Real fiscal restraint

May 18th, 2013 at 12:00 pm by David Farrar

Issue 17 2013 graph

 

This graph from the NZ Initiative is an insightful one. It shows the massive increase in real spending per capita up until 2009 and the fiscal restraint that has occurred since then.

Imagine if the growth from 2002 to 2009 had continued? Wed be approaching Greece.

Tags: ,

81 Responses to “Real fiscal restraint”

  1. Komata (1,220 comments) says:

    Messer’s Shearer, Cullen, Mallard, King etc, will, of course, deny any responsibility . . .

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  2. tvb (4,556 comments) says:

    And then we get another Labour Government that will take spending to new heights that is financed by tax borrowing and printing money. We will get to Greece eventually. Labour Governments happen when there is some money to spend and people are tired of austerity and prudence. Then the money runs out.

    Popular. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  3. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    After the GFC there was always going to be fiscal restraint whoever was in Government.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 19 You need to be logged in to vote
  4. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Imagine how much more fucked we’d be if Cullen hadn’t paid down sovereign debt and frittered the surpluses away in taxcuts.

    If English were in charge then there wouldn’t be the investment in our future that is Kiwibank, Kiwisaver and the Cullen fund…and yes Kiwirail as well.

    Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 3 Thumb down 30 You need to be logged in to vote
  5. alloytoo (582 comments) says:

    I wonder what those figures could have looked like without Christchurch.

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  6. Bad__Cat (141 comments) says:

    Nostalgia-NZ (3,471) Says:
    May 18th, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    After the GFC there was always going to be fiscal restraint whoever was in Government.
    ========================
    If you believe that, I got a bridge I’d like to sell you.

    Vote: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  7. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    …frittered the surpluses away in taxcuts.

    The only thing being frittered away is your grasp on fiscal reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  8. Inky_the_Red (764 comments) says:

    Just to try to understand this. How are you treating working for families tax credits? Have they been included in expenditure?

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  9. emmess (1,398 comments) says:

    After the GFC there was always going to be fiscal restraint whoever was in Government.

    Yes, that exactly how Keynesian economics that the socialists apparently subscribe to works.
    Oh wait a minute

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  10. OneTrack (3,372 comments) says:

    “After the GFC there was always going to be fiscal restraint whoever was in Government.”

    You mean like the government in Greece. Oh, wait…..

    Vote: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  11. Alan Johnstone (1,087 comments) says:

    “Just to try to understand this. How are you treating working for families tax credits? Have they been included in expenditure?”

    I’d presume so, they are welfare payments.

    Tax credits are just a polite way of kidding the lower middle classes that they aren’t beneficiaries. But they are.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  12. wat dabney (3,849 comments) says:

    Tax credits, by definition, are not payments. Nor do they make someone a beneficiary.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  13. beautox (409 comments) says:

    I’m really not surprised that you can’t read graphs dear pollywoggy.

    Or that you think that Kiwirail is an investment. Do you know what ‘investment’ even means? Can you distinguish between an investment and a money pit? I thought not.

    Vote: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  14. Inky_the_Red (764 comments) says:

    It would nice to have a link to the data the graph is based on.

    Why start in 2001 and not 1996 or 1990? Why the broken Axis?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  15. Judith (8,534 comments) says:

    All very good, until you factor earthquakes, droughts and storms into the picture, and suddenly you realise just how unrealistic the Govt is being. To cut back spending to such an extreme during this period is hardly admirable – all they are doing is allowing people that really need assistance to suffer needlessly.

    It would have been admirable to have prevent more growth, what is not admirable is extreme fiscal restraint, (whilst lining your mates pockets) in the kind of environment we have had for the past three years. We will eventually have to pay – all they have done is shuffle the pack, and sold off the family silverware in the process.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 17 You need to be logged in to vote
  16. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    ‘Bad__Cat (6) Says:
    May 18th, 2013 at 1:18 pm
    Nostalgia-NZ (3,471) Says:
    May 18th, 2013 at 12:39 pm
    After the GFC there was always going to be fiscal restraint whoever was in Government.
    ========================
    If you believe that, I got a bridge I’d like to sell you.’

