American Politics

Debate about anything going on in the world. Please remember, everyone has their own opinion.

Re: American Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:27 pm

Labour also has a policy of borrowing to the hilt and putting the country in debt but to be honest the way the world is now I say fk it.

I wouldn't even mind Labour in at the moment, borrow away, this country is bought and paid for buy the banks anyway, whats a few billion between them, all this talk about balancing the debt is BS, every country is in debt, that's how it works.

In my work sector things have slowed right down, some stimulus is needed, and I want investment in the NHS.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 30379
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: American Politics

Postby GoonerAlexandre » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:31 pm

You would risk becoming Greece.

Corbyn also had links with Soviet Spies, as exposed by the Sun, would you trust him in?
User avatar
GoonerAlexandre
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 23775
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:31 am

Re: American Politics

Postby Va-Va-Voom » Tue Feb 20, 2018 6:33 pm

Imagine believing anything The Sun "expose".
User avatar
Va-Va-Voom
Member of the Year 2015
Member of the Year 2015
 
Posts: 22641
Joined: Tue Oct 09, 2012 7:01 am

Re: American Politics

Postby GoonerAlexandre » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:03 pm

Va-Va-Voom wrote:Imagine believing anything The Sun "expose".

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 71076.html
User avatar
GoonerAlexandre
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 23775
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:31 am

Re: American Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Tue Feb 20, 2018 7:07 pm

GoonerAlexandre wrote:You would risk becoming Greece.

Corbyn also had links with Soviet Spies, as exposed by the Sun, would you trust him in?


Was Greece's initial debt any higher than any other EU countries before their meltdown? I thought it fked up because they have a weaker economic infrastructure?

Tbf it looked like Greece was just used as a whipping boy, there are lots of EU countries with big debt.

America has a gigantic dept and they get by.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 30379
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: American Politics

Postby Özilfan » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:32 pm

GoonerAlexandre wrote:That graph is utter bullshit, Thatcher took over an economy that was on the way to destruction. Unemployment was going up from the 70's, It reached it's worst point in her government, but look at how much it improved by 1996.

Blair got in, the trend reversed, and unemployment started rising


1) The graph is real, 100%
2) You've been hoodwinked if you genuinely think that's the truth.

DiamondGooner wrote:Labour also has a policy of borrowing to the hilt and putting the country in debt


You say "also" as if GoonerAlexandre has a point. He doesn't. Anyway to address your point: Conservatives borrow (mildly) more than Labour. They've put the country in debt just as much as Labour have. But we get a lot less for our money.

Image

Osbourne focused on the deficit and the Conservatives blamed austerity on 13 years of Labour overspending. But, even with austerity, the Conservatives are still spending as much as Labour did during the late Blair years. But Blair invested in schools and hospitals. This government are selling our schools, hospitals, and postal service. You name it - they've put a price sticker on it.

And they sell these things on the cheap. Royal Mail was sold off for half it's worth. In one day Blackrock made £15 million profit on those Royal Mail shares. Money that, by rights, should have been in the taxpayer's pocket (if it had been correctly valued). Blackrock then, coincidentally I'm sure, gave George Osborne a job - while he was still an MP by the way - earning £650,000 a year for one day's work per week.

This isn't opinion, by the way, that I'm giving you. It's cold hard facts. I don't mind if you vote Conservative as long as it's done for honest reasons and you haven't been duped by the spin and the lies.

The Conservatives are NOT good for the economy. Here's my opinion: I'm honestly not sure Corbyn would be either - but I do think he'd improve the housing market (by building houses!) and the NHS.
Özilfan
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 2264
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: American Politics

Postby GoonerAlexandre » Tue Feb 20, 2018 9:42 pm

Özilfan wrote:
GoonerAlexandre wrote:That graph is utter bullshit, Thatcher took over an economy that was on the way to destruction. Unemployment was going up from the 70's, It reached it's worst point in her government, but look at how much it improved by 1996.

Blair got in, the trend reversed, and unemployment started rising


1) The graph is real, 100%
2) You've been hoodwinked if you genuinely think that's the truth.

DiamondGooner wrote:Labour also has a policy of borrowing to the hilt and putting the country in debt


You say "also" as if GoonerAlexandre has a point. He doesn't. Anyway to address your point: Conservatives borrow (mildly) more than Labour. They've put the country in debt just as much as Labour have. But we get a lot less for our money.

Image

Osbourne focused on the deficit and the Conservatives blamed austerity on 13 years of Labour overspending. But, even with austerity, the Conservatives are still spending as much as Labour did during the late Blair years. But Blair invested in schools and hospitals. This government are selling our schools, hospitals, and postal service. You name it - they've put a price sticker on it.

And they sell these things on the cheap. Royal Mail was sold off for half it's worth. In one day Blackrock made £15 million profit on those Royal Mail shares. Money that, by rights, should have been in the taxpayer's pocket (if it had been correctly valued). Blackrock then, coincidentally I'm sure, gave George Osborne a job - while he was still an MP by the way - earning £650,000 a year for one day's work per week.

