US to avoid default as Senate backs debt ceiling rise

[Jamie.]

I want a balanced approach, that is my argument. Cutting defence capabilities for the sake of cutting it quick and getting the deficit down is not the right approach.

I'm in the camp of yes cuts are needed but ALOT more balanced, the government is cutting too deep and too quick and it will kill off any shoots of recovery.

Of course a strong public sector leads to an inflated private sector, if the US cuts 20 pct of public sector spending tomorrow will the markets go up in stocks or down? I suspect they will go crashing down.

By top heavy policies I mean tax BREAKS for the rich, they should get taxed more in my opinion (US not UK), my argument is we need to be sensible here. A deficit is not a good thing obviously, it's essentially a black hole between what you earn and what you spend but let's not overly panic and talk about wiping it out. Get it back down to a manageable size, re assess and work out how you can best EXPAND the public sector rather than shrink it. Basically value for money, preserve jobs by cutting wages of public sector employees.

I'm not suggesting populist policies, I just want a fair and balanced approach with a level head. I support cuts BUT with those cuts I want revenues (tax hikes) because with just pure cuts your not stimulating any growth whatsoever.

I said it at the start, I'm socially liberal but consider myself fiscally Conservative...

I would rather work out a balanced strategy, IF we hadn't just 'got out' of the worst recession in decades then I would consider your and Chaz's points more no doubt about it. But if you want to tell the millions of people worldwide who have lost their jobs because of the recession that your plan is cuts cuts cuts and no revenue and your going to stop the supply of medicaid/social care/help then I just think that's extremely wrong.

I want a sensible approach, cutting the deficit by say 5 pct a year for 3 years then re *****. The path countries are on at the minute is seriously undermining the global recovery from the recession.

This is why being a communist would be sooooo easy, you wouldn't have to worry about this. Just plough your field, drink your whiskey and pick up your pay cheque...

Italy have an absolutely monstrous deficit-GDP figure, Silvio has put in place a few cuts but because of his lenience with collecting taxes his revenues just aren't there at all. You need to get revenues to balance with the cuts, it's the only option to at least keep some chance of the recovery happening. <---Is my main point on this, US/UK wise. UK have done it with VAT increase, US can't do much with the Bush tax cuts in place.

 

[Joel`]

I'm in the camp of yes cuts are needed but ALOT more balanced, the government is cutting too deep and too quick and it will kill off any shoots of recovery.

Govt. spending doesn't create recovery. It creates nothing, it just re-distributes from A to B, that's all it's capable of doing.

Of course a strong public sector leads to an inflated private sector, if the US cuts 20 pct of public sector spending tomorrow will the markets go up in stocks or down? I suspect they will go crashing down.

No, a private sector leads to a public sector. You can have a private sector without a public sector, you can't have a public sector without a private sector. All the public sector does is leech on the profitable private sector. You still haven't said how public sector helps grow the private sector? The markets WANT cuts. Wal street traders were saying they believe $4tn of cuts were actually needed. The markets are plummeting now, because they fear the government defaulting or having their debt rating downgraded. That's dangerous, markets don't want to invest in that. Why is default and downgrade a threat? Too high public spending.

By top heavy policies I mean tax BREAKS for the rich, they should get taxed more in my opinion (US not UK), my argument is we need to be sensible here. A deficit is not a good thing obviously, it's essentially a black hole between what you earn and what you spend but let's not overly panic and talk about wiping it out. Get it back down to a manageable size, re assess and work out how you can best EXPAND the public sector rather than shrink it. Basically value for money, preserve jobs by cutting wages of public sector employees.

We are getting it back down to a manageable size. It's not even close to manageable as it stands, hence why large cuts are being made. Why are you obsessed with expanding the public sector? It does nothing. It creates nothing. It creates no profit, no money, no wealth. Why should we all be made to pay to keep an unneeded public sector worker in work? Why should I pay tax in order to keep a pencil pushing consultant who contributes nothing in work? Either I can spend that money, or he can. If all we tried to do was expand the public sector it's the road to economic ruin. The public sector depends on private sector wealth to run, the public sector can't create wealth so it has to be at a size to be supported. Expanding it is just straining our already stretched resources.

I'm not suggesting populist policies, I just want a fair and balanced approach with a level head. I support cuts BUT with those cuts I want revenues (tax hikes) because with just pure cuts your not stimulating any growth whatsoever.

You're aware that we've increased taxes, and that the democrats wanted tax hikes as part of the debt deal? And you're aware tax hikes reduce not stimulate growth?

