darkmorgado wrote:Yes. If only those damn tories had kept increasing our debt then we would all be living in mansions made of gold now.
Labour spent their way out of the recession and they managed to get growth up quite impressively before they lost power.
The UK General Politics Thread • Page 54
-
Page
of 116 First / Last -
Aargh. 11,348 posts
Seen 7 minutes ago
Registered 2 years ago -
elstoof 4,506 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 8 years agodarkmorgado wrote:
They almost got growth up enough to bump the price of gold to a record high for us to buy it back at.
Labour spent their way out of the recession and they managed to get growth up quite impressively before they lost power. -
Tom_Servo 13,413 posts
Seen 2 days ago
Registered 3 years agoAargh. wrote:
Haven't they though? Or is that the point you're making?darkmorgado wrote:
Yes. If only those damn tories had kept increasing our debt then we would all be living in mansions made of gold now.
Labour spent their way out of the recession and they managed to get growth up quite impressively before they lost power. -
RedSparrows 17,512 posts
Seen 4 minutes ago
Registered 6 years agoUseful discussion here, I see. -
Bremenacht 11,698 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 6 years agodarkmorgado wrote:
Ahh hahahahahahahaha
Labour spent their way out of the recession and they managed to get growth up quite impressively before they lost power.
Good one! -
elstoof 4,506 posts
Seen 3 hours ago
Registered 8 years agoWhen I look at Labour I see an unemployed parent, shopping for Juicy Couture and putting it all on a credit card in the hope that one of its spawn will start fucking a footballer one day to pay it all off. -
Aargh. 11,348 posts
Seen 7 minutes ago
Registered 2 years agoTom_Servo wrote:
Labour took us from £300 bn to a little short of £1 tn The tories have added a relatively small amount to that, partly because a lot of the things being paid for can't just be stopped as labour went into long term payment deals.Aargh. wrote:
Haven't they though? Or is that the point you're making?darkmorgado wrote:
Yes. If only those damn tories had kept increasing our debt then we would all be living in mansions made of gold now.
Labour spent their way out of the recession and they managed to get growth up quite impressively before they lost power.
I have nothing against governments spending a lot but to simply believe that more government spending = economic recovery shows an understanding of economics that a 5 year old in the 'special class' would have. Or DM. -
malloc 1,898 posts
Seen 53 minutes ago
Registered 11 years agoGeesh wrote:
This is what I find most funny (funny funny, not funny ha-ha
No one really knows though, which is the worrying thing..gif)
). There's nobody saying we need to do this and then outlining a straight forward sensible alternative.
Instead the nation is just distracted with plebgate and George Osborne sitting in first class, 2 things which are not even a drop in the ocean compared to what the country, and dare I say it, world, is facing. -
Bremenacht 11,698 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 6 years agoGeesh wrote:
Errmm, Hitler!
@Clive_Dunn
What events in history have shown us that? I realise the depression in America was largely credited as a success of more public spending rather than less, but are there any other events in history which support this? Maybe what applied in the American Depression doesn't apply now and won't work. On top of that, without a bias, do you know of any events which actually showed cutting public spending (when money is tight) works?
Just so you know, these aren't necessarily my views, I just feel the need to explore the issue before I make an opinion. Mind you, even with research, my opinion (and presumably all of ours) is completely useless considering how little of an expert I am when it comes to the world economy.
I can't think of any instance where cutting public spending as dramatically as the Tories has had a positive income. I sort of agreed with it when they first started doing it, because I believed the pain would be spread equally. Tax cuts for top earners and the hounding of those on disability benefits taught me otherwise.
But hey - any suggestion that top earners should pay as much as those on low incomes or on benefits is the politics of envy, right? Same for tax-dodging individuals and corporations. -
Aargh. 11,348 posts
Seen 7 minutes ago
Registered 2 years agoMeanwhile, the Lib Dems were in the attic playing with their toy trains. -
RobTheBuilder 6,455 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoAs much as I disagree with spending for spendings sake, you only have to look at evidence from history to see that cutting back to this extent does not produce growth ever. -
darkmorgado 22,987 posts
Seen 15 minutes ago
Registered 4 years agoAargh. wrote:
You seem to think that the point I made was endorsing a particular political viewpoint.Tom_Servo wrote:
Labour took us from £300 bn to a little short of £1 tn The tories have added a relatively small amount to that, partly because a lot of the things being paid for can't just be stopped as labour went into long term payment deals.Aargh. wrote:
Haven't they though? Or is that the point you're making?darkmorgado wrote:
Yes. If only those damn tories had kept increasing our debt then we would all be living in mansions made of gold now.
Labour spent their way out of the recession and they managed to get growth up quite impressively before they lost power.
I have nothing against governments spending a lot but to simply believe that more government spending = economic recovery shows an understanding of economics that a 5 year old in the 'special class' would have. Or DM.3DS: 4055-2781-2855
Xbox: darkmorgado
PSN: dark_morgan -
darkmorgado 22,987 posts
Seen 15 minutes ago
Registered 4 years agoRobTheBuilder wrote:
Yep.
