2015 post UK election discussion

[daylightrobber]

LOL.

"Labour supporter demonizes opinion that differs to their own" - shocker.

Read my post a little more carefully pal. I said nothing at all about "rich kids for rich parents only" (which incidentally is nonsense - how does anyone choose to have a rich kid?). I simply said that people should cut their coat according to their cloth. Once that is done, there will be proportionally more funding available to help the genuinely vulnerable and needy.

My household income does not stretch to having four kids so guess what - I haven't chosen to have four kids. Others have them and then go cap in hand to the state. Many of us - and there are more of us than there are of you, according to the election results - think that's wrong. It does not qualify as genuine vulnerability or need. In fact, it takes vital funding and support AWAY from those in genuine need. You can bleat all you like about how the rich should pay more in tax to fund the welfare state, but until you address the issues that the rich regard as "abuses" then rightly or wrongly, they will refuse to contribute more. And before you say "well they should leave then", please consider what happens to your tax income per year if richer people (who pay more tax) start leaving.

The majority of the country has rejected Labour's self-righteous pontificating, and their relentless borrow-and-spend economics. Deal with it.

I'm not your Pal.

And you obviously haven't considered anything I've said. No one has the right to tell anyone else how many kids the can or can't have. People need to stop seeing them as society's burden and start seeing them as our greatest asset. Do you judge people who are richer than you who have more kids? Do you realise that their kids are costing you more than your fair share too, most obviously through education.

Stop looking at people and judging. It is telling that in the run up to the election you were nowhere to be seen arguing your case. Shy Tory? Ashamed Tory more like.

 

[The Esk]

Reduction of the deficit and into projected surplus is a debt reduction programme Mr Esk.

But as you know there was no surplus. Why? because tax revenues were lower than anticipated. Why? Because earnings growth and UK corporate profitability was lower than expected leading to lower tax revenues.

 

[bizzaro]

But as you know there was no surplus. Why because tax revenues were lower than anticipated. Why? Because earnings growth and UK corporate profitability was lower than expected leading to lower tax revenues.

But there is an expected Surplus post 2018 I do believe Mr Esk.

Which is the target.

 

[daylightrobber]

Of course I would as that's what it's there for but it is a handout. i.e. something received without paying for it.

Now of course you can argue that you have paid for it through taxation but there are people who haven't paid anywhere close into the system as they take out.

The people who use it as a safety net I have absolutely no issue with. I've done it myself and will again in the future if needed.

However I was making a bitchy comment in response to the one made to me and was intentionally winding him up.

And at the other end there's people not putting in as much as they should and that costs the country way more. Focus on the real greed in society.

 

[marty mcfly]

Campbell's point (and I was there) was complimentary in the sense he was complimenting the ability and single-mindedness of the Conservative Party to grab power. You can have the best policies and ideals in the history of mankind but without power they're useless.

I know why he thought it was a complement but if I call you a greedy [Poor language removed] and then say "It's a compliment because without money then you can't finance anything you want to do even if that's to build hospitals and schools" would you take it as a complement?

Or would the thing that you and more importantly others remember was the greedy and [Poor language removed] part.

That's what people take away and Campbell knows that.

 

[The Esk]

But there is an expected Surplus post 2018 I do believe Mr Esk.

Which is the target.

You are a long way from your original point though, that we were close to Bankruptcy in 2010 and that one of the indicators was losing AAA which we did not lose until 2013. In addition you claimed there was a debt reduction programme when in fact debt rose between 2010 and 2015 by £600 bn.

You're entitled to your view, of course, but they're at odds with the facts my friend.

 

[The Esk]

I know why he thought it was a complement but if I call you a greedy [Poor language removed] and then say "It's a compliment because without money then you can't finance anything you want to do even if that's to build hospitals and schools" would you take it as a complement?

Or would the thing that you and more importantly others remember was the greedy and [Poor language removed] part.

That's what people take away and Campbell knows that.

Campbell as we all know is a master at work though, regardless of whether you agree with him or not

 

[larrygobfiend]

Why must you refer to welfare as a 'handout', and would you refrain from seeking any financial support if you fell on hard times?

What's with asking all the questions? Maybe you should try arguing against his point yourself?

I think a lot of what he says is valid.

 

[marty mcfly]

I'm not your Pal.

And you obviously haven't considered anything I've said. No one has the right to tell anyone else how many kids the can or can't have. People need to stop seeing them as society's burden and start seeing them as our greatest asset. Do you judge people who are richer than you who have more kids? Do you realise that their kids are costing you more than your fair share too, most obviously through education.

Stop looking at people and judging. It is telling that in the run up to the election you were nowhere to be seen arguing your case. Shy Tory? Ashamed Tory more like.

I'm not limiting people's rights. I just don't think anyone has the right to then force others to pay. Society and kids does better when kids have two parents and we should be promoting that not promoting a society of single mothers.

 

[Seanjd]

What's with asking all the questions? Maybe you should try arguing against his point yourself?

I think a lot of what he says is valid.

...because I would like him to extrapolate, is that a problem?

 

[bizzaro]

You are a long way from your original point though, that we were close to Bankruptcy in 2010 and that one of the indicators was losing AAA which we did not lose until 2013. In addition you claimed there was a debt reduction programme when in fact debt rose between 2010 and 2015 by £600 bn.

You're entitled to your view, of course, but they're at odds with the facts my friend.

In order to start reducing the debt though you have to get into surplus. Isn't this the point?

 

[Seanjd]

I'm not limiting people's rights. I just don't think anyone has the right to then force others to pay. Society and kids does better when kids have two parents and we should be promoting that not promoting a society of single mothers.

There is nothing to suggest this country promotes a 'society of single mothers'. I assume you refer to the benefits single parents are allowed to receive. Would you be in favour of doing away with those?

 

[evilwebby]

How's Osborne getting on reducing the debt these days?

He ain't touched it, and never said he would.
debt != deficit. *sigh*

 

[larrygobfiend]

I'm not your Pal.

And you obviously haven't considered anything I've said. No one has the right to tell anyone else how many kids the can or can't have. People need to stop seeing them as society's burden and start seeing them as our greatest asset. Do you judge people who are richer than you who have more kids? Do you realise that their kids are costing you more than your fair share too, most obviously through education.

Stop looking at people and judging. It is telling that in the run up to the election you were nowhere to be seen arguing your case. Shy Tory? Ashamed Tory more like.

I agree to an extent, but shouldn't the individuals have the conscience to realise if they're able to provide a decent existence for the child if they're already struggling with the children they already have?

 

[marty mcfly]

And at the other end there's people not putting in as much as they should and that costs the country way more. Focus on the real greed in society.

If person A pays more than person B yet gets the same out then why should they pay more?

If you where smoking a cig and someone came up to you and said "give me a cig?". Would you give it to them? By your logic you should because you have more.

That actually happened to me and I said "No" and the guy looked at me puzzled and then said please and I gave it to him. Sometimes it's not the fact you don't want to share. It's the attitude that people think you have to share.