General politics discussion thread

[Carbomb]

The banks weren't responsible for the wellbeing of the country. They were private institutions. That the government had to bail them out is ENTIRELY the fault of the government for placing the country in the situation where banks failing would be catastrophic.

 

UTTER FUCKING BOLLOCKS. It's the government's fault that banks are so intrinsic to the entire world economy that their collapse would destroy the economies of their respective regions? It's LABOUR's fault for allowing hundreds of years of economic development where the banking industry is integral to the economy's well-being? I suppose the US' $700bn bailout of their banks and credit card companies was Obama's fault, was it? I suppose Iceland's economic ruin just happened to coincide with the collapse of a huge chunk of their banking industry? It's got nothing to do with the banking and credit card industry constructing an ultimately unsustainable economic market based on not commodities, land values or even precious metals, but PEOPLE'S DEBTS, which, surprise surprise, eventually and inevitably collapsed?

 

Labour were simply spending money they did not have, even during the boom period. It might be "nice" to have all the various services and healthcare that they provided, but if the country can't afford it, we shouldn't have had them in the first place. It isn't the governments job to perform every little service in people's lives, it is people's responsiblity to manage their own lives, get jobs, don't have kids if they can't afford them, and if they do have kids, to raise them properly, not to rely on SureStart centres to tell them how to wipe their arses.

 

Through immigration, the increase in needless public sector jobs (for the middle classes) and benefits (for the lower classes) Labour tried to buy themselves an electorate. Enough people saw through it and they got voted out. I don't see them coming back anytime soon, and if they did, it would be a disaster for the country. How much tax do you expect "the rich" to have to pay? 90%? More? When the highest earning 10% pay over half of all tax revenue, you are heading for very shaky ground, as it only takes a minor exodus to leave the country in dire straits, with the public sector bankrupt and social security a distant memory.

 

Yeah, Labour's overspending triggered a global economic meltdown, and the wonderful Tories, who nearly destroyed the NHS (which still hasn't recovered, even with Labour's spending to try and get it back to what it was) and the education system, are back in to finish their programming of privatisation across the board.

 

Nobody's talking about taxing the rich 90%, so put your straw man away.

 

Every time someone brings up the subject of making the rich pay anything more than what they're paying now (because they're oh-so put-upon by the bullying government and those ravening proles), some parrot always brings up how it'd "drive them out of the country" - considering how much tax they're avoiding paying, what fucking difference do you think it makes?

 

Instead of blindly defending a bunch of people who put us in a load of shit and couldn't give a fuck about you or me, out of the typical shopholder delusion that you'll one day be rich like them, why not think about how they should be trying to make amends for their mistakes?

[patiirc]

You don't see the problem with a business owner effectively cutting his workers' wages and then taking a fucking 1.2 billion bonus?

 

I would if that's how it happened as portrayed by Mr Sheridan, but it wasnt. The changing to the Pension scheme was from Arcadia Trustees not Mr Green directly This is is confirmed by Green in The Independent. As Ive said already if they arent part of the scheme, have a different pension or no pension. Its not going to make one iota of difference to peoples pay, but why let that get in the way of a good rant?

 

The 1.2 Billion bonus was a culmalative bonus paid out of at least two dividends as confirmed by The Grauniad. The reason its paid to his wife is because she is named as direct owner of the Arcadia Group and not him. This pay out was 5 years ago and was at least 3 months before the pensions news, so thats at the same time. Tommy is only bleating about it now?

 

Thirdly Arcadia have only closed their final salary scheme in the last few months, at least thats the scenario according to Usdaw

 

But Tommy stated this all happened together, which as proved above is quite patently bollocks. I would see a problem if there wasnt an odious stench of bullshit being spouted in that blog.

 

Lying to a girl just to fuck her, getting her pregnant and then running off so she can't find you isn't illegal either. This whole "it's legal so it's fine" attitude would be laughable if it weren't so hypocritical. Bet we'll find you ranting and raving about benefit scroungers, though.

 

Who said anything about it morally right. Ill say it again. Close the fucking loophole, rather than whinging about how hard done to you are for repeatedly pointing it it out and doing fuck all about it. They have had 5 years to do something about it. Why ill-informedly as above is he only trying to make a shit point now

 

Yeah, it is. Being sarky about it doesn't make you right or more well-informed, it just makes you look smug.

 

For once, this was the general idea! [wry smile]. I lighten up a bit and still get lambasted. Superb

 

No, let's tax them because THEY AREN'T FUCKING PAYING WHAT THEY OWE. Stop flip-flopping: first you say "don't hate the player, hate the game", and now you're attacking anyone who advocates changing the game.

 

Yup, paraphrasing what's been said in the blog is definitely flip-flopping isnt it? The attack the system schtick hasnt altered

 

He's just fucking told you.

 

No, he 'fucking' hasnt. Nowhere in that blog has he identified why it is sick and obscene. He has just stated it as empirical fact without justification, playing on peoples assumptions and the semiotics of the words he uses to provoke reaction/ empathy/sympathy to his cause

 

Wow. First time I've seen the Internet equivalent of putting words in people's mouths. He didn't come out with that stupid phrase, you did, so why put it in quotes? It's bollocks anyway - is it raping the poor to make them pay their taxes?

 

Again - stop flip-flopping. You've said the government are the ones who should close the loopholes, and now you're saying closing the loopholes will drive them away.

 

Is it? Is it really? I explained in a previous post the single quotation marks are used for emphasis and not a direct quotation, guess you missed that one so you could be so incredulous about it?

 

How am I flip- flopping for the second time. I asked a sarcastic question using the 'rape the rich' as a piss take mantra as to how Tommy proposes to claw back this 85 Billion Quid per year without causing Rich People to fuck off. This isnt a position change, it's just a question.

[patiirc]

As had too many quotes had to split this into two.

 

 

If you don't know, why are you arguing with him? How do you know he's posted this rant without knowing them?

 

Again its a question. I want to know how much he proposes to claw back out of the 85 billion each year. I can assume what he meant, but it would be an educated guess as seeing as there is fuck all substance to what he has said.

 

He's just said: tax.

 

What kind of tax? Who is going to enforce it? How is the enforcement going to be paid for? Is there going to be back taxes paid? What rate do you want it set at? When is this to come in? What part of the Rich does this effect etc. None of that is mentioned

 

So, how does he propose to get the cash?

 

Err, because access to decent health services, security, safety from fire and school education are basic human rights?

 

Your argument would hold water, if these services were being completely disbanded with no replacement and things just left in some kind of no system country. Its a very fatalist position one that the various services and departments "to be cut" have bleated on about since the spending review has been announced.

 

Bizarrely, the spending review isnt actually announced until next month. Iirc I dont remember the complete and whole sale withdrawl or decimation of these services actually being announced yet?

 

What I was getting at in the question was does Tommy think that the services are fine as they are not full of bloat ineffeciencies etc etc, He says they dont need to be cut, why?

 

Yay, go you. Really shoring up the intellectual elite of the libertarian movement, you are.

 

Im not shoring up the intellectual elite of anything, just deconstructing an ill-informed, poorly researched, rant about Phillip Green and the Nouveau-Rich (or whatever you want to call them.)

 

If Tommy had the answers to what he's said then fine, I'd love to hear them. It would be better than the emotive, baseless and vague pile of crap he has written.

 

As I said before I prefered the story about the suit.

[Yoghurt]

I don't like Carbombs shout louder than other people gimmick. Just be glad he doesn't have any real say [like we don't lolololol etc] and it's going to be done in spite of people like him.

[JNLister]

Bizarrely, the spending review isnt actually announced until next month. Iirc I dont remember the complete and whole sale withdrawl or decimation of these services actually being announced yet?[\quote]

 

With the average departmental cuts planned for 25% I expect most public services are dreaming of merely being decimated.

[Carbomb]

I don't like Carbombs shout louder than other people gimmick. Just be glad he doesn't have any real say [like we don't lolololol etc] and it's going to be done in spite of people like him.

 

Yeah, that's all I was doing. I didn't post any arguments against anything anybody said, I simply put everything on capslock and posted nothing but swearwords, like Eddie Murphy did to Bill Cosby's son. And, of course, how I express myself completely and utterly affects what I'd do if I was in power, oh yes.

 

The only problems I've ever had with you, Yoghurt, are when you show up in this thread or others on political subjects. Between this line and your Zionistic stance on Israel, I can't see many posts where you don't show up, post your opinion, and then proceed to back it up with as little as possible, so don't be surprised if I consider your political assessment of "people like me" to not be worth a shiny shit.

 

EDIT: I only had time to post this response, because I'm off out to finally hand in this bloody dissertation. I'll be back later to respond to pat's points.

Edited September 30, 2010 by Carbomb

[patiirc]

Bizarrely, the spending review isnt actually announced until next month. Iirc I dont remember the complete and whole sale withdrawl or decimation of these services actually being announced yet?

