General politics discussion thread

[Chris B]

Quite!

 

I do wonder what enjoyment can be got out of pretending to be fucking stupid, on an internet forum , week after week, month after month. Make a massive generalisation, have it disproved, ignore the response and move on to the next Daily Mail headline. Everybody can see what you're doing, Happ.

 

To then have the gall to behave like this in one area of the forum, and then whinge and moan when people treat you like an idiot in another part, is pretty sad.

 

I say again, I DID ask a different question, which Chris B saw fit to edit off his quote, before asking me to ask a different question.

 

 

I was talking about the original question. I was pointing out that you asked a question, it was answered, and you said 'but that's not the question'. I pointed out you have a tendency to do this, and then ask another question instead of responding.

 

You pointed out that I edited out a question you asked later.

 

Do you understand the concept of time?

[neil]

Have you used this authority at any point in this thread? Or was it not a problem while it was a liberal mutual masturbation session?

I use it all the time. See, this is your problem. Someone calls you on something and you start thinking it's because of some liberal bias. The fact of the matter is that the way you post is SIMPLY ANNOYING.

 

It's not. People have provided numerous reasonable arguments with you.

Reasonable in YOUR opinion. Not in fact. Arguments are subjective.

When it comes down to making a forum decision then my opinion becomes very important. See above.

 

If you really aren't a troll then I'm sure you get banned from places because of your "head in the sand" style of posting.

"Head in the sand" as in what? Picking and choosing what posts to reply to? Isn't that the point of a forum?

No. See, you're actually doing it right now. I told you why people are fed up with your posting....IT IS ENTIRELY THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU POST AND NOT THE CONTENT.

[Kiffy]

Ah but it's such a good get out, it's not cos he's deeply annoying and awful at discussions, it's because you're part of the liberal conspiracy.

If he fails to get laid, like, ever, it's not cos he's awful with women, it's a liberal conspiracy! And if he fails, utterly, at life, it'll be a liberal conspiracy!

Doubt anyone'll get through to him, but that too may just be a guardian reading conspiracy!

[Happ Hazzard]

No. See, you're actually doing it right now. I told you why people are fed up with your posting....IT IS ENTIRELY THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU POST AND NOT THE CONTENT.

What is wrong with the "manner" in which I post. Point this out to me and I will attempt to change this. I will not change the content however.

[Kiffy]

Today marks the beginning of the new tax year. I imagine many on the forum will notice the effect of having a non-Labour government on their payslip, as tax is reduced for everyone earning under

Edited April 6, 2011 by Kiffy

[Kiffy]

No. See, you're actually doing it right now. I told you why people are fed up with your posting....IT IS ENTIRELY THE MANNER IN WHICH YOU POST AND NOT THE CONTENT.

What is wrong with the "manner" in which I post. Point this out to me and I will attempt to change this. I will not change the content however.

 

It's the way you don't engage with counter ideas, there's like four pages before of people explaining exactly where you did that.

In fact he's asked you to read back and understand it, and you've ignored it and told him to tell you, while ignoring the examples and explanations he's pointed you towards. In fact you're doing it right this very second, right now, this is the example.

[Happ Hazzard]

Today marks the beginning of the new tax year. I imagine many on the forum will notice the effect of having a non-Labour government on their payslip, as tax is reduced for everyone earning under

[Kiffy]

I read it was going up from 12.8% to 13.8%? If there's a cap attached to this I'd be happy to accept I was incorrect.

[Happ Hazzard]

http://www.mindfulmoney.co.uk/3939/investi...-wednesday.html

 

An increase in national insurance from 11 to 12 per cent, and from 1 per cent to 2 per cent above the upper earnings rate threshold. The lower earnings rate threshold increases by

[Kenny McBride]

There's also a big increase in VAT, so most people will end up giving much more cash to Whitehall.

[Kiffy]

So we've gone from tax and spend, to just lots of tax.

Wonderful!

[Ronnie]

So we've gone from tax and spend, to just lots of tax.

 

Nope, and to claim that is hyperbolic nonsense.

 

When the situation is that too much was being spent compared with tax coming in to pay for it and an incoming government sets about an agenda of reducing that overspend, then you would expect to see expenditure reduced, taxes increased, or some combination of both. Don't act as though we're now in a position where no money is spent and the government is simply trying to steal all of your money for some sinister reason.

[Kiffy]

No to be fair that is a little simplistic.

I'd say there's certainly an ideological element to the way they're attacking the state spending, and I'd say it's unreasonable to slash state spending by such a high amount without actively attempting to close (rather than open new and backdating them) tax loopholes. And the model they're proposing mirrors rather worryingly the model used in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, all of whom had their economies utterly ruined by it. In addition to which the cuts in police budgets (to give one example) mean we will see a reduction in front line officers, according to every set of figures I've seen, and will (and have) certainly affected moral in the forces, all of which will have a knock on effect of a more dangerous and violent society, which is nice of course.

And most economists I've seen interview have suggested the current viewpoint of the government that we cannot run with a deficit is a complete fallacy, that allowing the deficit to continue is fine as long as we are able to service it with no issues. A better option would be slow down hugely the drastic cuts we're seeing, which come just as we show signs of moving out of a recession and will probably push us back into one, and await the next period of steady growth to put the extra cash that creates into reducing the deficit.

[Ronnie]

No to be fair that is a little simplistic.

I'd say there's certainly an ideological element to the way they're attacking the state spending, and I'd say it's unreasonable to slash state spending by such a high amount without actively attempting to close (rather than open new and backdating them) tax loopholes. And the model they're proposing mirrors rather worryingly the model used in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, all of whom had their economies utterly ruined by it. In addition to which the cuts in police budgets (to give one example) mean we will see a reduction in front line officers, according to every set of figures I've seen, and will (and have) certainly affected moral in the forces, all of which will have a knock on effect of a more dangerous and violent society, which is nice of course.

And most economists I've seen interview have suggested the current viewpoint of the government that we cannot run with a deficit is a complete fallacy, that allowing the deficit to continue is fine as long as we are able to service it with no issues. A better option would be slow down hugely the drastic cuts we're seeing, which come just as we show signs of moving out of a recession and will probably push us back into one, and await the next period of steady growth to put the extra cash that creates into reducing the deficit.

That's a much better answer, and one that I can't jump on

[Van Dammer]

No to be fair that is a little simplistic.

I'd say there's certainly an ideological element to the way they're attacking the state spending, and I'd say it's unreasonable to slash state spending by such a high amount without actively attempting to close (rather than open new and backdating them) tax loopholes. And the model they're proposing mirrors rather worryingly the model used in Greece, Ireland and Portugal, all of whom had their economies utterly ruined by it. In addition to which the cuts in police budgets (to give one example) mean we will see a reduction in front line officers, according to every set of figures I've seen, and will (and have) certainly affected moral in the forces, all of which will have a knock on effect of a more dangerous and violent society, which is nice of course.

And most economists I've seen interview have suggested the current viewpoint of the government that we cannot run with a deficit is a complete fallacy, that allowing the deficit to continue is fine as long as we are able to service it with no issues. A better option would be slow down hugely the drastic cuts we're seeing, which come just as we show signs of moving out of a recession and will probably push us back into one, and await the next period of steady growth to put the extra cash that creates into reducing the deficit.

 

But thats the point isnt it? We cant. You cant service debt with debt, the only way you can service debt is to create capital and pay it off. The country has a long history of running at a loss that has seen our national debt get to the point it is now, you cant achieve your goal of 1. servicing for a start and 2. paying off the debt by running at a loss.

Edited April 7, 2011 by Van Dammer