FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Profile Log in to check your private messages
The Leisure Hive Forum Index  Log in  Register
Question to Professor
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
 
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Leisure Hive Forum Index -> Current Affairs, History & Politics
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
xM002x
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:49 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheDarkLord wrote:
xM002x wrote:
RobFilth wrote:
Mistress Rani wrote:
Our situation is not the same as Greece, Ireland or Iceland. Don't you people read? Just another of Gideon's lies like "we were on the brink of bankruptcy.

Indeed, in real terms we were in a hell of a lot more debt after the second world war than presently, the economy was absolutely decimated by the costs of rebuilding the country and the costs incurred by the war.

But we could still afford the decency to set up a NHS system, social security system and free further education.

It's got fuck all to do with patriotism and more to do with not scapegoating sections of society because the richest of the country will not pull their fucking weight and take responsibility.


To be fair, I believe that was funded by America. See The Marshall Plan.

But, I agree in the broad sense that the only way out of recession is through government spending. Not laying people off! Confused


You cheeky cunt, you were going all Adam Smith on me the other night!


What do you mean? Because I don't like the idea of people being on the dole for 9+ years?
Back to top
Author Message
xM002x
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 12:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

You itchy scrot, DL.
Back to top
Author Message
xM002x
Guest





PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 1:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

TheDarkLord wrote:
xM002x wrote:
You itchy scrot, DL.


Very Happy

What are ya trying to get done then?

Uni stuff?


Not at this moment in time. I'm supposed to be going to sleep now, but tomorrow is the start of what I have coined as the "gruelathon". Involving 6 pieces of coursework for university due by the end of the week.

But it's not just that, though. I'm reading twice as slowly because every ten minutes I press F5 and look at some shit on here for a few minutes. Then I pick back up the book and need to find where I was etc.

Basically, I'm getting fuck all done.

Anyway I'm off to bed! TAR-TAR.
Back to top
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

xM002x wrote:
RobFilth wrote:
Mistress Rani wrote:
Our situation is not the same as Greece, Ireland or Iceland. Don't you people read? Just another of Gideon's lies like "we were on the brink of bankruptcy.

Indeed, in real terms we were in a hell of a lot more debt after the second world war than presently, the economy was absolutely decimated by the costs of rebuilding the country and the costs incurred by the war.

But we could still afford the decency to set up a NHS system, social security system and free further education.

It's got fuck all to do with patriotism and more to do with not scapegoating sections of society because the richest of the country will not pull their fucking weight and take responsibility.


To be fair, I believe that was funded by America. See The Marshall Plan.

But, I agree in the broad sense that the only way out of recession is through government spending. Not laying people off! Confused


We're not in recession. We've had three solid quarters of growth, all of which have exceeded expectations.

I disagree that Government spending encourages growth. It does in some respects, but if you look at Brown's spending, it only encouraged bubbles, not real growth. They all burst which is why we hit the recession.

You encourage growth through cutting taxes and letting people keep more of what they earn. That's not gonna happen for a while, because they are gonna be sorting out Labour's mess for so long.

When I was last on jobseekers I asked about setting up my own business, because that's what wanted. They told me I would have to find work while doing it. That's practically impossible, so I gave up on the idea. This government are putting in new practices to encourage going into business from jobseekers, so those million and a half going onto the dole will have more options about setting up new companies and creating jobs, instead of looking for jobs in the public sector that aren't there.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

War Arrow wrote:
Professor wrote:
RobFilth wrote:
Professor wrote:
That's all this change is, putting a cap on the damn thing. And a bloody high/generous one it is too. Yes some people may have to move out of homes they should never have moved into. If the figures are as high as the Guardian says, what? 600,000? That's 600,000 people who were basically conning the country out of thousands of pounds to live in places they should never have received housing benefit for in the first place.

600,000 corrupt and greedy landlords and 600,000 innocent homeless families.


Nonsense. Like I said, the cap is roughly £1,500 per month!

Even the greediest landlord that you actually live under is not gonna put the rent up that much. You have to choose to move into a house that charges that much per month.

