NFL UK Forums

NFL UK Forums (https://forum.nfluk.com/index.php)
-   Off-Topic - Entertainment/News (https://forum.nfluk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=24)
-   -   Politics (https://forum.nfluk.com/showthread.php?t=49460)

boaby81 13.10.2015 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monsieur Moose (Post 2222482)
I'm sure he posts as if he is talking to himself. I don't think he cares about whether others understand it!.

Often true.

These forums ain't the liveliest.

Packers forum can be dead for weeks on end. Scottish fitba thread is deader than the Lions' playoff hopes.

Even game day threads are quiet.

I might be the only person who replies to what I post. I'm my target audience. Poor boaby, nae wonder the man's gypit.

leebladedawg 13.10.2015 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boaby81 (Post 2222495)
Often true.

These forums ain't the liveliest.

Packers forum can be dead for weeks on end. Scottish fitba thread is deader than the Lions' playoff hopes.

Even game day threads are quiet.

I might be the only person who replies to what I post. I'm my target audience. Poor boaby, nae wonder the man's gypit.

Could be worse pal, I'm my target audience so imagine how I feel :D

Dartmoor Falcon 13.10.2015 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leebladedawg (Post 2222512)
Could be worse pal, I'm my target audience so imagine how I feel :D

But at least the rest of us understand what you're on about.

leebladedawg 13.10.2015 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dartmoor Falcon (Post 2222534)
But at least the rest of us understand what you're on about.

Given some responses to my logic o highly doubt that :p

Dartmoor Falcon 13.10.2015 05:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leebladedawg (Post 2222536)
Given some responses to my logic o highly doubt that :p

Ok, we sometimes understand (or can guess) what you are on about. ;)

Csonka#39 13.10.2015 10:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by boaby81 (Post 2222492)
Politics. Clue's in the thread title.

Ya dont say :rolleyes:

RichardCunliffe 14.10.2015 06:26 PM

So the Chancellor wants the Government to run the budget at a surplus..................what? so you mean they shouldn't bury the country in debt?!

Is it me, or is it borderline criminal that things like this even require discussion in Parliament? I know it's not as simple as that, but how can building debt be in anyway beneficial in the first place?!

The way countries are run (into the ground) amazes me at times. :rolleyes:

leebladedawg 14.10.2015 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCunliffe (Post 2222837)
So the Chancellor wants the Government to run the budget at a surplus..................what? so you mean they shouldn't bury the country in debt?!

Is it me, or is it borderline criminal that things like this even require discussion in Parliament? I know it's not as simple as that, but how can building debt be in anyway beneficial in the first place?!

The way countries are run (into the ground) amazes me at times. :rolleyes:

The problem is its one thing saying the govts over next, let's say 50 years, stick to this surplus idea, but in reality it may and probably never work whilst no one else follows on

I don't think Corbyn or Labour are opposing because they automatically want to borrow but you can't play the let's be full on austerity for ever until the world corrects itself

This motion is nothing short of a con put forward by centre thinking politicians who think let's tell the public what they want to hear because it makes us look good rather than being realistic

European Bob 14.10.2015 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichardCunliffe (Post 2222837)
So the Chancellor wants the Government to run the budget at a surplus..................what? so you mean they shouldn't bury the country in debt?!

Is it me, or is it borderline criminal that things like this even require discussion in Parliament? I know it's not as simple as that, but how can building debt be in anyway beneficial in the first place?!

The way countries are run (into the ground) amazes me at times. :rolleyes:

Well, some debt is good. It allows things to happen quicker or the benefits of things to be felt sooner, or growth to be faster. The simple example is buying a house: I've just bought a house and borrowed a lot to do it. Without debt, I would be saving to buy a house until I'm 50 years old or something. By borrowing, I get to have it now and 20-odd years' extra benefit of living in my own place. In business a company could grow more quickly, develop new products more quickly. In the public sector it could mean you get a new hospital now rather than later. So some debt can be good. It is then paid off in the longer term and the benefits yielded outweigh the cost of borrowing. Whatever interest I pay on my mortgage is less than the value I get from 20 extra years owning my home (enjoyment, not paying rent etc).

