PDA

View Full Version : UK Budget Cuts - Round 1


Mad Tony
24-05-10, 21:57
Chancellor George Osborne has outlined plans to cut £6.2bn of what he calls "wasteful spending" to start to reduce the budget deficit.

There will be cuts to quangos, spending on consultancy and big IT projects and a civil service recruitment freeze.

Child Trust Funds will be axed by January but funding for schools and Sure Start will be protected, he said.

Shadow Chancellor Alistair Darling said Mr Osborne must "come clean" on the details and how many jobs were at risk.

Of the cuts identified, £500m is to be reinvested in further education, apprenticeships and social housing, leaving a net spending cut of £5.7bn - less than 1% of total government spending

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8699522.stm

Could be doing more. There's £85 million to be saved by simply scrapping the discriminatory Equalities Office, hundreds of millions could also be saved by cutting down the foreign aid budget instead of raising it and by including the Health Department with all of the other departments in the cuts.

Still, I like how the government is taking decisive action. Kudos to both the Tories and the Lib Dems for so far getting this government off to a good start.

However, bigger cuts will be coming and what's worrying me most is not the cuts themselves but the inevitable industrial action and social unrest that will follow. How badly will the unions paralyze the country and when?

Ward Dragon
24-05-10, 23:07
However, bigger cuts will be coming and what's worrying me most is not the cuts themselves but the inevitable industrial action and social unrest that will follow. How badly will the unions paralyze the country and when?

Maybe that's why they're doing a smaller cut at first. It's probably less jarring to do a series of smaller cuts and give time for people to adjust to it gradually. If they did one massive cut it would likely cause a lot of disruption because people would be overwhelmed and not know how to handle it all at once.

Glaçon
24-05-10, 23:46
Kinda sucks that it had to come to this at all, really.

Gregori
25-05-10, 00:25
Thank God for dissent :)

Glaçon
25-05-10, 00:33
Speak for yourself. Im proud to be part of the Commonwealth :)

Gregori
25-05-10, 00:39
Emmm. I'm not talking about the rights or wrongs of the commonwealth :)

Glaçon
25-05-10, 00:47
Yeah but, "dissent". That sounds like a version of "thank-god its not happening to us, thank god we're not apart of them". It doesnt really affect me either - but Im sad for the UK.

Gregori
25-05-10, 00:48
Naahhh , I don't mean that. What I mean is thank god there are people in the UK who are not willing to go along with what ever the government dictates and will stand up for their rights :)

Ward Dragon
25-05-10, 00:58
Naahhh , I don't mean that. What I mean is thank god there are people in the UK who are not willing to go along with what ever the government dictates and will stand up for their rights :)

I'm a little confused which way you mean it though. Are you happy that the new government isn't continuing with bad policies from the previous government, or are you happy that the previous government guy is objecting to the new government's policies?

Glaçon
25-05-10, 01:01
I'm a little confused which way you mean it though. Are you happy that the new government isn't continuing with bad policies from the previous government, or are you happy that the previous government guy is objecting to the new government's policies?

I'm confused too...

Gregori
25-05-10, 01:05
I'm a little confused which way you mean it though. Are you happy that the new government isn't continuing with bad policies from the previous government, or are you happy that the previous government guy is objecting to the new government's policies?

I'm happy that its not a fascist country and there are a such thing as unions, which don't bend over backwards and let the government do anything it wants without a fight :)

Ward Dragon
25-05-10, 01:11
I'm happy that its not a fascist country and there are a such thing as unions, which don't bend over backwards and let the government do anything it wants without a fight :)

Ah. Maybe it's different over there, but here the unions are mainly political organizations trying to get people elected who will give them kickbacks and they don't actually do what's best for the workers. I know some kind of regulation is needed to make sure the companies don't exploit the workers, but I think the current situation with unions is overkill and does more harm than good. For example, with GM the unions kept demanding more and more for the workers until the company was bankrupt and then they got their bought-and-paid-for politicians to have the government buy out the company and give them a big share of it. Not to mention what's happening in Greece where the unions did the same thing and now the entire country is facing bankruptcy. The idea of a union is a good thing, but right now they have way too much power and they've become way too political to do the right thing.

Mad Tony
25-05-10, 05:30
I'm happy that its not a fascist country and there are a such thing as unions, which don't bend over backwards and let the government do anything it wants without a fight :)You do realize that these budget cuts are an absolute necessity and by holding things up you're only delaying even bigger cuts further down the line, right?

ggctuk
25-05-10, 08:33
Unions - take one big, long look at Unite, the union responsible for the carnage at the airports for BA passengers now. Are they interested in helping workers? OF course not. Airline workers might have something to complain about if they were on my wage (About £450-500 a month) but they get at least double that (and that's been modest) and they get their perks too!

And that's just one union. Imagine the chaos created if more unions went on strike over cuts the Government HAS to make to plug the biggest deficit this country's seen in a long time.

jaywalker
25-05-10, 08:43
The union HEADS earn a fortune and THEY get paid for strike days! dont get me started on the wrongs of unions.. i support workers rights BUT i dont support the system they use to bully their solutions thru. For everyone saying BA doing this and that, theres people saying the unions doing this and that too so both as bad as each other.

As for the cuts made yesterday, as they said for FAR too long this country has been living on credit and enjoying it, so guess what the bandaid has to come off eventually to let the wound heal properly etc.. its a short sharp shock of a cut, good.. bout bloody time..

as for people saying they should fight against it.. well look to greece for what happens when you do. Greece is a country in absolute chaos, has NO money as debt ridden, its people have for so long been used to not paying taxes on things and being able to avoid so many things as no one ever pulled them up on it, well guess what, you cannot continue like that, but rather then accept it they riot and kill people!! thats nice aint it!?

Gregori
25-05-10, 14:57
Business created the international credit crisis, not unions :)

Society at large is being punished and being asked to pay for the mistakes of a few elites.

The alternative to cuts, is more taxes..... which isn't liked, because it probably means taxing the wealthy(ie. some of the people who caused the crisis!!!), because they can't really get anymore from poor and middle income earners. And corporations don't support political parties for policies like that.


If we're going to make cuts to foreign aid ( which is pretty bad, considering awful effects it will have on people in poor nations), we should consider what's really costing too much money!!! That the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're costing the UK BILLIONS!!! And there is no end in sight to them. Britain and the US are not winning those wars and its been nearly 10 years. If they haven't won them by then, they're NEVER going to win them. And besides, its costing the lives of hundreds of British Troops and 10 000's of civilians lives in those countries :)

jaywalker
25-05-10, 16:01
Didnt say was because of unions. i was talking about unions then was talking about the fact you said about thank god for dissent etc..

i am a tax payer, i dont mind paying my taxes for things that benefit myself and other tax payers but i dont like paying my taxes to bail out other people who CAN help themselves but DONT..

The new coalition is taking a big risk hitting everyone in the wallet.. hopefully its a good start and puts this country back on road to PROPER recovery not a glossed over `race` to get statistically out of recession..

The Great Chi
25-05-10, 16:59
I laugh at the UK, you are all just a bunch of sheep, quite happy to pay tax after tax and just grumble about it.

Thank god for the Boston tea party where we ousted the tax mad brits from our shore :D

Don't get me wrong, I love the UK when I visit it, there's great people there and some of my own relatives, but since the days of Thatcher the milk snatcher, you have all become cowering sheep, and just accept what your goverment dictate to you without a fight. Even though it is all manipulation.

Shortly you will have to save on power and have no street lights. Yet New York and Tokyo will have lights galore running. And we will be laughing at you.
You will have to cycle up the hill to get your Hovis bread, as your petrol will be so dear, the car will be kept in your garage.
You will be so hard up for cash, you will have to move the Eastern European countries to sell the Big Issue :p

What I am saying here is stop mumping, and grumbling, and fight back and stop the rot. You know yourself that all this talk of tighting the belt, work hard to get your country out of debt, etc, etc, to put it in a brittish contex, is a load of British bull. They have being using this excuse of 'we are up to our eyes in debt' in british politics since way before Harold Wilson.

The funny thing is you spent the last 60 years paying back the massive WW2 debt to the USA and Canada, (mind you russia had the right idea and refused to pay back) and just when this massive debt was finished 2 years ago, now comes along the financial bank bailout costing the UK taxpayer, yet more decades of debt, Can you see the con here, the manipulation, to keep the average UK worker in debt, in taxation, up to your eyeballs.

You know all world goverments manipulate the people to some extent, but the UK politicians run rings round their people as your 'standard of living' colapses around you.

Get real Brittish people, and wize up, and fight back.