In which case, I would not describe such people as innocent, and I certainly would not describe them as homeless, just because they have to move out of one of the most expensive areas on the planet. They are living on welfare. Yes they deserve a decent place, but not somewhere worth £1,500 a month that people earning £30/40,000 a year could not afford. And certainly the Government should refuse to pay such exorbitant rents. There are plenty of perfectly good places for £200/300 a month. So what if they aren't in central London. The individual on benefits does not have the right to choose hideously expensive accommodation until they can afford to pay for it themselves. You all believe in Socialism so much, go to North Korea where people are allocated the place where they get to live, with no choice at all, and they are genuinely happy for the privilege of being housed by the state.

We don't do that, we simply say that you live according to the economic ability of the state to provide for you. As much as you might like, the state does not have the cash to give 600,000 people more than £2k a month for their rent. It's perfectly reasonable to ask them to live within the means of the state or support themselves.


Er... not taking issue with anything else you've said, and forgive me if I've missed some qualifying point here, but I can assure you that unless you're on a council list (average waiting time now 12 years in Southwark as was) there really isn't anywhere for £300 to £400 a month in London (central or otherwise) unless you mean a room in a shared house. I moved just over a year ago. I had moved five times in the same number of years owing to numerous annoying circumstances including ridiculous rent increases. The last place I lived was a small studio flat, barely big enough for one, for £750 a month, and that was the cheapest I could find. And this was in Peckham.


And what is wrong with a room in a shared house? My brother is a professional in the West End and he lives in a room in a shared house, it's a good house and relatively cheap too.

Living on welfare means living on compromises. Like I said, in North Korea, where everyone lives on Welfare, you get massive families allocated two rooms. The state cannot afford to house everyone who wants to live in London.

Equally, as you say, you are struggling to find cheap accommodation. And that is Labour's fault for artificially pushing up prices by funding an underclass. Remove that funded underclass and rents will slip back down eventually. Why should they have the right to live in Central London on welfare, while you were struggling to rent in Peckham off your own back? Yes, house them appropriately, but not in Central London for goodness sake.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

RobFilth wrote:
Mistress Rani wrote:
Our situation is not the same as Greece, Ireland or Iceland. Don't you people read? Just another of Gideon's lies like "we were on the brink of bankruptcy.

Indeed, in real terms we were in a hell of a lot more debt after the second world war than presently, the economy was absolutely decimated by the costs of rebuilding the country and the costs incurred by the war.

But we could still afford the decency to set up a NHS system, social security system and free further education.

It's got fuck all to do with patriotism and more to do with not scapegoating sections of society because the richest of the country will not pull their fucking weight and take responsibility.


You'll also recall that everything was rationed at the time.

If the Government tried to ration anything now, You'd probably try to assassinate a minister.

The simple fact is there isn't enough to go round. Now you either get round that by rationing, or cutting, or some other way until there is enough to go round. But it's one or the other.

For example. We don't currently have enough cash to pay for everyone to get the horribly expensive cancer drugs they need. We could ration it, so that everyone gets 3/4's of the course of treatment they require. Result? Everyone dies. Instead, we portion out the drugs depending on need, age, fitness, and indeed sometimes by postcode lottery. Result: Some die, but some live. If we were to fund the drugs for everyone, then some other vital service would have to go to provide it.

It's not perfect by any means. It's horrible, but if you can come up with a better solution, please do. Because the best economic and political minds in the country have yet to do so.

Imagine you were one of those cancer patients and had the drugs denied to you. You'd go apeshit wouldn't you. While actually, there might be only enough money to treat you or a 6 year old kid. Then what would be your reaction?

I'm not saying it's as simple as that, but it's the way that Government has to work, if there's not enough money, then who is the most needy? Who needs the money the most? People on housing benefit of over £2k a month are not needy, when they can be rehomed in a cheaper place for £500 a month. It might sound barbaric to you, but all it is, is rationing houses. Just like food and silk and practically everything else was rationed during and after the war.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
_Liam_
Site Admin


Joined: 03 May 2007
Posts: 3854

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 9:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

They aren't the best political minds in the country Laughing they're people who play the game
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Pex



Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: Paradise Towers

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:05 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:

Living on welfare means living on compromises.