    A lot of people in business tightened spending, paid off debt and stopped borrowing. Apart from the borrowing, what can you provide to say another Government wouldn’t have tightened spending even if increasing debt as National have done? If you look at the graph, National actually topped the spending of labour in 2011. Government continuing to spend, while cutting away the fat, is important to the recovery – that’s happened by increasing debt.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  17. Tauhei Notts (1,687 comments) says:

    Proof that austerity works.
    Bayern Munich will play Dortmund in the soccer final. They put out Real Madrid and Barcelona in the semi finals.
    Now consider their average per player salary payments (all figures in US millions of dollars)
    Barcelona $8.68
    Real Madrid $7.8
    Bayern Munich $5.9
    Dortmund $3.1
    Those canny Krauts know a thing or two about getting value for money.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  18. kiwigunner (232 comments) says:

    None of this means anything unless the effect is that peoples lives are made better. Not sure that there would be many who put their hands up to that assertion looking at the last 5 years.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 12 You need to be logged in to vote
  19. Keeping Stock (9,381 comments) says:

    Judith said

    All very good, until you factor earthquakes, droughts and storms into the picture, and suddenly you realise just how unrealistic the Govt is being. To cut back spending to such an extreme during this period is hardly admirable – all they are doing is allowing people that really need assistance to suffer needlessly.

    My Dear Departed Dad used to tell me that you can’t spend what you don’t have Judith. In a few years time we will look back with some admiration on Bill English, and commend him for abandoning his Roman Catholicism for some good, parsimonious Presbyterian economic policies. Government spending simply had to be addressed, or we would have been up to our eyebrows in souvlaki.

    Vote: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  20. mandk (1,032 comments) says:

    Kiwigunner
    You really need to compare any policy outcome with the counterfactual.
    It’s simply naive to compare now with 5 years ago, unless you can say what effect an alternative policy regime would have had.
    If a surgeon has to remove your leg, that is a really good outcome, if you would otherwise have died of gangrene poisoning.
    But is is not such a good outcome, if effective antibiotics were available.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  21. labrator (1,851 comments) says:

    It would have been admirable to have prevent more growth, what is not admirable is extreme fiscal restraint, (whilst lining your mates pockets) in the kind of environment we have had for the past three years. We will eventually have to pay – all they have done is shuffle the pack, and sold off the family silverware in the process.

    Did you actually come up with this yourself or has it been supplied? Because none of it really makes any sense or bears any resemblance to reality.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  22. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    So counterfactualise what English would have done during the boom years Cullen enjoyed and managed to near perfection that allowed us to weather the post GFC in relatively good shape then mandk?

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 10 You need to be logged in to vote
  23. mandk (1,032 comments) says:

    pollywog,

    the spending binge shown in the graph would not have happened

    the counterfactual to the current regime is that the spending binge would have continued, and NZ would have become the Greece of the S Pacific

    clear?

    Vote: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  24. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    NO mandk…I doubt Cullen would have continued spending if Labour had got back in 2008.

    but i guarantee English would have blown the surpluses Cullen ran on roads to nowhere and taxcuts for the wealthy and left Labour with little choice of what to do, as Lange did when taking over from Muldoon.

    And as i keep saying. English wouldn’t have had the foresight to invest in the future by establishing Kiwibank, Kiwisaver and the Cullen fund, nor future proofed NZ against oil shocks by buying back Kiwirail.

    Gambling the future away as they are, selling off assets and loading up the grandkids with debt isnt a plan. Its economic sabotage yet to be played out in a time when English and Key will be long gone holidaying in some island retreat spending their ill gotten gains.

    Surplus my ass. The loans are gonna get called on for payback eventually and borrowing while the borrowings good then budgeting to only payback the interest in the short term isn’t a plan or a surplus. Its fiscal irresponsibility and passing the buck.