I would rather work out a balanced strategy, IF we hadn't just 'got out' of the worst recession in decades then I would consider your and Chaz's points more no doubt about it. But if you want to tell the millions of people worldwide who have lost their jobs because of the recession that your plan is cuts cuts cuts and no revenue and your going to stop the supply of medicaid/social care/help then I just think that's extremely wrong.

I'll tell that to them now, as long as you tell the even larger proportion of people that will be screwed in decades that they're screwed because we were too soft now. Deal?

This is why being a communist would be sooooo easy, you wouldn't have to worry about this. Just plough your field, drink your whiskey and pick up your pay cheque...

And have no prosperity. No innovation. No wealth.

Italy have an absolutely monstrous deficit-GDP figure, Silvio has put in place a few cuts but because of his lenience with collecting taxes his revenues just aren't there at all. You need to get revenues to balance with the cuts, it's the only option to at least keep some chance of the recovery happening. <---Is my main point on this, US/UK wise. UK have done it with VAT increase, US can't do much with the Bush tax cuts in place.

Tax threatens recovery the same way spending does...

 

[GodCubed]

We (as in just about everyone) have no choice but to make deep cuts, and fast. We can't worry about whether it's balanced or not: we need to make them in order to stay afloat and prevent total destruction of the world's financial system.

If we take Britain as an example, cutting defence capabilities is one thing that is perfectly sound in my opinion. I'm not talking about preventing weapons from reaching our troops, I'm talking about ridiculous things like nuclear missile defence. We have LITERALLY no use for it at all. The only reason we have one is because we have an outdated view of our international importance, and we want to have one to make ourselves feel better in the global ****-measuring contest. ****, we basically only have one 'cause the French have one, and they'll freely admit they only have their nuclear missile defence because we have one. Nobody's scared of our nuclear arsenal: they're scared of America's thousands of stockpiled nukes. We're protected by our strong relationship with them, and that's just as good as having all their nukes ourselves.

Saying we're out of the recession is naive in the extreme. We are technically, but a double dip recession is a very tangible threat. I'm sorry if people feel that cuts are unfair or what have you, but they need to understand that it is the only way. We don't have the time to be working out long term sustainable measures and attempting to cut a deficit by 5% a year (which, ironically, is out of the US/UKs reach unless massive cuts are introduced) because we don't have a surplus built up over our boom years. We should've done that, we didn't, and now we're facing the consequences.

 

[Jamie.]

Nonsense.

We have our fundamental belief difference here, tax hikes on the rich just makes them a little worst off it does not curb growth.

The businessman argument is ''your taxing me so hard I can't invest back in the company''

Whereas my argument is we tax you money you would spend excessively and we take it with the intent to distribute it to programmes to help the people in the country with social programmes/general help.

I know the democrats wanted tax hikes in the deal...I wish they got tax hikes in the deficit deal.

Tax hikes do not curb growth whatsoever, it's an argument adopted by people with alot of money in business and fuels the conservative policy of ''even socialist tax hikes are killing out economy''. Well we tried it their way by giving breaks under Bush and that got them nowhere good.

And on the public sector, it plays a big role that can't be underestimated.

It's not supposed to make the government a profit, it's supposed to deliver public service.

I want value for money from teachers/streetcleaners/civil servants I don't want them to be cut or underfunded.

If the UK government cut the deficit by...50% tomorrow the private sector would go into chaos with panic. UK bonds would be getting 'cashed in' around the world because it's all tied in together. Doomsday style scenario but it proves the point that public-private sector closely linked.

I guess we have fundamental principles differing here, you can't look at it as numbers you need to show humanity and realise that the 500k+ jobs you and Chaz propose we don't need and basically all those family's that lose out on weekly 'steady' income. It's just fundamental differences, I want cuts but I want them balanced, sensible and fair. The UK government cutting the defence the way they have was clearly not thought through at all, common sense tells anyone with a brain that. My proposal is to slash the state pension, slash the average civil service wage as a start to reforming the public sector.

Government spending does influence recovery, education/healthcare/defence all absolutely paramount services with Education being the forefront of it. To stay competitive, innovative and on the cutting edge of world business sectors that we currently lead in the UK needs government funding into education to drive the workforce of tomorrow.

