Socialists

[Gilzeantoscore]

On the argument that there should be less ideology, I disagree. For me this is part of the problem, as we are then left with a bunch of opportunists, who believe in nothing and this apples equally to both sides. We are fast heading towards Tweedle Dum, Tweedle Dee politics, where each side is indistinguisable from the other. Elections merely replace one set of elites with another, where politics is reduced to the banal i.e. we will put two thousand extra police on the beat... well we will put three thousand extra police on the beat etc.

 

[southstand1882]

Including doctors and nurses?

I don't really have the time anymore to get involved in those long political debates on here but really?

Read the words again

'Families affected by cancer'

I didn't say 'patients inflicted with cancer'

Do you have any experience with cancer in your family?

If you did you would be aware that doctors and nurses don't support your family at all. They provide medical care to patients.

But really.......indeed

 

[southstand1882]

I think the brick has hit the fan now mate. There's nothing sustainable about the deficit and debt that we have.

The debt is £1 trillion.

Interest payments on the debt is £43 billion pounds per year.

If we paid down the debt at a rate of £1 per second, it would take us 32,000 years to pay it off.

Do you honestly think that's sustainable?

The debt is increasing by £2 billion per week. Or approximately 64 more years of payments at £1 per second, EVERY WEEK.

Have you ever heard a politician speak honestly about the vastness of the problem?

I wonder why?

Amazing statistics, that I don't think many people have quite got to grips with. YET!

We are in the brick for a long, long, long time, if we continue to behave like reckless socialists.

No smart arse comments on this one

Head...sand...bury

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Read the words again

'Families affected by cancer'

I didn't say 'patients inflicted with cancer'

Do you have any experience with cancer in your family?

If you did you would be aware that doctors and nurses don't support your family at all. They provide medical care to patients.

But really.......indeed

If private charities took over, they would need to expand massively and you would still end up with a bureacracy and that 'human touch' would be lost. Charitable organisations work well due to the intimacy they provide.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

No smart arse comments on this one

Head...sand...bury

Where are the stats from, who provided them? Remember there are lies, damned lies and statistics. BTW, where are the smart arse comments?

 

[southstand1882]

Where are the stats from, who provided them? Remember there are lies, damned lies and statistics. BTW, where are the smart arse comments?

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/psa/eu-government-debt-and-deficit-returns/september-2012/stb---september-2012.html

 

[DubaiSpur]

No smart arse comments on this one

Head...sand...bury

The financial crisis, the subesquent bailouts, and the devastation the world economy has suffered over the last few years is almost solely down to the investment banks running absolutely wild with money they didn't own. Why were they allowed to do this? Why were they allowed to so recklessly endanger the very vital bread-and-butter deposit banking arms of the financial institutions they were a part of? Why were they given free rein to endanger not just their slice of the economy, but the entire economy?

Because there were no government regulations preventing these behemoths from doing so. No government oversight, whether in the US or on British soil. No supervision. No bureaucracy making sure the whole country didn't suffer because a bank kept coming up with increasingly complex ways to package debt and sell it on, with no thought as to the future implications of this strategy.

The banks were given an unregulated capitalist environment to operate in, and they almost killed both themselves and the world economy as a whole.

Now, you claim people are burying their heads in the sand over the magnitude of the debt problem. Well, you're selectively ignoring this fact too;

The Northern Rock bailout (and subsequent takeover), the successive quantitative easing programs, the stimulus packages....all of them have led to this debt. But what caused it? Unregulated capitalism. A lack of concern for society as a whole, and a hedonistic focus on the welfare of the individual.

The debt occurred because of self-centred capitalists. Therefore, instead of asking everyone to abandon all the social welfare and benefits they feel they have done nothing to lose, perhaps looking at the flaws of the system you propose to replace this 'socialism' might be in order.

The NHS didn't cause the crash. The civil service didn't cause the crash. The BBC didn't cause the crash. The man on the street, jobless because of layoffs, he did'nt cause the crash. Bankers did.

Rampant capitalism did. Not socialism.

 

[southstand1882]

If private charities took over, they would need to expand massively and you would still end up with a bureacracy and that 'human touch' would be lost. Charitable organisations work well due to the intimacy they provide.

With respect, I'm think you're making things up

It works for Macmillan. They provide care to millions.

1 in 3 people are affected by cancer at some point. that's about 20 million

So why not charities look after the jobless for example

 

[southstand1882]

The financial crisis, the subesquent bailouts, and the devastation the world economy has suffered over the last few years is almost solely down to the investment banks running absolutely wild with money they didn't own. Why were they allowed to do this? Why were they allowed to so recklessly endanger the very vital bread-and-butter deposit banking arms of the financial institutions they were a part of? Why were they given free rein to endanger not just their slice of the economy, but the entire economy?

