95% of people in the US will recieve a tax cut, 5% will not, so your comment is wrong.

Thanks for providing the links to disprove your case.

Tax cut has some effect on the economy, howard’s 20billion tax cut can stimulate the economy, but the stupid reserve bank was raising interest rate by 3% in late 07 and early 08 which stopped the economy, that had a much bigger effect on the economy. I cannot believe any of those clowns still has a job.

I think jobs are the key at the moment, if people are going to lose their job they are not going to spend …. which increase the chance of them losing their job!!!

Obama’s speach was brilliant, he gave hope to the American people (who are in a economy 10 time worse than ours) He told them that recession will only last 2 year which was great, it might not be the true, but optimism will help the world get out much quicker. I think Rudd and Gillard are making a big mistake, they are saying it will be bad, but it is not their fault. This might absolve them of blame, but a positive message like Obama’s, could mean it does not get “bad” in the first place.

I would be happy to forgo my $900, if the Government use the money to build rail lines for example, the rail line will employ people in the construction phase, and then once completed, will led to employment of train builder, drivers, cleaners. This would create jobs, while cash handout has almost no effect, as it is not permanent and school halls will have little effect too.

Wrong

Ruawake

it would be helpful, if you are reporting facts before saying someone is wrong, instead of uttering rubbish

Sometimes reading helps, here are some links
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Recovery_and_Reinvestment_Act_of_2009#Aid_to_low_income_workers.2C_unemployed_and_retirees_.28including_job_training.29
Note Tax cut for all, handout for pensioners and low income (ie non lodgers)

http://obama.3cdn.net/8335008b3be0e6391e_foi8mve29.pdf
Note Tax cut for all, handout for pensioners and low income (ie non lodgers)

Bob, labor was in power federally from 1929 to 1932.

Both Labor and the conservatives lowered spending, 1929-1932, and after 1932. The depression lasted for most of the 1930s.

Bob, unless you are playing some obscure word game, that statement is clearly wrong. The 2007 federal election was more than three years after the 2004 one.

Dyno, a 3 year term commences from the first day of sitting of the new parliament. Not the election. The last term to go the full three years was prior to the 1910 election.

The coalition was happy enough to promise $20 billion in LONG TERM tax cuts prior to the previous election without linking it to any job creation or long term financial outcomes. Were they not in control of the economy?