Bottom line seems to be I'm a communist idealist and you and Chaz are heartless *stards... (A)

---------- Post added at 07:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:20 PM ----------

We (as in just about everyone) have no choice but to make deep cuts, and fast. We can't worry about whether it's balanced or not: we need to make them in order to stay afloat and prevent total destruction of the world's financial system.

If we take Britain as an example, cutting defence capabilities is one thing that is perfectly sound in my opinion. I'm not talking about preventing weapons from reaching our troops, I'm talking about ridiculous things like nuclear missile defence. We have LITERALLY no use for it at all. The only reason we have one is because we have an outdated view of our international importance, and we want to have one to make ourselves feel better in the global ****-measuring contest. ****, we basically only have one 'cause the French have one, and they'll freely admit they only have their nuclear missile defence because we have one. Nobody's scared of our nuclear arsenal: they're scared of America's thousands of stockpiled nukes. We're protected by our strong relationship with them, and that's just as good as having all their nukes ourselves.

Saying we're out of the recession is naive in the extreme. We are technically, but a double dip recession is a very tangible threat. I'm sorry if people feel that cuts are unfair or what have you, but they need to understand that it is the only way. We don't have the time to be working out long term sustainable measures and attempting to cut a deficit by 5% a year (which, ironically, is out of the US/UKs reach unless massive cuts are introduced) because we don't have a surplus built up over our boom years. We should've done that, we didn't, and now we're facing the consequences.

I agree, on the nuclear point. No need for trident, especially with the 30 billion pounds it would save.

Cutting the harrier fleet/capability and us not having an aircraft carrier and having to borrow the French's is embarrassing.

Best part is we got rid of our perfectly good Harriers at 40 pct of their value and sold to the Americans. And when our super carriers are ready in 2015 our aeroplanes wont be built until 2018! So work that one out, I don't know who the *ck worked out our defence cuts/schedule but whoever it is clearly lacks in common sense.

 

[Joel`]

Nonsense? Sorry, but it's economic fact that all the state does is re-distribute wealth. It takes (taxes) A and gives that tax to B (political interest). Nowhere in that process is wealth created. The only way to create wealth is profit, and the only way to profit is through private business.

But that tax still reduces his spending power. Aggregate Demand is made of consumption, investment and government spending. Growth is an increase in AD. Tax reduces consumption, fact. If consumption decreases, so does growth. You can have your ideals, but you can't just create arguments that disobey the fundamentals of economics. Open any Economics textbook and it'll tell you the 4 main ways of increasing growth are lower interest, increase the money supply, reduce taxes and increase govt. spending.

Please explain to me how tax hikes stimulate growth though, I'd love to hear it.

It plays a big role in SOCIETY. It is however incapable of growing the ECONOMY. They're separate entities. You can't have a public sector if you have no funds. We have no funds, thus deep cuts are needed.

That's my whole freaking point. It isn't making profit so isn't creating any growth whatsoever. If you want to recover from recession you need growth. Increasing government spending is just a short term solution, it seems too many lack the foresight of the future. By being 'nice' today to people you're creating a disproportionate amount of hurt to the future people.

The markets would crash because there's no need for such a huge cut in such time. Markets adore stability. That's what we're doing, stabilising the economy so we have funds in the future. If we keep spending like you want, then we run out of money and we hit a debt crisis like Greece. Markets don't want that. Not at all. By your logic, markets should be booming for Greece and crashing for us.

And you need to lose humanity and gain realism. Nobody likes cutting jobs and hurting people's lives, but it's NEEDED. Life isn't fair, we can't spend what we don't have just to show humanity. We have to be realistic, rational and logical. All you're doing is promoting a whole lot more hurt for future generations than me and Chaz are for this generation.

Yes, to drive the workforce of TOMORROW. That same workforce that's going to be in economic ruin because we let our debt spiral out of control? Great, real great.

So ironic that you're in fact the heartless ******* for robbing future generations of any money whatsoever.

 

[Jamie.]

If we hit a double dip recession in this country it wont be my ideology that pushed us over the edge, the government is cutting way too deep too quickly.

Gradual cutting would get us out of this mess, by the time the future generations are grown up then we will be better placed because we were sensible. We don't need to continue the spending trend but we don't need to cut this deep.

We can't cut this deep, it gets us nowhere. Talking about getting a public house in order when in fact it's so closely linked with the private sector that everything could implode because of deep cuts.

From bonds to pension funds to bank customers everything comes together to create a toxic mess, this path of deep austerity will lead nowhere but too a 'double dip' recession. The future generations point is a valid one, but surely it's the same argument the previous generation made about us at the last recession?

