Crazy world isn't it, it's rather fundamental,although I did have to check myself, the terminology is confusing.
Condems have run up largest ever UK Debt
- Thread starter MrMoonX
- Start date
Crazy world isn't it, it's rather fundamental,although I did have to check myself, the terminology is confusing.
That second link I posted explains why for both states, Mexican immigrants in a nutshell. 10 million new people in California but only 150,000 new tax payers.
Texas pop. growth in millions:
The point is what tax payers California does have are swimming for higher ground (with lower taxes).
Last edited:
Indeed, if labour had got back in instead of the condems, we would be where spain is right now.
Another scary thought is the anti euro ukip are more popular than the libs, and asking the public if they want out of europe would be a disaster.
People liked labour because they throw borrowed money at evertything. Personaly I'd like to see the coalition for a second term, it seems a sensible balance.
This is coming from someone who has really felt the pinch, my savings are gone due to a few periods of unemployment, people these days are selfish and tend to vote for who gives them money, rather than people who actualy have even a little bit of understanding of the bigger picture.
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Apr 2012
- Posts
- 2,180
- Location
- Edinburgh
I think people are responding to the OP's statement, not the article.
Because it's been done before and it works.
Public capital investment in times of depression works and only helps the country further once its out of recession. It's not something that would work for Greece but would certainly work again for countries that can borrow cheaply, like the US or UK.
Well, quite. Either you consider external conditions when looking at the cause of the ongoing public spending crisis, or you don't, you can't pick and choose based on which party you want to excuse
There absolutely is no answer now, the dice has been cast, there will be no recovery, they cannot solve it by printing, they cannot solve it by austerity, they cannot solve it by spending.
Eventually they will stop printing, unemployment will really rise, the logical conclusion is hard to believe, but people in Britain will starve.
This will eventually achieve an asset price drop and labour cost reduction, when this has gone far enough real growth will start.
Eventually they will stop printing, unemployment will really rise, the logical conclusion is hard to believe, but people in Britain will starve.
This will eventually achieve an asset price drop and labour cost reduction, when this has gone far enough real growth will start.
You're not answering the statement that was actually written. The new deal wasn't a response to a sovereign debt crisis. It was the answer to a growth crisis.
What we have is a two fold issue, we have a sovereign debt crisis, due to excessive and irresponsible borrowing during the previous boom combined with unsustainable spending commitments, and we have a growth crisis. That is the nature of the mess that the previous administration left due to their fiscal stupidity.
The normal response to a growth crisis is increased public investment, normally funded by borrowing, you won't get an argument from me on that one, however that ignores the fact that we had been 'stimulating' the economy for at least 5 years prior to the problems starting, had doubled our national debt while hiding it behind the boom GDP, and generally screwed up. That provides a counter requirement to not continuing increasing debt as the GDP returns to normal, because lenders start to demand higher and higher returns to balance risk, and because the more money we are spending on debt interest, the less we can spend on productive things.
The recession, and the public debt crisis are two separate issues, the recession did not cause our public debt problems, it just exposed them, but you cannot just ignore one and treat the other when the solutions are mutually exclusive, hence the attempt by the coalition to run the middle, and slow down the rate of increase in state spending (note that there have been no actual cuts in state spending under this government), and rebalance where it is going, and hope for benign external conditions.
Well, quite. Either you consider external conditions when looking at the cause of the ongoing public spending crisis, or you don't, you can't pick and choose based on which party you want to excuse
You see, it's all this pathetic political bickering that got us where we are today.
A complete waste of time.
Was it not under the traitorous New Labour that this massive sovereign debt was run up?
LibLabCon are all the same puppets with very little difference bewteen them but they function to keep the sheeple believing that they have a choice in deciding who runs their country. The West is a Ziocracy and virtually nobody knows it.
LibLabCon are all the same puppets with very little difference bewteen them but they function to keep the sheeple believing that they have a choice in deciding who runs their country. The West is a Ziocracy and virtually nobody knows it.
They should cut taxes so people spend. Nothing wrong with reducing deficit, but you gotta focus on growth at the same time. Wonder if the tories are borrowing as much as labour would have done anyway. Taxing the rich isn't also a solution either.
Oh and some decent people working in Job Centres who can weed out the spongers who think they are entitled to a work-free life and make sure the people who genuinely need benefits get it.
Oh and one more thing, the system needs to be fixed so someone doesn't earn more from benefits than working and won't take a job because they will be worse off. Either help prop them up with part benefit, or if the salary is above a certain level, don't.
Oh and some decent people working in Job Centres who can weed out the spongers who think they are entitled to a work-free life and make sure the people who genuinely need benefits get it.
Oh and one more thing, the system needs to be fixed so someone doesn't earn more from benefits than working and won't take a job because they will be worse off. Either help prop them up with part benefit, or if the salary is above a certain level, don't.
Last edited:
There's a massive amount to be done to address the abject stupidity of the current welfare system. A quick example from the DWP....
Absolutely preposterous situation.
Thats pretty bad, but I bet there's worse scenarios.
According to Radio 4 this morning the country has run a deficit in three out of every four years since the end of the Second World War.
I posted a graph in the last NHS thread showing government deficit/surplus year-on-year from the 1960s showing the same.
Anyone who thinks the Conservatives are the embodiment of fiscal prudence are as diluted as those who believe Labour had nothing to do with our current situation.
(In reply to other posters, not the article in the OP.)
I posted a graph in the last NHS thread showing government deficit/surplus year-on-year from the 1960s showing the same.
Anyone who thinks the Conservatives are the embodiment of fiscal prudence are as diluted as those who believe Labour had nothing to do with our current situation.
(In reply to other posters, not the article in the OP.)
Associate
- Joined
- 23 Feb 2008
- Posts
- 970
Who are the 'poor' in this country? Those who either don't work or those who do jobs that don't contribute a lot to the economy... Simple as that. Obviously, some people have valid reasons for being poor - it's not always their fault. BUT, who really is poor?
Of all the people I know, everyone has a decent roof over their head, has functional clothes, plenty of food... Everyone who wants one has a mobile phone contract, those who smoke can afford cigarettes - and this includes a lot of people who consider themselves 'poor'... They aren't poor. (I'm not saying there are no poor people, but I know a lot of people who consider themselves poor and would be considered poor, but get along just fine). In my opinion, if a government can make sure people have food, clothes, accommodation and a little extra, they are providing plenty. If that isn't enough, get a decent job and work some hours.
Guess what... Cuts have to be made. Taxing rich people out of the country or into tax avoidance schemes is counter productive. They already pay a higher % on a larger amount of money, as well as perhaps providing jobs for others (who also get taxed) and receive the same or less service from the government... But it's only fair that they get taxed more??? No... It's just the 'poor' people wanting what the rich people have, and wanting the government to forcibly take it from them.
That's just disgusting... No wonder my unemployed friends have a better quality of life than I do...
Soldato
- Joined
- 4 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 20,802
- Location
- ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
I'd vote for 'em
Thought I'd do some others, pretty sure I did them all as LA Tenants.
I'm not a fan of how having a kid, or kids, is a great equaliser in wealth. Theres very little need for any sense of reasonability going into whether or not you can afford to have offspring.
Last edited:
Yeah, I was reading the Daily Fail (can't help myself) the other day, and the figures given here surprised me, assuming they are accurate. Can't help but wonder what those figures would be if having little Benjamin Fitzwilliam wasn't so profitable for some.