This isn't opinion, by the way, that I'm giving you. It's cold hard facts. I don't mind if you vote Conservative as long as it's done for honest reasons and you haven't been duped by the spin and the lies.

The Conservatives are NOT good for the economy. Here's my opinion: I'm honestly not sure Corbyn would be either - but I do think he'd improve the housing market (by building houses!) and the NHS.

The graph isn't bullshit, your interpretation is bullshit. Thatcher inherited a government where unemployment was going up. It kept going up a slightly lower rate under Thatcher, but reached it's highest under her. It then reduced and kept reducing till 2006. However, the change in this reduction trend came with.... you guessed it, a Labour government

And now this standard debt graph. Guess what?

Labour left a deficit. A deficit means that debt keeps increasing. The deficit is down, but the debt is up. This is Labour's fault, not the Conservatives. You people can't read basic graphs and come up with ridiculous interpretations. Try and study some statistics and come back to me. It's the gradient of the graphs you're posting that a government controlled. Under Thatcher, and under this Conservative government, the trend has been downwards, even if the peak was reached under them, because the deficit was already there.
User avatar
GoonerAlexandre
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 23775
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:31 am

Re: American Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:26 pm

Only reason Tories under Thatcher didn't need to borrow is they sold everything that was yours and mine to anyone who would buy it

Its like slagging off one alcoholic parent for borrowing off a loan shark, when the other ones a junkie who flogged the family silver to a pawn broker

...and yet still we owe more now than when Brown left office
Corinthians 15:57; But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus

Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
 
Posts: 23384
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: American Politics

Postby Royal Gooner » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:32 pm

GoonerAlexandre wrote:
Va-Va-Voom wrote:Imagine believing anything The Sun "expose".

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 71076.html


I wouldn't if it were just in The Sun, however with more serious papers publishing it along with reports he had a Stasi file and potentially allowed himself to be targeted by Communist Czechoslovakian spies is troubling.
User avatar
Royal Gooner
Herbert Chapman
Herbert Chapman
 
Posts: 10170
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2012 5:38 pm

Re: American Politics

Postby UFGN » Tue Feb 20, 2018 10:53 pm

Royal Gooner wrote:
GoonerAlexandre wrote:
Va-Va-Voom wrote:Imagine believing anything The Sun "expose".

https://www.standard.co.uk/news/politic ... 71076.html


I wouldn't if it were just in The Sun, however with more serious papers publishing it along with reports he had a Stasi file and potentially allowed himself to be targeted by Communist Czechoslovakian spies is troubling.


Surprise surprise, Bankers don't want regulation and George "Bullingdon Boy" Osbourne's newspaper agrees with them
Corinthians 15:57; But thanks be to God, which giveth us the victory through our Lord Jesus

Image
User avatar
UFGN
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
Member of the Year 2014, 2019
 
Posts: 23384
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2008 1:46 pm
Location: London, init

Re: American Politics

Postby Özilfan » Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:01 am

UFGN wrote:Only reason Tories under Thatcher didn't need to borrow is they sold everything that was yours and mine to anyone who would buy it

Its like slagging off one alcoholic parent for borrowing off a loan shark, when the other ones a junkie who flogged the family silver to a pawn broker

...and yet still we owe more now than when Brown left office


But Tories did borrow under Thatcher - don't believe the lies, I already posted a graph showing their borrowing - it outstrips Labour! The only reason they didn't borrow more "is they sold everything that was yours and mine to anyone who would buy it"!
Özilfan
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 2264
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: American Politics

Postby GoonerAlexandre » Wed Feb 21, 2018 8:20 am

Özilfan wrote:
UFGN wrote:Only reason Tories under Thatcher didn't need to borrow is they sold everything that was yours and mine to anyone who would buy it

Its like slagging off one alcoholic parent for borrowing off a loan shark, when the other ones a junkie who flogged the family silver to a pawn broker

...and yet still we owe more now than when Brown left office


But Tories did borrow under Thatcher - don't believe the lies, I already posted a graph showing their borrowing - it outstrips Labour! The only reason they didn't borrow more "is they sold everything that was yours and mine to anyone who would buy it"!

I can't reply to your PM because your PM's are turned off, btw.

And as I said, Tories borrowed more but reduced the deficit.

Here's an example:

Year 1: You have 10 million at the start in the bank. You deficit is 2 million
Year 2: You have 8 million at the start in the bank. You deficit is 4 million
Year 3: You have 4 million at the start in the bank. You deficit is 4 million
Year 4: You have 0 at the start in the bank. You deficit is 4 million

You loan 4 million in year 4. That's what that government's record will be. But they evidently have increased the deficit to unbelievable levels

GOVERNMENT CHANGES
Year 5: You have 0 at the start in the bank. You deficit is 3 million
Year 6: You have 0 at the start in the bank. You deficit is 2 million
Year 7: You have 0 at the start in the bank. You deficit is 1 million
Year 8: You have 0 at the start in the bank. You deficit is 0.5 million

In this scenario, government 2 has loaned 6.5 million.

