Turn on thread page Beta

Anyone disagreeing with the cuts are greedy and only think about themselves! watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    So its selfish to disagree with the fact that the government is making 11000 serving members of the armed forces redundant.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/0...7202A420110301
    Would you prefer to fire 11,000 more nurses?

    Do you believe that cuts should involve everything except defence or do you have other interests? That's selfish.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    Would you prefer to fire 11,000 more nurses?

    Do you believe that cuts should involve everything except defence or do you have other interests? That's selfish.
    The NHS is a financial blackhole. Cutting it's spending should force it too be more efficient which can only be a good thing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aramiss18)
    The NHS is a financial blackhole. Cutting it's spending should force it too be more efficient which can only be a good thing.
    All the government departments are black holes, they all swallow vast amounts of money and, oddly, never make a profit. Defence included.

    Of course cutting the available money does force anyone to be more efficient, cut your income and you'll eat less well, cut money to the nhs and it'll deliver care at a lower quality, cut money to defence and we limit the way we fight wars. Do you think this is a good thing?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDL445)
    Yes its sounds great to keep on spending money we dont have now.

    But lets face facts.

    If we dont cut back now and SPEND ONLY WHAT WE HAVE then we are creating a bigger problem for our children.

    People agreeing with the cuts should look at the bigger picture. We are spending money we dont have, we are borrowing money every single year. Our interest payments are at 50BILLION a YEAR. That could go a massive way to improving public servies or cutting taxes!

    If we carry on borrowing then cuts in the future when **** really hits the fan will be far worse, far deeper and far more damaging.

    Do you want your kids living in an area with no or very public services? Put up with it.
    What most people in this thread are missing entirely though is the fact that, in majority, we are students who don't have families to support; don't have jobs in the sectors that the government is targeting and can't speak for anyone affected by the cuts unless we feel it ourselves.

    It is fully understandable the amount of discontent and rage flying about at the moment, and although I don't condone the violent protests I still empathise with those people.

    Yes, we need cuts OP, but think first before you try and troll with the classic "you're all greedy and selfish" and realise unless it's a millionaire complaining about the raise in tax on private jets, they've probably got some justification.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    All the government departments are black holes, they all swallow vast amounts of money and, oddly, never make a profit. Defence included.

    Of course cutting the available money does force anyone to be more efficient, cut your income and you'll eat less well, cut money to the nhs and it'll deliver care at a lower quality, cut money to defence and we limit the way we fight wars. Do you think this is a good thing?
    I'm sorry but don't find this analogy to be at all accurate. If one's income decreases one doesn't starve one is just forced to shop more effectivelyand utilise offers, cheaper supermarkets and become more disciplined. I don't see how this cannot be applied to the NHS and MOD. I don't doubt your expertise on the issue being a medic but I am positive the NHS could absorb cuts by trimming the admin fat that has developed around all governmental bodies in recent decades and sourcing materials more efficiently. The same of course applies to the MOD and having spoken to a few officers in the Army they have said that spending on equipment is inefficient and poorly targeted.

    Of course I don't want to see cuts to a department that is charged with the health of the population and I like the principle of the NHS much more than say a US style of healthcare but when all departments are absorbing hefty cuts (including the MOD at a time of war) I do not see why the NHS cannot do the same. Although I do feel for the NHS given the lazy mentality of the UK population when it comes to obesity etc which do it no favours.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDL445)
    If we dont cut back now and SPEND ONLY WHAT WE HAVE then we are creating a bigger problem for our children.
    If you don't have enough income for your spending level, there's two things you can do. 1) Increase income, or 2) decrease spending.

    You're only taking option 2 into consideration. Why so?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aramiss18)
    Of course I don't want to see cuts to a department that is charged with the health of the population and I like the principle of the NHS much more than say a US style of healthcare but when all departments are absorbing hefty cuts (including the MOD at a time of war) I do not see why the NHS cannot do the same. Although I do feel for the NHS given the lazy mentality of the UK population when it comes to obesity etc which do it no favours.
    The NHS is absorbing hefty cuts. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    If you don't have enough income for your spending level, there's two things you can do. 1) Increase income, or 2) decrease spending.

    You're only taking option 2 into consideration. Why so?
    Ignoring, for the moment, arguments about stimulating public sector growth, keeping business in the UK and minimising public sector unemployment, tax income is projected to rise. Why not do more? The TUC aren't going to be happy about that either unless, like the cuts, they affect everyone else but me.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aramiss18)
    Of course I don't want to see cuts to a department that is charged with the health of the population and I like the principle of the NHS much more than say a US style of healthcare but when all departments are absorbing hefty cuts (including the MOD at a time of war) I do not see why the NHS cannot do the same. Although I do feel for the NHS given the lazy mentality of the UK population when it comes to obesity etc which do it no favours.
    If Britain had a US style healthcare system, it would cost twice as much, fewer people will get it and the outcomes will be lower.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Very few people are saying that we shouldn't cut, we obviously should.

