Cameron: "Cuts will change our way of life"

[dennis tooth]

I get it dennis. You're the bloke who sees deeply into the heart of things and knows how the levers of power really work, in ways which are hidden to mere mortals like the rest of us.

 

The government's been spending too much and as a result of that profligacy it's been taking too much of the national revenue in taxation especially from the majority of people on low and average incomes. But even that wasn't enough and it had to borrow too much as well.

 

Bottom line, people are getting fed up with handing their hard-earned cash to a bunch of shysters who then waste it in ways they don't approve of.

 

The Coalition has said enough is enough and has promised to trim the fat. About time too. If they get on with the job with the right amount of energy and determination then the mess left behind by Labour might get cleaned up sooner than we think.

 

In reply to the first part not at all but don't let me stop to skipping your way to ignorance. These are not hidden levers of power but basic history based on the creation of the concept of national debt in 1690.

You may want to read up what happened that year and why we are where we are today because in 1689 there was no national debt, understand why, then we might have a serious discussion and get serious conclusions from it.

 

The coalition will not 'trim the fat' as you say they will, as I keep assuring you, cuts will increase the fat, that is by design, they can cut as much as little as they like but it is not to that end claimed. If you want to believe that they are in a position to promise such things and take their word as gospel without actually trying to understand the very basic factors behind it as well documented as they are and accuse me of making it all up then that's a shame, they say you learn something new everyday but you pass such stuff up, it's a shame you wasted your own faith in the coalition, your blind faith would make for a wonderful BNP supporter.

 

If you think that nonsense yourself, seriously, I'd keep your ignorance of economic matters regarding national debt to yourself mate as it would be a bad start for you on here. About 4% of all the ‘money’ in the country is real £20 notes. The other 96% is just unpaid debts. That's systematic and you can only be serious about changing it from very the top level, but no, cutting the 4% is a good idea though in your mind.

 

 

So far your claim about me voting for a labour donkey (One of my favourite animals, honestly I'm really not impressed you slurred both me and those creatures.) seems to also sum up of your assumptive understanding of the concept of national debt.

[dennis tooth]

I see the Oldham Echo are continuing their proud tradition of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story!

 

I really do love you SD, you're like one of them pads rugby players run at, great practice for keeping sharp.

 

Let's not let the facts get in the way of your story either:

 

But, following the ECHO’s inquiries, the Department for Work and Pensions have “revised their decision” in his favour.

 

He will not now have to go through the appeals process and hopes the U-turn will help him live a more independent life.

 

Mr Carr said: “I’m happy that it’s been sorted and that this faceless bureaucracy have seen a bit of sense. I’ve finally got help, and I’m made up with the ECHO and my solicitor at Linskills for his help. It just shows if you battle it out you can come through in the end.”

 

A spokesman for the Department for Work and Pensions said: “We have spoken to Mr Carr, to discuss further his individual circumstances and based on the facts now presented by him, have been able to revise decisions in his favour.”

 

Alls well that ends well I suppose, wonder why he had to get a lawyer and thank god for the Oldham echo.

[Whollier]

You keep harking on about the National Debt as if the mere mention of it was some kind of Key to all Mythologies dennis.

 

Clearly you've read a book about 17th century economics and were impressed by the author's point of view.

 

But back in the real world the debate here is about how much of our money the government spends supposedly on our behalf. The GE produced a sufficient number of MPs who think the amount is too great and are of a mind to do something about it. The proposed reductions are being resisted, not surprisingly, by the unions, whose members are the chief beneficiaries of all this government spending.

 

I'm afraid that if you think your post is either a coherent explanation of how we got into this mess, or a credible route-map out of it, then you are sorely mistaken.

[Strontium]

I really do love you SD, you're like one of them pads rugby players run at, great practice for keeping sharp.

 

Let's not let the facts get in the way of your story either:

 

Alls well that ends well I suppose, wonder why he had to get a lawyer and thank god for the Oldham echo.

 

 

I'm not surprised he sought the advice of a lawyer, untangling the bureaucracy of our benefits system would require professional help I think.

 

The article made it sound like he'd been denied benefits despite being a double amputee, when the reality is it was a clerical error. Just the latest in a series of oblique attacks on the government by Trinity Mirror, the country's least scrupulous news organisation.