Ward Dragon
25-05-10, 17:46
Thank god for the Boston tea party where we ousted the tax mad brits from our shore :D

Obama's a lot worse than King George when it comes to taxes XD We ain't exactly doing better than the UK with the massive debt we incurred from the bailouts and now this unwieldy pork-barrel-ridden healthcare plan that is estimated to actually raise the cost of healthcare for most Americans (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/05/25/AR2010052501792.html). People are starting to realize it (63% of Americans want to repeal the healthcare bill according to a recent Rasmussen poll (http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/march_2010/health_care_law)) but it's probably too late now.

Mad Tony
25-05-10, 19:23
Business created the international credit crisis, not unions :)

Society at large is being punished and being asked to pay for the mistakes of a few elites.Business? Business (big and small) is what is pulling us out of the crisis. There's no one thing to blame for the crisis because it's so complex. I know it's easy to just point the finger and be jealous of "the elite" but there's more to it than that.

The alternative to cuts, is more taxes..... which isn't liked, because it probably means taxing the wealthy(ie. some of the people who caused the crisis!!!), because they can't really get anymore from poor and middle income earners. And corporations don't support political parties for policies like that.What's needed is mostly budget cuts. This will make people more responsible for themselves instead of the Labour way of more taxes and making people dependent on the state.

If we're going to make cuts to foreign aid ( which is pretty bad, considering awful effects it will have on people in poor nations), we should consider what's really costing too much money!!! That the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They're costing the UK BILLIONS!!! And there is no end in sight to them. Britain and the US are not winning those wars and its been nearly 10 years. If they haven't won them by then, they're NEVER going to win them. And besides, its costing the lives of hundreds of British Troops and 10 000's of civilians lives in those countries :)Ideally nothing would be cut (although I'd still cut foreign aid because that money could be used better at home). However, desperate cuts are needed and it's time to prioritize. The public will unfortunately be hit hard and jobs will be lost. This can't be prevented. However, the blow from this could be lessened somewhat by putting most if not all of the money sent overseas (where it's a continuing spiral anyway) into other government departments. Poverty still exists here as well and until poverty is no longer present here and nobody needs any help (which is obviously impossible) then I'd say go ahead and plow money into foreign aid.

We're not in Iraq anymore, and the work being done in Afghanistan is beneficial to us security-wise. Besides, we can't just pull out straight away anyway.

Gregori
25-05-10, 22:56
Business? Business (big and small) is what is pulling us out of the crisis. There's no one thing to blame for the crisis because it's so complex. I know it's easy to just point the finger and be jealous of "the elite" but there's more to it than that. Its not jealousy of the elite. Its a deep condensation of the elite for getting us into the mess. Its the public's money that in the end, is pulling the economy out of crisis, not business!! Public is taking responsibility and is being punished for the mistakes of the banks and financial institutions.

What's needed is mostly budget cuts. This will make people more responsible for themselves instead of the Labour way of more taxes and making people dependent on the state. Whats needed is the people who have caused the economic crisis to be made responsible for it, not the public. The model that is practiced around the globe is privatizing profit and socializing risk and losses :(

Those cuts will have horrible effects on vulnerable people.

Ideally nothing would be cut (although I'd still cut foreign aid because that money could be used better at home). However, desperate cuts are needed and it's time to prioritize. The public will unfortunately be hit hard and jobs will be lost. This can't be prevented. However, the blow from this could be lessened somewhat by putting most if not all of the money sent overseas (where it's a continuing spiral anyway) into other government departments. Poverty still exists here as well and until poverty is no longer present here and nobody needs any help (which is obviously impossible) then I'd say go ahead and plow money into foreign aid.The levels of poverty are far more extreme in countries that Britain gives aid to than in Britain itself. It's pretty immoral and greedy to cut those people off. It seems like you just want an excuse to not give money to foreign countries.....yet you're perfectly happy to invade countries. The governments in Europe have decided to prioritize and have chosen to bailout banks instead of helping the public or saving jobs. Its lots of good money chasing bad money and ****ed down the drain :)


We're not in Iraq anymore, and the work being done in Afghanistan is beneficial to us security-wise. Besides, we can't just pull out straight away anyway. The war Afghanistan is actually responsible for causing more terrorism that it has prevented by exponential amount and makes UK a target for terrorism. The 7/7 bombings were the result of UK aggression in Muslim countries. UK was never attacked before it decided to participate in those wars. As a way to SAVE a ton of money and increase Britain's security, it would be a great idea to withdraw from an hopeless war.

Ward Dragon
25-05-10, 23:17
Whats needed is the people who have caused the economic crisis to be made responsible for it, not the public. The model that is practiced around the globe is privatizing profit and socializing risk and losses :(

Yeah, the government needs to stop bailing companies out. If they messed up, they deserve to go bankrupt and allow another company to take their place which will be more careful. Giving them bailouts only rewards them for being irresponsible and encourages them to do the same damned thing all over again.

The levels of poverty are far more extreme in countries that Britain gives aid to than in Britain itself. It's pretty immoral and greedy to cut those people off.

With many of those countries the problem isn't lack of money. It's that an oppressive military regime has commandeered all of the nation's wealth and stashed it in a Swiss bank account while the people starve, and no matter how much aid we give it gets stolen and used to buy more weapons to further oppress the people. Throwing even more money at the problem will only make it worse.

The war Afghanistan is actually responsible for causing more terrorism that it has prevented by exponential amount and makes UK a target for terrorism. The 7/7 bombings were the result of UK aggression in Muslim countries. UK was never attacked before it decided to participate in those wars. As a way to SAVE a ton of money and increase Britain's security, it would be a great idea to withdraw from an hopeless war.

No, it just made the West more aware of terrorism. That sort of crap has been happening in the Middle East for decades and will continue to happen even if we completely leave the area. We need to train the local police forces and militaries to deal with it on their own before we leave them to handle the situation alone. We can't just leave them without a decent infrastructure or means to defend themselves. Also, the UK was attacked before 9/11 (Pan Am Flight 103 / Lockerbie Bombing).

Gregori
25-05-10, 23:29
No, it just made the West more aware of terrorism. That sort of crap has been happening in the Middle East for decades and will continue to happen even if we completely leave the area. We need to train the local police forces and militaries to deal with it on their own before we leave them to handle the situation alone. We can't just leave them without a decent infrastructure or means to defend themselves. Also, the UK was attacked before 9/11 (Pan Am Flight 103 / Lockerbie Bombing).

There has been some degree of terrorism in the middle east for severalo decades, that true.... but not the amount that we see today.

Its been well documented that terrorism increased several fold following the two wars. There was very little terrorism in both Iraq and Afghanistan before the UK and USA decided to invade.

The terrorist don't target countries that are not involved or don't have forces occupying parts of the middle east. There is a connection and it has also a lot to do with western funding and helping Israel take land from Palestinians. If you took a way one of the root causes of terrorism, terrorism would decrease.

Of course, this has a lot to do with the politics of the middle east.... and to be put very bluntly.. the oil. Western countries don't have forces occupying parts of the middle east cause they like the scenery. Its about the oil, not fighting terrorism. That's why they are doing such a lousy job of it. Its not the aim of the wars.

Ward Dragon
25-05-10, 23:43
There has been some degree of terrorism in the middle east for severalo decades, that true.... but not the amount that we see today.

Its been well documented that terrorism increased several fold following the two wars. There was very little terrorism in both Iraq and Afghanistan before the UK and USA decided to invade.

There have always been massacres in the Middle East. The sheer number of people that Saddam killed alone... I count that as terrorism too. The only difference is that now it's on the surface, it's not hidden in mass graves where the UN can conveniently ignore it.

jaywalker
26-05-10, 09:18
Before `Iraq` we had the IRA.. so we know all about terrorism in the UK.. unfortunately that was funded mostly from the US..

Who was it that said that one mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter.. very true statement.. theres always 2 sides to every `issue`.. right or wrong. its just how the world is..

The current financial state is something that SOMEONE has to sort, arguing/fighting/playing the blame game/complaining/moaning about it doesnt do anything to actually HELP the situation.

Lemmie
26-05-10, 12:27
I'm quite glad that the devolved governments can defer cuts until next year, and I quite like the idea of not filling some posts once the previous person has retired.

Not as draconian as some had feared, I think.

Mad Tony
26-05-10, 19:11
Before `Iraq` we had the IRA.. so we know all about terrorism in the UK.. unfortunately that was funded mostly from the US..You might want to make that clearer there. You're making it sound as if the US as a country actually backed the IRA which they never did.