 

With the average departmental cuts planned for 25% I expect most public services are dreaming of merely being decimated.

 

Ill take on board that the decimated comes from to kill 1 in 10 originally and that cuts will be 1/4 or 1/3 of budget are far inexcess of the original meaning, but lets see what is actually to be cut first rather than the doom-mongering that is currently prevalent. Thus far regarding spending cuts, various departments and organisations have taken upon themselves to identify as what needs to to be cut, without confirmation ( as I said its next week); or, they have actually started to cut stuff before the cuts are introduced in some kind of blind panic/justification of their being at current size/budget, without massive changes as are promised [delete as appropiate]

 

Some things to be cut may be some promises by previous governments that actually havent been implemented. Iam sure that some of these cuts will be 'proposed this or increased that' Iam always wary for people saying XYZ is to be cut when it hasnt been implemented in the first instance. Though budget may have been set aside, its not actually be spent. So how can you cut something that doesnt effectively exist?

 

Again Iam not defending or, particularly chastising anyone or anything, just merely saying that what is happening thus far is 'at present' fear without foundation.

 

When the spending review is announced, then Ill happily listen to what these people have to say, rather than speculative conjecture.

[patiirc]

Ala David's posts re articles, here is a nice left wing article from our local rag

 

http://www.lep.co.uk/community/local_servi..._beat_1_1656020

 

Plans to cut 1,000 jobs at Lancashire Police were today branded as

[David]

Okay so Iam something of a sceptic. but I cant be the only one who sees all this as utter bollocks coming from a variety of sources?

It's been a fair while since I even tried to make sense of anything you've posted, Patdfb, but can you clarify what you think is "utter bollocks"?

 

Note the word clarify.

[patiirc]

Okay so Iam something of a sceptic. but I cant be the only one who sees all this as utter bollocks coming from a variety of sources?

It's been a fair while since I even tried to make sense of anything you've posted, Patdfb, but can you clarify what you think is "utter bollocks"?

 

Note the word clarify.

 

The whole dying swan act. 'Oh woe is us, behold the cuts, they will hurt us, look at how bad things are going to be'. You know really turning the emotional screw for added effect of how things are going to be grim and how the country will fall apart and come to a grinding halt

 

In the case above, The Police Chief doesnt say that crime is expected to rise with a lower budget, he says the opposite is true, just wont be as quick to decrease, but bleats on and on about how detrimental it is. He then points out that really he wont know, like everyone else wont know, until effectively the new budgets are announced as to what cuts he will have to make and where it will impact.

 

At one time in my life there was a 'make do and mend' attitude, or maximise your current resources or become more efficient or whatever. Basically quit whining and get the fuck on with it. This doesnt appear to be the case anymore. It's like 'It's our money, fuck off if your taking any away. This is a nice lil number.'

 

Upping sticks and moving Preston Police Station outside the town centre to a refurbed Gas Company Building, from a purpose built building that was slap bang in the middle of the centre ( right next to Crown and County and Magistrates) and less than 30 years old is one such case of uselessness. Instead of being central its out of the way (by The Prison) and incredibly difficult to find. If you dont know where to look. Fucking helpful if you need them for anything! So the money wastage or whatever is highly visable and to be honest in this case they havent really got a leg to stand on.

 

The Central Building has been sold of on the cheap to developers and is going to be student flats! wonderous

 

 

Generally, stuff from Police Chief's like this based on speculation and what ever is thus bollocks, and is full of what ifs, maybes and is speculative, emotive, tripe. Its neither news nor is it anything other than an opinion piecewithout, as yet foundation.

 

The other thing that bemuses me and I will stand corrected, is that the Police Forces Budgets come largely or wholly through Council Tax. So unless they are cutting that, what the fuck are they going about? being cut?

 

Please explain.

 

Cheers

Edited October 1, 2010 by patdfb

[David]

I'm still not sure you quite have a clue what you're on about there, lad.

[patiirc]

I'm still not sure you quite have a clue what you're on about there, lad.

 

I do, Iam sure my articulation of said arguments arent that great though either that or like me a bit scatter brained

[Chest Rockwell]

Well done finishing your disso, C-bomb! Go on and get rightly fucked up this weekend...

[David]

How much tax do you expect "the rich" to have to pay?

Only the same rate as the rest of us.

[Carbomb]

Well done finishing your disso, C-bomb! Go on and get rightly fucked up this weekend...

 

Thanks man! Just stopping by, got to go get showered and shaved, having a party this evening.