These cuts will not/are not helping stimulate our economy into life, only hampering it's recovery. There is a time for deep cuts but cutting whilst we are essentially STILL in a recession is frankly irresponsible. The people who spent over our credit limit are irresponsible but we would be more irresponsible to turn conservative and cut, cut, cut when we haven't even left the economic crisis we were in.

Like I said, I could believe your points more if we weren't essentially in a recession and planning some ridiculous spending cuts. 3.4% projected GDP growth over the next 3 years says it all. And that is the most generous economist's prediction, I can't see us recovering until at least 2017-2018. Deficit is a mess but you can't blindly say the public sector needs severe cuts.

Like I said, cut down the state pension by at least 25-35% and cut public sector wage at the middle tier by 5% a year and higher management by 10%.

That's more savings that what you would get by doing some of the governments plans. Sensible, balanced cuts is all I want which don't put recovery at risk. I want paced cuts, not rapid cuts that damage public services.

Sad thing is we can debate this all we want, I know exactly what is going to happen...This government will rightfully get voted out next election and Labour will march in with Bert from Sesame Street and he will rip up all the deficit plans and just introduce some sort of populist policy that will wipe out half of the austerity progress.

I'm not a Labour or Conservative supporter if you couldn't tell, ditched Labour when Blair left. Party's been the bandwagon party ever since and lacked leadership and as for Bert from Sesame Street he's an absolute joke of a candidate.

I'm starting to like the sound of living in Havana on 1 pound a week sipping a Mohito on my sun lounger...Castro's Communist paradise is starting to sound real good.

 

[GodCubed]

It's all well and good being a Communist at heart Jamie, but you need to accept that in practice Communism has failed at every turn. I am, in theory, a Communist: the basic premise of it is one that should be applauded and wanted, but the fact is there has never been a purely Communist society because it just doesn't work as a system. Modern China only started its huge growth when it adopted Capitalist ideals. The USSR, that bastion of Communism, completely collapsed from within eventually.

Besides, as Joel mentioned, whilst your ideals are in theory Communist, in practice they're negative moves for the majority over the long term.

 

[Jamie.]

Ironically the individuality of Communism appeals to me most. To not really have a currency, nothing to worry about with barely any chance of promotion or competition in the workplace...

I could live my days out on a Cuban beach no problem...

*Disclaimer- I am not a Communist or a Socialist.

 

[GodCubed]

If we hit a double dip recession in this country it wont be my ideology that pushed us over the edge, the government is cutting way too deep too quickly.

That's not the ****** reason why though, is it? Cutting deep and quickly isn't the reason our economy's **** up, it's the solution to it.

Gradual cutting would get us out of this mess, by the time the future generations are grown up then we will be better placed because we were sensible. We don't need to continue the spending trend but we don't need to cut this deep.

That's just not true. You're repeating the things you've already said, so I'll repeat mine: we need to cut NOW. Otherwise we're completely buggered. We're all buggered to an extent, but it's how deep and quickly we cut that determines how buggered we all are.

We can't cut this deep, it gets us nowhere. Talking about getting a public house in order when in fact it's so closely linked with the private sector that everything could implode because of deep cuts.

Cutting deep now will allow us to stay afloat. Not doing so means we won't stay afloat. There isn't exactly a choice here.

From bonds to pension funds to bank customers everything comes together to create a toxic mess, this path of deep austerity will lead nowhere but too a 'double dip' recession. The future generations point is a valid one, but surely it's the same argument the previous generation made about us at the last recession?

I hope you realise you're talking to at least two of the next generation. Joel and I are young, finishing school. We're coming into a job market completely ******. I sincerely doubt we should listen to anything the previous generation said considering how majorly they messed up.

These cuts will not/are not helping stimulate our economy into life, only hampering it's recovery. There is a time for deep cuts but cutting whilst we are essentially STILL in a recession is frankly irresponsible. The people who spent over our credit limit are irresponsible but we would be more irresponsible to turn conservative and cut, cut, cut when we haven't even left the economic crisis we were in.

That's not irresponsible, that's how you get out of a recession. Economics 101. If you have a budget deficit you need to strive to balance it, whether by raising taxes or cutting services. You can do one of them or both, and you can do it gradually if you have a surplus of money built up over the boom years in order to offset it. If you don't (and we don't) then you have to cut the necessary things quickly.