Its not jealousy of the elite. Its a deep condensation of the elite for getting us into the mess. Its the public's money that in the end, is pulling the economy out of crisis, not business!! Public is taking responsibility and is being punished for the mistakes of the banks and financial institutions.I don't know, I'm always hearing from people how evil "the elite" are and how everything works so that they can "get the rich richer and the poor can get poorer". What people fail to recognize is that this elite actually do just as much good as bad through charity for example. A lot of people also don't seem to get how no one party is to blame for this crisis. However, I understand that it's human nature to find a scapegoat for everything.

I think you're getting business mixed up with the banks (although I'd still personally say the latter are doing their bit as well). The economy grows when business grows. People have money to spend on luxuries from being employed by business (small and large). Businesses create jobs. Don't lump business and the banks together.

Whats needed is the people who have caused the economic crisis to be made responsible for it, not the public. The model that is practiced around the globe is privatizing profit and socializing risk and losses :(

Those cuts will have horrible effects on vulnerable people.This isn't 1946. We haven't just had a world war where it's easy to identify the causes but instead a complex economic crisis with many contributing factors.

Unfortunately yes, but it's either cuts now or even bigger cuts further down the line.

The levels of poverty are far more extreme in countries that Britain gives aid to than in Britain itself. It's pretty immoral and greedy to cut those people off. It seems like you just want an excuse to not give money to foreign countries.....yet you're perfectly happy to invade countries. The governments in Europe have decided to prioritize and have chosen to bailout banks instead of helping the public or saving jobs. Its lots of good money chasing bad money and ****ed down the drain :)So? Do you not think we don't have people living in similar levels of poverty here? It's not immoral or greedy if the money being taken out of foreign aid is going to go towards helping vulnerable people here and protecting jobs. You mentioned just earlier how vulnerable people are going to be hit hard by the cuts yet you oppose helping them out. I'm not saying the government should take money out of foreign aid and sit on it, I'm saying they should take it out of foreign aid and use it to soften the blow from the cuts here and to help the vulnerable. You don't like this idea. That is immoral.

Also, you've got me completely wrong on invading other countries. Just because I agree with Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean I think we should just invade countries without a proper reason. That's idiotic.

It seems like you're contradicting yourself. You're complaining about how the cuts will have a negative effect on a lot of people yet when offered a solution where more money can be used to help them you don't like it.

The war Afghanistan is actually responsible for causing more terrorism that it has prevented by exponential amount and makes UK a target for terrorism. The 7/7 bombings were the result of UK aggression in Muslim countries. UK was never attacked before it decided to participate in those wars. As a way to SAVE a ton of money and increase Britain's security, it would be a great idea to withdraw from an hopeless war.Since nobody knows what would've happened if Afghanistan hadn't been invaded I don't think you can sit there and say we'd be safer if we never went in.

The 7/7 bombings were mainly a result of UK aggression towards terrorists within Muslim countries. There's a difference. One of the few things I always liked about Tony Blair was that he didn't give in to terrorists. This may sound like a cliche but if he pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan there and then he would've conceded defeat to them. Pulling out of campaigns against terrorist groups because they decide to hit you at home is letting them win because you're being terrorized into backing down.

Cochrane
26-05-10, 19:26
I don't know, I'm always hearing from people how evil "the elite" are and how everything works so that they can "get the rich richer and the poor can get poorer". What people fail to recognize is that this elite actually do just as much good as bad through charity for example. A lot of people also don't seem to get how no one party is to blame for this crisis. However, I understand that it's human nature to find a scapegoat for everything.
I have no interest in really getting into this thread, as I don’t know the situation of the UK well enough, but just a note here: Charity is no replacement for tax-funded government programs. It is certainly very nice when people give to charity, but it is

- far less money
- not necessarily distributed in an equal manner (many charities have very specific focuses)
- by no means handed out by everyone who is able to

Charity is a nice addition, but it can never be a replacement for tax money. Obviously, you weren’t suggesting that, but I would be wary of any idea to tax "the elites" less because they might give more to charity.

Tax benefits for giving to certain accredited charities, on the other hand, is a very good idea, but a different issue altogether.

Mad Tony
26-05-10, 19:44
I have no interest in really getting into this thread, as I don’t know the situation of the UK well enough, but just a note here: Charity is no replacement for tax-funded government programs. It is certainly very nice when people give to charity, but it is

- far less money
- not necessarily distributed in an equal manner (many charities have very specific focuses)
- by no means handed out by everyone who is able to

Charity is a nice addition, but it can never be a replacement for tax money. Obviously, you weren’t suggesting that, but I would be wary of any idea to tax "the elites" less because they might give more to charity.

Tax benefits for giving to certain accredited charities, on the other hand, is a very good idea, but a different issue altogether.Of course I wasn't suggesting that, and I wasn't suggesting the richest should get taxed less than everybody else either. They should get taxed more, but certainly not as much as they do get taxed. I think it's appalling when people suggest that those who earn over £200,000 (for example) should get taxed at ridiculous levels like 60-70%.

Although, when it comes to foreign aid I do believe that it should be left to charities unless there really are no problems at home and there's a giant surplus.

Cochrane
26-05-10, 19:52
Of course I wasn't suggesting that, and I wasn't suggesting the richest should get taxed less than everybody else either. They should get taxed more, but certainly not as much as they do get taxed. I think it's appalling when people suggest that those who earn over £200,000 (for example) should get taxed at ridiculous levels like 60-70%.

Although, when it comes to foreign aid I do believe that it should be left to charities unless there really are no problems at home and there's a giant surplus.

60% to 70% seems excessive, that is true. The constitutional limit here is 50%, which already seems extreme (and there are some additional things to pay so that it is 52% with health care and all), at least for the levels of income that it already gets applied at.

Foreign aid… I guess to a large degree you are right there. However, there are other factors to consider. I think we can all agree that immigration from extremely poor regions (like most of Africa) is a problem. You can try solving that with a lot of police, but it might be cheaper in the long run to try and get those countries, or at least some of them, to a state where people don’t want to leave as badly.

Also, most if not all countries have legitimate interest in many parts of the world, and we’ll never quite know where (such as Afghanistan). Foreign aid as a form of bribing the local officials may be very benefitial and in fact necessary if we (meaning all western countries) want to be able to do missions such as in Afghanistan, try and open or keep open trade routes and so on.

Mad Tony
26-05-10, 19:58
Foreign aid… I guess to a large degree you are right there. However, there are other factors to consider. I think we can all agree that immigration from extremely poor regions (like most of Africa) is a problem. You can try solving that with a lot of police, but it might be cheaper in the long run to try and get those countries, or at least some of them, to a state where people don’t want to leave as badly.I think the best step is to toughen our own benefit policies towards "asylum" seekers and illegal immigrants and bring them more in line with countries like France. The reason why so many people claiming asylum have been coming here (through safe countries might I add) is because of how the previous government bent over backwards to accommodate them.

Gregori
26-05-10, 22:04
I don't know, I'm always hearing from people how evil "the elite" are and how everything works so that they can "get the rich richer and the poor can get poorer". What people fail to recognize is that this elite actually do just as much good as bad through charity for example. A lot of people also don't seem to get how no one party is to blame for this crisis. However, I understand that it's human nature to find a scapegoat for everything.
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That's a fact. Charity is a poor excuse for reducing tax on wealthy, as the amount of money is buttons compared to what can be gotten through taxation. The money the elite have comes from the work and spending of ordinary people.


I think you're getting business mixed up with the banks (although I'd still personally say the latter are doing their bit as well). The economy grows when business grows. People have money to spend on luxuries from being employed by business (small and large). Businesses create jobs. Don't lump business and the banks together.Banks are businesses and the actions of both are responsible for the economic crisis!! Money people spend and are paid, in the end of the day, comes form society, the same people. Wealth in not created (except for increased productivity from research), its merely redistributed. In this world, that redistribution tend to go upwards, to a few people

This isn't 1946. We haven't just had a world war where it's easy to identify the causes but instead a complex economic crisis with many contributing factors. The causes have been pointed out by multiple economists. Failure to regulate the policies and transactions of financial institutions.

Unfortunately yes, but it's either cuts now or even bigger cuts further down the line. Or Taxation..... and not ****ing money down the drain bailing out failed businesses.

So? Do you not think we don't have people living in similar levels of poverty here? It's not immoral or greedy if the money being taken out of foreign aid is going to go towards helping vulnerable people here and protecting jobs. You mentioned just earlier how vulnerable people are going to be hit hard by the cuts yet you oppose helping them out. I'm not saying the government should take money out of foreign aid and sit on it, I'm saying they should take it out of foreign aid and use it to soften the blow from the cuts here and to help the vulnerable. You don't like this idea. That is immoral. The levels of poverty in Britain are no where near as severe as in the countries its helping with foreign aid.
You propose cutting foreign aid to reduce the deficit. That's immoral. While charity begins at home, it doesn't end at home!!!!!


