hugo – Member

I believe in smaller government. To me Austerity means living within our means, and people who are anti-austerity want to run up the credit card bill again. Naah, you’re right, screw it, spend spend spend. Works a treat every time.

Have you ever stopped and looked at what the Tories have actually done in power? Osborne borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the 13 before. That’d be pretty incredible even if Labour hadn’t had the extra costs of the financial crisis, and if the Tories hadn’t flogged irreplacable assets in the same timescale (for, of course, less than they’re worth)

Tory austerity has nothing to do with cutting spending; that was just the excuse. I’ll be honest, I was slow on the uptake on this; when they announced their plans, I said “you’re wrong, you’ll hurt the recovery and reduce tax take”. But they weren’t wrong- they were just lying. They knew they were going to hurt the economy, lose revenues, and be left with higher debt- they just didn’t care about any of that, as long as they got to hack away at the state with an axe. It was always the goal.

That’s austerity- we’re more in debt, and less able to deal with it.

I moved before the election.

To me Austerity means living within our means, and people who are anti-austerity want to run up the credit card bill again. Naah, you’re right, screw it, spend spend spend.

As others have said, a national economy is not like a household. A government only gets into the black by taking money from the people, running down their savings or putting them into debt. Is that what you want?

Really? Ask the Greeks how they are enjoying a big deficit.

molgrips didn’t mention a “big” deficit, he just said deficit.

And you could of course ask the Americans, they seem to like deficits.

Should we all be panicking ’cause the world’s largest economy has a deficit ?

Really? Ask the Greeks how they are enjoying a big deficit.

Well you added the word big there so you changed the quesrion somewhat

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GC.BAL.CASH.GD.ZS

Worth seeing how many run at a deficit

EDIT: DAMN YOU ERNIE

Running a deficit in a country isn’t that big of a deal. Countries aren’t like households. Sure, it would be nice to have no deficit, but austerity means cutting services to vulnerable people who really really need state help, whilst the rich have no disadvantage whatsoever.

Presumably we’re at the point where if services aren’t cut we lose the good credit rating and end up paying higher interest rates which forces us to errr… cut services. Or at very least risk meltdown if the economy goes tits up again because you have no buffer.

Whatever the reason, I find it very hard to believe that every country in Europe and has got it wrong. Every civil servant, every state economist. Only people who have no responsibility for the outcome seem to be advocating any other course of action. A bit like commentators in WW1 claiming they could win the war in weeks by simply opening a second front.

Greece is all the evidence you need that spending your way out of trouble is a progressive gambling scheme – when the money runs out you lose big.

…but frankly if you like borrowing, this government *is* borrowing. Austerity, this is not. It’s profligacy. Coining the term was PR genius and electoral gold.

hugo – Member

I moved before the election.

You had no faith that the Tories could form a government?

Well we’ve had a Tory prime minister for five and half years now. So when can we look forward to your return?

Or do you intend carrying on telling us what’s good for us and how much you support Tory taxation policies from distant shores?

Tory austerity has nothing to do with cutting spending; that was just the excuse. I’ll be honest, I was slow on the uptake on this; when they announced their plans, I said “you’re wrong, you’ll hurt the recovery and reduce tax take”. But they weren’t wrong- they were just lying. They knew they were going to hurt the economy, lose revenues, and be left with higher debt- they just didn’t care about any of that, as long as they got to hack away at the state with an axe. It was always the goal.

So how do you explain all the other EU countries cutting spending?

Greece is all the evidence you need that spending your way out of trouble is a progressive gambling scheme – when the money runs out you lose big.

Eh? Surely Greece is all the evidence you need that cutting yourself out of trouble only gets you in deeper shit. Even the damned commies at the IMF agree on that.

So how do you explain all the other EU countries cutting spending?

A million lemmings can’t be wrong.

Osborne borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the 13 before.

So he’s overspending. Bloody austerity.

Theres been a conservative party conference, must have missed that, with all the trouble in syria, a new labour leader,x factor 6 chair challenge, a police officer been murdered by a car theif down the road,steelworks closing down , huge loss of jobs, and other more important things in life to worrry about than a failed party run by a load of idiots youd never associate with

Eh? Surely Greece is all the evidence you need that cutting yourself out of trouble only gets you in deeper shit. Even the damned commies at the IMF agree on that.

