[Closed] The nasty party conference...

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.

[img] [/img]

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 :

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

[img] [/img]

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 [s]nasty[/s] Tory.

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

Your point is politically motivated BS

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

If I want a university education, then I should pay for it. Expecting people who don't go to pay for it is the thing that strikes me as greedy.

It depends whether or not you consider the opportunity to improve yourself a privilege or a right.

The issue with making people pay for things is that many people don't have much. So you're making it harder for poor people to achieve stuff than rich people.

Money should not affect your opportunities in life. That is HUGELY important. Fundamental even.

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.

What strikes me as kind of stupid is imagining that things like education, health etc. are things that can be bought and consumed by an individual with no impact on wider society. If the population are unhealthy and can't work, can't afford to live near their work, have poor housing, have low skills and education, then we all suffer, even you, with your self-bought degree certificate.

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

People used to think that a supply of decent graduates benefited the country as a whole (so the country as a whole should pay something) as well as the individual (who paid more tax in return for their higher salary - assuming they well for the cash and not a life of public service).

But things change.

That's why even Keynes would suggest you borrow for infrastructure so you can stop the spending when the up cycle comes.

And the neoliberal alternative to that is tax cuts when "the up cycle comes". Both Labour and the Tories have embraced that alternative policy.

Maybe it's because we're saddled with a sh1t load of debt at basically 0% interest which is a ticking time bomb as interest rates will inevitably go up and therefore the cost of servicing that debt.

There are no guarantees that if you invest x amount in infrastructure you will get y amount of GDP growth - it is a risk, and obviously a risk that the current government doesn't fancy too much going forward, hence wanting to address the deficit.

I don't think historical comparisons are valid going forward. The world has changed alot recently, alot of the old rules and established mechanisms no longer apply. the future is alot less certain. It's the prudent thing to get a grip on our deficit while we can.

It's right that any government should treat every £ of OUR money like it was heir own and robustly question what return/benefit it will get back for every £ spent.

Reading the last two pages, Keynes will be turning in his grave and economics teachers across the land will be wincing!!! No wonder the politicians can get away with murder....

Time to make it a compulsory subject! 😉

What makes you think the economics 'experts' know any more than the non-experts? they hardly saw the last credit crunch and global economic crisis coming did they? If they did they seemed clueless about what to do to avoid it. They're guessing just as much as the rest of us.

Oh I see and stand corrected. As you were....

ChubbyBlokeInLycra - Member

Are you saying with your PhD you still cannot make sense of my views?

You're an idiot.
What you post on here is idiotic. It's not worth the effort of reading, far less trying to understand, no matter how clever you think you're being. I tried it once and it was moronic drivel.
You'd understand that if you weren't such an idiot.

HTH

What's up Chubby? Why do you sound so angry? Idiot this and idiot that? Explain yourself with reference to the term 'idiot'. 😛

I only used the term "Bastid ZMs" in reference to full EU membership, unless of course you considered my description as accurate? Yes?

Chill Chubby chill ... 😀

I'm currently receiving government funding to pay for my education following a career change.

My chosen career is initially, very poorly paid.
I need these qualifications to progress.
I could not afford to pay for these qualifications on my wage alone.

In fact, I couldn't afford to live on my wage alone.

Luckily, my wife is very understanding. 🙂

Free education increases the sum total of human happiness.
It enables us to be [i] better[/i], both individually and collectively.
Stick a price on that.

What makes you think the economics 'experts' know any more than the non-experts? they hardly saw the last credit crunch and global economic crisis coming did they?

THM did. Of course he did.

He didn't come on here and warn us though, but he's explained that's only because he's a little coy........he's a bit shy when it comes to sharing his "expertise" with us. Hadn't you noticed?

outofbreath - Member

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

Ah yeah, "we have to cut or we'll lose our top credit rating" argument that Osborne so succesfully used. Until 2013, when we lost our top credit rating, then suddenly credit ratings weren't important and you should just forget he ever mentioned them. Still, it's nice to see the classics get a showing from time to time.

😀

Don't finish the whole bottle

😀

@somadunk I thought Cameron was outstanding. Compare that the the rambling incoherence of Corbyn last week. Cameron had energy and enthusiasm. Corbyn looked tired, jaded and old.

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

All the news coverage tonight (BBC 10 and Newsnight) has been on how Cameron has ceased the middle ground and again reiterating that the middle ground is what wins elections (same points made yesterday)

I read also that Corbyn will be "too busy" to attend the Privy Council ceremony so he wo t have to kneel before the Queen. Another massive error I'd say, I can't see any middle ground swing voters being pursueded by that and it will alienate many Laboir voters. Another open goal for the Tories to score

jambalaya - Member

All the news coverage tonight (BBC 10 and Newsnight) has been on how Cameron has ceased the middle ground

Never a truer word spoken in typo

jambalaya - Member

I thought Cameron was outstanding. Compare that the the rambling incoherence of Corbyn last week. Cameron had energy and enthusiasm. Corbyn looked tired, jaded and old.

Well if you thought [i]"Cameron was outstanding"[/i] that's really impressive because we all know how much it takes for a Tory politician to convince you jambalaya.

You also thought that Corbyn looked tired, jaded, and rambling incoherently, and yet you usually have such kind words to say about Corbyn.......he must have been truly awful!

Seriously jambalaya, you don't have post on here as if you are standing in the lobby of the conference hall giving an interview to the BBC.

Regurgitating Tory spin is pretty ineffectual on here.

But marks for trying anyway.

Look, even the Staggers is publishing Tory Spin now:

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/10/david-cameron-s-speech-hymn-liberalism-liberated-pm

Then Zebadee arrived and said"time for bed"

Cameron looks like a fat sausage ready to explode! Corbyn looks much healthier to my eyes. But maybe I am as blinkered as you clearly are. (jambalaya)

@somadunk I thought Cameron was outstanding.

Jamba and Cameron sitting in a tree
K-I-S-S-I-N-G

DrJ the Tories have pledged to increase NHS spending. By the £8bn the NHS has said it needs and that substantially more than the £2bn Laboir said they would if elected.

Not true, but anyway, my point was something else.

Look, even the Staggers is publishing Tory Spin now:

We'll see how much of that he actualy achieves (assuming for a moment that he actually wants to achieve it). It is the height of cynicism to announce a war on poverty and simultaneously announce measures that will plunge more people into poverty, to claim to help people get homes by announcing a bonanza for developers, to claim to end discrimination at the same time your Home Secretary vilifies immigrants.

Cameron looks like a fat sausage ready to explode!

Did somebody say "sausage"? How insensitive!!

[img] [/img]

[i]I read also that Corbyn will be "too busy" to attend the Privy Council ceremony so he wo t have to kneel before the Queen.[/i]

Perhaps one of the other current 500 or so privy councillors can go in his place? Won't be bending the knee anyway, that's a different ceremony on a different date.

Don't let the fact get in the way of your politics though Jam...

I read also that Corbyn will be "too busy" to attend the Privy Council ceremony so he wo t have to kneel before the Queen.

Why should anyone *have* to kneel before another person? Courtesy, yes. Subservience, most definitely not.

I listened to Cameron's speech yesterday and by the time he had finished I was furious that he was allowed to spout such utter lies and bullshit.