Turn on thread page Beta

Government Cuts: Agree or Disagree? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Watch the broken window fallacy video in my signature. I don't believe governments can just pump money into the economy and encourage spending. They get that money through taxes, which people would have spent anyway. Seriously, watch the video, it explains it well.
    I think it's long been established that Gordon Brown didn't just get his money from taxes.

    Sadly that's exactly the problem.
    Offline

    12
    (Original post by C92119F)
    I don't see anything in your signature
    They only show up in the first post made on any given page. This post will be on a new page, so you should see it.

    Watch the drugs one too, I know its not relevant, but its interesting. I guess legalising drugs would reduce the deficit and therefore it might be vaguely relevant actually!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    They only show up in the first post made on any given page. This post will be on a new page, so you should see it.

    Watch the drugs one too, I know its not relevant, but its interesting. I guess legalising drugs would reduce the deficit and therefore it might be vaguely relevant actually!
    Thank you very much CandyFlipper, that was a very interesting video I must say, you learn something new everyday! And that may prove vital information for me, and for that, I thank you kindly
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have to say this has been an intense and interesting thread,

    I am not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to politics, especially the nitty gritty, when people quote what one party said 7 months ago and what they are saying now.

    However I have followed the arguments so far, and have been wavering slightly.

    I would say I am pro cuts, but in general anti-con.dem.

    I almost lost my position working in a school, but like someone previously said about their wife, its sort of understandable. Looking at it objectively it seems to be a necessity. How fast and deep they cut, yeah well I don't know, but prefer to hear it from you guys.

    If conservatives were in power during the crisis, anger would be directed towards them now. It could be argued they would have been spending less, but im sure not drastic amounts less, and we wouldnt think anything of it. And I would bet in that scenario labour would have been voted in whether Brown was still leader.

    As thread starter indicates my opinion is golden. my facts... non really to draw on, but as any election, the voters make their mind up based on flippant representations via media agendas. Whether they be ideologically driven, or purely entertainment masquerading as news. I like to think mine is slightly above this mark but well below the sort of informed judgements I see coming from this thread, good to see!
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by lizarb)
    I have to say this has been an intense and interesting thread,

    I am not the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to politics, especially the nitty gritty, when people quote what one party said 7 months ago and what they are saying now.

    However I have followed the arguments so far, and have been wavering slightly.

    I would say I am pro cuts, but in general anti-con.dem.

    I almost lost my position working in a school, but like someone previously said about their wife, its sort of understandable. Looking at it objectively it seems to be a necessity. How fast and deep they cut, yeah well I don't know, but prefer to hear it from you guys.

    If conservatives were in power during the crisis, anger would be directed towards them now. It could be argued they would have been spending less, but im sure not drastic amounts less, and we wouldnt think anything of it. And I would bet in that scenario labour would have been voted in whether Brown was still leader.

    As thread starter indicates my opinion is golden. my facts... non really to draw on, but as any election, the voters make their mind up based on flippant representations via media agendas. Whether they be ideologically driven, or purely entertainment masquerading as news. I like to think mine is slightly above this mark but well below the sort of informed judgements I see coming from this thread, good to see!
    That's a very good comment I think lizarb I myself aren't the sharpest tool in the box when it comes to Politics but it was great to hear everyone's thoughts and opinions
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    My mother's a teacher who will be made redundant as of september after doing it for 20 years. She'll be 50 looking for a new job in this economy. Not really feeling these cuts tell you the truth...
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ElfManiac)
    Shrinking the state; lack of incentives to be reliant on benefits (which in the main I agree with, it's just that it doesn't work here); the idea that society will take over support no longer provided by the government (How? With what money?) and the general principle of taxing less and providing less - more money in taxpayers' pockets.

    However bureaucratic it sometimes is, the welfare state is very important to ensure that as far as possible, everyone has enough to get by on.
    however, before 2008 the conservatives pledged to match the labour governments spending plans. if it was this conservatives governments view to shrink the state they would not have made the spending pledge in the first place. this undermines the assertion that fiscal policies are ideological.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Your entire viewpoint comes across as a regurgitated soundbite from a pseudo-economist's textbook.

