http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2008/07/23/2008-07-23_why_we_need_corn_in_subways.html

Really? So when HC says that it’s lunacy to increase debt from 20% – 22% of GDP, that is consistent with raising debt levels from 18% – 20% after the last budjet?

Rather inconsistent i would have thought.

“In the 1990s living standards were dropping considerably and their positions reflect that living standards were a primary concern with debt coming secondary”

Ummmmmm …. have you opened your eyes lately? We are in a resession dont you know!

“No, lying to get into power is not right no matter how you dress it up”

Just who in fact is lying? National are not lying, they have said they will not sell anything in their first term and then will go to the people to see what they think about certain things that may be sold, or part privatised.

In the 1990s living standards were dropping considerably and their positions reflect that living standards were a primary concern with debt coming secondary.

So what’s different in a recession with soaring fuel prices, soaring food prices and the highest interest rates in the OECD?

Let me guess, It’s National suggesting it not Labour?

How’s that corner looking, talking about debt as a priority before falling living standards when Labour have been screeching at National for wanting to move it at all paints the corner a bit tighter.

Home owners do it to.

The left say that National will say anything to get into power, quite rightly so.

No, lying to get into power is not right no matter how you dress it up.

Big infrastructure projects will be part funded by increased borrowing. Labour has done it, National are going to do it, what’s the problem? Helen herself said that borrowing for infrastructure is not a bad thing!!

All businesses do it. You may as well borrow to get things done, and then pay it back when the economy is doing better and there is more of a surplus to spend on debt reduction.

We ended up having to boot him out to cut our losses as he owed quite a bit of money for bills and rent.

You capitalist pig, as soon as he was costing you money you turned on him and sent him off down the path of homelessness. Shame on you not being prepared to spend your own money looking after the needy in society.

You remind me of an old flatmate from a few years ago who had a bit of a gambling problem. He asked (for the umpteenth time) for a loan one day and I took him aside and told him his gambling was out of control if he was borrowing money for it. He agreed, but explained that he didn’t need money for the pokies – just to buy groceries. Of course he’d already gambled his budgeted food money.

We ended up having to boot him out to cut our losses as he owed quite a bit of money for bills and rent. I expect that’s what’ll happen to Key too if he ever finds enough greedy fools to vote for him.

The left say that National will say anything to get into power, quite rightly so. They wont just say anything, but they have to appeal to the masses in order to get into power. But Labour will say anything to stay in power. It’s power that Helen craves, not to serve the people of New Zealand!

Well… Not this Labour govt. If this Labour govt were prepared to borrow to finance major infrastructure projects rather than fund them out of current over taxation revenue then it would not criticise it’s opposition when the opposition said it was going to do that. Unless the Labour party are completely hollow and popularism is their only objective, the Labour party have no option but to enter the election with all policy carrots (bribes, incentives, winning ideas – call them WTF you like) funded on higher taxation.

Good luck guys, you have already cut taxes, you say you won’t cut govt spending and you say you won’t borrow. It’s quite a corner chasing the opinion polls has painted you into.

First Dr Cullen:

“The previous government had established a 30 percent of GDP target when the Fiscal Responsibility Act was passed in 1994, and had reduced it to 25 percent in 1999. When we came into office that year we made the judgement that the Crown finances and the state of the economy could not sustain that lower target, so we restored it to 30 percent of GDP.’ – Michael Cullen 18 May, 2004, Speech to Chen Palmer & Partners Business and Government Seminar

So National had a target of 25%, and Labour increased it to 30%. yet now they are saying 22% is lunacy and madness.

And now Miss Clark:

All these quotes are from 1994, when debt was in excess of 50% of GDP!!’

“I am pleased that economic growth has produced enough tax revenue to declare a surplus and repay debt. But I am appalled at the rate at which debt repayment is occurring at the expense of families, and schools and other essential social and public services.’ – Helen Clark (July 1994) Speech Auckland Labour Regional Conference

“The Government is putting an undue emphasis on debt repayment at the expense of our failing services and infrastructure in New Zealand,’ – Helen Clark (June 1994) Opening address to the Massey University Winter Lecture Series.

“We agree that we should be aiming to ensure that the ratio of debt to GDP in New Zealand is not out of line with other smaller industrialised countries. But Labour does not accept that having the smallest debt to GDP ratio in the OECD is an important goal. Nor do we believe that reducing our debt quickly should take precedence over improving the living standard,’ – Helen Clark (July 1994) Speech to Northern South Island Labour Regional Conference.

“At Budget time our net public debt was equivalent to 42 per cent of GDP – down from 48 per cent a year earlier Given those figures, it is hard to believe that the international credit rating agencies with which the Government is so besotted can have any real concern at our current level of debt,’ – Helen Clark (June 1994) Waikato Labour Regional Conference.

“The Government is obsessed with debt reduction over all other needs for spending,’ – Helen Clark (July 1994) Speech to Wellington Labour Regional Conference.

So when gross debt was over 50% of GDP, Clark time and time again attacked reducing that level of debt, and specifically advocated investing money into infrastructure instead.

I trust we will hear no more hysteria from Helen or Michael on a gross debt setting of 22% of GDP!

I like this quote from Dr. Muppet Cullen.

“The previous government had established a 30 percent of GDP target when the Fiscal Responsibility Act was passed in 1994, and had reduced it to 25 percent in 1999. When we came into office that year we made the judgement that the Crown finances and the state of the economy could not sustain that lower target, so we restored it to 30 percent of GDP.’ – Michael Cullen 18 May, 2004, Speech to Chen Palmer & Partners Business and Government Seminar

Guess all that extra tax take had to be spent somewhere where it couldn’t create further inflationary pressure and now that it’s been spent on debt to the detriment of hospital waiting lists etc the Labour-led govt need to defend their actions.

Which ties in to what the GOP has been selling. Laffer curve voodoo etc. that tax cuts pay for themselves and “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter” etc.

But as you were, if that’s not what you mean, fine. I’ll wait to see what infrastructure they are talking about though, ’cause at the moment it just sounds like a promise to cut taxes at no cost.

“… but when the costs of servicing that debt are less then the extra productivity created by it, its a very good thing.”

This is obviously true, but what politician would say that their debt plan wouldn’t fit within it. What they say isn’t what counts. That’s how we got in trouble in the first place.