Also, you've got me completely wrong on invading other countries. Just because I agree with Iraq and Afghanistan doesn't mean I think we should just invade countries without a proper reason. That's idiotic. Neither Iraq of Afghanistan had proper reason. In fact the government lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to invade. The so called "War on Terror" increased terrorism several fold. It's been studied and documented.

It seems like you're contradicting yourself. You're complaining about how the cuts will have a negative effect on a lot of people yet when offered a solution where more money can be used to help them you don't like it. Cutting foreign aid is just immoral. I'm not contradicting myself.
I don't think cuts should be made in foreign or domestic aid. I think the people who caused the economic crisis should pay for it, not the public.

Since nobody knows what would've happened if Afghanistan hadn't been invaded I don't think you can sit there and say we'd be safer if we never went in.

The 7/7 bombings were mainly a result of UK aggression towards terrorists within Muslim countries. There's a difference. One of the few things I always liked about Tony Blair was that he didn't give in to terrorists. This may sound like a cliche but if he pulled us out of Iraq and Afghanistan there and then he would've conceded defeat to them. Pulling out of campaigns against terrorist groups because they decide to hit you at home is letting them win because you're being terrorized into backing down.

The effect of those invasions has been very clear. Its been well studied and documented. There has been a massive increase in terrorism as a result.
The invading powers knew and predicted that this would be the effect of those wars. That's not to mention that those wars caused the death of 100 000's of people.

The 7/7 bombing were the result of UK occupation of Muslim countries with armed forces, not because of fighting "terrorists" in those countries. The people they are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are different to the people who carried out the bombings. You're mistaken in lumping all terrorists into one group that Britain is supposedly fighting. The Taliban, Al Qaeida and the "insurgents" in Iraq are not the same, and have totally different aims. All politics is local.

Its fair to say, most of people UK and USA are fighting aren't international terrorists but groups who object to being occupied by non-Muslim countries.
There is no real "war on terror". That's not why the UK and US are in the middle east (its about the oil) If they stopped interfering in the politics of the region, there is real chance that these terrorist groups would no longer have a reason to be against the UK and USA. Politics really is local!!

Ward Dragon
26-05-10, 23:10
If they stopped interfering in the politics of the region, there is real chance that these terrorist groups would no longer have a reason to be against the UK and USA. Politics really is local!!

So it's alright if they're murdering thousands of people as long as those people aren't UK or US citizens?

Gregori
26-05-10, 23:16
So it's alright if they're murdering thousands of people as long as those people aren't UK or US citizens?

The murder is being caused by UK and USA forces occupying those countries. Before those invasions took place, there were no or very little terrorist acts occurring in those countries. The invasion is what's causing the terrorism.
100 000's of lives have been caused by those wars. The root cause of this murder is occupation.

I also think many UK and US soldiers have pointlessly lost their lives in a war that has only created more terrorism, created chaos in Iraq and Afghanistan.

The "war on terror" is a total fraud. There is no war on terror, simply an occupation by military forces of areas that are of importance because of OIL!!

Ward Dragon
26-05-10, 23:20
The murder is being caused by UK and USA forces occupying those countries. Before those invasions took place, there were no or very little terrorist acts occurring in those countries. The invasion is what's causing the terrorism.

What about the thousands of people murdered by Saddam's regime? Do they deserve to die just because they weren't born in a different country? These murders would still be happening if we hadn't done anything. But of course it's easier to pretend this sort of thing isn't going on if it doesn't involve us directly.

The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq." If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II.


http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/legacyofterror.html

Gregori
26-05-10, 23:25
What about the thousands of people murdered by Saddam's regime? Do they deserve to die just because they weren't born in a different country? These murders would still be happening if we hadn't done anything. But of course it's easier to pretend this sort of thing isn't going on if it doesn't involve us directly.

The invasion was not because Saddam was a murderer. The western countries were complicit in helping Saddam murder those people. But that's besides the point. The invasion wasn't to stop murdering thousands of people. He had already done that. Its because of controlling the oil.

The invasion directly was responsible for 100 000's of deaths of people.... so in that respect and increasing terrorism several fold

Ward Dragon
26-05-10, 23:28
The invasion was not because Saddam was a murderer. The western countries were complicit in helping Saddam murder those people. But that's besides the point. The invasion wasn't to stop murdering thousands of people. He had already done that. Its because of controlling the oil.

The invasion directly was responsible for 100 000's of deaths of people.... so in that respect and increasing terrorism several fold

If it was really because of oil, then how come gas is still so damned expensive? Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people, we stopped him. You're probably never going to agree on the motivations for stopping him, but why does that matter? He would have kept killing people if we had done nothing, and he probably would have killed even more people than have died so far during the war in Iraq. Should all of his potential victims deserve death just because you don't think the US and UK had pure motives in stopping him?

Gregori
26-05-10, 23:34
If it was really because of oil, then how come gas is still so damned expensive? Saddam murdered hundreds of thousands of people, we stopped him. You're probably never going to agree on the motivations for stopping him, but why does that matter? He would have kept killing people if we had done nothing, and he probably would have killed even more people than have died so far during the war in Iraq. Should all of his potential victims deserve death just because you don't think the US and UK had pure motives in stopping him?

Because the oil companies don't want to give away gas for cheaper!! They want to make it as expensive as possible. The lower the supply, the higher the price!! Disrupting an oil rich region like Iraq causes instability in the region and caused the price of a barrel of oil to sky rocket!!! During the invasion, oil companies reported record high profits!!

The US and UK didn't prevent the murdering of Saddam one single bit and caused more violence and instability in the region than there was initially. Infact, western nations were complicit in the murder that he caused.

Launching a big war was not a wise way to stop this dictator and simply caused much more suffering on an already miserable population :(

Mad Tony
26-05-10, 23:42
The rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer. That's a fact. Charity is a poor excuse for reducing tax on wealthy, as the amount of money is buttons compared to what can be gotten through taxation. The money the elite have comes from the work and spending of ordinary people.Depends on the country really. I never said the reason why taxes on the top earners should be lower was because of charity, I was just pointing out that this elite you and others like to demonize so much also do good things. Yes I know I'm lumping them all together but that's exactly what you're doing too.

The main reason why I think the top earners should pay lower income tax (but still higher than everybody else obviously) is because the more money they have to spend, the more that's going into the economy. It's that simple. When you tax the living daylights out of those who have dared to make something of themselves they often move away, taking with them lots of money that could be spent in this country.

Banks are businesses and the actions of both are responsible for the economic crisis!! Money people spend and are paid, in the end of the day, comes form society, the same people. Wealth in not created (except for increased productivity from research), its merely redistributed. In this world, that redistribution tend to go upwards, to a few peopleYes they are but they are always separated since there are key differences. Now I don't agree that the banks solely caused the economic crisis (it's an ignorant view IMO, but whatever). However, businesses from the largest such as Coca Cola right down to your local pet store didn't do anything at all. I don't know where you're getting this from. Again, please stop lumping businesses and banks together.

The causes have been pointed out by multiple economists. Failure to regulate the policies and transactions of financial institutions.Many economists agree that there isn't one cause.

One very annoying thing about the global recession besides the obvious effects is the witch-hunt against anybody with lots of money, especially those working in the financial sector. They're all being lumped together and lynched for the wrong doings of a small minority of people within that group.

Or Taxation..... and not ****ing money down the drain bailing out failed businesses.So you want people to have even less money to spend? That's just going to drag things on even longer.

Bailouts for failed businesses? Only some of the banks were bailed out here. Unless of course you're referring to the bailouts of GM and Chrysler in the US.

The levels of poverty in Britain are no where near as severe as in the countries its helping with foreign aid.
You propose cutting foreign aid to reduce the deficit. That's immoral. While charity begins at home, it doesn't end at home!!!!!So? There are still people living in poverty here, especially in inner city areas. There are still lots of elderly people who can't afford to heat their homes. These are big problems which are far from resolved.

Actually, if you read what I said I said that we should cut foreign aid and put that money back into things like health and education here so that we can soften the blow of the cuts. The government must first serve it's own people. I was never expecting cuts in foreign aid, but why David Cameron chose to increase it when not even the NHS is getting increased funding is beyond me. Surely you can agree that now that the public finances are even tighter the least they could have done was not increase foreign aid spending?

Neither Iraq of Afghanistan had proper reason. In fact the government lied about the threat posed by Saddam Hussein in order to invade. The so called "War on Terror" increased terrorism several fold. It's been studied and documented.Afghanistan certainly did. There's not much room for debate on that one. Iraq I'll admit is more questionable but in the end they both come down to one's opinion.