Like I said, I could believe your points more if we weren't essentially in a recession and planning some ridiculous spending cuts. 3.4% projected GDP growth over the next 3 years says it all. And that is the most generous economist's prediction, I can't see us recovering until at least 2017-2018. Deficit is a mess but you can't blindly say the public sector needs severe cuts.

We're not, we're using the evidence around us to say that we need severe cuts, because we do.

Sad thing is we can debate this all we want, I know exactly what is going to happen...This government will rightfully get voted out next election and Labour will march in with Bert from Sesame Street and he will rip up all the deficit plans and just introduce some sort of populist policy that will wipe out half of the austerity progress.

I'm no supporter of Labour, but frankly anyone is better than George Osborne.

I'm starting to like the sound of living in Havana on 1 pound a week sipping a Mohito on my sun lounger...Castro's Communist paradise is starting to sound real good.

Oh right cool. I'll stay here, y'know, where it isn't a dictatorship.

---------- Post added at 08:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:04 PM ----------

Ironically the individuality of Communism appeals to me most. To not really have a currency, nothing to worry about with barely any chance of promotion or competition in the workplace...

I could live my days out on a Cuban beach no problem...

*Disclaimer- I am not a Communist or a Socialist.

Yeah, nothing to worry about. Go tell that to all the thousands of Russian peasants who starved to death in the bitter winters in the name of Communism.

 

[Joel`]

I hope you realise you're talking to at least two of the next generation. Joel and I are young, finishing school. We're coming into a job market completely ******. I sincerely doubt we should listen to anything the previous generation said considering how majorly they messed up.

Hoping things have improved by the time university's over. Wooo optimism!

I'm no supporter of Labour, but frankly anyone is better than George Osborne.

I'd rather have Osborne than Mr. Ed "Labour never ran a structural deficit" Balls. ^.^

 

[ajt09]

Job market up here is pretty much next to non-existant. Few years back in Newcastle area alone, the local paper used to advertise 850-1250 jobs a week. Now it's 150

 

[GodCubed]

Hoping things have improved by the time university's over. Wooo optimism!

We're all dooooomed.

I'd rather have Osborne than Mr. Ed "Labour never ran a structural deficit" Balls.

At least Balls was actually educated in economics and thus partially qualified for the job, Osborne's education was folding towels. He's just a mate of Cameron's, not qualified at all.

 

[Mike.]

They're both ****. Balls is just marginally less so. Do yourselves a favour make sure whatever you do in Uni is a high demand degree. engineering, maths etc

 

[Jamie.]

Cuba-Russian communist philosophy's are completely different.

Lennin-Castro are worlds apart, Castro is more of a socialist than a communist.

Generational point of view then, I just can't see how you think deep quick cuts are the answer.

2 sides to economics and both are adamant they are right, Stimulating the economy would get us out of recession quicker in my view then we could start cutting back. But to do so now is just suicide, deficit isn't a short term worry IMO if we sustained it at it's current level we would be in the proverbial **** 4-5 years down the line. I would rather guide the country well and truly away from the recession and then consider austerity measures.

Cutting public sector wage and especially the pensions is the way forward IMO, that would save alot. Scrapping trident would essentially cover the Defence budget savings side...

But like I said, the future generations point has been used by every single generation especially in times of economic uncertainty, it was said in the 80's under Thatcher and it's being said now. Two different points of view and I would personally prefer a 15 year plan to cut the deficit over a 5 year plan cutting extremely deep. You need revenues in a government to cover costs, that's the fundamental principle of taxes and if the people who actually have money have to pay a little more then that is completely and wholly right IMO.

Two different opinions like I said.

Sounding like a broken record, been a nice debate.

For the record Communism would make a great holiday but would never make a great place to live. IF Russia did what China did and introduce a free market economy then they would surpass America completely IMO.

Capitalism>Communism.

Common Sense>Politics.

 

[Joel`]

They're both ****. Balls is just marginally less so. Do yourselves a favour make sure whatever you do in Uni is a high demand degree. engineering, maths etc

Those are all low supply as well which makes them doubley awesome!

 

[Jamie.]

They're both ****. Balls is just marginally less so. Do yourselves a favour make sure whatever you do in Uni is a high demand degree. engineering, maths etc

I want to hear them say the same things when they see their tuition fee prices...

 

[Joel`]

Generational point of view then, I just can't see how you think deep quick cuts are the answer.

They're not an answer, they're just necessary due to history.