    These fucken shortsighted charlatans arent fit to lick Cullens ballsweat.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 18 You need to be logged in to vote
  25. mandk (1,032 comments) says:

    “NO mandk…I doubt Cullen would have continued spending if Labour had got back in 2008″

    You cannot hope for a statement like that to be taken seriously.

    Just look at the graph!

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  26. mandk (1,032 comments) says:

    ” … loading up the grandkids with debt …”

    that is precisely what the govt is trying to prevent

    what else are you trying to do if your focus is on reducing the deficit?

    Vote: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  27. andrewd (2 comments) says:

    Cullen had one mantra. Don’t spend more than you earn. It would have been fascinating to see what he would have done post GFC. Would he cut Working for Families? Would he have stopped tax cuts. Who knows. National didn’t. They borrowed. Big time. And they may have a surplus coming but there’s still a big debt to worry about.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  28. Keeping Stock (9,381 comments) says:

    NO mandk…I doubt Cullen would have continued spending if Labour had got back in 2008.

    No; of course he wouldn’t Pollywog. After all, Cullen only spent $750m on Kiwirail AFTER having declared that he had cleaned out the cupboard. I have no doubt whatsoever that Cullen knew the tide had gone out on Labour, so he spent up large to cause the incoming government the most discomfort that he could.

    Vote: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  29. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    More bullshit mandk!

    Borrowing now with no plan on how to pay it back but hoping the youngers will, isn’t preventing them from debt.

    It’s entirely the opposite.

    And English only spent twice as much bailing out Sth Canterbury Finance against treasury advice in rolling them over on the retail guarantee scheme, Keeping Stock.

    I’d rather have a train set I could electrify and invest in that the whole country might eventually profit from than a dodgy game only my mates could play and profit from.

    Future electric rail…another stupid reason why selling power companies is dumb.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 11 You need to be logged in to vote
  30. DRF (19 comments) says:

    What the Auditor General’s report into the guarantee scheme ACTUALLY said about SCF,

    “The Treasury was well prepared for the South Canterbury Finance payout and provided comprehensive analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of the various options that were available. Because of this, the Treasury secured an effective outcome that significantly reduced the liability that the Crown would otherwise have faced. In our view, the Treasury chose the best available option for paying out South Canterbury Finance’s depositors.”

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  31. Keeping Stock (9,381 comments) says:

    Remind me again Pollywog; who conceived the Retail Deposit Guarantee Scheme?

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  32. DRF (19 comments) says:

    Not rolling over SCF would merely have triggered the default at that time. The only way SCF was not going to be bailed out was if it got to the end of the scheme with all the other guaranteed entities.

    The key mistake was allowing SCF into the scheme in the first place. The AGs report also makes it clear that The Treasury advised Michael Cullen what would happen if finance companies were included in the guarantee. Michael Cullen decided they would be.

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  33. seanmaitland (501 comments) says:

    @wat dabney – wrong. It is possible through Working For Families for people’s Net income to be higher than their Gross income. That is not a tax credit.

    A tax credit comes out of the tax you pay, it doesn’t lift your Gross income.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  34. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Cullen chose the lesser of 2 evils to protect mum and dad investors in a time of great uncertainty

    English rolled SCF over to protect the fatcat speculators knowing it was a certainty to crash. Then those in the know got in quick to game it before that happened.

    If it defaulted earlier then so be it, that’s the risk they ran. Treasury advised English to let it fail. He decided to privatise the profits to the well to do and socialise the losses to the taxpayer.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  35. DRF (19 comments) says:

    People invest in Finance companies to get a higher interest rate in return for accepting higher risk, i.e. greed. Cullen chose to eliminate the risk of people seeking that higher rate.

    It was dumb and it saw money move to those institutions, exactly as The Treasury advised him it would.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  36. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    It was the right thing for Cullen to do at that time.

    It was the wrong thing for English to do at a later date.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 7 You need to be logged in to vote
  37. DRF (19 comments) says:

    Pretty sure that’s completely the opposite of what the AG’s report suggests.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  38. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Pretty sure knowing how he felt about rich pricks gaming the system that Cullen wouldn’t have rolled SCF over on the scheme in 2010 against treasury advice like English did.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  39. DRF (19 comments) says:

    The ‘gaming’ you are talking about started the day after the scheme was implemented, when Cullen’s masterpiece officially decreed that if you had more than $1m in a conservative non fat-cat bank term deposit you would be better of (I.e. higher interest rate, same risk) moving it to guaranteed finance companies in $1m lumps.

    I watched lierally hundreds of millions of dollars move off a major bank balance sheet in those first few days. National moved eventually to restrict that flow and suspended a couple of finance companies.

    The damage was done in those first few days.

    I’m sure Cullen doesn’t like fat cats, that dislike cost this country’s tax payers net payout to SCF.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  40. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    The damage was done in those first few days.

    Arse, the damage was done in April 2010 when blinglish approved the entry of South Canterbury Finance to the extended scheme when it started in October 2010.

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA1009/S00118/ministerial-statement-on-south-canterbury-finance.htm

    http://www.treasury.govt.nz/publications/informationreleases/scf

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  41. DRF (19 comments) says:

    And if he hadn’t SCF would have failed at that point and been paid out under the original scheme, which it was anyway.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  42. DRF (19 comments) says:

    Cha – the key points in your link

    ‘If, for whatever reason, South Canterbury Finance’s guarantee had been withdrawn, existing depositors would have still been covered for the full term, and the Crown’s exposure would have remained.’

    ‘Their admission into the extended guarantee did not materially change the Government’s risk in the event of default.’

    ‘In the event, because South Canterbury Finance entered receivership before October, the extended guarantee never applied. Payments to depositors will be made under the terms of the original scheme.’

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  43. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    Existing investors only though, not the deposits after the April 2010 announcement.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  44. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    But are you saying he would still have guaranteed the bailout for SCF in 2010 by rolling them over knowing they would crash and burn ?

    I doubt It.

    The fact remains Cullen signed them up. BUT English rolled them over and triggered the eventual bailout. The damage to the taxpayer happened on English watch.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 6 You need to be logged in to vote
  45. DRF (19 comments) says:

    SCF had a $1.3 billion balance sheet on the day they were admitted to the scheme, this grew significantly in the days immediately following the announcement to $1.6b.

    This company was NEVER coming out of the guarantee scheme, it was going to fail.

    At the time of the failure the balance sheet was $1.7b.

    To my mind the most that can be tagged to Bill English is therefore $0.1b, the rest is Cullen’s parting gift to the NZ economy.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  46. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    The point remains that English has cost current and future taxpayers far more than any other with the level of debt he’s creating and by having no plan on how to pay it back.

    That is a far cry from the prudent financial champion and economic saviour the shills and sycophants are making him out to be.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  47. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    The incoming government supported the introduction but rather than close the scheme they chose to extend it. Hardly Cullen’s making.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  48. gravedodger (1,575 comments) says:

    @ Polywog, 8 27 so, accepting that you start with Cullen good English bad, how can you possibly have any notion what Cullen would do had he been in charge after November 2008.

    Cullen gives me an impression of the man who won $10 000 000 from lotto and farmed incompetently until it was all gone.

    He had stewardship of the finances of NZ Inc for the most successful trading conditions in 50 years, a blind mute with a deaf seeing eye dog and a broken white cane who left school to look after his widowed mum at 12, could have done better.
    His legacy, productive New Zealand in recession a full year before the rest of the world!!! after trumpeting the larder was skinned committed the incoming administration to funding Kiwi Rail.

    He expanded the public service exponentially, found ever more creative ways to enslave potential Labour voters with irresponsible bribes such as student loans and WFF, and as a crowning gift to the Nation purchased a clapped out train set for, at a minimum 3 x its true value in a deal that still has the Toll Chairman of the time saying “you only get one Helen Clark in a lifetime”.

