Login / Register
D
o
v
e
r
.uk.com
News
Forums
Dover Forum
General Discussion Forum
Politics Forum
Archive Updates
Channel Swimming Forum
Doverforum.com: Sea News
Channel Swimming
History Archive
Calendar
Channel Traffic
If this post contains material that is offensive, inappropriate, illegal, or is a personal attack towards yourself, please report it using the form at the end of this page.
All reported posts will be reviewed by a moderator.
The post you are reporting:
What you often see as bad Mark I see as very positive for us individually and the future.
One example is that you see enabling people to own their own homes as 'social engineering' - I see it as freedom and choice, people being enabled and empowered by that choice.
What you see as hindering people from going on strike I see as encouraging responsibility and sensible decision making.
You seem to take on the view that governments should be involving itself deeply in our lives while I prefer governments to keep out of our lives. You seem to think that people should look to government for help and support while I think that people should look to themselves and to each other instead. I see governments as essentially a necessary evil that are inherently incompetent and inefficient and for that reason should be minimalised. By contrast you seem to want government to extend it reach and take a massive and increasing role.
Your view of government results in high taxation, high borrowing and high government spending. That means less economic growth and an ever bigger proportion of the economy be taken by the public sector. The impact of this is lower economic growth - international comparisions on a like to like basis demonstrate the bad impact such policies have on growth.
My view of government would mean less taxation, less borrowing and less government spending as a proportion of GDP. The big point is that economic growth would be enhanced so though a smaller proportion of GDP public spending in cash terms could become as high or even higher than in your view via a smaller percentage of a much larger economic 'pot'. This would be a more sustainable economic model providing much greater prosperity overall.
Clearly where such spending is directed would be a point of dispute between us, but that is a good debate to have rather than the one we are having to have now about where cuts should fall.
You and I just have different values and this is a debate that will go on forever.
Report Post
Your Name
Reason
end link