Alright, I've been reading about Gideon and his cuts,
And I'm struggling a bit. I grasp the concept of him cutting in the wrong places, and maybe too quickly, and I get that a lot of people who are nice and rich are gonna be ok, while poorer people will suffer, which is shit. And I can see why a lot of people are pretty pissed off about, I am a bit too.
However, I keep seeing banners saying "no cuts" and "stop anymore cuts" and I just think, well, Gideon is wrong, but we are as a country in huge debt, how else do we sort it out without some sort of spending cuts somewhere?
( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:15, 4 replies, latest was 12 years ago)

What those people with signs write is "no more cuts"
What they actually mean is "no more cuts that affect me".

Big difference.
( Kroney, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:17, Reply)

also, no more cuts but we don't have viable alternative

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:18, Reply)

See, this I did consider, but I don't want to to believe enough people are that stupid.

( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:19, Reply)

We both work in occupations that prove without doubt that they are on a regular basis.
Don't fight it, Windy.
( Kroney, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:21, Reply)

I just, I just want it to be better.

( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:22, Reply)

This is the sort of thinking that inexorably leads towards eugenics and genocide
Just accept the stupidity. You cannot fix people.
( Kroney, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:23, Reply)

Cutting during a recession is bad
the government needs to spend to stimulate the economy. It seems counter-intuitive until you remember that running a country is completely different to personal finances.
( The Light in Chains don't touch the Pope's boner, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:17, Reply)

Ah yes, the old 'getting into worse debt to get yourself out of debt' trick.
Never fails. It's why I'm so rich.
( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:18, Reply)

It's like you read the post and then thought
"never mind, I'll just post what I was going to anyway regardless of the fact that it makes me look a complete spastic, oh wait, I am, so I guess it's par for the course."
(Bazongaloid, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:21, Reply)

I didn't read the post until you pointed this out.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:22, Reply)

Are you going to delete this post as well Al?
Monty should know what kind of cunt he's replying to here
( Reginald Donkeyfuck, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:28, Reply)

Why are you so angry today rory?

(Bazongaloid, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:29, Reply)

Why did you delete your post?

( Reginald Donkeyfuck, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:56, Reply)

This is like that Paxman/Howard interview

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 13:09, Reply)

Oh it so is.

(Bazongaloid, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 13:12, Reply)

Sounds like somebody's trying to "mix things up"

( Kroney, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:36, Reply)

Typical Quentin!

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:44, Reply)

i really hope it's not
that greasy neckless twat would be better off under a bus
( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:49, Reply)

I miss the little scamp

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:51, Reply)

urgh no
his occasional funny lines were far outweighed by random turgid crap
( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:53, Reply)

he was/is ace

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 13:03, Reply)

Can you elaborate as to why?
Sorry if this is dull, but I'm interested in alternatives.
( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:18, Reply)

The theory is the government spending stimulates growth which increases the amount coming back o the governemnt which can pay down the debt faster
however...if that spending doesn't create growth due to international issues out of a governments control, then they will have increased their debt, thus fucking the country further.

it's a gamble basically.
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:20, Reply)

Think about it like this:
A council in Norfolk has a couple of acres of unused land. At the moment to make money they sell it to a developer. They get x ammount of money one off.

If they had the budget they could hire a housing contractor/architect build 100 houses, sell them or make them social housing. They'd get much more money this way.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:28, Reply)

Ok, so why has the labour government said they will carry on the cuts if they come in to power?

( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:30, Reply)

Because they're shit and have let the right wing win the argument based on specious logic.
Also elected officials don't trust public sector staff to do anything, except the army who are arguably the worst performing group of people on the government payroll.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:31, Reply)

It has gone down in the public memory that this is all their fault
They are repositioning themselves to appear different from their predecessors.
( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:33, Reply)

Again, this is a failure on their part by refusing to actually take the argument back
they have let it become known that they left the economy in a mess, but they didn't, it was growing when they lost power.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:34, Reply)

Govenment spending doesn't disappear, it goes to contractors, employers, small firms, etc etc
They pay tax on their income and then pay money to other people in shops, who then pay tax and it all goes round and round. Turn off the tap and there's less money going round.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:22, Reply)

yes, but the government can't be expected to prop up the entire economy in this way

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:25, Reply)

Well they kind of can, seeing as how they're running the country and that.

( tangledupinblue hairy badge with moving eyes, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:28, Reply)

Yes, yes they can, this is what you are too stupid to understand.
The government can indeed prop up the economy for a short period of time until the economy grows enough to sustain itself.