[Cardie]

 

Liverpool Echo - News - Liverpool Local News - Disabled man refused benefits despite having two false legs

 

Yeah look at this loony lefty, lazy fucking bastard.

 

To be fair if he put them on his legs instead of on his hands he wouldn't need a wheelchair

[WaltonRed]

Bob Crow for PM!

[Strontium]

Bob Crow for PM!

 

 

Not sure he'd want to take the pay cut...

[dennis tooth]

You keep harking on about the National Debt as if the mere mention of it was some kind of Key to all Mythologies dennis.

 

Clearly you've read a book about 17th century economics and were impressed by the author's point of view.

 

But back in the real world the debate here is about how much of our money the government spends supposedly on our behalf. The GE produced a sufficient number of MPs who think the amount is too great and are of a mind to do something about it. The proposed reductions are being resisted, not surprisingly, by the unions, whose members are the chief beneficiaries of all this government spending.

 

I'm afraid that if you think your post is either a coherent explanation of how we got into this mess, or a credible route-map out of it, then you are sorely mistaken.

 

Yes, I agree, I want the national debt to be £0, £1 is too much, again, you missed my point because you only have a surface knowledge, I tried to throw you a few clues but now the surface is sure to lose face the longer we continue.

 

Again your next assumption about me reading such a book is crazy erroneous nonsense, you really should stop jumping around from one conclusion to the next, I had the same situation this morning with my egg while I was cooking it, you can't escape the heat, it's going to cook you unless you understand how to get out of the pan, jumping around in it is not going to help, it works with the national debt issue as well, anything else is just hoping some turns the heat of but people have to eat.

As it is you are barely scratching the surface on this subject matter, not touching the sides, you make love to virgins and I'll break them in later when your done.

Like Captain Smith on the Titanic ("I never saw a wreck and never have been wrecked, nor was I ever in any predicament that threatened to end in disaster of any sort.") a surface knowledge and confirmation bias will leave you to the icebergs. You may be about to face, like the turkey feeling the farmer is there to feed him each day on christmas eve, a revision in your foolish thoughts.

 

It is you who are not serious about reducing it not I, by the way why not consolidate all your loans into one easy monthly payment?

 

Bringing up the unions will not help, they are nothing but misled and have little to do with any of this, as I said we are talking about the top level and the unions have little to do but bicker over scraps. They are not of consequence.

 

I often admire those such as yourself who claim to live in the 'real' world, serious men who are incapable of thinking for themselves, they don't even understand the concept of thought much less love or nature itself, having long dismissed the real world pretending to have isolated chaos, deluding themselves they are in control, it is easy to break such limited thinking down by short circuiting with a dose of the actual real world so perhaps I should be happy.

 

You and your kind fail to understand knowledge is inverse, national law exists to serve us as a society not the other way round, but that's for another day let's examine what we are actually talking about not what you try to isolate it as with your limited boxed thoughts. You are all as easy as 1-2-3.

 

the debate here is about how much of our money the government spends supposedly on our behalf.

 

No it's not. (You frame a debate like a casino claiming randomness when the casino has prefixed odds and controls the environment but this is not under the pretext you give it.)

Here's why.

 

Everything the government spends, it has to borrow from the bank at interest.

 

That is the basic problem you and your real world thinking does not compute in your head, it is national debt.

The government does not print it's own money in any serious quantity, it borrows it at silly interest rates. The credit card companies and bank mnanagers lend a shit load more than the Royal Mint. The bank of England is a private entity, not public, all banks will lend out what they do not actually have in hope that everyone won't withdraw their money at the same time.

You probably think these are really clever ideas, dreamt up by serious real world men, modern day alchemotherapy, money is a non existent God, now your prayer altar is a cash machine so give thanks and praises.

Having just propped up the banks (The Tories would have done it and the Lib Dems, led by a bank man would have done the same. The deerty buggers.) the next move to cut is a sure fire way to fail, that 4% becomes shaky and all you do is make it more likely the bamks will fail again.

 

Now funnily enough I, myself kind of want the banks to fail, like any other unsustainable business. Twice you banking bastards die. Complete and utter revolution paradoxically becomes nearer the further away we appear to get from it according to Einsteins theories on relativity but I do not wish for victims swept up in vacuums and chaos to be sacrificed.....