As much as I disagree with spending for spendings sake, you only have to look at evidence from history to see that cutting back to this extent does not produce growth ever.3DS: 4055-2781-2855
Xbox: darkmorgado
PSN: dark_morgan -
Aargh. 11,348 posts
Seen 7 minutes ago
Registered 2 years agodarkmorgado wrote:
You were, in your usual passive aggressive way, until challenged on it when you're then unable to have any follow up views because you never got further than the headline on that particular Guardian article.Aargh. wrote:
You seem to think that the point I made was endorsing a particular political viewpoint.Tom_Servo wrote:
Labour took us from £300 bn to a little short of £1 tn The tories have added a relatively small amount to that, partly because a lot of the things being paid for can't just be stopped as labour went into long term payment deals.Aargh. wrote:
Haven't they though? Or is that the point you're making?darkmorgado wrote:
Yes. If only those damn tories had kept increasing our debt then we would all be living in mansions made of gold now.
Labour spent their way out of the recession and they managed to get growth up quite impressively before they lost power.
I have nothing against governments spending a lot but to simply believe that more government spending = economic recovery shows an understanding of economics that a 5 year old in the 'special class' would have. Or DM. -
Aargh. 11,348 posts
Seen 7 minutes ago
Registered 2 years agodarkmorgado wrote:
Nope.RobTheBuilder wrote:
Yep.
As much as I disagree with spending for spendings sake, you only have to look at evidence from history to see that cutting back to this extent does not produce growth ever.
http://www.nber.org/digest/jan00/w7207.html -
RobTheBuilder 6,455 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 9 years agoIf only there were some sort of party in the middle ground between "Spend everything" and "Fuck the poor"... some kind of party that could balance things... that could fight for realistic policies instead of short term political gain... think of the bigger picture... and not suck Tory cock the second a sniff of power is dangled in front of them... -
darkmorgado 22,987 posts
Seen 15 minutes ago
Registered 4 years agoAargh. wrote:
No I wasn't actually, I was simply answering a question asked earlier about when greater government spending had led to growth. Or do you think I actually support the Labour party? Because that would be rather amusing if you did.
You were, in your usual passive aggressive way, until challenged on it when you're then unable to have any follow up views because you never got further than the headline on that particular Guardian article.
But feel free to invent whatever scenario you wish.
PS - I don't actually read the Guardian.
Edited by darkmorgado at 01:30:13 21-10-20123DS: 4055-2781-2855
Xbox: darkmorgado
PSN: dark_morgan -
RobTheBuilder 6,455 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago@Aargh. Maybe in general, as excessive spending is never a good idea. But in terms of dealing with a recession and sparking new growth the evidence is very strongly against drastic cuts.
As said by both the OBR and IMF - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9611545/Austerity-has-hurt-UK-growth-says-OBR.html -
Aargh. 11,348 posts
Seen 7 minutes ago
Registered 2 years agoRobTheBuilder wrote:
@Aargh. Maybe in general, as excessive spending is never a good idea. But in terms of dealing with a recession and sparking new growth the evidence is very strongly against drastic cuts.
As said by both the OBR and IMF - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/9611545/Austerity-has-hurt-UK-growth-says-OBR.htmlHowever, spending cuts and tax increases were not the only reason for the OBR's forecasts falling short of the mark.
its complicated -
disusedgenius 4,936 posts
Seen 1 hour ago
Registered 6 years agoSo basically we're fucked if we spend money, fucked if we don't?
Sounds reasonable... -
RichieTenenbaum 1,651 posts
Seen 3 days ago
Registered 2 years agoI was on today's march. It was good -
RobTheBuilder 6,455 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago@Aargh. Of course it is, I'm just trying to back up the very widely accepted view that you cannot save your way out of a recession. You (to put simply) need to spark growth and then save once the growth happens. -
RobTheBuilder 6,455 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago@disusedgenius We are with Cameron in charge. -
Aargh. 11,348 posts
Seen 7 minutes ago
Registered 2 years agodisusedgenius wrote:
Or we can spend less but then spend what we do on the right things, efficiently and then put policies in place that are designed to encourage the private sector. That's incredibly hard to do well so just spend shit on stuff, like labour, seems to be the other option.
So basically we're fucked if we spend money, fucked if we don't?
Sounds reasonable... -
darkmorgado 22,987 posts
Seen 15 minutes ago
Registered 4 years agoAargh. wrote:
Because the Tories are doing such a great job of that...disusedgenius wrote:
Or we can spend less but then spend what we do on the right things, efficiently and then put policies in place that are designed to encourage the private sector. That's incredibly hard to do well so just spend shit on stuff, like labour, seems to be the other option.
So basically we're fucked if we spend money, fucked if we don't?
Sounds reasonable...3DS: 4055-2781-2855
Xbox: darkmorgado
PSN: dark_morgan -
RobTheBuilder 6,455 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago@Aargh. Agreed to much of an extent. But the Tories always cut too much and invest badly, whereas Labour over invest in inefficient systems. We need a middle ground but don't have one. -
RobTheBuilder 6,455 posts
Seen 7 hours ago
Registered 9 years ago@Facepalm Any vote to prevent a Tory majority is a good vote as far as I am concerned. -
Aargh. wrote:
Well, I'm sure every government has the same idea. You'd be a bit worried if they had a sudden desire to spend money badly on something they didn't think was very good anyway.
Or we can spend less but then spend what we do on the right things, efficiently and then put policies in place that are designed to encourage the private sector. -
Page
of 116 First / Last
