Comments by "Simon Harris" (@simonharris4873) on "Keating’s Redfern speech defined ‘white guilt’: Price" video.

Howard would have been nothing without Keating's coattails to ride on.
2
@Neil-yg5gm Because we ran out of things to sell. Howard ran a surplus budget by selling off the silverware, which isn't sustainable.
1
@lucasroe2878 No, that was Kennett who made that promise.
1
@lucasroe2878 Sounds to me like you have memory issues. I wonder what could have caused that.
1
@Neil-yg5gm Yes, he did that too. Far too much of it. It's like saving money by not maintaining your car. Might put money in your today but hoyle regret it when your car breaks down.
1
@lucasroe2878 People like you, who have no idea how economics work, shouldn't be allowed to vote at all.
1
@Neil-yg5gm What's wrong with debt?
1
@Neil-yg5gm You didn't answer the question. What's wrong with debt?
1
@Neil-yg5gm And stop lying, it's already been explained to you before, we were not debt free in 2007.
1
@Neil-yg5gm You still didn't answer the question, so I'm just going to assume that you're the same as all the other NPCs that vote liberal, and you don't actually know what's wrong with debt. "saved $200B with asset sales" - LOL, you clearly don't know what your talking about. one of those "assets" was Telstra. A government owned communications company, at the start of the communications age. That was the worst decision by any Aust government in living memory. Do you have any idea how much easier it would have been to roll out the NBN is the Gov still owned Telstra?
1
@Neil-yg5gm If you can't even tell me what's wrong with debt, then you really should be talking about it at all. Stop pretending to be an expert, I'd be surprised if you could even count.
1
@Neil-yg5gm Thanx for proving you know nothing. The current inflation is due to increases in fuel prices. I has nothing to do with government debt. There's no point looking at the interest we pay on our debt unless you also look at the return on investment we get from it. It's far more complex that you're capable of understanding, which is obviously why you dodged the question for so long.
1
@Neil-yg5gm There you go, back to that same cut and paste answer. Everyone who knows anything about economics knows you're wrong. About pretty much everything you post.
1
@Neil-yg5gm I didn't say that. And Labor didn't create it. The LNP created that debt.
1
@Neil-yg5gm No it wasn't. In 2007 it was $58B. You've had this explained to you multiple times. You're just trolling now.
1
@Neil-yg5gm Nope, They were paying interest on the debt in 2007, so they were in debt. End of story.
1
@Neil-yg5gm It doesn't matter. If I owe the bank money, and have money in my pocket, then I still have to pay the interest on the money I owe the bank, and I'm still in debt. You have no idea what you're talking about. And if Peter Martin knew what he was talking about, he wouldn't be working for the SMH. In 2007, we owed money to other countries. We paid interest on that money. WE WERE IN DEBT!
1
@Neil-yg5gm Debt is debt. I borrowed money from the bank, invested it in a house. I still owe the bank money, and I'm still paying the interest. I AM IN DEBT. It doesn't matter if the house that I have is worth more than what I owe the bank, I'm still in debt. Instructed? He was the PM, nobody "instructs" him. What are you talking about?
1
@Neil-yg5gm But that's not what the government did, so once again, your analogy doesn't fit the situation.
1
@Neil-yg5gm Irrelevant. If you borrow money from the back and invest it in shares, then you still owe the bank money, and you're still in debt to the bank, and you still pay interest to the bank. The assets you have are irrelevant to that. Perhaps you should stop talking about economics and start talking about something you're more attuned to, like your favourite crayon colour.
1