The problem comes when debt becomes necessary just to get along day-day, week-to-week, month-to-month. It's not a case of long-term investment to improve things more quickly, but simply maintaining the status quo. That is where a number of governments have got to: they cannot function even in the short-term without borrowing what they don't have, and rather than paying off previous debts in the long run, they just continue to borrow more and more, with dwindling prospects of ever paying it back.

We do appear to have got to the point where running government at a surplus seems almost novel, or unachievable. It used to happen more often, or at least be only marginally over - Bill Clinton ran the budget at a surplus for example, and so did Blair's government for 4 years and Thatcher's near the end of her time in charge. It's only in the Brown and Cameron years that the deficit has really mushroomed. Osborne's intentions are certainly noble. It is sensible to aim for this - it's not even repaying the debt, it's just stopping it getting even bigger. And I suppose if he wants other areas of public services to do the same, central government needs to set an example.

RichardCunliffe 14.10.2015 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leebladedawg (Post 2222851)
The problem is its one thing saying the govts over next, let's say 50 years, stick to this surplus idea, but in reality it may and probably never work whilst no one else follows on

I don't think Corbyn or Labour are opposing because they automatically want to borrow but you can't play the let's be full on austerity for ever until the world corrects itself

This motion is nothing short of a con put forward by centre thinking politicians who think let's tell the public what they want to hear because it makes us look good rather than being realistic

Quote:

Originally Posted by European Bob (Post 2222853)
Well, some debt is good. It allows things to happen quicker or the benefits of things to be felt sooner, or growth to be faster. The simple example is buying a house: I've just bought a house and borrowed a lot to do it. Without debt, I would be saving to buy a house until I'm 50 years old or something. By borrowing, I get to have it now and 20-odd years' extra benefit of living in my own place. In business a company could grow more quickly, develop new products more quickly. In the public sector it could mean you get a new hospital now rather than later. So some debt can be good. It is then paid off in the longer term and the benefits yielded outweigh the cost of borrowing. Whatever interest I pay on my mortgage is less than the value I get from 20 extra years owning my home (enjoyment, not paying rent etc).

The problem comes when debt becomes necessary just to get along day-day, week-to-week, month-to-month. It's not a case of long-term investment to improve things more quickly, but simply maintaining the status quo. That is where a number of governments have got to: they cannot function even in the short-term without borrowing what they don't have, and rather than paying off previous debts in the long run, they just continue to borrow more and more, with dwindling prospects of ever paying it back.

We do appear to have got to the point where running government at a surplus seems almost novel, or unachievable. It used to happen more often, or at least be only marginally over - Bill Clinton ran the budget at a surplus for example, and so did Blair's government for 4 years and Thatcher's near the end of her time in charge. It's only in the Brown and Cameron years that the deficit has really mushroomed. Osborne's intentions are certainly noble. It is sensible to aim for this - it's not even repaying the debt, it's just stopping it getting even bigger. And I suppose if he wants other areas of public services to do the same, central government needs to set an example.

Yep, that's why I alluded to it not being as simple as that. I think my issue is if you didn't get into debt in the first place (again, not as simple as that) then you would be able to afford the things you have to borrow for instead. This goes back years and years basically.

The whole thing (government) is flawed anyway. I don't know the answer (outside of a dictatorship - which I'm not in favour of btw :o), but electing governments every 4 years or so is counter productive. All you have is a yo-yo effect. One side setting out to do the opposite of the other. Borrowing is the perfect example. One government makes cut backs, try's to pay off the debt, the public feel the pinch and get fed up. Another party is voted in on promises of getting the country back on it's feet, has to borrow to do so because the country is in debt, and basically undoes all the 'good work' done by the previous regime. Then that government gets voted out when it can no longer keep it's spending promises, and another comes in on the back of promises to cut the debt. Rinse. Wash. Repeat.

(Well that's my very simplistic view of it anyway :D)


All times are GMT +0. The time now is 12:40 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.