Because there were no government regulations preventing these behemoths from doing so. No government oversight, whether in the US or on British soil. No supervision. No bureaucracy making sure the whole country didn't suffer because a bank kept coming up with increasingly complex ways to package debt and sell it on, with no thought as to the future implications of this strategy.

The banks were given an unregulated capitalist environment to operate in, and they almost killed both themselves and the world economy as a whole.

Now, you claim people are burying their heads in the sand over the magnitude of the debt problem. Well, you're selectively ignoring this fact too;

The Northern Rock bailout (and subsequent takeover), the successive quantitative easing programs, the stimulus packages....all of them have led to this debt. But what caused it? Unregulated capitalism. A lack of concern for society as a whole, and a hedonistic focus on the welfare of the individual.

The debt occurred because of self-centred capitalists. Therefore, instead of asking everyone to abandon all the social welfare and benefits they feel they have done nothing to lose, perhaps looking at the flaws of the system you propose to replace this 'socialism' might be in order.

The NHS didn't cause the crash. The civil service didn't cause the crash. The BBC didn't cause the crash. The man on the street, jobless because of layoffs, he did'nt cause the crash. Bankers did.

Rampant capitalism did. Not socialism.

Banks caused a financial crisis. They made it difficult for everybody to BORROW MORE

But you do realise that our debt has nothing to do with the banking crisis?

Government borrowing created the 1 trillion debt.

Not the fudging banks!!!

 

[southstand1882]

The Northern Rock bailout (and subsequent takeover), the successive quantitative easing programs, the stimulus packages....all of them have led to this debt.

Wrong

Government spending created the debt long before the banking crisis

Why don't you tell me in percentage terms what banking crisis money is compared to public sector debt?

Do you even have a clue?

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

The financial crisis, the subesquent bailouts, and the devastation the world economy has suffered over the last few years is almost solely down to the investment banks running absolutely wild with money they didn't own. Why were they allowed to do this? Why were they allowed to so recklessly endanger the very vital bread-and-butter deposit banking arms of the financial institutions they were a part of? Why were they given free rein to endanger not just their slice of the economy, but the entire economy?

Because there were no government regulations preventing these behemoths from doing so. No government oversight, whether in the US or on British soil. No supervision. No bureaucracy making sure the whole country didn't suffer because a bank kept coming up with increasingly complex ways to package debt and sell it on, with no thought as to the future implications of this strategy.

The banks were given an unregulated capitalist environment to operate in, and they almost killed both themselves and the world economy as a whole.

Now, you claim people are burying their heads in the sand over the magnitude of the debt problem. Well, you're selectively ignoring this fact too;

The Northern Rock bailout (and subsequent takeover), the successive quantitative easing programs, the stimulus packages....all of them have led to this debt. But what caused it? Unregulated capitalism. A lack of concern for society as a whole, and a hedonistic focus on the welfare of the individual.

The debt occurred because of self-centred capitalists. Therefore, instead of asking everyone to abandon all the social welfare and benefits they feel they have done nothing to lose, perhaps looking at the flaws of the system you propose to replace this 'socialism' might be in order.

The NHS didn't cause the crash. The civil service didn't cause the crash. The BBC didn't cause the crash. The man on the street, jobless because of layoffs, he did'nt cause the crash. Bankers did.

Rampant capitalism did. Not socialism.

Hear,hear. Very well put!

 

[southstand1882]

Do you think the banks caused the deficit too?

Or did the Labour government do that?

 

[southstand1882]

Hear,hear. Very well put!

But its flimflam

The only truth in there is that the banks caused a financial crisis

They had NOTHING to do with the debt or deficit

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

With respect, I'm think you're making things up

It works for Macmillan. They provide care to millions.

1 in 3 people are affected by cancer at some point. that's about 20 million

So why not charities look after the jobless for example

With all due respect, that is drip in the ocean, when compared to the DHS.

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

But its flimflam

The only truth in there is that the banks caused a financial crisis

They had NOTHING to do with the debt or deficit

Debt is debt1 your'e up in arms about government debt, but seem relaxed about private debt. Of course the take over of Northern Rock et al has had no affect on the government bottom line?:-"

 

[southstand1882]

This country had been running a deficit for most of the previous 30 years

Are we blaming the banking crisis of 2008 for our overspending from 1980?!

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Simple solution. Make everyone pay their fair share of the tax burden. I'm PAYE,I know i do.

