Cameron claims he cares about the most vulnerable

cheesyboy said:
No.

Because you forget the effect of rising GDP, inflation, and currency valuation.

Running a deficit doesn't even mean a debt has to be growing in real terms.

>Imagine a debt of £10,000
>Make a loss (deficit) of £100
>Debt is now £10,100
>But apply inflation (or GDP growth) of 2% to that original debt
>Real debt is now £9,900, including the current year loss.

This is what governments do - balance a deficit by eroding the value of debt. It can go on forever.
Click to expand...

It can, but not at the current level. 3% is widely regarded as a suitable level of deficit that can be dealt with by GDP, currency and inflation change.
 
cheesyboy said:
No.

Because you forget the effect of rising GDP, inflation, and currency valuation.

Running a deficit doesn't even mean a debt has to be growing in real terms.

>Imagine a debt of £10,000
>Make a loss (deficit) of £100
>Debt is now £10,100
>But apply inflation (or GDP growth) of 2% to that original debt
>Real debt is now £9,900, including the current year loss.

This is what governments do - balance a deficit by eroding the value of debt. It can go on forever.
Click to expand...

The costs of financing debt almost always exceed inflation though. What you seem to be talking about is fixing inflation rates to reduce debt, which CAN work in the short term, but with large debt levels the inflation needs to be much higher than 2%.

Even the IMF say that low inflation rates cannot be used to address debts. And I don't think any economist in their right mind would suggest long term deficit spending.
 
BDEE said:
Thing is with all this about food banks and not being able to afford to eat is that too many people who live all their lives off the back of the taxpayer make spending choices which put them in the position which means they can not afford to eat.

Like X Boxes, PS4s, the latest £90 Nike Trainers, £80 a month on Sky TV.

These cuts are an excellent thing if it makes people realise they have to prioritise their money which tax payers provide to them, on food, shelter and the basics. This then might make them realise they should get off their backsides and work.
Click to expand...

Have you watched any of the benefits programs on 4 or Five?

People on benefits live in squalor in council houses on bad estates.

Don't believe everything you read in the papers, the only people on benefits who you see with Xboxes, PS4s and the latest trainers are the young teens and kids in their twenties who either still live at home or get money on the sly from family.

Why target the 91% with cuts to their already meagre benefits just to get at the 9% to make yourself feel better.

That's all goverments do, they put out an image of life on the dole is great, 60" TVs, Sky packages, gaming consoles, money for beer, etc.. then they put in sweeping cuts and people like you fall for it hook, line and sinker while everyone else gets ****** over.

When I was on the dole I sold everything of worth I had apart from my PC and I barely had money to top up gas and electric let alone luxuries.
 
Last edited:
MichaelAwkward said:
It can, but not at the current level. 3% is widely regarded as a suitable level of deficit that can be dealt with by GDP, currency and inflation change.
Click to expand...

Yes, but you'd still need to refinance your existing debts (no surplus to pay them down) so I assume that at some point you'd need to push your inflation higher or else somehow sell below marker yield bonds. The latter is possible in exceptional circumstances, but not in the normal course of events.
 
He said this at the 2010 election...

"I (David Cameron) believe that a good test for any Government is JUDGED upon how it cares for it's most vulnerable in society in good times as well as bad times. He (David Cameron) went onto say : If you are sick, disabled, frail, vulnerable or the POOREST in society you have nothing to FEAR if I (David Cameron) gets into Downing Street as prime minister because I will protect this group of vulnerable people in society once in office.

Personally as a disabled person, I hope he and that Ian Duncan Smith pillock both burn in hell.
 
xibinim said:
What grates me is how IDS and the Tories seem to not recognise or completely ignore the increase in the use of food banks, or care to acknowledge any link with that and welfare cuts (studies are now confirming the link). The thought of IDS having anything to do with work and welfare sends shivers down my spine.
Click to expand...

Food banks stats are meaningless. I know people who use food banks. Do all of them live in 'poverty'? No. Can some of them afford to feed themselves. Yes. Do they manage their money well? Not particularly.

Truth is some of them are just lazy, or don't have the ability to actually cook home made food... and are too lazy to learn.
 
balky12 said:
Food banks stats are meaningless.

