Politics

[Christmas Tree 4003]

Only someone with zero understanding or empathy of a junkies situation would think food stamps would sort them out.

 

They don't all of a sudden stop buying the crack and buy in a load of pop tarts...they sell their food stamps for less than their real value in order to feed the habit in whatever small way they can. They turn to crime more quickly because they're less able to finance the addiction.

 

It's a totally false, straw-man argument for a ridiculous policy. Housing benefits being paid directly to housing agencies is logical. Making sure that the poorest people have no pocket money whatsoever is asking for carnage.

 

I didn't say that at all. I'm simply referring to Ewerks point of where you draw a line of what an individual should be deemed capable of managing themselves.

 

Also whether the junkie should be the rule as to where the line is drawn.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

What a load of bollocks. Being on benefits is shite, no matter what the daily mail would have you believe. Does anyone honestly think most people who are on benefits wouldn't rather have a proper job?

 

The poor did not cause the problem and they shouldn't be held responsible. Punish the super rich ffs, not those on the poverty line. It's pure populism from the Tories, who have been dying for a

 

Does this post have anything to do with my post or are you just venting?

[ewerk 26803]

That 155bn figure is the crux for me - thats not even their wealth its the fucking increase in their wealth.

 

Note that theres no trickle down involved because as ive said before its mpossible to spend any money when you're that rich - it just becomes a cock measurement on a bank statement.

 

But they're the wealth creators, if you tax them then they'll immediately up sticks and move to a country with a lower tax rate and take all their jobs with them. [/ToryDefence]

 

[Happy Face 29]

 

I didn't say that at all. I'm simply referring to Ewerks point of where you draw a line of what an individual should be deemed capable of managing themselves.

 

Also whether the junkie should be the rule as to where the line is drawn.

 

Junkies should not be a factor in deciding social welfare policy. They're a miniscule percentage of claimants. Punishing them at the expense of all is the best excuse that can be given for the policy and it's also false.

 

They're not relevant to the discussion in reality.

 

[ewerk 26803]

Only someone with zero understanding or empathy of a junkies situation would think food stamps would sort them out.

 

They don't all of a sudden stop buying the crack and buy in a load of pop tarts...they sell their food stamps for less than their real value in order to feed the habit in whatever small way they can. They turn to crime more quickly because they're less able to finance the addiction.

 

It's a totally false, straw-man argument for a ridiculous policy. Housing benefits being paid directly to housing agencies is logical. Making sure that the poorest people have no pocket money whatsoever is asking for carnage.

 

Just to clarify that I'm not supporting food stamps, nor am I referring to junkies who are at the extreme end of the scale.

 

I do, however, have a problem with benefits being used on cigarettes and alcohol. I'm not totally for banning those on benefits drinking so it's probably unworkable in practice.

 

Smoking is a problem for those in deprived areas. One in three in these areas are smokers and the likelihood is that they are on benefits. That isn't what the system is for, not to mention the effect on their health. I'd love to see a workable solution to prevent benefits money being spent on tobacco, unfortunately I can't see one. A restricted payments card is one option but there are obvious drawbacks with it.

 

I don't think that discussion of options makes one automatically wrong.

Edited March 13, 2013 by ewerk

[Happy Face 29]

I'd encourage anyone on benefits to get on the cheapest ciggies and drink they can....and to do the lottery.

 

They're not gonna have any holidays, any drives out to the country, fancy clothes or fine dining.

 

For the price of a cinema trip they can have a night getting wrecked on white lightning with a relaxing bine or 2, with the hope of big winnings.

 

Fuck all else to live for.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

 

But they're the wealth creators, if you tax them then they'll immediately up sticks and move to a country with a lower tax rate and take all their jobs with them. [/ToryDefence]

 

 

I love the idea that these people only exist under Tory (coalition) rule.

 

They are always there, always have been and always will. I doubt very few of the 1000 have actually anything to do with hedge funds either, but that would probably make it less juicy.

