and the seas toxic and rising fast within their lifespan.
What a hypocrite.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 7:44 pm
Replying to Calendar Girl’s points of rebuttal:
1. Sure, we are not in recession, officially, yet. But it’s a poor show when only a massive and tragic earthquake enables you to make that claim. However, I will rephrase to suit you: …”into a recession.” My point remains. I would also add that I am only saying the tax cuts above a certain level, say 80,000pa should be reversed, not increased on top of that.
2. Where did I say the tax cuts were the cause of everything? What nonsense. Try keeping to the point. And the burden of the lower income earners is irrelevant to my point, as I am saying leave them no worse off.
3. Complete red herrings about previous governments and absurd hysterical statements – no, the owners of enterprises don’t pay the higher wages, the consumers do, hence my mention of a one off inflation hit.
4. The industries you mention are all highly mechanised these days, and labour costs are not particularly significant, and they certainly pale into insignificance besides the exchange rate influence and the health of the overseas markets.
You need to stay grounded.
Vote:May 23rd, 2012 at 9:41 pm
Psycho Milt is right. The government writes the budget. You can’t excuse the current administration, because they were happy to sell out to get into government. Either that or they genuinely couldn’t be arsed actually having a bit of leadership and selling responsible policies. They didn’t even have to sell “individual responsibility” for everyone, just for the middle class!
This government is responsible for every dollar it spends. The same is true for all governments.
Vote:May 24th, 2012 at 5:45 am
Slimebal,
Could you give me a link to said Article. Amazing that you should know where to find it as I have the greatest problem locating it and I spend a great deal of time trawling the WWW. I’m smelling a well paid National researcher and counter spinner here.
Vote:May 24th, 2012 at 6:06 am
Note how Psycho ignores how Helen Clark’s Government led New Zealand into recession before the onset of the global financial crisis.
Yes, note how he avoided bringing up completely irrelevant matters and stuck to the subject at hand. It’s an excellent thing to note, and an even better thing to learn from.
This government is responsible for every dollar it spends. The same is true for all governments.
Well, there you go – someone else summed it up a lot more succinctly than I did.
Vote:May 24th, 2012 at 7:00 am
But Luc, the planet is not fying, the seas arent toxic and the sea level isn’t rising fast. So I’m not a hypocrite. But you remain a believer in post modern apocalyptic climofaith. That’s just weird.
Vote:May 25th, 2012 at 1:53 am
Psycho if they cut any of those policies, they would never be in government, and could never undo all the bullshit that went on under Labour. WFF, student loans, kiwisaver subsidies, all that shit should be thrown out, but you can’t do that when people have adjusted to it, you unfortunately just can’t. Especially in a recession. What they have done is the best they could do. I just hope that if they find themselves on the way out, they do the same to Labour, spend like they will be dead tomorrow and see how Labour likes it. Hell, why not a universal student allowance, with no time limits. Why not another family welfare scheme ‘families of tomorrow’ a universal welfare scheme for every family on borrowed money. Why not buy a military jet strike force again, and a few more frigates too. Why not spend billions on a green alternative energy scheme, regardless of it’s feasibility. The current state of affairs shows what happens when a political party out of pique and it’s own interests rather then the countries makes a move move to bankrupt it’s political opponents. If national did it, it would just be fair, but they won’t because they aren’t totally cynical cretins with no care or thought to the future.
Vote: