RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker

RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

hertz -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/21/2010 2:47:59 PM)
This thread smells of Stalkers. I don't like it.

Anaxagoras -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/21/2010 3:04:50 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz This thread smells of Stalkers. I don't like it. No doubt the above comment is related to me even though I have only posted on a few threads that Hertz also posts on - threads that I actually posted on first. It isn't very polite to call another poster a stalker so in case the mods consider deleting this post I would just like to say he is the one doing the name calling. Is it any more justified than calling me a racist for expressing the controversial viewpoint that the Jews were the principal victims of the Holocaust? I don't think so.

hlen5 -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/21/2010 3:12:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz But we've got an empire to defend... Oh, hang on - no, we don't. We need the military because it makes people respect us and makes us feel important. Losers. An army, as so many other things, is better to have and not need, rather than to need and not have. ETA: Government waste sucks, not matter which government.

Politesub53 -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/21/2010 4:06:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I'm sure Labour would have needed to make cuts. Hopefully, though, they would have forgone the ideological attack on the state and included some measures to help encourage the wealthy to pay their fair share as well. If they were really sensible (and they are not) they would have scrapped Trident, and started looking for someone to buy a second-hand carrier (with no aircraft). I seem to be in the minority on tax though. I'm more than happy to contribute to the community I live in through taxation. Does that make me a Swede? Since you mention the carriers, why did Labour sign us up to something that is dearer to scrap than build, thanks to inbuilt penalty clauses ? You speak of ideology, the rich already pay the lions share of the tax in the UK. The sensible thing would have been for Brown not to have got us in this mess in the first place.

Moonhead -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/21/2010 5:12:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 You speak of ideology, the rich already pay the lions share of the tax in the UK. The sensible thing would have been for Brown not to have got us in this mess in the first place. Are you sure? Tony Blair is a very wealthy man, and doesn't seem to be paying any since he retired from Parliament. His company seems to have carefully designed to hide funds from the exchequer. I don't think anybody has yet been able to suggest any other function it might fulfil.

Aneirin -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 1:52:41 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: hertz This thread smells of Stalkers. I don't like it. No doubt the above comment is related to me even though I have only posted on a few threads that Hertz also posts on - threads that I actually posted on first. It isn't very polite to call another poster a stalker so in case the mods consider deleting this post I would just like to say he is the one doing the name calling. Is it any more justified than calling me a racist for expressing the controversial viewpoint that the Jews were the principal victims of the Holocaust? I don't think so. Oh come on, it is plainly evident that you might be what he suggests, for why else the above post, for that indicates you must have some guilty feelings. Why do you also feel the need to bring up your disagreement about a certain subject from another thread, that is past, gone, what are you trying to do other than defame this person to others who might have just brushed his words off as a difference of oppinion than what you are suggesting. If you wish to be the leader of the assembly, try acting like it, not a disgruntled rabble rouser.

Politesub53 -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 3:38:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Are you sure? Tony Blair is a very wealthy man, and doesn't seem to be paying any since he retired from Parliament. His company seems to have carefully designed to hide funds from the exchequer. I don't think anybody has yet been able to suggest any other function it might fulfil. So much for socialist Tony huh. Brown and Blair had plenty of time to close loopholes and failed to do so. None of the above alters the fact that the richest in society pay most tax.

RapierFugue -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 4:00:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 None of the above alters the fact that the richest in society pay most tax. And that's wrong because? [;)]

Moonhead -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 5:22:36 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead Are you sure? Tony Blair is a very wealthy man, and doesn't seem to be paying any since he retired from Parliament. His company seems to have carefully designed to hide funds from the exchequer. I don't think anybody has yet been able to suggest any other function it might fulfil. So much for socialist Tony huh. Brown and Blair had plenty of time to close loopholes and failed to do so. None of the above alters the fact that the richest in society pay most tax. As they have the most money, doesn't it follow that they should be paying the most taxes?

DCWoody -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 9:17:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: hertz I'm sure Labour would have needed to make cuts. Hopefully, though, they would have forgone the ideological attack on the state and included some measures to help encourage the wealthy to pay their fair share as well. If they were really sensible (and they are not) they would have scrapped Trident, and started looking for someone to buy a second-hand carrier (with no aircraft). I seem to be in the minority on tax though. I'm more than happy to contribute to the community I live in through taxation. Does that make me a Swede? Since you mention the carriers, why did Labour sign us up to something that is dearer to scrap than build, thanks to inbuilt penalty clauses ? You speak of ideology, the rich already pay the lions share of the tax in the UK. The sensible thing would have been for Brown not to have got us in this mess in the first place. The phrase 'Brown not to have got us in this mess' is a load of cock and you know it. He wasn't responsible (in the sense of causing, obviously they are in the sense of being in charge of) for the deficit last year any more than Cameron is responsible for it now).