 

How Meacher or his ilk can be in power for 13 years snuggling up to these super rich and doing nothing and then bleat about it now is beyond belief.

 

Says more about the people who lap it up tbh.

[Toonpack 7071]

It's mental. I'd love to hear the thinking behind it.

The immediate effect on the social housing association Mrs. Fist works for is a huge drop in monthly income- where previously they received the housing benefit directly, they will get a double whammy of needing more staff to collect what was previously automated, but having a hugely reduced budget to pay them- mental.

The social effects, which she's already seeing, make me shudder.

One householder only, usually the father if present, will be paid the entire benefit lump sum. In the families Mrs. F. deals with, this means the pisshead/junkie father will have sole charge of an increased amount of beer/drug tokens, fuck the rent , fuck the gas/electric, fuck the council tax etc.

"Fuck, we're homeless. "

 

The malice behind this policy is so transparent and leaves me staggered.

 

And that is the general populations problem, how exactly ????

[Christmas Tree 4003]

I'd encourage anyone on benefits to get on the cheapest ciggies and drink they can....and to do the lottery.

 

They're not gonna have any holidays, any drives out to the country, fancy clothes or fine dining.

 

For the price of a cinema trip they can have a night getting wrecked on white lightning with a relaxing bine or 2, with the hope of big winnings.

 

Fuck all else to live for.

 

College? Retraining? Taking a shit job?

[Gemmill 35505]

 

I love the idea that these people only exist under Tory (coalition) rule.

 

They are always there, always have been and always will. I doubt very few of the 1000 have actually anything to do with hedge funds either, but that would probably make it less juicy.

 

How Meacher or his ilk can be in power for 13 years snuggling up to these super rich and doing nothing and then bleat about it now is beyond belief.

 

Says more about the people who lap it up tbh.

 

You lap my spunk up.

[Happy Face 29]

College? Retraining? Taking a shit job?

 

None of those things are living.

 

People already doing shitty jobs don't do overtime for fun, they go and get pissed up.

[PaddockLad 14907]

And that is the general populations problem, how exactly ????

 

Because of the social problems that those with issues cause for the emergency services etc?...

 

or should we just shoot them?

Edited March 13, 2013 by PaddockLad

[Dr Gloom 20149]

Does this post have anything to do with my post or are you just venting?

 

no, i was replying on your comment on the welfare state having grown into something it wasn't meant to be. utter bollocks

[Happy Face 29]

And that is the general populations problem, how exactly ????

 

Because we're supposed to be a society. All in it together remember.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

A tougher society is needed.

[Dr Gloom 20149]

Martin Wolf in today's FT.

 

Britain’s austerity is indefensible

 

 

David Cameron’s “there is no alternative” speech last week on the UK economy has aroused much criticism. This is justified.The British prime minister’s arguments for sticking to the government’s programme of fiscal austerity were overwhelmingly wrong-headed.

It is easy to understand why he had to defend the government’s failing flagship policy. The incoming coalition embarked on a programme of austerity with the emergency Budget of June 2010. The economy, then showing signs of recovery, has since stagnated. Even the fiscal outcomes are poor. Indeed, according to the latest Green Budget from the authoritative Institute for Fiscal Studies, this fiscal year’s borrowing requirement may be bigger than last year’s. Only a productivity collapse saved the day – by keeping unemployment surprisingly low, ameliorating the social impact of the output disaster

 

How does one defend this record? Simon Wren-Lewis of the University of Oxford and Jonathan Portes of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, among others, have demolished the prime minister’s views. Here are the key points.

Mr Cameron argues that those who think the government can borrow more “think there’s some magic money tree. Well, let me tell you a plain truth: there isn’t.” This is quite wrong. First, there is a money tree, called the Bank of England, which has created £375bn to finance its asset purchases. Second, like other solvent institutions, governments can borrow. Third, markets deem the government solvent, since they are willing to lend to it at the lowest rates in UK history. And, finally, markets are doing this because of the structural financial surpluses in the private and foreign sectors.

 

Again, Mr Cameron notes that “last month’s downgrade was the starkest possible reminder of the debt problem we face”. No, it is not, for three reasons. First, Moody’s stressed that the big problem for the UK was the sluggish economic growth in the medium term, which austerity has made worse. Second, the rating of a sovereign that cannot default on debt in its own currency means little. Third, the reason for believing long-term interest rates will rise is expectations of high inflation and so higher short-term rates. But such a shift is going to follow a recovery, which would make austerity effective and timely.

 

Mr Cameron also argued: “As the independent Office for Budget Responsibility has made clear ... growth has been depressed by the financial crisis ... and the problems in the eurozone ... and a 60 per cent rise in oil prices between August 2010 and April 2011. They are absolutely clear that the deficit reduction plan is not responsible.” This brought a rejoinder from Robert Chote, OBR director, who noted that: “Every forecast published by the OBR since the June 2010 Budget has incorporated the widely held assumption that tax increases and spending cuts reduce economic growth in the short term.”

 

Serious researchers, including at international organisations, argue that the multiplier effect of fiscal austerity may be far bigger than the OBR has hitherto assumed, at least in today’s depressed circumstances. Moreover, even if the OBR believes the outcome turned out worse than forecast because of adverse shocks, rather than its underestimation of multipliers, this is an argument for active policy, not against it.

 

The prime minister also stated: “[Labour] think that by borrowing more they would miraculously end up borrowing less ... Yes, it really is as incredible as that.” What truly is incredible is that Mr Cameron cannot understand that, if an entity that spends close to half of gross domestic product retrenches as the private sector is also retrenching, the decline in overall output may be so large that its finances end up worse than when it started. Bradford DeLong of Berkeley and Larry Summers, the former US Treasury secretary, have shown that, in a depressed economy, what Mr Cameron deems incredible is likely to be true. A recent International Monetary Fund paper argues that “fiscal tightening could raise the debt ratio in the short term, as fiscal gains are partly wiped out by the decline in output”. Mr Portes adds that, even if this is not true for the UK on its own, it is likely to be true for Europe since almost everybody is retrenching simultaneously.

 

Mr Cameron argues that “this deficit didn’t suddenly appear purely as a result of the global financial crisis. It was driven by persistent, reckless and completely unaffordable government spending and borrowing over many years.” In a way, this is the most worrying error – not because the fiscal policy of the Labour party, then in power, was perfect. Far from it. Fiscal policy should have been tighter. But that is not the main reason the UK has a huge structural deficit.

 

It is the economy, stupid. In 2007, according to the IMF, UK net debt – at 38 per cent of GDP – was the second-lowest in the Group of Seven leading economies. These levels were also exceptionally low by UK historical standards. In the March 2008 Budget, the Treasury estimated the structural cyclically adjusted deficit on the current budget at minus 0.7 per cent in 2007-08 and minus 0.5 per cent in 2008-09. The collapse in output has caused the explosion in deficits and debt. Almost everybody underestimated the vulnerability, the Conservative leadership among them: pre-crisis, it committed itself to continuing the plans that Mr Cameron now calls “reckless and unaffordable”.

 

Some think reckless spending explains the jump in government spending from 40.7 per cent of GDP in 2007-08 to 47.4 per cent two years later. Yet, between 1996-97 (the year before Labour came into office) and 2007-08 (the year before the crisis), the share of spending in GDP rose by only 1.2 per cent. No: the collapse in GDP, relative to expectations, caused the jump in spending and decline in receipts, relative to GDP. The Green Budget compares the forecasts for 2012-13 made in the 2008 Budget and the 2012 Autumn Statement: nominal GDP is down 13.6 per cent, receipts are down 17.6 per cent, spending is down 5.6 per cent and borrowing is up 372 per cent. It is because the OBR (and others) believe most of this lost GDP is permanent that the position seems so grim. (See charts.)

 

Mr Cameron’s argument against fiscal policy flexibility is wrong. But, beyond this, we have to consider why the economy has proved so fragile and rebalancing so difficult. That is for next week.

[Dr Gloom 20149]

A tougher society is needed.

 

yeah, let's fuck over the poor. as long as i'm alright.

 

wanker

[Gemmill 35505]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/majority-of-british-children-will-soon-be-growing-up-in-families-struggling-below-the-breadline-government-warned-8531584.html

 

[Happy Face 29]

So, to summarise what we've learned...

 

...the growth in wealth of the top 0.003% of people over the past 3 years would cover the deficit with tens of billions left

 

...and the uncollected/evaded tax of those liable to pay would itself cover the deficit.

 

...while the benefit system runs at a £13bn surplus of it's budget.

 

...and there is only £2.7bn that can be further rinsed out of the benefit system, which is a mere 2% of the deficit.

 

 

Yet the discussion is still being framed in terms of how the benefit system can overhauled to fix the economy.

[Renton 18045]

 

 

I love the idea that these people only exist under Tory (coalition) rule.

 

They are always there, always have been and always will. I doubt very few of the 1000 have actually anything to do with hedge funds either, but that would probably make it less juicy.

 

How Meacher or his ilk can be in power for 13 years snuggling up to these super rich and doing nothing and then bleat about it now is beyond belief.

 

Says more about the people who lap it up tbh.

 

So this is your stock retort to every post on this thread now, ignore any issues concerning the present government - you know, the ones who can actually change things NOW - and whinge on about perceived injustices concerning the last government?

 

Boring as fuck tbh. Either debate about the present issues and how they can be resolved or don't bother posting.

[NJS 4006]

 

I love the idea that these people only exist under Tory (coalition) rule.

 

They are always there, always have been and always will. I doubt very few of the 1000 have actually anything to do with hedge funds either, but that would probably make it less juicy.

 

Which is why I despise the establishment in the uk and have a healthy contempt for most of the people who've done nothing to change it and instead worship the class that pisses on them.

 

I'd love to see a revolution but people are humble sheep who spout shite about how they've had it too good and now deserve to be punished while the rich just laugh.

 

I hope the seeds they've sown result in a violent response.

[Christmas Tree 4003]

 

no, i was replying on your comment on the welfare state having grown into something it wasn't meant to be. utter bollocks

 

In that case you need to re visit history.

 

There are so many things the welfare state pays for now that was never its intention when it was thought up.

 

 

[Dr Gloom 20149]

So, to summarise what we've learned...

 

...the growth in wealth of the top 0.003% of people over the past 3 years would cover the deficit with tens of billions left

 

...and the uncollected/evaded tax of those liable to pay would itself cover the deficit.

 

...while the benefit system runs at a £13bn surplus of it's budget.

 

...and there is only £2.7bn that can be further rinsed out of the benefit system, which is a mere 2% of the deficit.

 

 

Yet the discussion is still being framed in terms of how the benefit system can overhauled to fix the economy.

 

And middle England is lapping it up. It's infuriating. These bastards might just get away with it if we're not careful

[Happy Face 29]

I love the idea that these people only exist under Tory (coalition) rule.

 

They are always there, always have been and always will. I doubt very few of the 1000 have actually anything to do with hedge funds either, but that would probably make it less juicy.

 

How Meacher or his ilk can be in power for 13 years snuggling up to these super rich and doing nothing and then bleat about it now is beyond belief.

 

Says more about the people who lap it up tbh.

 

Probably because Labour presided over a booming economy for the vast majority of their time in power and invested shitloads in schools and hospitals without cutting benefits.

 

The poor weren't paying the cost for Labours investment. There was almost a half trillion more on GDP in 2007 than there was in 2011.

[NJS 4006]

 

In that case you need to re visit history.

 

There are so many things the welfare state pays for now that was never its intention when it was thought up.

 

Like millions living past 70 because of that pesky nhs.

 

Like subsidising the incomes of millions of workers because capitslism won't pay living wages.

 

Like universal child benefit so people like you can buy coffee machines.