If they are not financially 100% modeled in lends to assets/deposits then they are bound to fail sooner or later. You seem happy to prop them up and let the poor pay for it or else claim national debt has nowt to do with the banks but cos some guys with disability allowance are dragging us down or some other smelly red herring.

EVERY PENNY SPENT IS BORROWED AT INTEREST, SO IT DOESN'T MATTER, AS LONG AS EVERYTHING IS BORROWED AND A PRIVATE UNDEMOCRATIC BANK CAN CONTROL THE COUNTRY AND THE QUANTITY OF MONEY THEN BUST AND BOOM IS IN THEIR HANDS AND HAS BEEN SINCE 1690.

 

How can you allow a bank to create money it doesn't have and charge interest for it and call is sustainable and call yourself serious? Anything skipping around that fact is just window dressing due to ignorance or political motives.

[dennis tooth]

I'm not surprised he sought the advice of a lawyer, untangling the bureaucracy of our benefits system would require professional help I think.

 

The article made it sound like he'd been denied benefits despite being a double amputee, when the reality is it was a clerical error. Just the latest in a series of oblique attacks on the government by Trinity Mirror, the country's least scrupulous news organisation.

 

I can see your point sure.

He had been denied though so that is right. Why should he need the Echo and lawyer to get them to correct it? Surely available evidence he has no legs is enough?

No.

Oh, the Echo yo say, right oh, now would you look at that, it's all a simple error after all.

[dennis tooth]

Total Spending

Fiscal Years 2008 to 2012Year GDP Total Spending -total

£ billion

2008 1448.39 575.68 a

2009 1396 631.32 a

2010 1451.5 660.90 b

2011 1520 681.42 g

2012 1608.5 0.00

 

Legend:

a - actual outturn

b - estimated outturn in HM Treasury 2010 budget

e - estimate in HM Treasury 2010 budget

g - "guesstimated" projection by ukpublicspending.co.uk

 

Just looked up the figure based on the budget and I'm already right, it's already predicted to increase in 2011 based on the coalition budget, every penny borrowed at interest. From 660 to 681.

 

Public spending 'Cuts' ay. Where's it goin?

[lifetime fan]

I'm not surprised he sought the advice of a lawyer, untangling the bureaucracy of our benefits system would require professional help I think.

 

The article made it sound like he'd been denied benefits despite being a double amputee, when the reality is it was a clerical error. Just the latest in a series of oblique attacks on the government by Trinity Mirror, the country's least scrupulous news organisation.

 

You might want to think about that again Stronts.

[Hand Shandy]

I'm not surprised he sought the advice of a lawyer, untangling the bureaucracy of our benefits system would require professional help I think.

 

The article made it sound like he'd been denied benefits despite being a double amputee, when the reality is it was a clerical error. Just the latest in a series of oblique attacks on the government by Trinity Mirror, the country's least scrupulous news organisation.

 

Seriously? Did you really think things through and still write that?

 

All credibility gone.

[Pip-LFC]

As i see it the MPs will say things like its the best for the country to make cuts because it doesnt really effect any of them as they have there millions in the bank

[Strontium]

You might want to think about that again Stronts.

 

Seriously? Did you really think things through and still write that?

 

All credibility gone.

 

 

I appreciate you fellows are coming from a singularly biased position, but the facts bear it out.

 

Blogger "Guido Fawkes" helpfully published a bar chart in the wake of the reheated Coulson phone hacking story, using official data from the Information Commissioner's Office to show which news groups were guilty of the most offences so far as illegal use of confidential personal information is concerned:

 

 

Pretty clear, dontcha think?

[lifetime fan]

I appreciate you fellows are coming from a singularly biased position, but the facts bear it out.

 

Blogger "Guido Fawkes" helpfully published a bar chart in the wake of the reheated Coulson phone hacking story, using official data from the Information Commissioner's Office to show which news groups were guilty of the most offences so far as illegal use of confidential personal information is concerned:

 

 

Pretty clear, dontcha think?

 

No I don't think it's clear. And your example is poor to say the least.

 

Mirror trinity consists of The Mirror, Sunday Mirror, The People and local rags.