Cutting foreign aid is just immoral. I'm not contradicting myself.
I don't think cuts should be made in foreign or domestic aid. I think the people who caused the economic crisis should pay for it, not the public.Again, not if that money is going to help people at home. There is absolutely nothing immoral about cutting foreign aid and then putting that money into the National Health Service. :vlol:

Yeah well unfortunately it's not that simple and cuts are now unavoidable. When it comes to the cuts I think you're misdirecting you're anger. The financial crisis certainly wasn't Brown's fault but the deficit is. Go and look up his record as chancellor and how reckless he was. The cuts are a result of this deficit.


The effect of those invasions has been very clear. Its been well studied and documented. There has been a massive increase in terrorism as a result.Yes, so you've said about seven times. However, nobody knows what would've happened had we not gone into Afghanistan. It's easy to say in retrospect that you think Afgahnistan was a bad idea but somehow I doubt whether you opposed it straight after 9/11 (that is if you had an opinion it).

The invading powers knew and predicted that this would be the effect of those wars. That's not to mention that those wars caused the death of 100 000's of people.Source?

The casualty numbers are different depending on where you go. There's no solid number right now.

The 7/7 bombing were the result of UK occupation of Muslim countries with armed forces, not because of fighting "terrorists" in those countries. The people they are fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan are different to the people who carried out the bombings. You're mistaken in lumping all terrorists into one group that Britain is supposedly fighting. The Taliban, Al Qaeida and the "insurgents" in Iraq are not the same, and have totally different aims. All politics is local.That's funny because we never went into those wars (particularly Afghanistan) with intent to occupy. The sole purpose of Afghanistan was about catching Bin Laden and attempting to get rid of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Why else would we go there? There are plenty of other Muslim nations to invade, which we would've done if the government was as against Muslims as you're implying they are.

Its fair to say, most of people UK and USA are fighting aren't international terrorists but groups who object to being occupied by non-Muslim countries.It's a bit of both really, except neither countries are occupied. They've had their own governments for years. I don't know about Afghanistan but I think Iraq was only under American occupation for about a year.

There is no real "war on terror". That's not why the UK and US are in the middle east (its about the oil) If they stopped interfering in the politics of the region, there is real chance that these terrorist groups would no longer have a reason to be against the UK and USA. Politics really is local!!You do realize that the war on terror goes much farther than the Middle East, right? It's an international campaign which many of the world's countries take part in. Go and read up on the war first before assuming it's just two wars in the Middle East and nothing else.

And no I'm not going to argue with you over the whole oil thing. I really do think it's a rather naive view but that's your opinion which you are entitled to. It's just a vicious circle and I'm pretty confident I wont be able to change your mind. I have to point out one thing though, what is the war in Afghanistan about? There's no oil there at all.

Ward Dragon
26-05-10, 23:50
Because the oil companies don't want to give away gas for cheaper!! They want to make it as expensive as possible. The lower the supply, the higher the price!! Disrupting an oil rich region like Iraq causes instability in the region and caused the price of a barrel of oil to sky rocket!!! During the invasion, oil companies reported record high profits!!

If that was their aim, then why not just have OLPEC restrict the supply?

The US and UK didn't prevent the murdering of Saddam one single bit and caused more violence and instability in the region than there was initially. Infact, western nations were complicit in the murder that he caused.

This still hasn't answered my question. You obviously think that the US and UK are to blame. Does that mean then that all of those people deserve to die just because it's apparently our fault so we aren't allowed to intervene?

Launching a big war was not a wise way to stop this dictator and simply caused much more suffering on an already miserable population :(

That's debatable. I hate to argue numbers but in a similar time frame Saddam killed more people than have died as a result of the war. He killed around 290,000 people in twenty years according to that source I quoted a few posts ago, and around 100,000 civilians have died as a result of the war so far according to this organization (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/). That's a bit less than would have died if Saddam had remained in power killing people. Less people are dying right now, but now it's on the surface where it can't be ignored anymore.

Thrall
26-05-10, 23:52
It sounds like a good move to me if money is reinvested in education, although I do say that as a former student from a school and consortium which suffered with money issues. The only downside I can see is that a portion of that money might well come from the stop in child trust funds though.

Granted though, i'm one of those people which is terribly narrow-sighted in that, if the cut doesn't technically make me lose anything then i'm all for a gain which will.
In the ideal situation schools would get more money for decent staff and equipment and hospitals would get the same. And at least around here the staff, be it teachers or nurses respectively, tend to be terrible.

I admit to being slightly worried about the potential cut in benefits to the unemployed. Possibly the only reason i’m concerned about that coming up is due to the fact that a lot of people seem to be in favour of it.

Lemmie
27-05-10, 00:00
On this topic of Western intervention in Middle Eastern/Muslim countries, I think that the rise in Islamic fundamentalism (which at its most extreme end includes extremist groups like Al Qaeda) is in part due to the actions of the Western countries in that region - countries like the old colonial powers of France and Britain, and those of the Cold War the USA and USSR. In many ways they have worked (directly or indirectly) to restrict the rights of the majority of the populations of Middle Eastern countries.

Another aspect is the perverted interpretations of Western democracy and/or socialism as well as fervent nationalism that was employed by leaders of post-war Middle Eastern countries and the West's (read, the USA's) support of the state of Israel.

All these things - as well as country by country aspects such as economic performance - led to an increase in calls from Islamic leadership for the establishment of government by way of the tenets of Islam, the dangers of secular democracy and a loss of legitimacy by governments - some of which were supported by Western nations. Therefore it is unsurprising the some in the Middle East identify the West with oppression even without having been under occupation.

I'm actually less sure about this post than when I started. :o Suffice to say that this is a source of Islamic extremism, that it was and is formed to some extent by Western countries and continued diplomatic and military heavy-handedness only perpetuates that impression.

For the record, I am for withdrawing from Afghanistan and the abandonment of a nuclear deterrent. I can't believe that at such a dire economic juncture either Labour or the Conservatives were thinking of renewing our nuclear arms.

Anyway, this is a little off-topic. :p

Gregori
27-05-10, 20:23
If that was their aim, then why not just have OLPEC restrict the supply? The US and its corporations don't directly control OPEC. OPEC has been known to restrict supply in order to hike up the price. The effects of the war do speak for themselves though. During it, Oil corporations made massive record profits from speculation and instability in the region in the time period. The war is a dream come true for them.



This still hasn't answered my question. You obviously think that the US and UK are to blame. Does that mean then that all of those people deserve to die just because it's apparently our fault so we aren't allowed to intervene?
None of the people Saddam killed deserved to die. The western countries could have prevented his murderous regime by not supplying him with weapons and money to carry out these acts. Instead they supported him all the way until the Kuwait invasion. He was a favorite leader of western states until that point, seen as a "moderate" force against revolutionary Iran.

The invasion of Iraq took place many years after Saddam had committed his worst atrocities, so those people died regardless of the war!! If the Western nations wanted to save those people, invasion wasn't the answer, stopping support for this dictator 20 years ago was.

What invading Iraq did cause was many additional deaths that were unnecessary and preventable. It brought terrorism and carnage to the country that wasn't there before.

That's debatable. I hate to argue numbers but in a similar time frame Saddam killed more people than have died as a result of the war. He killed around 290,000 people in twenty years according to that source I quoted a few posts ago, and around 100,000 civilians have died as a result of the war so far according to this organization (http://www.iraqbodycount.org/). That's a bit less than would have died if Saddam had remained in power killing people. Less people are dying right now, but now it's on the surface where it can't be ignored anymore.

Saddam's worst atrocities ( for which the west supported him) were well behind him by the time the coalition forces decided to invade. They were not sent there to prevent him from committing atrocities. He should have been prevented years before.

We don't know if more or less people would have died if he was still in power. What is certain, is that the invasion caused the death's of over 100 000's people in just 7 years. If it continues at that pace for another 13 years, a similar amount of people will be killed to those who were killed by Saddam with western support. That's not to mention that there are 2 million refugees from Iraq because of the war. That's also not to mention the 100 000's of preventable deaths caused by years of sanctions.

The capacity for Saddam to murder was greatly reduced by the Iran-Iraq war and the Kuwait war. The military was reduced to shreds and basic supplies were missing in the country.

There were other ways of dealing with Saddam that didn't require a big huge destructive war, sanctions or general imperialism.

Gregori
27-05-10, 21:20
Depends on the country really. I never said the reason why taxes on the top earners should be lower was because of charity, I was just pointing out that this elite you and others like to demonize so much also do good things. Yes I know I'm lumping them all together but that's exactly what you're doing too. That doesn't get them off the hook for causing the financial crisis. All the charity in the world won't forgive them few crumbs off the table they through poor people. They need to be made responsible for the economic crisis. Society is being asked to pay for their mistakes and deeply wrong. The public shouldn't suffer because of the mistakes of the elite. Bailouts are pretty obscene. Their charity to rich companies.