    Micheal Cullen was a shallow, smarmy, bitchy, oldboy of Christs College who carried scars of inadequacy for the rest of his life and is probably best summed up by the trite comment “we won you lost”, very statesman like up there with the current muppet Leader of the socialists, who in a moment that could have shown empathy for a casualty of the bear pit, grinning like a cheshire cat and talking about CocaCola and popcorn.

    Vote: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  49. DRF (19 comments) says:

    You can argue about extending the entire scheme, you cannot seriously sustain an argument that SCF alone should have been excluded from an extension.

    Under the terms of the agreement the Govt had to have good reason to specifally exclude a company. Announcing such an exclusion for ‘good reason’ would undoubtedly have dried up new money for SCF and resulted in almost immediate failure and payout of the depositors under the original scheme, a figure that at no stage after the first few days was less than $1.6b.

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  50. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    It must be exhausting running around dodging graves all the time the dodger, have you ever thought of taking piano lessons? Maybe you could get one of those ‘souped up’ piano cheers and go dodging graves at the local cemetery during your lunch breaks just for old time’s sake.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  51. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    Stupid old man rants – best you get that nice nursey girl to wipe your chin.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  52. DRF (19 comments) says:

    No answer I take it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  53. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Cullens legacy will be the fund bearing his name, The locally owned bank formed on his watch and a scheme to ensure kiwis save for their retirement.

    English legacy will be selling off state assets unnecessarily and transferring debt to future generations.

    Big fucking deal the trainset is broken. FIX IT and quit whining.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8 You need to be logged in to vote
  54. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    If we closed Cullens scheme and spent it all on his trainset it wouldn’t be enough polly old chap! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  55. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    The worst was over by 2010. English could have cancelled the scheme for all and sundry.

    No questions asked, no reasons given other than the crisis has passed. The scheme served it’s purpose. Move along, Nothing to see here.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 5 You need to be logged in to vote
  56. cha (4,144 comments) says:

    With 40 plus finance companies going to the wall prior to the 2008 guarantee I’d question the motives behind the scheme.

    http://www.interest.co.nz/saving/deep-freeze-list

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  57. Nostalgia-NZ (5,322 comments) says:

    It’d be enough to send you off to Brixton JB so a few folks could yawn thinking about boring you are.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 4 You need to be logged in to vote
  58. Johnboy (17,051 comments) says:

    I most be really thick N-NZ. It’s taken me this long to realise what a nasty little turd you are! :)

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  59. mandk (1,032 comments) says:

    pollywog

    I’ve figured you out.

    In your world, up means down, and reducing a fiscal deficit is loading debt onto future generations.

    When it’s pocket money time in your house, I bet you take money from the kiddies, and then save it for them by putting it all in the machine with flashing lights down at the pub.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  60. DRF (19 comments) says:

    cha – absolutely, the finance companies should never have been admitted to the scheme.

    Banks target something like a 99.997% chance of surviviving an unexpected event, a 1 in 3,000 year event.

    So bank rates form the lowest rates available to the depositor. Finance companies nowhere this this level of protection so have higher rates.

    If the guarantee had moved to make banks only guaranteed that would have temporarily made banks 100% likely to survive, and the finance company place in the market would have remained for those seeking higher rate and risk.

    Cullen’s choice not to do this.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  61. Akld Commercial Lawyer (166 comments) says:

    Not really central to the core arguments going on here – but in relation to SCF there is a central point that both sides above appear to be missing. Sadly, while the matter is still before the courts I can only suggest that everyone here will be a at lot wiser after March 2014 – when it seems likely that much of the evidence will be placed before the Courts.

    Until then, I fear that the central part of the argument i.e. why the taxpayer was already fully pregnant – and why the rollover was in a sense of academic moment (if you can regard $300m+ as academic) is not really available to all of us.

    And JK has got me watching Super Rugby again – but the Crusaders were far too good tonight. But I digress…..

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  62. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    So what’s the plan for paying off the loans English signed us up for then mandk?…SHOW ME THE JOBS!

    Yes DRF…English choice not to cancel it.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  63. DRF (19 comments) says:

    One of the good things Cullen did do was to let the early finance companies go under, the Bridgecorps and Hanovers.

    These also had a lot of Mum and dad investors. Due to NZ going into recession ahead of most parts of the world, these started going under before the actual GFC hit the rest of the world. In other countries this led to Governments trying to prop up rotten institutions that should have been allowed to fail. The classic socialising the losses and privatising the gains.

    We didn’t do that here until he allowed the finance companies into the scheme.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  64. infused (583 comments) says:

    They would have kept spending, they said many times they’d keep spending.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  65. NK (1,259 comments) says:

    Draw a straight line across from 2008-2013 and tell us again there has been fiscal constraint since Key has been PM. Go on. Do it.

    If you look carefully, spending has increased in the last 5 years. But true, not as fast as Labour. But it has still increased.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  66. mandk (1,032 comments) says:

    pollywog

    Seasonally adjusted total employment was 21,000 higher in Q1 2013 than it was in Q4 2008.
    Seasonally adjusted total employment was 81,000 higher in Q1 2013 than it was at the height of the GFC in Q3 2009. (StatsNZ)

    But now I expect you to tell me that the figures are wrong and that in pollywog world employment has fallen and that the current govt is fully responsible for the GFC

    Vote: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  67. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Pollywog you accuse Bill English of austerity and then of accruing too many ‘debts’ in the same exact breath that’s contradictory, and therefore silly.

    Tomorrow, after you’ve looked in the mirror and practiced your affectation as some kind of erstatz ‘kiwi battler’ Labour voter of yore that Labour no longer even represent, pen a letter of thanks to Bill English. Thank Mr English for his foresight, prudence and work through almost every sector of government in his career. Perhaps you have a relative like myself who is mentally ill. Thank Bill for being the guy who pushed through the communities initiatives that got those people out of their prison-like institutions and into healthy full lives, and who took the crap when a few of these ppl did bad things. Thank Bill for the massive decreases in the criminal increase in cost of living, inflation, interest rates and power prices that characterised Labour’s tenure. Thank Bill for his intellectual prowess in the areas of welfare, housing, education, health, tax policy, local government, and Maori policy. Bill recognises that Cullen at least was able to effect an agenda and had some intellect. But Cullen is long gone Polly. Your party no longer represents your online version of yourself, or anything else in particular. Thank Bill for getting the country through it’s toughest years in a very, very long time, and in particular for being the guy who has taken the arrows and set the agenda that got us away from the abyss that was the 2008 report on the state of the NZ economy. Your’s sincerely, a high information voter exasperated at your ignorance and baaing. “WHERE”S THE JOBS” Polly blurts like an idiot. Well, there are a hell of a lot more of them here, then elsewhere in the world, thanks to Bill.

    Vote: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  68. UpandComer (537 comments) says:

    Also, Pollywog, Cullen paid down most of his debt right at the very end. He’d been figuring out as many ways as he could to spend money and had been pretty successful, but most of the debt decreases as a % had occurred because the economy had grown, not because he’d paid much of it off. His debt pay-off wasn’t principled, it was, like the trainset purchase that is costing hundreds of unnecessary millions that might have gone into, I don’t know, food in schools, a way to clean out the books to the greatest extent possible to go with the rest of Labour’s blessings in 2008.

    So before you cast aspersions on Bill English, please go and educate yourself, and maybe go to finishing school as well, because your awful blurts, whimsical grasp of history and current affairs, and pseudo-aggression is sth Mr Cullen himself despised about some of his own colleagues and constituents.

    Just ask some of your friends, it’s very easy to be in charge of money when there’s ‘heaps’ it’s a bit harder for guys like Bill when there isn’t any.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  69. Keeping Stock (9,381 comments) says:

    Pollywog said

    It was the right thing for Cullen to do at that time.

