is it irony Patman or just a sickening coincidence.
Mozart looking at Glug table of Net Debt I see the Fin. Year 2007/8 has a minus in front of 44.82 billion [budget done in May 2007 by Peter Costello], . Uhhmmm does this mean the 44.82 billion was actually an accumulated surplus and so is not really a debt like the 132.55 billion which had mysteriously accrued four short years later? Now let me try to work this out does that mean someone spent 177.37 billion in four years and we are paying interest daily on that 132.55 billion net debt which is now estimated at closer to 137 billion I believe I saw in the press last week because last year's budget blew out. Hey I could never spend $177,370,000,000 in four years but then what would I know, I'm not as clever as Swannie.