They didn’t cut themselves out of trouble – the couldn’t get anyone to lend them any more and *had* to cut to find a lender. As for the IMF they refused to lend Greece the necessary cash just like all the other potential lenders.

A million lemmings can’t be wrong.

I’m not convinced by this explanation.

So he’s overspending. Bloody austerity.

Right in one. “Austerity” was only ever a slogan to convince fhe masochistic British public to accept more poverty while the Etonians partied on, splashing the cash.

Don’t dress it up. Money owed in tax isn’t YOUR money, it’s the state’s.

I thought the nanny state stuff was the dumbest thing I’d ever read. Well done. You’ve exceeded that benchmark.

Worth seeing how many run at a deficit

Thanks for that Junkyard, straightaway (cause it’s in alphabetical order) I saw that Algeria and Angola haven’t got deficit …… they’re in surplus!

Perhaps the UK could hire their economical advisers? I think what we need is an economy more like Angola’s.

A government only gets into the black by taking money from the people, running down their savings or putting them into debt. Is that what you want?

No. You might want to read my posts again. I think I’ve been pretty clear that I want to give people more money, boost their savings or get them out of debt. So exactly the opposite. To be criticised is slightly bizarre!

As to getting out of the black, you can also reduce the cost of government and encourage private businesses (who also pay tax those horrible people). Well except the Starbucks of this world, and that rubbish needs to be sorted asap.

Osborne borrowed more in the last 5 years than Labour did in the 13 before.

Yes, you’re right, even with austerity the deficit is still going up, let’s do the opposite and spend more, that’ll do the trick.

Madness.

The reason the borrowing has gone up is because the economy was in dire straits, a big spending gap appeared, and it’s like turning round a supertanker.

and encourage private businesses (who also pay tax those horrible people). Well except the Starbucks of this world

TOP TIP: Dont contradict your own point in a debate

They didn’t cut themselves out of trouble

No. They cut and it created more trouble. The IMF refused to lend more if cutting was the only remedy allowed by the EU.

No. You might want to read my posts again. I think I’ve been pretty clear that I want to give people more money, boost their savings or get them out of debt. So exactly the opposite. To be criticised is slightly bizarre!

I read your post, but it made no sense. You can’t give people more money and keep the govt in the black. It doesn’t work like that. But don’t believe me – have a little read …
http://www.forbes.com/sites/stevekeen/2015/01/14/beware-of-politicians-bearing-household-analogies-3/2/

As to getting out of the black, you can also reduce the cost of government

How does that work, exactly? You cut the NHS and then the doctors and nurses cure people for free?

I thought the nanny state stuff was the dumbest thing I’d ever read. Well done. You’ve exceeded that benchmark.

Well unless you’re printing your own money with a mugshot of you on the notes that’s correct. Of course your own money would be worthless what gives an otherwise worthless piece of paper value is that it is printed by the state.

But by all means prove me wrong and use your own money, you won’t have pay any tax on it. Just let me know how you get on with using it in transactions.

Ok, so according to the site UK debt is/was about 97.2pc of GDP according to the latest figures it had. (2013)

If that’s not high enough what *should* it be?

150pc? 120pc?

Should we all be panicking ’cause the world’s largest economy has a deficit ?

Just chance or cherrypicking that you chose a chart end year showing the worst US deficit? But for your question I think you’ll find the Americans aren’t too happy and are glad it’s getting smaller.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-budget-deficit-in-2014-narrows-to-lowest-level-in-six-years-1413385493

hugo – Member

Yes, you’re right, even with austerity the deficit is still going up

No it’s not.

You cut the NHS

The NHS is ringfenced which is the reason for all the suffering.

Instead of 1pc across the board there’s no cuts for the NHS and massive cuts elsewhere.

I think the 1pc across the board would be less painful.

I read your post, but it made no sense. You can’t give people more money and keep the govt in the black. It doesn’t work like that. But don’t believe me – havd a little read …

You can if you spend less. That’s kind of the point. As I said, I believe in small government. Others don’t. There was a big vote to decide about it a while ago.