RapierFugue -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 9:45:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody The phrase 'Brown not to have got us in this mess' is a load of cock and you know it. He wasn't responsible (in the sense of causing, obviously they are in the sense of being in charge of) for the deficit last year any more than Cameron is responsible for it now). Weeeellllll ... yes and no. In the first instance Brown, as “the most successful post-war Chancellor Of The Exchequer" (his supporter’s words, not mine), massively underestimated the impact of the credit-crunch. More prudent steps taken earlier would almost certainly have lessened the impact in the UK, although of course no other nation fared any better on that front, so that's possibly a tad harsh. But Labour, under Brown, then decided to spend their way out of what they took to be a “standard” recession, massively promoting public spending as a form of “quantitative easing” for what ailed the nation. There’s also strong evidence of massively wayward public spending in certain areas in the run-up to what we can now see was Labour realising that they probably weren’t going to win the election, but were perfectly happy to burn a bucket-load of cash trying by funding public sector schemes that would, they thought, generate enough temporary economic boost to make it look as if they'd somehow “sorted” the recession, when in fact they knew full well things were desperate, and liable to remain desperate for some time to come. Having said that I do think the Tories are a bunch of wholly unprincipled bastards who will absolutely destroy the UK and its economy over the next few years, while patronising the fuck out of anyone who isn't rich – witness the “get on a bus” comments of Iain Duncan Smith, yesterday. We’re in for some very hard times, and, what’s worse, harder times than needed to be. Yes we need to curb spending, but the degree, and the targeting of those least able to pay, is deplorable. It’s also criminally unfair that the people most responsible for the current situation (i.e. the banks and bankers) have emerged almost unscathed from it, and indeed in many areas they're actually faring better than they were. Nail em up! Nail some sense into em!

Moonhead -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 9:48:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue Weeeellllll ... yes and no. In the first instance Brown, as “the most successful post-war Chancellor Of The Exchequer" (his supporter’s words, not mine), massively underestimated the impact of the credit-crunch. More prudent steps taken earlier would almost certainly have lessened the impact in the UK, although of course no other nation fared any better on that front, so that's possibly a tad harsh. That said, they could have sorted out the mess the pensions are in when they were first elected back in '97 and probably not dropped their popularity enough to lose the next one as well. Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted seems to have been a nu labour thing, sadly.

RapierFugue -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 10:13:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue Weeeellllll ... yes and no. In the first instance Brown, as “the most successful post-war Chancellor Of The Exchequer" (his supporter’s words, not mine), massively underestimated the impact of the credit-crunch. More prudent steps taken earlier would almost certainly have lessened the impact in the UK, although of course no other nation fared any better on that front, so that's possibly a tad harsh. That said, they could have sorted out the mess the pensions are in when they were first elected back in '97 and probably not dropped their popularity enough to lose the next one as well. Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted seems to have been a nu labour thing, sadly. I'd say it was more of a short-termist, most-politicians-only-care-about-lining-their-own-pockets thing, but your point is noted.

Aneirin -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 10:57:43 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead quote: ORIGINAL: RapierFugue Weeeellllll ... yes and no. In the first instance Brown, as “the most successful post-war Chancellor Of The Exchequer" (his supporter’s words, not mine), massively underestimated the impact of the credit-crunch. More prudent steps taken earlier would almost certainly have lessened the impact in the UK, although of course no other nation fared any better on that front, so that's possibly a tad harsh. That said, they could have sorted out the mess the pensions are in when they were first elected back in '97 and probably not dropped their popularity enough to lose the next one as well. Shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted seems to have been a nu labour thing, sadly. I'd say it was more of a short-termist, most-politicians-only-care-about-lining-their-own-pockets thing, but your point is noted. Is there any wonder there is always a low turn out at the polls, maybe those that choose not to vote are not the stupid ones, for perhaps they know all too well it does not matter who is elected, which party is in power as nothing will change, so why spend the time and effort enabling a blow hard to attain their ambitions and whence there conspire against the very people who were stupid enough to give them power. It is very much a case of us and them, the politicians in power punishing the people who do nothing except respond to government action. The banks were allowed to do what they did because a certain party deregulated the city and of the safeguards they said they put in place, they had incompetant people to run those safeguards. The spending of the public is directly down to the banks enabled via a government that thought it knew what it was doing, so why are we paying for their fuck ups, as surely they that did this will not be heading towards the breadline, no, they scurried away tail between their legs but with healthy bank accounts. How many politicians current and ex, in power or out of power will feel the full effect of these draconian cuts I wonder, how many of them will be in protests against goverment cuts I wonder, thus indicating the them and us. Edited to add the government any government of this country operates their term of office as a case of smash and grab, that is why we have never invested in infrastructure that would be of use now, take public transport for example, a certain government wanted us to be like Europe with an efficient public transport network, wrong, we cannot do it, as those envied countries started their investment after ww2, they are now reaping the rewards of there foresight, whilst we just make do with the shite that we have.

RapierFugue -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 11:01:40 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin How many politicians current and ex, in power or out of power will feel the full effect of these draconian cuts Ok, I'm going with "not sodding many". What did I win?

Aneirin -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 11:04:10 AM)
If any !

