Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
BarryW
From the press
BARACK Obama turned up the heat on David Cameron yesterday, skewering him over his policies after the pair had flipped burgers at a Downing Street barbecue.
Despite the smiles in the sunshine, there was no hiding crucial differences between the leaders on economic policy, immigration and the campaign against Libya.
At a joint press conference later, Mr Obama did not back Britain's austerity measures, suggesting Mr Cameron and Chancellor George Osborne need a plan B. "If a programme is not working, we should get rid of it," he said.
In contrast to Mr Cameron, who insists immediate cuts are vital, the US President proposed a different "sequence or pace" for reducing the deficit.
With a grim-faced Mr Cameron looking on, he added: "We've got to make sure that we take a balanced approach and that there's a mix of cuts, but also thinking about how do we generate revenue."
America has taken a different path to the Coalition cutting slowly while maintaining key investment. Figures published yesterday showed the US economy grew more than 2% in the past three months, while the UK managed 0.5%.
Fifteen love I think .Your serve!
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
key words there in my opinion are "how do we generate revenue"?
recovery cannot happen without that.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
We've a generation grown up since the 'no such thing as society' statement and reshaping thinking will take a long time.
I remember clearing the Dour with a team from the Dover Web about 6 years ago but, as Ian regularly highlights, what lasting difference did it make?
Small scale volunteering (litter picking etc) whilst commendable will not be able to replicate the work of organisations such as Social Services which I suspect is the desired outcome of the current administration.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Hardly Marek I note that you did not quote a source...
here is a graphic that compares the deficit reduction programmes in the USA and UK - game set and match to me.
Note the official USA government and UK government sources being quoted.
Guest 663- Registered: 20 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,136
Sorry but this is something that has been going on for years, Cameron is just putting a new spin on it to make people think it is something new
There are many people out there doing a service for their communities, as is Doverforum your online community magazine to name but one
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Who knows, may-be this big society thing reserves a surprise for us all: a distribution of all the money equally....
no, I'll go back to my dreams
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Old fashioned Communist, eh Alexander? We have seen what that kind of thing leads to.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
i think posters are right mr cameron is just re distributing ol old ideas
and in reality its showing its having little affect
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, somehow, the fact that there are people who are so extremely rich, with private assets that demonstrate an illness towards money and private possessions, where tens of millions of pounds are not enough for one person, my idea of what "big society" could be gets stuck there, on that corner of over-bloated society where some sort of gigantic confiscation is necessary.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
If you want to wreck the economy and throw hundreds of thousdands out of work Alexander then by all means punish those who have scrimped and saved all their lives to provide for their families, those who have taken risks and set up successful businesses and those on whom the government depends upon to borrow money from, all in order to give money to lazy and useless bar*****s who have spent their time scrounging off the rest of us and those who go out on spending sprees using plastic. Yes a good plan from which after 12 months we will all be back at the beginning, the useless scroungers will still be useless scroungers and will have wasted their dosh, the indebted will be back in debt....
In the meantime the government would have become an international pariah and nobody would ever invest in this country again.
Oh and by the way - before what you suggest happened the very rich would have removed their capital from the country to keep it safe and will never bring it back.
Please Alexander - stop these weird communist fantasies and come back to the real world.
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
What I find interesting about the 'Big Society' concept is that it presents the best possible method of giving everyone,regardless of financial status, the opportunity to make a significant contribution to the British way of life. Whether it be litter picking,looking after our heritage or caring for the genuinely needy,it matters not.
Never give up...
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
not sure how that works richard, as you say it is a concept.
there have always been volunteers and there will be more in the future, but the majority do not wish to join in, there is nothing in the "big society" idea that gives encouragement to those who have not volunteered up until now.
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
I take your point Howard-but if the government is truly serious about backing the voluntary sector and making funding for the various projects/facilities available (eg via the new Big Society Bank-should it ever materialise), I believe that it would encourage more people to give up their time for worthy pursuits. Certainly the existing volunteers deserve the support. You will always get those who will never volunteer.Well there you go-they're going to miss out on achieving stuff. Suits me-I need as much cash as possible for the projects I'm involved in.
Never give up...
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
richard
all i can see is social apartheid, on one hand the educated middle classes will know how to run independent schools and secure funding for projects that appeal to them.
the sink estates where the volunteers have given up will turn into third world ghettos.
the money being talked about to do with backing up the big society is derisory and all that will be taken up by the clever clogs who know how to fill out forms and basically "play the game".
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Howard - people create their own environment and sometimes they just have to learn to stand up on their own two feet. If people want to live on sink no-hope estates thats up to them but it is in their hands to change that if they want to. It is not about education but about motivation. Many, many people through their own efforts have risen from poverty and terrible conditions to prosper - some cannot be helped that is life. I do not accept that these people are as helpless as some claim. In fact I would go further, it is the big brother State that keeps people in poverty removing all self-reliance and motivation for them to get off their backsides and help themselves. I am a believer that sometimes you have to be cruel to be kind.
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Now wait a minute Howard-I regard myself as working class-ok I had the privilege of a 1960's education and I worked hard at school and I've worked hard since. I've had my ups and downs. It's not only middle class people who know how to fill out a form you know. You're not implying that all working class people are dim are you? There are some very bright people who lived on no hope estates-yet have organised themselves and other like minded residents and pulled the direction of their community into a renewed positive one.
Never give up...
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
Barry, if you consider what I wrote, it would be hard to compare the financial situation of people who work for £5 - £25 ah hour to those who have hoarded tens of millions of £s in assets!
Also, as I specificly mentioned private not company assets, and already noted in a previous thread tghat 400 billion pounds in private assets in Britain belong to 1000 people, your comparison to communism probably convinces no-one in Britain.
Trying to claim that the hard-working people, including those who earn a few hundred thousand pounds a year, are included in the top richest people in Britain, is sheer scare-mongering on your part!
Communism doesn't come into it in any way.
To hoard private (personal) sums of money and assets for tens of millions is an illness, and an insult to the tens of millions of people who are working for anything from £5.93 to £20/30 an hour..
Please don't jump to conclusions, Barry. We are all supposed to be in this together, and those who hoard tens of millions privately, and add massive gains to that continually, cannot be financially compared to the vast majority op normal people.
The national debt could probably be paid off by exacting a special taxation on the super-rich, who would still remain rich after that (let's say they'd still have a million pounds each), whereas you keep repeating that the Government has to introduce cuts, and cuts, and cuts... on all the other people.
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Barry-please don't mention the word 'Sink'-it's not my favourite piece of vocabulary at the moment!
Never give up...
Guest 705- Registered: 23 Sep 2010
- Posts: 661
Alexanda- well you may have a point. But these guys don't put their assets under the bed. It's all high risk stuff. As Barry previously mentioned rich and poor is the way of the world. We can redress the balance and remunerate the deserving-it's working that out that causes the problem. The law of the jungle is a tough one and if you can think of a way of taxing the super rich-they will pay someone to think of a way to avoid it. I suppose you could shoot them-but anarchy has never been the answer.
Never give up...
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alexander - you are being very economically naive, a bit too much student common room for my taste. Why should private individuals have their assets seized, stolen, by a government just because a government was incapable of managing its financial affairs? These assets being, of course, invested in companies that produce wealth for this country. Perhap you should put student idealism to one side and start thinking about how thing really are in the real world.