2 sides to economics and both are adamant they are right, Stimulating the economy would get us out of recession quicker in my view then we could start cutting back. But to do so now is just suicide, deficit isn't a short term worry IMO if we sustained it at it's current level we would be in the proverbial **** 4-5 years down the line. I would rather guide the country well and truly away from the recession and then consider austerity measures.

We're in the proverbial **** no matter what. All you're doing is postponing it, and making it bigger and bigger while you do so.[/quote]

Cutting public sector wage and especially the pensions is the way forward IMO, that would save alot. Scrapping trident would essentially cover the Defence budget savings side...

I thought you wanted to expand the public sector?

But like I said, the future generations point has been used by every single generation especially in times of economic uncertainty, it was said in the 80's under Thatcher and it's being said now. Two different points of view and I would personally prefer a 15 year plan to cut the deficit over a 5 year plan cutting extremely deep. You need revenues in a government to cover costs, that's the fundamental principle of taxes and if the people who actually have money have to pay a little more then that is completely and wholly right IMO.

Today's generation would be so happy now if they were still propping up horribly inefficient, non-profitable state monopolies. You need revenue to cover costs, yes. We're raising taxes, we're cutting spending. Both according to economic theory absolutely **** the economy in terms of growth, but they need to be done. I fail to understand how you're against cuts but support tax hikes. They both are designed for the same economic outcome.

For the record Communism would make a great holiday but would never make a great place to live. IF Russia did what China did and introduce a free market economy then they would surpass America completely IMO.

China are becoming more and more free market now they've realised the growth potential they have under it.

---------- Post added at 08:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 08:31 PM ----------

I want to hear them say the same things when they see their tuition fee prices...

We're both in the year where we pay the lower prices, but I was willing to take a gap year and pay the higher prices, since I'm confident my subject will result in higher earning potential in the future. All the higher prices do is deter people from doing so called 'Mickey Mouse' degrees where there's no end gain, you just get to spend 3 years getting drunk while your parents are still proud.

 

[GodCubed]

Slightly unrelated, but Joel got that Thatcher point completely spot on. It always makes me laugh when old people (I'm 18, I see everyone over the age as 25 as old, before you ask ) grumble about Thatcher and how terrible she was. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, we can see that she took the right economic decisions, removed us from having to rely on outdated industries, and set Britain on a path to growth. She did what needed to be done at the time, and though people suffered at the time they were far fewer than those that would have suffered over generations if she hadn't.

We're at another such crossroads, and unfortunately I don't see anyone who has the balls (yeah, yeah, she was a woman, har har) to perform the massive cuts and take action like the Thatcher would've.

 

[Jamie.]

Cutting wages doesn't shrink the public sector it 'stream lines it'. Public sector pensions are a huge problem, I would cut them rigth down to the average private size. Cutting wages/pensions is alot better than cutting jobs/quality of service, expanding the sector=Devolving powers to local MP regional committee who can handle local services on a budget, all wages would be rigid and like I said would be cut according to earning bracket.

It just baffles me when every single economic figure is very negative even the CPI has gone down and yet people are still adamant this is the right track...

Double dip recession is far worst that taking an extra 3-4 years to clear the deficit at the end of the day.

Thatcherisation and Globalisation in the 80's was at the expense of the working class. Now to add to that pressure on the WC under Cameron it's at the expense of students (The future generation). Globalisation was the right form of policy at the time but she was blindly ignorant to the working class communities and how deprived they became, Thatcher is not one of my political heroes. Her foreign policy was...Acceptable, which is good praise from me, but 80% of this country ended up despising her. She is an example of what happens when the right wing get too cosy with big business.

 

[Joel`]

Cutting wages doesn't shrink the public sector it 'stream lines it'. Public sector pensions are a huge problem, I would cut them rigth down to the average private size. Cutting wages/pensions is alot better than cutting jobs/quality of service, expanding the sector=Devolving powers to local MP regional committee who can handle local services on a budget, all wages would be rigid and like I said would be cut according to earning bracket.

It just baffles me when every single economic figure is very negative even the CPI has gone down and yet people are still adamant this is the right track...

Double dip recession is far worst that taking an extra 3-4 years to clear the deficit at the end of the day.

Inflation is too high, if it falls it's a good thing right now.

A double dip recession is better than loading the future with debt. It's better than letting the debt build up to the point where we get downgraded, causing our bond yields to double, meaning the future have to pay not only our debt but also double the interest.

As I said, I'm fine with telling the hundred today they're out of work, as long as you tell the thousand they'll lose their jobs tomorrow?