Anaxagoras -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 11:38:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aneirin quote: ORIGINAL: Anaxagoras quote: ORIGINAL: hertz This thread smells of Stalkers. I don't like it. No doubt the above comment is related to me even though I have only posted on a few threads that Hertz also posts on - threads that I actually posted on first. It isn't very polite to call another poster a stalker so in case the mods consider deleting this post I would just like to say he is the one doing the name calling. Is it any more justified than calling me a racist for expressing the controversial viewpoint that the Jews were the principal victims of the Holocaust? I don't think so. Oh come on, it is plainly evident that you might be what he suggests, for why else the above post, for that indicates you must have some guilty feelings. Why do you also feel the need to bring up your disagreement about a certain subject from another thread, that is past, gone, what are you trying to do other than defame this person to others who might have just brushed his words off as a difference of oppinion than what you are suggesting. If you wish to be the leader of the assembly, try acting like it, not a disgruntled rabble rouser. Guilty me’ Lud! Your insight is remarkable as is your reasoning. lol I brought up my disagreement from another thread for the simple reason that he called me a stalker and has been continually complaining about being called names when he was doing the same for less justifiable reasons. No he was defaming me by calling me a stalker and did the same before by using the dreaded “R” word that people so often use to damage the arguments of others. BTW you objected to what I said about him before but never objected to his frequent name calling. This shows a peculiar one-sidedness. You appear to agree with him and criticise anyone who takes a strong line on his views. This sort of argument may damage this thread too so I’ll drop the er.. exchange of views at this point.

Politesub53 -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 11:56:47 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Moonhead As they have the most money, doesn't it follow that they should be paying the most taxes? I never suggested they didnt, I just pointed out to Hertz that ideology doesnt come into it, as the rich still pay the lions share of tax. While on the subject of tax, or more to the point, tax credits. Women have fought long and hard to be taxed as single people and not on hubbies tax forms. This is why the cut off point is 40K per person and not per couple. While I am on a roll here is a question. Labour said they would have a spending review in late 2009, then jan 2010, then after the election, then after the labour leadership election, now they have abandoned the plan. SO who can tell me what cuts they would and wouldnt have made, since they are now claiming to have had a plan that works better, which is patently impossible to have WITHOUT a spending review ?

Politesub53 -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 12:29:40 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody The phrase 'Brown not to have got us in this mess' is a load of cock and you know it. He wasn't responsible (in the sense of causing, obviously they are in the sense of being in charge of) for the deficit last year any more than Cameron is responsible for it now). Oh silly me, there was I thinking brown had been in control of the economy from 1997, until the last election. Here are a few points to refresh everyones mind of what happened though. Blair won the 1997 election, Brown was made Chancellor with full control of the purse strings. When brown became PM Darling had to apporve everything through him ( Brown ) Blair and Brown took the UK into two wars we could hardly afford, more if you count Bosnia. Brown raided the pension funds causing a massive loss for pensioners, which they have been unable to replace. Brown relaxed the rules in the City, as he was happy to recieve the praise from the financial service industry. He was aslo convinced London could become the worlds leading financial player, leading to less of a reliance in manufacturing. House prices, or more to the point derivatives, was the major cause of the recession. Browns resisted the chance to control unlimited credit supplies, despite being warned as early as 2003 by the Bank of England and Vince Cable ( Liberals ) that credit was out of hand. Indeed the common mortgage in 1997 was 95% of property value at 2 1/2 times salary. Northern Rock let that grow, and others followed, to 125% of the house value at 6 times salary. IE people were encouraged to borrow more than they could repay. Brown also refused to raise the interest rates to halt the unlimited supply of cheap credit. Soon after Brown became PM the Northern Rock crisis hit the UK. He dithered about calling a snap general election, and failed to act early enough on Northern Rock, causing the first run on a UK bank for over 100 years, probably over 150. By the time he and Darling acted, the worst had happened. Brown and Blair were also in charge of massive spending programs, all poorly managed. This included refurbishing the armed forces and road transport. One simple result was a Carrier thats cheaper to build than to cancel the contract. Regards Vince Cables warning., which took place in the House......November 2003 quote: Extract from "The Storm" by Vince Cable Chaper 1, Page 17 (Vince Cable) Is it not the brutal truth that investments, exports and manufacturing output stagnating or falling, the growth of the British economy is sustained by consumer spending pinned against record levels of personal debt, which is secured, if at all, by house prices that the Bank Of England describe as well above equilibrium level. (Gordon Brown) The Hon, gentleman has been writing articles in the newspapers, as reflected in his contribution, which spread alarm, without substance, about the state of the British economy.

hertz -> RE: UK Government 'too stupid for words' shocker (10/22/2010 1:34:20 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Since you mention the carriers, why did Labour sign us up to something that is dearer to scrap than build, thanks to inbuilt penalty clauses ? Because New Labour is really the nouveau Conservative Party. They like pallying up with big business and the wealthy, and they just love their military hardware. Most likely it was done for the sweeteners. quote: You speak of ideology, the rich already pay the lions share of the tax in the UK. They pay less pennies in the pound than anyone else. That's how it works. Personally, I think a less financially stratified society is a happier society, and a more efficient one. What's wrong with wanting to see more happiness? quote: The sensible thing would have been for Brown not to have got us in this mess in the first place. New Labour are partly responsible for sure. But it was greed wot really dun us in. Thatcher invented that.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875