Re your post which included; "... This government is bringing in more money than the Howard Government ($36B more) but it cannot go close to providing a surplus because it is spending $100B more a year than the last year of the Howard Government ..."
You just don't appear to understand percentages & what they mean - as in % of GDP! As for other KPIs such as unemployment, interest rates, private indebtedness, the CPI ....
You also appear oblivious to the costs John Howard structured into the budget that had to be funded by its successors - some of which the Rudd-Gillard Govts. have indeed tackled.
That Howard era profligacy included that absurdly ridiculous baby bonus, the extension of almost unlimited superannuation concessions to those who'll never need it anyway [a MASSIVE tax cut for the wealthy], Howard's wars in Iraq & Afghanistan, the MASSIVE infrastructure deficit Howard accumulated due to his government's inaction, those worthless helicopters that had to be paid for, a corroded & worn out naval fleet that has to be replaced, ...
Add to that dismissal of the impact of the GFC, locking away $50b in the Future Fund etc. & Bob's your uncle!
Hellohhhhhhh!
Now, FWIW, I am not even a rusted on Left Wing, goose-stepping Labor stooge Socialist - I voted Independent at the last election & previously for Lou Liebermann [a very good Liberal MP who served Indi well & in stark contrast to the shocking Liberal MP we currently have].
