18 October 2010
10:5275412Ok so we no the cuts are coming because the amount of money being moved to Swiss bank accounts has gone up , im joking ofcoarse , seriously do the millionaire or billionaire buisness leaders who have come out this morning in the papers think we are daft enough to believe they are going to struggle . Maybe they will have to sell off a helecopter or to to make ends meet my heart bleeds for them , i feel for the members of the army who will lose there jobs .
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
18 October 2010
10:5975415Yep;
all the wrong people will suffer as usual.
Those able to pay more stll not.
And those like the bankers not hit hard enough.
And still people gettng wages that cannot be afforded.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
18 October 2010
11:0075417looks like 7000 members of the forces face the chop, i wonder how many of them are on combat duty at this time?
according to "the independent" today 15,000 jobs have already gone in the health service.
18 October 2010
11:0375419Them poor bankers how do they sleep at night . The rich will still get richer , anyone who doesnt believe that are living on another plannet .
18 October 2010
11:0575421Howard we keep being told our armed forces are over stretched , how can they justify theese cuts , im amazed the libs are allowing this , are they that desperate for power ?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 October 2010
11:0775423I really dont see what the bankers have got to do with this, nothing at all.
Howard - no front-line troops are due for the chop, only back-room staff.
Mark - the only reason we must have cuts is because of Labour's economic mismanagement.
Of the deficit which is £156bn per annum, that is the amount the government will spend this year in excess of its income, £109bn is nothing to do with the recession or banking crisis. This is the structural defict, the down to amount Labour's spendthrifts.
18 October 2010
11:1575429Part of the reason for the current slump is the development of the me me I culture during Thatchers years, let us not forget. During the period of time when the leader of this nation decalred there was no such thing as society and who encouraged our young to be as self-centred as possible the stage was set for economic meltdown in the future - well, here we are..........
18 October 2010
11:1575430Fair enough Barry it is Labours fault but can u deny the rich will find ways to still get richer , an is that fair ? As for only back room staff only losing there jobs , some of them are soldiers that have been on the front line , and been injured , not much reward for there service for our country . The reason i blame the bankers , is because of there involvment in getting us in this state , having us bail them out , and now making big money while most of us are now going to struggle .
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
18 October 2010
11:2275436The banks caused the problem worldwide by lending to much inapropriate money to people, while Labour policies did nothing to improve the situation.
All this talk of how and where the money is going to be cut is pure speculation we have to wait for the annoncements to get the facts.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 October 2010
11:3775444Jan - no you are mixing up different problems.
The economy always goes in cycles, you get a growth part of the cycle and then you get a down-turn, its as certain as night follows day. This is nothing to do with bankers at all.
Gordon Brown claimed to have abolished boom and bust, a piece of pure conceit that a bit of political fantasy. No serious economist believed a word of that and knew it for what is was.
The problem was that brown believed what he said. He kept on borrowing and spending as if a downturn would never come, that the good times will always roll... That is why we have the structural deficit of £109bn, the excess in spending over income. That is the reason for the cuts, nothing to do with the banks.
The banks are not totally innocent of course. But even then Brown carries a responsibility because he messed up two things, banking regulation and the inflation brief for the Bank of England. The result of that was a deepening and lengthening of the depth of the recession because of the impact of the housing and debt bubble that resulted in Brown's changes that SOME bank took advantage of.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
18 October 2010
11:4275445BERN;
Your last postng has some truth in it.
No good keep looking back baz laying blame, lets get on and sort it
als about how you do it
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
18 October 2010
11:4275446"Not totally innocent" is a lovely piece of spin BarryW!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 October 2010
11:5975447Keith - I can imagine how embarrassed you and all other Labour supporters are but you must be used to it by now. After all every term of Labour government ends in economic disaster.
The British public need to be reminded of the 'clear and present danger' that the Labour Party represents to our economy and their own futures.
Bern - If Brown had not foulded up the minority of bankers who were irresponsible would not have been able to get away with it.
The subject of this thread being the cuts, the fault for the £109bn structural deficit that is the reason for cuts lays fairly and squarely with Brown and Labour, much as they want their scapegoats.
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
18 October 2010
12:0175448The world was plodding along quite happily until some banks in the USA and then here went bust through mismanagement.
Yes the economy does have its ups and downs but I have never known such a down as we are getting now. I am not getting involved in your party politics arguements, I have already said Labour did not help the situation.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
18 October 2010
12:1675453BarryW - that is far too simple! It is a GLOBAL downturn and however powerful we might think little old UK is, I don't think GB et al could be used as scapegoats for the global greed and deviance that took place.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
18 October 2010
12:3075454Jan - It is wrong to portray things as 'the world was plodding along quite happily'. The downturn happened first and downturns/recession always come along, they are inevitable. British exposure to the US was to a large part down to Brown's regulatory loosening, which in itself in the US was caused by Clinton's reform's.
Forget the party politics and simply look at the deficit from the angle of common sense and logic.
The economist Keynes (who is Labour's favourite economist, not mine) said that debt should be repaid in the growth phase of the cycle so you can then borrow to maintain public spending in the following downturn. Quite logical. So what happens when you do not repay debt in the growth period? You end up starting the downturn with a structural deficit and that means that you are just piling debt upon debt. That is what happened and it is vital that the deficit is eliminated before the next downturn and some of the debt repaid as well. The alternative is that you just keep on chasing your tail on an ever declining economic spiral.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
18 October 2010
13:0775455Glad to see DC has grasped another nettle - in future new council tenants will find their rents means-tested and will have to pay up to 90% of the open market rental value. Quite rightly, existing tenants will be protected from this, although I am not sure for how long. "No longer will tenants be able to feel they have won the jackpot when they qualify for a council house and pay only a fraction of the market rent", says the Telegraph. Quite.
PG.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
18 October 2010
13:1775456Have to say council rents aint that cheap,
would be nterested to know what others think maybe some that are in council houses
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
18 October 2010
13:2675461Let's for one second put to one side "who's fault it is or who's ball it is" and lat's examine one FACT the children of our society hence our future and the more vunerable are facing more and bigger cuts in their income and standard of living than those being faced or suffered than the rich greedy bankers who contributed to the present financial mess we now find ourselves in. So if you believe thats right then support this coalition if like me you think it's both morally and financially wrong then let's do evertrhing we can to bring this shower down.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Jan Higgins- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
18 October 2010
13:4775466Peter, why should existing tenants be treated differently, some of those who have been in their their property for a while could now be quite high earners.
Marek, I feel a lot happier now that the coalition are in charge than the last lot. The extreme views from either side should be kept under control, well as much as you can control any politician when in power.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------