The main reason why I think the top earners should pay lower income tax (but still higher than everybody else obviously) is because the more money they have to spend, the more that's going into the economy. It's that simple. When you tax the living daylights out of those who have dared to make something of themselves they often move away, taking with them lots of money that could be spent in this country. Top Earners save money in banks were it gains massive interest. Its in their interest to save. Poor people and middle income earners actually tend to spend all the money they have. Money gained form taxation goes straight back into the economy, generating economic activity. Its spent on people's wages, healthcare, food, infrastructure. All these things make the economy more productive.

Yes they are but they are always separated since there are key differences. Now I don't agree that the banks solely caused the economic crisis (it's an ignorant view IMO, but whatever). However, businesses from the largest such as Coca Cola right down to your local pet store didn't do anything at all. I don't know where you're getting this from. Again, please stop lumping businesses and banks together.
They're all involved in making loans that can't be paid back. Hence why the banks are no longer lending. Their assets are unprotected from irresponsible lending. The protection for those assets is coming from government bailouts. A large amount of the business culture is responsible for the economic crisis. The economic crisis goes beyond just the banks. Its property developers, estate agencies, and all the way down to local businesses taking dodgy loans. Credit was not properly regulated and now the whole financial infrastructure is rotten.
Many economists agree that there isn't one cause.
Again and again,world renowned economists have blamed light touch regulation for the credit crisis.

One very annoying thing about the global recession besides the obvious effects is the witch-hunt against anybody with lots of money, especially those working in the financial sector. They're all being lumped together and lynched for the wrong doings of a small minority of people within that group.
The "witch hunt" is occurring, because the public is being asked to bail out failed businesses. The actions of many banks in the financial sector has nearly causes the global economy to collapse. The public didn't make these decision, those in the financial sector did. Its unfair that public should pay for failed banks.

So you want people to have even less money to spend? That's just going to drag things on even longer. I'm actually for giving that money to poor and middle income earners. Rich people tend to save money and gain interest on it. Poor and middle income earners tend to spend the money they have. Money gained from taxation doesn't disappear from the economy. Its spend on food, education, infrastructure, wages, medicine, entertainment, transport.... list goes on. Who is spending the money is what truly changes. Wealth is not created ( bar new inventions), its redistributed.

Bailouts for failed businesses? Only some of the banks were bailed out here. Unless of course you're referring to the bailouts of GM and Chrysler in the US. No banks should be bailed out by the public. They're failed businesses, they deserve to collapse. That's Capitalism.

So? There are still people living in poverty here, especially in inner city areas. There are still lots of elderly people who can't afford to heat their homes. These are big problems which are far from resolved.
The poverty in other countries is far far worse than the poverty in Britain. Its an incentive to migrate to richer countries. I am glad most of the rich countries agree to the principle of foreign aid.

Actually, if you read what I said I said that we should cut foreign aid and put that money back into things like health and education here so that we can soften the blow of the cuts. The government must first serve it's own people. I was never expecting cuts in foreign aid, but why David Cameron chose to increase it when not even the NHS is getting increased funding is beyond me. Surely you can agree that now that the public finances are even tighter the least they could have done was not increase foreign aid spending?
The government serves its own people already, but that doesn't mean it should stop trying to help other countries who are FAR FAR worse off.
Maybe it should not have been increased considering problems in the NHS but I disagree with COMPLETELY cutting foreign aid. I think that's a pretty mean hearted thing to do.

Afghanistan certainly did. There's not much room for debate on that one. Iraq I'll admit is more questionable but in the end they both come down to one's opinion.
It certainly didn't. The supposed goal of the invasion was never achieved (capture Bin Laden), yet the coalition forces are still occupying the country and creating terrorism.


Yeah well unfortunately it's not that simple and cuts are now unavoidable. When it comes to the cuts I think you're misdirecting you're anger. The financial crisis certainly wasn't Brown's fault but the deficit is. Go and look up his record as chancellor and how reckless he was. The cuts are a result of this deficit. The financial crisis is partial responsible for the deficit.
Cuts could have been avoided through increases taxation and not bailing out failed businesses.


Yes, so you've said about seven times. However, nobody knows what would've happened had we not gone into Afghanistan. It's easy to say in retrospect that you think Afghanistan was a bad idea but somehow I doubt whether you opposed it straight after 9/11 (that is if you had an opinion it).

Source?
I always disagreed with the invasion. I don't think it was a clever way to deal with terrorism. Terrorism should be treated as a crime, not a war.
The war has simply created more terrorism!!

If you want to know, all it takes is a quick google search about the "war on terror" and its predicted effect of creating more terrorism.


That's funny because we never went into those wars (particularly Afghanistan) with intent to occupy. The sole purpose of Afghanistan was about catching Bin Laden and attempting to get rid of the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. Why else would we go there? There are plenty of other Muslim nations to invade, which we would've done if the government was as against Muslims as you're implying they are. Failed at getting rid of Taliban and failed to capture Bin Laden. Most of the 9/11 hijackers were from Saudi Arabia and Egypt. That's were government attention should have been focused. The reason for those particular two nations isn't because there are Muslims in them ( the terrorists like to paint it as war against Muslims to get support for their cruel actions). It has a lot to do with the control of energy resources in the region.


It's a bit of both really, except neither countries are occupied. They've had their own governments for years. I don't know about Afghanistan but I think Iraq was only under American occupation for about a year. US soldiers are still in both countries. They are therefore under occupation. When the coalition forces go home, they will no longer be under occupation.

You do realize that the war on terror goes much farther than the Middle East, right? It's an international campaign which many of the world's countries take part in. Go and read up on the war first before assuming it's just two wars in the Middle East and nothing else.
Its not a war on terrorism. Its a war that's creating more terrorism across the globe. That's a fact. Go read up about it.


And no I'm not going to argue with you over the whole oil thing. I really do think it's a rather naive view but that's your opinion which you are entitled to. It's just a vicious circle and I'm pretty confident I wont be able to change your mind. I have to point out one thing though, what is the war in Afghanistan about? There's no oil there at all. Its naive to think that they aren't there for the oil. Internal documents are very explicit about oil being the reason to intervene in Iraq. There are plenty of countries to invade in the world for so called "humanitarian" reasons. Why Iraq? Why not some other country? There are plenty of dictatorships around the world....

Its too much of coincidence that the countries US and UK chose to invade are important to "Energy Security". Afghanistan doesn't have much oil.... but its important for a pipeline to transport hydrocarbons across the region

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_Pipeline

Ward Dragon
27-05-10, 21:34
Top Earners save money in banks were it gains massive interest. Its in their interest to save.

The reason that they gain massive interest is because they are allowing their money to be lent out to other people while the bank has it. Where do you think the banks get the money for all of their loans to poor and middle class people?

No banks should be bailed out by the public. They're failed businesses, they deserve to collapse. That's Capitalism.

Agreed. But at the same time the government should not be allowed to force the banks to make loans that the banks don't want to make. At least in the US, Congress put massive pressure on banks to make these sub-prime mortgages because then Congress could brag about how they increased the home ownership rate of poor people. Then the whole thing collapsed because the people couldn't pay it back and now Congress is blaming the banks saying the banks need stricter regulation. No, the banks need less government interference and if they fail anyway then they need to face the consequences (not get a bailout). I do support the FDIC guarantees though (if the bank fails, the government will pay the individual customers what they had invested in the bank up to a certain limit which was $100,000 but may have been recently changed as part of the bailout stuff).

Gregori
27-05-10, 21:42
The reason that they gain massive interest is because they are allowing their money to be lent out to other people while the bank has it. Where do you think the banks get the money for all of their loans to poor and middle class people?
With massive amounts of money, it pays to sit on it and let it gain interest without spending it. Mad Tony is suggesting giving massive amount of money to rich people in the hope that they will spend it when in fact, they're going to sit on it ( hence the credit crunch)

If that money is given to people who are likely to spend all of it, this will generate economic activity and growth. The problem is the economy is lack of fluidity with credit.


Agreed. But at the same time the government should not be allowed to force the banks to make loans that the banks don't want to make. At least in the US, Congress put massive pressure on banks to make these sub-prime mortgages because then Congress could brag about how they increased the home ownership rate of poor people. Then the whole thing collapsed because the people couldn't pay it back and now Congress is blaming the banks saying the banks need stricter regulation. No, the banks need less government interference and if they fail anyway then they need to face the consequences (not get a bailout). I do support the FDIC guarantees though (if the bank fails, the government will pay the individual customers what they had invested in the bank up to a certain limit which was $100,000 but may have been recently changed as part of the bailout stuff). I disagree with removing regulation. I think there needs to be more effective regulation on the banks to stop them getting into a position were they can effectively collapse the economy. That's too much power to give them.