 

[DubaiSpur]

Banks caused a financial crisis. They made it difficult for everybody to BORROW MORE

But you do realise that our debt has nothing to do with the banking crisis?

Government borrowing created the 1 trillion debt.

Not the fudging banks!!!

Mate, calm down. Even something as simple as searching for 'uk debt' on google brings up this little snippet;

Since 2008, National Debt has increased sharply because of:

'Economics recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits) The recession particularly hit stamp duty (falling house prices) income tax and lower corporation tax.
These cyclical factors have exposed an underlying structural deficit
Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.'

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Here's another one;

'In the 20 year period from 1986/87 to 2006/07 government spending in the United Kingdom averaged around 40 per cent of GDP.[14] As a result of the 2007–2010 financial crisis and the late-2000s global recession government spending increased to a historically high level of 48 per cent of GDP in 2009–10, partly as a result of the cost of a series of bank bailouts.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt


And as for slashing welfare and cutting government spending, it has just as much chance of sending the UK deeper into debt as it does of solving the problem. Slashing government spending at the level you advocate would undoubtedly reduce economic growth, which would in turn drastically cut tax revenues, which would leave the government with a shortfall in revenue versus savings gains from the cuts.

As a nation, the UK's always maintained that an average 40 percent debt to GDP ratio was the maximum sustainable amount of debt. The only thing that drove it over the edge, into the fifties and sixties, and then on from there, was the financial crisis, caused by ding ding ding! The bankers. How? Because tax revenues fell, and economic growth slumped, meaning the government had to pump money into the economy to keep it afloat, which meant borrowing the money, seeing as tax revenues had slumped. However, the extent of the crisis meant that QE, and government spending on alleviating the effects, continues to this day, and with decreased revenues, the only place that money is going to come from is from borrowing. Cutting services has the potential to send the country spiralling further into debt (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...y-will-raise-UKs-debt-burden-warns-Niesr.html), and as per the laws of Keynesian economics, is a generally bad thing to do.

I repeat, the banks caused this.

 

[southstand1882]

Debt is debt1 your'e up in arms about government debt, but seem relaxed about private debt. Of course the buy out of Northern Rock et al has had no affect on the government bottom line?:-"

It has had an affect. It ADDED to it

But the debt was there before!!!

Please educate yourselves on this one

It is a MYTH that the debts were caused by banks

It is PUBLIC SECTOR debt

Rewind 5 years. Imagine there was no banking crisis, and no spiv bankers

No financial crisis

But...please read carefully...

We would still be in debt to a tune of 1 trillion!!!!

This is a fundamental issue that socialists don't get

 

[Gilzeantoscore]

Mate, calm down. Even something as simple as searching for 'uk debt' on google brings up this little snippet;

Since 2008, National Debt has increased sharply because of:

'Economics recession (lower tax receipts, higher spending on unemployment benefits) The recession particularly hit stamp duty (falling house prices) income tax and lower corporation tax.
These cyclical factors have exposed an underlying structural deficit
Financial bailout of Northern Rock, RBS, Lloyds and other banks.'

http://www.economicshelp.org/blog/334/uk-economy/uk-national-debt/

Here's another one;

'In the 20 year period from 1986/87 to 2006/07 government spending in the United Kingdom averaged around 40 per cent of GDP.[14] As a result of the 2007–2010 financial crisis and the late-2000s global recession government spending increased to a historically high level of 48 per cent of GDP in 2009–10, partly as a result of the cost of a series of bank bailouts.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_national_debt


And as for slashing welfare and cutting government spending, it has just as much chance of sending the UK deeper into debt as it does of solving the problem. Slashing government spending at the level you advocate would undoubtedly reduce economic growth, which would in turn drastically cut tax revenues, which would leave the government with a shortfall in revenue versus savings gains from the cuts.

As a nation, the UK's always maintained that an average 40 percent debt to GDP ratio was the maximum sustainable amount of debt. The only thing that drove it over the edge, into the fifties and sixties, and then on from there, was the financial crisis, caused by ding ding ding! The bankers. How? Because tax revenues fell, and economic growth slumped, meaning the government had to pump money into the economy to keep it afloat, which meant borrowing the money, seeing as tax revenues had slumped. However, the extent of the crisis meant that QE, and government spending on alleviating the effects, continues to this day, and with decreased revenues, the only place that money is going to come from is from borrowing. Cutting services has the potential to send the country spiralling further into debt (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/...y-will-raise-UKs-debt-burden-warns-Niesr.html), and as per the laws of Keynesian economics, is a generally bad thing to do.

I repeat, the banks caused this.

Exactly. Not that hard to work out really.