Truth is some of them are just lazy, or don't have the ability to actually cook home made food... and are too lazy to learn.
Click to expand...

Come on man, that's just another way of saying everyone on the dole has 50" smart TVs, Xbone's, PS4's and go to Benidorm for 3 weeks on the lash every year.
 
balky12 said:
Food banks stats are meaningless. I know people who use food banks. Do all of them live in 'poverty'? No. Can some of them afford to feed themselves. Yes. Do they manage their money well? Not particularly.

Truth is some of them are just lazy, or don't have the ability to actually cook home made food... and are too lazy to learn.
Click to expand...
Evidence needed to backup this baseless assertion.
 
wordy said:
Come on man, that's just another way of saying everyone on the dole has 50" smart TVs, Xbone's, PS4's and go to Benidorm for 3 weeks on the lash every year.
Click to expand...

Not particularly...

You say all. I said some.

Bit of a gulf between spending £1000's on luxuries and being able to feed yourself.

All I was saying is that the stat being thrown around here of one million people using food banks is meaningless. I know people who use food banks; they could feed themselves if they managed their money better and learnt how to cook. I also know people that do depend on these food banks.

But to use that figure as an absolute measure for poverty rates is a joke.
 
cheesyboy said:
I was refuting your hypothesis. You haven't supported your hypothesis at all - it's just hot air. The fact is almost 1 million people used food banks in a year. That's the most ever. Show me some facts that call into question the most obvious reading of that fact.
Click to expand...

So food banks usage is the highest its been ever... not disputing that. But you are concluding that poverty is therefore the worst it has ever been?

So people of today are living in conditions worse then 40? 60? 100? 200 years go...?

Again, to make it easy to understand... using the food bank figures is meaningless if you are trying to draw conclusions from it. The only thing you can accurately ascertain is that 1 million people are using food banks.... but I wouldn't even trust that figure.
 
Last edited:
balky12 said:
Just like the evidence given that one million people use food banks, let alone that all of the million people are indeed living in poverty and have no way of feeding themselves.

Righto.
Click to expand...

I know about 5 people who use foodbanks, they're mostly embarrassed by the fact and no one I know would choose to use one wuthout the need because of all the negative social aspects and low quality of the food.
 
thep02 said:
I know about 5 people who use foodbanks, they're mostly embarrassed by the fact and no one I know would choose to use one wuthout the need because of all the negative social aspects and low quality of the food.
Click to expand...

And yet some will happily use food banks because it frees up cash for other things.

Anyway, a key fact in all this is that food banks are a recent phenomena. There was only a handful before the financial crisis so we cannot make any comparison to the 80's or 90's when poverty rates were higher.
 
Last edited:
thep02 said:
I know about 5 people who use foodbanks, they're mostly embarrassed by the fact and no one I know would choose to use one wuthout the need because of all the negative social aspects and low quality of the food.
Click to expand...

So your social experience is more worthy than mine because?

I also know people who shop in Iceland, it's a similar thing! :rolleyes:

Just to clarify. In no uncertain terms: I am not against food banks. They serve an important purpose for those less fortunate. However, like any benefit in this country, some people abuse it.

If I mentioned disability benefits and concluded that everyone on disability benefits is actually disabled and unable to work plenty of you will be arguing that there will be a minority abusing the system. However apply the same logic to food banks and people can't get their head round it.
 
Last edited:
I dont know who introduced it but the tax credit scheme for low earners seems to me a complete waste of time, while good in principle all it has done is allow employers to keep wages low (min wage) and the rest of us top it up.

I will never in my life vote Conservative, they stand for taking England back to some 1920s cricket pitch cream tea heaven and if your weak or fall on hard times damm you to be. Do you see all this in the party front ? No the back-room boys of the conservative party are the scary ones, the bankers, the fraudsters, the owners of wealth built upon the blood sweat and above all else OPPRESSION of the people. Screw them and everything they stand for.

p.s

I wouldnt vote labour either they are now to much like the conservatives without the the backroom boys, instead they have the trade union boys which are just as bad except there skint and hence living on hate and vitriol.

The more i think about it the less any of them are appealing, UKIP just to upset the applecart, and hopefully after 3 years of them in a coalition some balance may come out of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom