"....When Howard lost to KRUDD, how long did it take to spend...

  1. 12,715 Posts.


    "....When Howard lost to KRUDD, how long did it take to spend that surplus by Labor?....."

    You do know that is not how surpluses work.
    Surpluses are based on revenue being higher than spending (in a specific year), and in the 2008-09 period, there was an unprecedented drop in revenue because of a thing called the GFC which required a stimulus to dampen the the effects, hence no surplus.


    "....Were there any longer term benefit?..."

    I'm guessing you are referring to the stimulus, in which case for example, there were 200,000 people in the building trade kept in work which helped support the associated industries.
    So not defaulting on loans or losing your home would be a longer term benefit for them.

    The stimulus was absolutely necessary, you can pick the sheet out of aspects of it, but overall it did the job it was intended to do.


    As for Gillard, Gillard and Abbott are as bad as each other, so not sure why you think that validates anything.


    I blame the Libs for inaction on the property front, the Labs proposed changes to NG mirror what I have advocated for a long time. They may not get it perfect, but at least it is a start in the right direction.


    The Libs over the last two terms have been woeful on "economic management", record spending, record debt, and they have only been saved by increasing tax receipts (which are now projected to be at 14 year highs).




 
GET SUPPORT arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch. arrow-down-2 Created with Sketch.