    What people are saying, is that cutting as furiously and as deeply as the coalition is, will cause irreparable damage to communities and the economy.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imperial maniac)
    I'm afraid I can no longer agree with any cuts made by Cameron after they claim they HAVE to cut the NHS and increase university fees, then a little bit later fire £55 million worth of tomahawk missiles into Libya to save a bunch of rebels that I don't give a damn about.
    You read my mind.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    If Britain had a US style healthcare system, it would cost twice as much, fewer people will get it and the outcomes will be lower.
    I never said I supported a US style healthcare system.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Renal)
    The NHS is absorbing hefty cuts. :rolleyes:
    I know, I was simply stating why I support such measures and my opposition to opinion against NHS cuts.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abbadon27)
    I agree. People know we need to make cuts but they think they shouldn't affect them.
    Well naturally the cuts are going to take the form of redundancy of those actually providing the services cos it's the most straightforward thing to do - we never get round to looking at highly paid council fatcats (the 9000 public sector employees on a higher salary than the PM) or inefficient processes.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RDL445)
    Yes its sounds great to keep on spending money we dont have now.

    But lets face facts.

    If we dont cut back now and SPEND ONLY WHAT WE HAVE then we are creating a bigger problem for our children.

    People agreeing with the cuts should look at the bigger picture. We are spending money we dont have, we are borrowing money every single year. Our interest payments are at 50BILLION a YEAR. That could go a massive way to improving public servies or cutting taxes!

    If we carry on borrowing then cuts in the future when **** really hits the fan will be far worse, far deeper and far more damaging.

    Do you want your kids living in an area with no or very public services? Put up with it.
    Obviously something has to be done, but the question is whether THIS is the right thing to do. As others have mentioned, corporations and banks get it very light compared to the everyday man in terms of where the cuts hit - then there is the issue of these organisations not paying their fair share of tax and getting let off.

    There are so many different places cuts can be made - but are the ones they have targeted the most sensible? As opposed to cutting a few things very heavily, why not spread the burden more evenly.

    Then there is the fact that really, cutting is almost meaningless because our debt is so great -- the only way we can get out of this is by growing our economy and all efforts should be put towards doing that. One of the big ways countries can grow their economy is by creating skilled graduates and entrepreneurs and retaining them. Now if you have just experienced a huge crisis caused by excessive lending and you are telling your young people that it's fine to rack up a £40,000+ debt before they even get a job that just seems crazy to me.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atheistwithfaith)
    Obviously something has to be done, but the question is whether THIS is the right thing to do. As others have mentioned, corporations and banks get it very light compared to the everyday man in terms of where the cuts hit - then there is the issue of these organisations not paying their fair share of tax and getting let off.
    Businessess are not going to be hit by any cuts in spending simply because, unlike individuals, businesses (at least those that don't receive government contracts, like, err...) do not receive much from the government.

    There are so many different places cuts can be made - but are the ones they have targeted the most sensible? As opposed to cutting a few things very heavily, why not spread the burden more evenly.
    Which departments haven't had their budget cut?

    Then there is the fact that really, cutting is almost meaningless because our debt is so great
    Cutting spending is about cutting defecit and reducing the growth of debt, not about paying it off.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The bankers got us into this mess, let them get us out. They owe hundreds of billions to the tax payer, yet, they keep getting large bonuses and we continue to pay?

    The majority poor pay for the minority riches's mistake, because money and bribes influence?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    People are angry because they feel like the cuts are going to affect the weakest people in society the most - the poor. And they will.
    People with an income of £40,000 + per year don't really need child benefit, etc, it just goes into their savings. Compared to poorer people who use their child benefits so that they are able to afford their weekly food shop. Richer people don't need this kind of support, so why isn't as much money being taken from their disposable income as it is from poorer people.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The only reason the TUC are getting up in arms over this cuts business is the fact they need to justify being paid 6 figure salaries.

    That's all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by atheistwithfaith)
    Obviously something has to be done, but the question is whether THIS is the right thing to do. As others have mentioned, corporations and banks get it very light compared to the everyday man in terms of where the cuts hit - then there is the issue of these organisations not paying their fair share of tax and getting let off.

    There are so many different places cuts can be made - but are the ones they have targeted the most sensible? As opposed to cutting a few things very heavily, why not spread the burden more evenly.

    Then there is the fact that really, cutting is almost meaningless because our debt is so great -- the only way we can get out of this is by growing our economy and all efforts should be put towards doing that. One of the big ways countries can grow their economy is by creating skilled graduates and entrepreneurs and retaining them. Now if you have just experienced a huge crisis caused by excessive lending and you are telling your young people that it's fine to rack up a £40,000+ debt before they even get a job that just seems crazy to me.
    As I was scrolling down, I thought you were me.

    If you're my cooler alter-ego, please get in touch.

    'Thumbs up'
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.