Ward Dragon
27-05-10, 22:07
With massive amounts of money, it pays to sit on it and let it gain interest without spending it. Mad Tony is suggesting giving massive amount of money to rich people in the hope that they will spend it when in fact, they're going to sit on it ( hence the credit crunch)

If that money is given to people who are likely to spend all of it, this will generate economic activity and growth. The problem is the economy is lack of fluidity with credit.

But when they "sit on it" they are in fact lending it out and allowing it to be used in the economy in the form of loans. That allows people to get the capital they need to start up a small business, buy a house, etc. The money isn't simply sitting there doing nothing. It's being actively lent out which is why the bank pays interest on it, to entice people to take the risk and allow their money to be used like that.

I disagree with removing regulation. I think there needs to be more effective regulation on the banks to stop them getting into a position were they can effectively collapse the economy. That's too much power to give them.

I wasn't clear enough. I don't mind restricting banks from making stupid loans. However I do not want Congress to be able to force banks to make stupid loans for "fairness" sake, which is what has been happening for the past several years. If Congress is going to force banks to lend out money to people who can't pay it back, then Congress is responsible when those people default which is why the damned bailout happened. On the other hand, if Congress has no part in it (or even forbids such loans from being made) and the banks do it anyway, then it's all on the banks to take responsibility.

coolaideonfire
27-05-10, 22:10
For personal, and probably selfish reasons, I'm happy Sure Start is being protected during these cuts.

Mad Tony
27-05-10, 23:08
That doesn't get them off the hook for causing the financial crisis. All the charity in the world won't forgive them few crumbs off the table they through poor people. They need to be made responsible for the economic crisis. Society is being asked to pay for their mistakes and deeply wrong. The public shouldn't suffer because of the mistakes of the elite. Bailouts are pretty obscene. Their charity to rich companies.Please learn more about the crisis (and particularly who makes up the elite) before going on about bringing them to justice. Firstly, there's no one cause, but you don't seem to be getting this so I'll move on. Secondly, you're lumping everyone who earns a lot of money together. I get the impression that you feel every rich person is responsible for the financial crisis. That just doesn't even make sense. Again, the one thing you need to stop doing is making judgements on a certain group of people (the rich for example) based on the actions of a few people within that group.

Poor people and middle income earners actually tend to spend all the money they have.I had to highlight this because this has got to be one of the most ridiculous things you've said so far. I don't know about people on low incomes but coming from a middle income background I can vouch that most if not all households on average/middle income save. In fact they save quite a lot. As I said, I can't speak properly about people on low incomes but I'm pretty certain a lot of them have savings too. If only the top earners saved banks would be deserted. I think we can all agree that they're certainly not deserted, especially at lunch times...

Do you not see the logic in that if the top earners have more money to spend on luxuries that wont in turn bring business more custom which in turn brings in more tax revenue?

They're all involved in making loans that can't be paid back. Hence why the banks are no longer lending. Their assets are unprotected from irresponsible lending. The protection for those assets is coming from government bailouts. A large amount of the business culture is responsible for the economic crisis. The economic crisis goes beyond just the banks. Its property developers, estate agencies, and all the way down to local businesses taking dodgy loans. Credit was not properly regulated and now the whole financial infrastructure is rotten.But you're lumping every single one of them together. Let's take Ford for example, who didn't ask for US government bailouts like GM and Chrysler did. After a while they went on to turn a profit. Their growth helped the economy. There are two sides to every story. Business isn't all evil you know. If there were no business most people would be unemployed.

Again and again,world renowned economists have blamed light touch regulation for the credit crisis.Again and again, they've blamed a variety of different things. They're all economists but at the same time they're all individuals and thus have their own views.

The "witch hunt" is occurring, because the public is being asked to bail out failed businesses. The actions of many banks in the financial sector has nearly causes the global economy to collapse. The public didn't make these decision, those in the financial sector did. Its unfair that public should pay for failed banks.Don't you mean failed banks? In this country I'm not aware of any business that have been propped up by taxpayers money.

Yes, because lynching everyone involved in the banking sector because of the actions of the few is really going to help...

I'm actually for giving that money to poor and middle income earners. Rich people tend to save money and gain interest on it. Poor and middle income earners tend to spend the money they have. Money gained from taxation doesn't disappear from the economy. Its spend on food, education, infrastructure, wages, medicine, entertainment, transport.... list goes on. Who is spending the money is what truly changes. Wealth is not created ( bar new inventions), its redistributed.Where are you even getting this from? The large majority of people (rich or poor) save. The only big difference is the amount of money they save (which is obviously tied to income in the first place). If the rich only really save like you claim then why do they have the most luxuries? Splashing out on sports cars, massive homes and exotic holidays don't suggest to me that they save all their money, not at all. Similarly, if people on low and middle incomes spend all their money how come both have savings? The large majority of people have savings accounts with banks. Why else do you think they (the banks) are so profitable? I accept that you have a different opinion on things (like taxation, interventionism etc) but all this about how the rich save all their money and everyone else spends it all is baffling. It just doesn't make any sense. What planet are you living on?

No banks should be bailed out by the public. They're failed businesses, they deserve to collapse. That's Capitalism.Well done for not really addressing my post but instead copying and pasting that response again and again.

The poverty in other countries is far far worse than the poverty in Britain. Its an incentive to migrate to richer countries. I am glad most of the rich countries agree to the principle of foreign aid.Yes, so you've said about five times. I don't need you telling me that overall Britain is richer than the vast majority of countries. I made it clear right from the off that there are other countries in more poverty.

However, you're still not really addressing my posts. What really is so immoral about using foreign aid money to help vulnerable peopple in our own country? And before you say the other countries are poorer, just think for a minute that the British government ultimately must serve the British people first. I just don't know how you can justify sending money to people overseas instead of using it to help the vulnerable here when the government are not a world government but the government of one country, therefore they must not put those living outside of this country ahead of those living inside it.

I think that's a pretty mean hearted thing to do.It's not mean if that same money is still going towards helping people. The fact that other countries have a higher percentage of people in poverty still doesn't get rid of the fact that there are still people here in poverty as well.

It certainly didn't. The supposed goal of the invasion was never achieved (capture Bin Laden), yet the coalition forces are still occupying the country and creating terrorism.I think you're getting mixed up with whether it originally had a proper reason and whether it still does now.

The country isn't occupied, and saying that they're creating terrorism is quite disrespectful to those serving out there. Their actions might in your opinion be encouraging terrorists to wreak more havoc but that doesn't mean they're causing terrorism, because they're not.

The financial crisis is partial responsible for the deficit..In the UK's case, it's not. Had Brown not gone on a spending splurge and borrowed when the economy was good we wouldn't have needed to borrow so much when the economy did hit the wall (the latter of course is not his fault).

It has a lot to do with the control of energy resources in the region.Would you mind pointing out which particular "energy sources" Afghanistan has?

This is kind of unrelated here but I do find it funny how ridiculous some people's attitudes towards war are. They'll oppose Iraq because there's oil there but be for invading a country like Zimbabwe even though both were/are run by evil tyrants. I'm not referring to anyone in particular here by the way.

US soldiers are still in both countries. They are therefore under occupation. When the coalition forces go home, they will no longer be under occupation.I don't think you understand the meaning of an occupation. It's not merely having a prescene within a country (which is what we have now). If Afghanistan and Iraq are occupations then so too is Germany by your definition, since Britain and America both have a substantial military presence there.

Its not a war on terrorism.So what do you feel it's a war against then?

Its naive to think that they aren't there for the oil. Internal documents are very explicit about oil being the reason to intervene in Iraq. There are plenty of countries to invade in the world for so called "humanitarian" reasons. Why Iraq? Why not some other country? There are plenty of dictatorships around the world....Why not Iraq? Thanks for backing up my point about how people are against overthrowing dictators in resource-rich countries but not countries with little to no resources.

Believe it or not but that comment above about how people are opposed to wars in resource-rich countries but not countries with no resources was actually written before I read that last part of your post.

Its too much of coincidence that the countries US and UK chose to invade are important to "Energy Security". Afghanistan doesn't have much oil.... but its important for a pipeline to transport hydrocarbons across the region

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trans-Afghanistan_PipelineSo you admit that the coalition's original goal was to grab Bin Laden (as you said above) yet now you're saying it's about energy security? Make your mind up please.

