It would be responsible to have a discussion on the pullback of the stimulus given the stimulus was largely based on projections which have turned out to be ‘off the mark’ and more recently, the budget bottom line is likely to be $5B better than expected.

Sadly, the discussion will not happen for political reasons alone. It could be said that Swan is now admitting that the stimulus package ‘is over inflated’ because the stimulus package has not changed inline with our current and better than expected, economic condition. The ALP may have cleverly duped the public.

Turnbulls trip to London was privately funded.

Now that Stevens has clearly warned Swan to be vigilant and to not overheat our economy, the true test of the ALP’s economic credentials lay ahead.

If so, what involvement would the Reserve Bank of Australia and people like Glenn Stevens have in such a loan?

Very little media coverage has been given on the source of the money used for the stimulus package, beyond quotes of Turnbull disapproving of increasing national debt. I’m just wondering if Stevens’ position on this matter is directly related to his involvement and that of the RBA.

The question for the ALP is, if they had known in January that we would be in this economic position, would they have revised their stimulus? G20 backing is totally irrelevant for Australia in this instance because we are in a far better and vastly different position. Most leaders in the G20, Gordon Brown as an example, are dead men walking and will be voted out.

Turnbull has never ever said to withdraw the stimulus, this is just ALP scare mongering. He is right to suggest that a discussion atleast needs to be had on the pullback of the stimulus. Not to do this, given where we are economically, is irresponsible.

The bank guarantees, whilst required in some capacity, was hastily implemented - just ask Mortgage Funds and the people that lost their jobs due to the millions pulled out by advisors and investors.

And still we have no destination on the other side of the chasm for the stimulus caboose #1 and #2 to land after taking a jump into the thin air / religious faith of market based growth economics.

It’s a race against time really - the hurricane in Brisbane or the caboose hitting the bottom. After Gittins recently we can be sure a hurricane will be good for GDP but not so good for wellbeing.

If I recall correctly both Joe & Malcolm were arguing that tax cuts would be the best way to go, rather than one off payments.

It was a silly comment then, and has been highlighted even sillier now.

The conservative side always goes with tax cuts regardless. The last treasurer took company tax windfalls and decided to cut personal income taxes with it. The result was a smaller tax base to work with when company tax receipts went belly up, and he thinks he was a genius….

Will they ever learn?

I’m not sure I understand what you mean here:

“The Government’s efforts to curb general government spending in the next budget will play the same role. While spending directed at the construction sector – which is where the stimulus package is now almost entirely directed – has a larger multiplier in terms of employment, there’s otherwise no difference between a dollar spent as part of “Building the Education Revolution” or a dollar saved by Lindsay Tanner’s razor gang.”

Spending cuts will help repair the public finances (realistically by slowing the growth in total expenditure to beneath the growth in revenue, rather than through large absolute cuts). Stimulus spending stimulates (though the construction sector may be a bit over-stimulated in places). But I’m not sure if you mean to equate the two, unless the argument is that a dollar not spent by the Government is a dollar that taxpayers keep and spend themselves, which would seem to be true only if public spending restraint led to lower taxes rather than repaying debt sooner.