Quote:
Originally Posted by Red
I read and I get the difference in timing. But it was still for the purpose of fulfilling the election promise. And again these are not my opinions, this was brought up by media. Were they all wrong?
|
It's called spin.
Quote:
|
And it's fine if he balanced the budget by making policy etc, but it's clear that these shares were used to boost revenues. Most people don't know what happened, but for me selling assets to cover budget holes is not exactly balancing a budget.
|
Actually, people do know what happened. And yes, it is balancing the budget. Maybe an example will help.
You're the PM. Your largest industry, and largest employer, Redbank, is close to failing and if it does, 100,000 people lose their jobs.
Even though, as a responsible PM, you were going to have a balanced budget, you decide to bail out Redbank to the tune of $10B and now you have a $10B deficit.
Next year, things are a little better. You are going to have a $5B deficit. However, Redbank is doing better and you can actually get out of the deal and get $8B of the $10B you put in back.
That now leaves you with a $3B surplus.
Yes, you lost $2B on the bailout deal, but you also saved 100,000 jobs (and all those people are still paying taxes) and you saved Redbank, and they too are still paying corporate taxes.
The result: a deficit in the first year, then a surplus in the 2nd. And even though you (the government) lost money on the deal, it was well worth it because it did what it was intended to do, which was to save the company and therefore save all those jobs.
Make sense yet?