For the record, I am for... the abandonment of a nuclear deterrent. I can't believe that at such a dire economic juncture either Labour or the Conservatives were thinking of renewing our nuclear arms.That's a bit reckless don't you think? It'd be nice if we could be sure that all of the world's other nuclear weapon states are disarmed but we can't. It would be quite frankly daft to not renew Trident. The only good argument for it is that it's costly but Trident is unfortunately necessary.

Uzi master
27-05-10, 23:11
when you see a title like that, you know its Mad Tony :p

Well, if your loosing money you gotta do something.
think otherwise, well go play sim city 4 and then come back.

Lemmie
27-05-10, 23:12
That's a bit reckless don't you think? It'd be nice if we could be sure that all of the world's other nuclear weapon states are disarmed but we can't. It would be quite frankly daft to not renew Trident. The only good argument for it is that it's costly but Trident is unfortunately necessary.

I just don't think that we need them, even if anybody does. I see them as a colossal waste of money.

Mad Tony
27-05-10, 23:20
when you see a title like that, you know its Mad Tony :pI'm mad for writing a long post?

I just don't think that we need them, even if anybody does. I see them as a colossal waste of money.If nobody else had them then yes, I would agree with you that we don't need them.

Lemmie
27-05-10, 23:32
If nobody else had them then yes, I would agree with you that we don't need them.

Well, that would be preferable situation. Having nuclear warheads of our own only makes volatile countries like Iran ask why they can't have them.

The continuing cycle of building, dismantling and renewing nuclear stockpiles is a pretty Sisyphean endeavour, if you ask me. Billions of pounds have already been wasted in this way, and I hate the idea of spending more.

Besides, aren't we still covered by the UK-USA Mutual Defence Pact of the 1950s? (EDIT: Yes we are, it was renewed in 2005). France could probably chip in a few nukes on our behalf too, if we were ever attacked.

Uzi master
27-05-10, 23:32
no, its just the thread title, sort of screams you, no offence of course jsut the kind of thing you liek to post

Mad Tony
27-05-10, 23:35
no, its just the thread title, sort of screams you, no offence of course jsut the kind of thing you liek to postReporting the news screams me?

I actually got the "round 1" part of it from something I read in the newspaper, since these cuts are confirmed as only the first round.

Well, that would be preferable situation. Having nuclear warheads of our own only makes volatile countries like Iran ask why they can't have them.

The continuing cycle of building, dismantling and renewing nuclear stockpiles is a pretty Sisyphean endeavour, if you ask me. Billions of pounds have already been wasted in this way, and I hate the idea of spending more.

Besides, aren't we still covered by the UK-USA Mutual Defence Pact of the 1950s? (EDIT: Yes we are, it was renewed in 2005). France could probably chip in a few nukes on our behalf too, if we were ever attacked.As long as rogue states like North Korea have nukes, along with countries like China (not a rogue state but I don't trust Beijing) why disarm ourselves?

Ward Dragon
27-05-10, 23:37
Reporting the news screams me?

Not many other people on the forum regularly create threads for political and/or financial topics (so it's good that you do :))

Uzi master
27-05-10, 23:37
its the political aspect and the involvemeant with the UK, I'll stop talking now:o

Lemmie
27-05-10, 23:43
As long as rogue states like North Korea have nukes, along with countries like China (not a rogue state but I don't trust Beijing) why disarm ourselves?

Maybe because our stockpile is (in terms of others') almost negligible anyway?

I think that this topic is something that people tend to be ranged diametrically over. We both know the arguments for and against nuclear weapons and disarmament, I'm sure we both know something about their history.

I just hate the idea of mutually assured destruction, and spending more money on something in anticipation of the opportunity to bomb someone who threatens to bomb us is, to me, ridiculous.

Mad Tony
28-05-10, 18:49
I just hate the idea of mutually assured destruction, and spending more money on something in anticipation of the opportunity to bomb someone who threatens to bomb us is, to me, ridiculous.I don't think any of the UN nuclear powers actually imagine themselves using nukes in the future barring extreme circumstances. They're just they're as a deterrent and I wouldn't go as far as to say that I'm glad they exist but I am very glad that they were used at the end of WWII. Aside the obvious lives that were saved in the long run it also probably prevented WWIII. I honestly believe that Russia and the US (along with their respective allies) would have gone into a full scale war (possibly nuclear) had the true power of the bomb not been made clear to the entire world.

Cochrane
28-05-10, 20:26
If nobody else had them then yes, I would agree with you that we don't need them.

Why does the UK need them specifically, though (this applies to france as well)? As a NATO member, you wouldn’t be worse off if you handed nuclear deterrence to the US. Most other countries of similar or larger size and perhaps even more economic power don’t have any nuclear arms and that works out just fine.

The real advantage to nuclear arms is that it pushes the UK in the "big boys league", making it an equal of sorts to the US and Russia, something that the UK’s current status really doesn’t warrant otherwise. And frankly, if that is the reason for keeping nuclear arms and the people voted for that, then there is nothing wrong with that. But claiming that they are necessary for the UK’s safety seems wrong to me.

Mad Tony
28-05-10, 20:28
Why does the UK need them specifically, though (this applies to france as well)? As a NATO member, you wouldn’t be worse off if you handed nuclear deterrence to the US. Most other countries of similar or larger size and perhaps even more economic power don’t have any nuclear arms and that works out just fine.

The real advantage to nuclear arms is that it pushes the UK in the "big boys league", making it an equal of sorts to the US and Russia, something that the UK’s current status really doesn’t warrant otherwise. And frankly, if that is the reason for keeping nuclear arms and the people voted for that, then there is nothing wrong with that. But claiming that they are necessary for the UK’s safety seems wrong to me.Nobody knows what's going to happen in the future and I think it's best to keep them there just in case.

Cochrane
28-05-10, 21:13
Nobody knows what's going to happen in the future and I think it's best to keep them there just in case.

That’s the same justification I use for keeping old electronics and newspapers around, and looking at my room right now, that tactic isn’t perfectly helpful. :D

Mad Tony
28-05-10, 21:26
That’s the same justification I use for keeping old electronics and newspapers around, and looking at my room right now, that tactic isn’t perfectly helpful. :DI know you're partly joking but they're two completely different things.

Cochrane
28-05-10, 21:52
I know you're partly joking but they're two completely different things.

True, but I hope you see my point: You can always say "Maybe we’ll need them in the future", but is that really enough to justify not only keeping them, but also making huge investments into that area? The abstract risk may be present, but what is the actual risk now and in the foreseeable future?

My guess is that the western hemisphere is the safest from nuclear attacks it was since the soviets built their nuclear weapons. France is joining NATO, Israel is an ally to the west. Neither Russia nor China have anything to gain by attacking western nations, as they are too dependent on them economically (and vice versa). Pakistan’s and India’s concerns are really only with each other. North Korea and (possibly, of course) Iran talk a lot, but both are really only interested in regional dominance. Both seriously lack the resources to become a threat to NATO members, and neither actually has that much contact with NATO members, except for our support for Israel and South Korea, respectively.

Most importantly, both really care most about the US in their propaganda, apart from the respective local enemies of course. Yes, the UK is closer from Iran and with their missile technology, that is a factor to consider. Still, the nation that everyone sees as the influential one is the US, for obvious reasons. I’d consider the actual nuclear threat level for the UK to be rather low. Or do you think I am misjudging something here?

Mad Tony
28-05-10, 22:14
True, but I hope you see my point: You can always say "Maybe we’ll need them in the future", but is that really enough to justify not only keeping them, but also making huge investments into that area? The abstract risk may be present, but what is the actual risk now and in the foreseeable future?

My guess is that the western hemisphere is the safest from nuclear attacks it was since the soviets built their nuclear weapons. France is joining NATO, Israel is an ally to the west. Neither Russia nor China have anything to gain by attacking western nations, as they are too dependent on them economically (and vice versa). Pakistan’s and India’s concerns are really only with each other. North Korea and (possibly, of course) Iran talk a lot, but both are really only interested in regional dominance. Both seriously lack the resources to become a threat to NATO members, and neither actually has that much contact with NATO members, except for our support for Israel and South Korea, respectively.

Most importantly, both really care most about the US in their propaganda, apart from the respective local enemies of course. Yes, the UK is closer from Iran and with their missile technology, that is a factor to consider. Still, the nation that everyone sees as the influential one is the US, for obvious reasons. I’d consider the actual nuclear threat level for the UK to be rather low. Or do you think I am misjudging something here?My whole point Cochrane is that we don't know what kind of geo-political situations will emerge in the future and thus by keeping a small nuclear arsenal as a deterrent we are keeping all of our options open.