 

News International contains the s*n, the NOTW and Sky news alone.

 

Your example merely shows one aspect of a scrupulous news organisation. Does it cover the whole picture? We both know it doesn't.

 

Possibly News International have more experience in hiding their misdemeanours and have more money to pay people to shut the fuck up?

 

 

Stronts, your point was and is wrong, don't defend it just for the sake you hope not to lose face please.

[Hand Shandy]

Yes obviously, how foolish of me!

 

That's the only way in which one could measure a news organisation's 'scruples'...

[Strontium]

Stronts, your point was and is wrong, don't defend it just for the sake you hope not to lose face please.

 

 

I'm not, I'm defending it because the facts back it up. Nobody would have been more pleased than me to see Murdoch's organisation shown up to be the biggest lawbreaker in this country among media outlets. Unfortunately, the stats show something else. C'est la vie.

[lifetime fan]

I'm not, I'm defending it because the facts back it up. Nobody would have been more pleased than me to see Murdoch's organisation shown up to be the biggest lawbreaker in this country among media outlets. Unfortunately, the stats show something else. C'est la vie.

 

What are these facts? A selected section of complaints reportred by a right wing blogger? I thought you'd be able to do better than that.

 

What stats? You're talking shite fella.

[cochcaer]

No I don't think it's clear. And your example is poor to say the least.

 

It's total bollix. The chart is 'identified' cases, putting Best Magazine and the Sunday Sport ahead of The S*n.

[Strontium]

What are these facts? A selected section of complaints reportred by a right wing blogger? I thought you'd be able to do better than that.

 

What stats? You're talking shite fella.

 

 

Number of actual offences committed by the relevant organisations, as reported by the official regulatory body set up to deal with such violations.

 

If you have any facts which demonstrate anything to the contrary, now would be a good time to declare them.

[lifetime fan]

It's total bollix. The chart is 'identified' cases, putting Best Magazine and the Sunday Sport ahead of The S*n.

 

Stronts?

[lifetime fan]

Number of actual offences committed by the relevant organisations, as reported by the official regulatory body set up to deal with such violations.

 

If you have any facts which demonstrate anything to the contrary, now would be a good time to declare them.

 

I'm doing an application form for a promotion.

 

I'll come back and highlight the bollocks you're trying to prove as fact.

[cochcaer]

Stronts?

 

Aye. The top 4 are The Daily Mail (some way ahead), Sun, Mirror and Times.

 

You can use data from the PCC resolved list:

Press Complaints Commission >> Resolved complaints

[dennis tooth]

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

I think the only conclusion you can draw from that one snapshot is that none of them have any scruples. Coulsen was NOTW but of course, as any decent editor out trying to sell papers and outdo rival would naturally do, he gave all the juicy stuff to the Mirror.

 

I'll tell you what SD, you don't half change mate, you were only a week or so ago ready to slit your wrists in frustration cos this anonymous Guido fella you were calling for all kinds about how wrong he was for saying someone was gay, apparently then he ws clearly wrong and didn't know shit, now he suddenly become sort big reliable authority to you? (Is he working for Murdoch?)

 

It's hard to keep up with you these days it really is.

The only thing we can be sure of is 99.9 % of the time you are badly wrong and willing to die for it or change your mind it that gets too painful. Reasoning can always follow later.

[Strontium]

Stronts?

 

 

What? Aren't identified offences a good measure, or should we be condemning people on hearsay?

 

I'll tell you what SD, you don't half change mate, you were only a week or so ago ready to slit your wrists in frustration cos this anonymous Guido fella you were calling for all kinds about how wrong he was for saying someone was gay, apparently then he ws clearly wrong and didn't know shit, now he suddenly become sort big reliable authority to you? (Is he working for Murdoch?)

 

It's hard to keep up with you these days it really is.

The only thing we can be sure of is 99.9 % of the time you are badly wrong and willing to die for it or change your mind it that gets too painful. Reasoning can always follow later.

 

 

I think he was in the wrong for insinuating that about Hague, but that has nothing to do with official statistics from the Information Commissioner's Office on data protection offences committed by newspapers.

 

Sometimes he's wrong and sometimes he's right, I don't judge the veracity of something by who said it, but by how well supported it is by the evidence.