    It was the wrong thing for English to do at a later date.

    Translation: Michael Cullen is a saint and Bill English is the devil incarnate.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  70. Mobile Michael (475 comments) says:

    There has never been a state/government that hs spent its way to prosperity without doing so through conquest. Why socialists think this has changed in modern human history escapes me.

    Vote: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  71. fooman (40 comments) says:

    2 questions:

    1. When did the government suspend payments into the Cullen fund?
    2. Did that count as Core Crown expenditure?

    From memory, the amount was in the order of $500 to $1000 p.a. per capita. Perhaps it is a case of the government not saving, rather than cutting spending…

    Tl;dr – define the major policy line items which reduced the per capita spending?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  72. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Haha…yeah thanks Bill. On behalf of the future generations who get loaded with YOUR debt. Thanks heaps!!!

    “The real story from Thursday’s budget is how indebted we will become under John Key and National. In 2012, New Zealand’s Net International Investment position was minus 70.7% of GDP of $208 billion, which means we owed $147 billion in net debt to the rest of the world.

    “By 2017 National’s Budget projections show New Zealand’s Net International Investment Position will skyrocket to minus 80.9% of GDP of $257 billion, equating to $208 billion in net debt to the rest of the world.

    “In just five years National will blow our level of debt to the rest of the world by over 40%. John Key is building our economy on debt, and history tells us that such a reckless economic strategy is likely to lead to collapse.

    “The wafer thin surplus in the government accounts is marginal when you look at the real debt vulnerabilities in the New Zealand economy.

    http://www.greens.org.nz/press-releases/national-increase-new-zealand-s-debt-61-billion-over-five-years

    Fiscal restraint…yeah right!

    Now, about those JOBS…WHERE THE BLOODY HELL ARE THEY ?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  73. wat dabney (3,849 comments) says:

    Fiscal restraint…yeah right!

    Er, this is talking about private debt, Polly.

    On behalf of the future generations who get loaded with YOUR debt.

    You and you descendants are not on the hook for a single cent of it, because it’s private debt, you see.

    Perhaps we should all have to ask your permission before making any financial decisions? That, after all, is what Russel seems to be suggesting.

    Are you a violent thug like Russel?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  74. Elaycee (4,425 comments) says:

    Jeez….. pollywog / BWAV / TWAT etc, is using propaganda straight from the Gweens website to try and make a point about fiscal policy.

    Bwahahahahaaaaaaaaaaa… “Hey, Clint….”

    Brilliant! :D

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  75. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    CROWN DEBT based on Treasury financial statements

    http://www.johnpemberton.co.nz/html/government_debt.html

    Please continue laughing like an idiot…fucking moran!

    We and future generations of taxpayers are liable for all of it when the banksters decide to call in the markers.

    So whats the plan to pay it all back Elaycee?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 3 You need to be logged in to vote
  76. wat dabney (3,849 comments) says:

    Polly,

    Yes, Crown debt. So,now that we have cleared up your confusion with private debt, back to the thread topic eh?

    Vote: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  77. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    Ahh yes, the thread topic that purports fiscal restraint means borrowing your way to prosperity with narry a clue how to pay it back save selling assets and loading up future generations.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 2 You need to be logged in to vote
  78. wat dabney (3,849 comments) says:

    Oh dear, Polly is still hopelessly confused.

    Vote: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1 You need to be logged in to vote
  79. pollywog (1,153 comments) says:

    say wat?

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  80. questions (209 comments) says:

    How did I know when I looked at that graph on my tiny little mobile phone screen last night (too small to make out the numbers) that there would be something untoward about the Y axis of that graph….

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote
  81. wally (68 comments) says:

    Gravedodger: ” Micheal Cullen was a shallow, smarmy, bitchy, oldboy of Christs College”

    He was a scholarship boy from a low income family and apparently got arseholes from the rich prick boys. That explains a lot I think.

    Vote: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0 You need to be logged in to vote