    We borrow over £500,000,000,000 every single day to pay for benefits, pensions, healthcare and foreign aid. This must be repaid, and it must be repaid with interest.

    The Government has sacrificed the financial future of our country because it is beholden to stricken morons in the street who whimper when they are told their unproductive lives will receive a smaller subsidy. Soon we shall be beholden to China and lenders; in usury the debtor is always beholden to the master. Hence borrowing must only ever be used as a means to increase the output by more than it will cost to pay back the debt. This is the first rule of borrowing and has been treacherously cast aside by successive post-war governments (Thatcher's excluded).

    The cuts don't even begin to scratch the surface of the Government reform which we will need to take, or which will inevitably be thrust upon us.
    Often overlooked is that the spending will only be cut to 2007 levels.. there were no riots in 2007 - in fact we were all rather pleased with our extended period of economic growth!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Article from last year but interesting reading... http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...h-unemployment
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Pro-cuts, to an extent. HE cuts were far too severe, but most other cuts I actually agree with.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Naturally, I'm pro-cuts. I want a thriving private sector, not an inflated state, to be employing people.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    People need to realise we cant live like we are.

    The government is running a deficit of 150+ Billions pounds a year and has been for years. Every year we add 150 billion onto our national debt of 4.8 TRILLION. We should start getting some common sense with the budget and only spend what we have. I agree when times are hard (recession) that the government should borrow more to stimulate the economy, but when times are good we should save. That hasnt been happening for past years. If we dont cut now to balance the books in 5, 10, 15 years we will have an even bigger national debt....
    Also with the banks: We will get our money back from them and hopefully make a nice profit.

    We should have private sector growth and cut the public sector right down. The public sector consumes wealth but the private sector creates it. Id much rather be apart of a private sector lead economy where wealth is created, we have higher economy growth, better standard of living and better jobs.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by R£SP£CT)
    Disagree. It makes me cringe that the government are cutting funding for the British people, and yet somehow fund the military to rain clusters of bombs over foreign people!
    There is money saved for the military in situations of war. Also bombs have a use-by date, if they arnt used they are wasted. Pilots will get paid whether they are in Wales training or over Libya. This is a NATO lead operation so the UK isnt bearing all of the costs.

    We are borrowing over 150 Billion pounds a year to fund the public sector these days. This is completely wreckless, we have too start living within our means.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    Labour's plan would be to halve the deficit in this Parliament. We believe that the ConDem's approach is not only unfair, but it is actually going to end up costing the country money in the long run, as it is hampering growth.

    No, Labour did not get us into this mess. The global banking crisis did.
    You realise that in real terms the "global banking crisis" has absolutely nothing to do with the budget deficit?

    Where on earth did you get that from?
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bunkd)
    We borrow over £500,000,000,000 every single day to pay for benefits, pensions, healthcare and foreign aid. This must be repaid, and it must be repaid with interest.
    Utter nonsense. Yeah we borrow about 80% of our GDP every single day don't we, because that would make perfect sense!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The country is skint but we can afford to bomb another muslim country, then again, thats all for oil.

    The removal of aircraft carriers will seriously hurt our country.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fynch101)
    Utter nonsense. Yeah we borrow about 80% of our GDP every single day don't we, because that would make perfect sense!!!
    Woops I added three extra 0s by accident. :mad:

    It's slightly over £500million.
    Our GDP is actually about 1.3trillion I believe.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Per se, and in principle, yes I agree. Only a fool would disagree since without them the macroeconomy of the country would be ruined.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why don't the government sell all the bank shares to private investors for a good price in return for business tax reductions it means we will be back in the economic situation before the collapse
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bunkd)
    Woops I added three extra 0s by accident. :mad:

    It's slightly over £500million.
    Our GDP is actually about 1.3trillion I believe.
    According to the World Bank, it is closer to actually 2.2 trillion. (Sauce)
 
 
 
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.