But it takes the guts to actually invest with borrowed money, and also to stop that money being syphoned off by parasticic companies who don't pay taxes and banks who jsut sit on it. It actually has to go into peoples pockets, not into company balance sheets.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:33, Reply)

But I don't see any government being brave enough to take on the big tax dodgers,
Surely they employ too many people to just Fuck them off?
( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:36, Reply)

That's the stupid attitude that is causing the problems.
All companies will adjust to whatever regulatory regime you forece them into, they won't leave, they won't move, they will stay and make a profit. It might not be as much profit as before, but it's still a profit.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:45, Reply)

No need to call me stupid, I'm just curious.

( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:54, Reply)

I wasn't calling you stupid, it was saying teh attitude that a government has to kowtow to a business is stupid.

(Bazongaloid, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:57, Reply)

+ bi

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 13:03, Reply)

Ok, makes sense,
So, the thing to do would be to shuffle spending around to maximise it's potential for returns?
( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:26, Reply)

The worst thing for an economy is to have money not doing anything, sitting dormant.

(PsychoChomp, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:28, Reply)

Initially the thing to do is to use the fact that the government can borrow at a better rate than anyone else,
and the fact that we have a soverign currency and therefore we can pretty much do whatever the fuck we like (in the short term at least) in terms of internal spending, to invest in capital projects now, not in five or ten years time, but now.

This puts money in peoples pockets which they then go out and spend, this in turn allows manufacturers to make money and pay taxes and after a while you get a self supporting economy and you can make cuts and raise taxes to pay off the debts you built up doing this.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:29, Reply)

Well, you see, your mistake here is to have been sensible, logical and realistic instead of just shouting nonsense like a retarded student.

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:17, Reply)

although the guy who threw the fire extinguisher WAS ginger...

( rachelswipe with a fork, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:49, Reply)

Two ways to get rid of debt, increase income or decrease spending.
On a country wide scale country decreasing spending (in any real way) can and will decrease income. So he's pulling the wrong leavers.
The cuts are ideological not economic.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:19, Reply)

But I thought he was investing in infrastructure, while cutting fat out of certain sectors?

( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:21, Reply)

this spending review has included some large capital expenditure

( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:22, Reply)

It hasn't really
they have just re-announced a lot of projects that they were going to do anyway, and most of which are actually long term things that won't kick in for a number of years.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:24, Reply)

i haven't looked that closely tbh
large scale projects will always be long term
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:28, Reply)

This isn't just long term, this is "not actually going to happen for ten years"
and therefore announcing it now is just pointless window dressing, it means nothing and affects nothing and can be cut without having any effect because nothing has or will happen regarding it for years.
(Bazongaloid, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:30, Reply)

He's planning to invest in infrastructure from 2015 onwards, he's not doing it now and hasn't since 2008

(PsychoChomp, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:23, Reply)

Ok. I read that wrong then.

( Windy Pig I'm naturally quite suspicious about the moon., Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:26, Reply)

you're just sad to have lost your auto pay rise
I mean what the fuck was that about any way?*

* unless it's a pay adjustment which is fine
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:21, Reply)

Didn't have one, I'm on performance related pay as is everyone in the NHS (agenda for change rules).
And the pay adjustment is bullshit anyway, it was 0% for three years, now it'll be 1% for five, that's an effective pay cut.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:24, Reply)

this is as it should be
aside from the adjustment which sucks
( Naked Ape call me Caitlyn, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:28, Reply)

The savings of £2billion a year is plucked out of the air as well.
That's assuming everyone who gets an auto pay increase now won't get performance related bonus, and that running these pay reviews in every organisation will be free.
(PsychoChomp, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:45, Reply)

No one I know in public sector has had an auto payrise of any sort for a long time.
Again this is for the benefit of the Daily Heil and Express readers that think all civil servants work in London, wear bowler hats and carry an umbrella even in summer.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:29, Reply)

School leavers?

( Monty Boyce, My cheese game is strong, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:23, Reply)

He's pulling school leavers?
Oh dear. Yewtree ahoy.
( Kroney, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:24, Reply)

And also a load of bollocks, since public spending is still going up, not down
and that's even before you start with all the PFI nonsense that's "off the balance sheet".

He's just trying to keep the Daily Heil readers happy by kicking their favourite demons.
(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:26, Reply)

It's gone down as a percentage of GDP.
Only by about 4%
(PsychoChomp, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:29, Reply)

Which is a heck of a lot less than the 10% + year on year cuts he's claiming to be making

(localboy purveyor of pisspoor puns, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:36, Reply)

That's ignoring the ringfenced bits, like pensions that are like 40% of all spending.

(PsychoChomp, Thu 27 Jun 2013, 12:46, Reply)