Should we all be panicking ’cause the world’s largest economy has a deficit ?

If they weren’t the reserve currency then yep, as it is, they are in a pretty special place although it still isn’t great.

I find it weird the left think that austerity is all some major plan to destroy the UK when Labour were planning to implement very similar policies. At the end of the day if you want to keep people lendingto you, you need to convince them they’ll get paid.

I think I’ve been pretty clear that I want to give people more money, boost their savings or get them out of debt. So exactly the opposite.

By cutting taxes, right?

So what about the people who can’t work? Or earn bugger all to begin with?

At the end of the day if you want to keep people lendingto you, you need to convince them they’ll get paid.

Yes, and you do that by keeping growth, which you do with investment. Borrowing to invest is quite a common thing, not the lunacy that the Tories make out.

You can if you spend less. That’s kind of the point.

Some stuff has to be done. If the govt doesn’t pay for it to be done, individuals do. That’s kind of the point.

Just chance or cherrypicking that you chose a chart end year showing the worst US deficit? But for your question I think you’ll find the Americans aren’t too happy and are glad it’s getting smaller.

It was a chart that started in 1967 and finished in 2009 (it was produced in 2010)

Anyway I’m glad you have pointed out that between 2001 and 2014 (the latest figures) the US had a deficit. Which get’s back to my question that you still haven’t answered :

Should we all be panicking ’cause the world’s largest economy has a deficit ? [/b]

And if deficits are as bad as you seem to suggest then how come the US has had them for most of the last 50 years?

Here’s that graph again to remind you :

TOP TIP: Dont contradict your own point in a debate

TOP TIP: Don’t selectively quote when the original forum post is above for all to see. Leaving out “and that rubbish needs to be sorted asap” does kind of change the meaning of the sentence. I’m for Starbucks paying the tax they owe, clearly. I’m for businesses paying tax. I think the personal tax burden should be lower, and so did lots of other people.

How does that work, exactly?

By doing things like increasing the minimum wage so people are paid more by companies, and reducing Working Tax Credits so we’re not subsidising companies who don’t pay people a living wage.

I’ll ask again.

According to the site UK debt is/was about 97.2pc of GDP according to the latest figures it had. (2013)

If 97.2pc is not high enough what *should* it be?

150pc? 120pc?

Just watched the opening few minutes of the BBC News at Ten where it shows Cameron up on stage at the conference……. an utterly vile attack on corbyn, talked of opportunity and how he has two daughters who deserve opportunity in the future……that’s as far as i got before i shut the browser tab.

How the **** did 37% of the country vote for this?.

Its a safe bet the children of a millionaire PM will get opportunity whatever anyone does

an utterly vile attack on corbyn, talked of opportunity and how he has two daughters who deserve opportunity in the future…

… and how he was personally affected by 9/11 waiting anxiously by the phone for a call from his wife. At least he didn’t trot out his son again, as proof of how committed he is to the NHS.

If the govt doesn’t pay for it to be done, individuals do. That’s kind of the point.

Yes, I’d be happy with that, sounds good to me. For example, If I want a university education, then I should pay for it. Expecting people who don’t go to pay for me is the thing that strikes me as greedy.

Anyway, work in the morning. Goodnight everybody. It’s kept me amused.

Borrowing to invest I have no issue with but you can’t keep borrowing forever to just provide pointless non jobs on the government pay roll as happened under Labour. That’s why even Keynes would suggest you borrow for infrastructure so you can stop the spending when the up cycle comes.

By doing things like increasing the minimum wage so people are paid more by companies, and reducing Working Tax Credits so we’re not subsidising companies who don’t pay people a living wage.

So you put more money in peoples’ pockets by … errr … taking it away from them. Riiiiight ….

http://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/7980

If I want a university education, then I should pay for it.

So university education should only be available to the rich?

Yeah that sounds suitably nasty Tory.

you can’t keep borrowing forever to just provide pointless non jobs on the government pay roll as happened under Labour

The exact thought George had as he publicly agreed to match labour spending

Your point is politically motivated BS

Expecting people who don’t go to pay for me is the thing that strikes me as greedy

I think you will find it is expecting people to pay getting the degree then leaving that is the greedy selfish bit.