HIGHER DEBT. But they've lowered the deficit and long term economic outcome looks solid.

This is why your graph is flawed.
User avatar
GoonerAlexandre
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 23775
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2015 8:31 am

Re: American Politics

Postby Özilfan » Wed Feb 21, 2018 9:11 am

GoonerAlexandre wrote:The graph isn't bullshit, your interpretation is bullshit.


Thanks for clearing that up given you originally said, "That graph is utter bullshit". Anyway, now that I understand where you're coming from, let's have a closer look at your analysis:

GoonerAlexandre wrote:Thatcher inherited a government where unemployment was going up.


No. Unemployment was slightly down in 1978, the year before Thatcher was in power.

It kept going up a slightly lower rate under Thatcher, but reached it's highest under her.


The second bit is right but the first is utterly false. Here's the graph again:

Image

Thatcher was elected May 1979. Look at the the unemployment rate in 1980. Now 81, 82, 83 and 84. I can only assume you forgot the year Thatcher was elected to come to the conclusion that the increase of unemployment was at a lower rate than under Labour (were you thinking she was first elected in 1983, her second election?). Clearly, and I think you'll agree, the unemployment under Thatcher went dramatically up, REVERSING the trend of lower unemployment during the last two years of the Labour government. There's no real way to dispute that, you've already agreed the graph is accurate.

A deficit means that debt keeps increasing. The deficit is down, but the debt is up.


That's right. That said, I didn't mention debt anywhere (so I'm not sure why you'd think I'd be confused on the issue).

Labour left a deficit. [...] This is Labour's fault, not the Conservatives.


Labour ran a surplus four years in a row. After that they ran a deficit and increased the debt, due to the fact they were investing in schools and hospitals. Yes, that is Labour's "fault" - whether investment in these areas was worth the price of increasing our nation's debt is a matter of opinion - I won't debate you on that.

Conservatives have also continually ran a deficit - for only two years out of 26 years years in power have they had (a very small) surplus! They've added to our debt more than Labour have (even adjusting for years in power). That's not Labour's fault (the Conservatives were, after all, in power 18 years in a row!).

Of course, since 2010, the deficit has continued under the Conservatives after the WORLD-WIDE recession in 2008, and I don't blame the Conservatives for that - there was always going to be a huge deficit in those years (though Osborne originally predicted they'd be running a surplus by 2015 - they, obviously, completely missed that target and now Brexit has completely killed any hopes of lowering our debt in the foreseeable future - again weakening any economic argument about so-called Conservative competence). Perhaps you'd agree, that in hindsight, Labour should have regulated the banking sector more as it would have softened the blow of the crises and thus, reduced the deficit (did you mention 100% mortgages? Yes, they were a terrible idea). But, if you want banking regulation, Conservatives are not the answer as they believe in self-regulation.

CONCLUSION: I think you made an honest mistake in looking at unemployment graph and, thus, drew, wildly inaccurate conclusions. I don't blame you for that, as long as you're honest enough to see where you went wrong.

With regards to the deficit, the reason I posted that graph was merely to highlight that both parties have added to our National Debt (by, as you said, running a deficit). The Conservatives have added more to our debt, despite selling off our schools, hospitals and postal service, while also given us less value for money with massive problems facing both the NHS and our schooling system (which was my original point, perhaps I didn't explain myself clearly enough).

One last thing: I'm not a huge Labour fan, by the way. I've only voted for them once in my life (out of a possible 6 times).
Özilfan
David Rocastle
David Rocastle
 
Posts: 2264
Joined: Sat Aug 22, 2009 2:19 pm

Re: American Politics

Postby DiamondGooner » Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:23 pm

DiamondGooner wrote:, what happens when a teacher has a break down and unloads? then what NRA: "Urhhh uhhm the students should of had guns?".

Everyone should have guns apparently, but what else do we expect? its like a drug dealer telling everyone to go straight.

Also that student divulged that Trump took a £30m pay off by the NRA, seriously, how the fk is lobbying and funding allowed in a fkin democracy? is that not the very definition of a paid off politician?


LOL called it first.

"Trump's solution to school shootings: arm teachers with guns"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/201 ... -with-guns

I know this sounds fked up but the ultimate slap in the face would be if they did arm teachers then a teacher had a breakdown and shot up the class room, obviously would be horrendous but you can see what I'm getting at when this idea could blow up right in their face.

All I know is $30m gets you a lot of backing from the orange man.

America has truly lost its way.
Image
User avatar
DiamondGooner
SE13
SE13
 
Posts: 30379
Joined: Wed Nov 21, 2012 11:35 am
Location: At the Gucci store

Re: American Politics

Postby Yago » Thu Feb 22, 2018 6:27 pm

those kids better not annoy the teachers too much
Yago
2018 World Cup Predictions League Winner
2018 World Cup Predictions League Winner
 
Posts: 7284
Joined: Fri Jul 12, 2013 4:47 pm

PreviousNext

Return to The Big Debate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests