Berberis Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 What is it about reading simple words that you find so difficult? requote... Business organisations and City economists welcomed today's long-awaited announcement of £6.25bn of public spending cuts as proof that the coalition government is taking swift action to reduce the record budget deficit – but warned that the planned savings are just the beginning. Don't underestimate the likes of Titanic, Mecky and Wednesday1's ability to totally ignore the facts when trying to score political points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 You can cut the deficit three way: Increase income Reduce spending Sell assetts The first hits the well-off, whilst the second and third hits the poor, Guess what, the Government choose the second option. How do you plan to increase income????????????????????????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 What is it about reading simple words that you find so difficult? requote... Business organisations and City economists welcomed today's long-awaited announcement of £6.25bn of public spending cuts as proof that the coalition government is taking swift action to reduce the record budget deficit – but warned that the planned savings are just the beginning. Which part of my post did you fail to understand. "Of course Businesses are going to say that" Would you expect them to say something different? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 How do you plan to increase income????????????????????????? THe conventional wisdom is to increase taxation!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Don't underestimate the likes of Titanic, Mecky and Wednesday1's ability to totally ignore the facts when trying to score political points. A bit more for them to ignore.. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=516978&in_page_id=2 The spending cuts outlined by George Osborne won international backing last night. Leading global economists said the plans were 'tough, necessary and courageous'. The Organisation for economic Co-operation and Development praised the Coalition for producing a 'concrete and far-reaching plan' to tackle the £155bn annual deficit left by Labour. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 Don't underestimate the likes of Titanic, Mecky and Wednesday1's ability to totally ignore the facts when trying to score political points. If you'd put a red rosette on a dog they'd have voted for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bedders Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 If you'd put a red rosette on a dog they'd have voted for it. :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bigthumb Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 THe conventional wisdom is to increase taxation!!!!! So after 13 years in power whilst the record deficit and record debt were being built up why didn't those idiots in the Labour government think of it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marshlad Posted January 3, 2011 Share Posted January 3, 2011 It seems the current Government has once again got its sums wrong and they’ve under-estimated the additional cost of rising Unemployment. I know both parties have been out of power for a while and that potential for errors exist as a consequence of this, but could someone please get them to check and double-check their figures before they start trying to feed us nonsense we suspect isn’t true. Regarding the point, High Unemployment is shocking (we always seem to get it when the Tories are in power), so why can’t we be a little bit more sensible in this by reducing the hours of those in work and consequently getting others into work, and reducing the Welfare Bill. Whilst we are on this subject, can we have the age for claiming your Retirement Pension brought back down to 65 to free up jobs for people currently unemployed. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Rising-Unemployment-Will-Cost-An-Extra-14bn-According-To-The-Office-For-Budget-Responsibility/Article/201101115878715?lpos=Politics_First_Home_Article_Teaser_Region_2&lid=ARTICLE_15878715_Rising_Unemployment_Will_Cost_An_Extra_%3F1.4bn%2C_According_To_The_Office_For_Budget_Responsibility Are you some kind of moron? I don't want unemployment to rise but why should I have my hours cut, I wouldn't be able to manage if my hours were cut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted January 3, 2011 Author Share Posted January 3, 2011 A bit more for them to ignore.. http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=516978&in_page_id=2 The spending cuts outlined by George Osborne won international backing last night. Leading global economists said the plans were 'tough, necessary and courageous'. The Organisation for economic Co-operation and Development praised the Coalition for producing a 'concrete and far-reaching plan' to tackle the £155bn annual deficit left by Labour. So because they say it's right then we should all accept it. Let's put it another way. I'm Government minister for a day and I have to save a £100, I have two options: I take a tenner a week off 10 people already on the lowest income, or I take a £100 quid of a rich banker. Now I'm comfortable with choosing the banker option, which would you take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now