This isn't the US, people don't live 'on welfare' except in the sense that we all participate in the welfare state. I don't accept that people should have to move out of their accommodation into shared rooms just because they happen to be out of work.

Being unemployed is not a crime that we should punish people for.

And you know perfectly well that there's nothing socialist about North Korea, it's a monarchy run by a dictator with a surface sheen of communist rhetoric.
_________________
Coalition would mean Con policies, Con leadership by a Con party for a Con trick - Harold Wilson, October 1974
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

_Liam_ wrote:
They aren't the best political minds in the country Laughing they're people who play the game


I didn't specify who they were did I? Laughing

Seriously though. These are basic problems that have dogged politics since its invention. Firstly, do you fund welfare? It's only since the idea of human rights came in that that one even got started, Secondly, how much do you fund welfare? Fund it too much and you don't have enough cash for other things and people start to view living off the state as a choice. Fund it too little and people suffer.

It's the relativity of suffering that matters. Being kicked out of a massively expensive flat in London and having to move to a cheaper one in Essex is not suffering if it saves several billion a year which covers the cost of those cancer patients. I know I'm generalising budgets, but this is the essence of the point of government. They can't listen to individual hard luck stories. Everyone has one where they can't get a job or the state has let them down. They can only decide where the money should go and who is eligible for it. And when you come to it as an individual, it's tough if you're the one who loses out, but if you try and fund everyone and everything as Labour did, pretty soon the cash runs out and everyone loses out.

No one but no one has yet managed to pull money out of thin air. Not King John, not Gordon Brown, not Keynes. Generally though, if you get a strong private sector, the tax pot increases, the welfare state can keep up. Get a strong public sector and everyone has to scrap for limited cash which is only recycled, not generated. Not only that, you have to live and do as the state tells you. Hence all the bin watchers under Labour.

These cuts are thanks to this latter policy, where there was simply not enough money coming in to cover the outgoings. They are the legacy of Labour. Not the Tories or LD's.

I know everyone likes to slate Osbourne for not getting the rich taxes, but I realised yesterday, It's not actually his job to get them. He just sets how much money should come in and where it should go out. Osbourne has to consider how high taxes should be, set them too high and all the business runs off, evades, set them too low and not enough comes in. HMS Revenue and Customs is an entirely different ministry and it's they who are responsible for collecting that tax. They are the ones who should be chasing up Vodaphone, not Osbourne.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:22 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pex wrote:
Professor wrote:

Living on welfare means living on compromises.


This isn't the US, people don't live 'on welfare' except in the sense that we all participate in the welfare state. I don't accept that people should have to move out of their accommodation into shared rooms just because they happen to be out of work.

Being unemployed is not a crime that we should punish people for.

And you know perfectly well that there's nothing socialist about North Korea, it's a monarchy run by a dictator with a surface sheen of communist rhetoric.


Fine. They live on housing benefits then.

Ok, look at it this way. We as a country believe everyone should be housed. We have a relatively small number of people sleeping on the streets compared to most European countries. For that therefore we need social housing.

Now our stock of social housing is depleted, firstly because of Thatcher's right to buy, secondly because of the housing boom caused by Brown and everyone rushing to buy to let means that it is too expensive to buy new housing stock and even too expensive to build it. The Social Housing waiting lists are 7 years long or thereabouts.

Now. If you believe in getting everyone off the streets, as B3 does, as I'm sure you do. As I do, how do you go about it if you can't afford to build or buy and all your housing cash is going on a relatively small amount of people being charged exorbitant sums in Central London?

The only way to do it is to either nationalise all housing, or undermine the housing market, quite apart from getting the costs down, it will allow cheaper social housing to end the massive problem of homelessness and smaller problem of people on the streets.

Every decision has a knock on decision Pex. By keeping rents and housing prices artificially high, you increase the problem of homelessness. Who has the greater right? The homeless or people who are just moving house to a cheaper place in a suburb? This isn't about criminalising people. It's asking them, seeing as they are living on government money, to live affordably. They will have every right to ask their landlord for a cheaper rate, and the landlords, if they have any sense, will accept it.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Moderator General



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 1149
Location: City of the Damned

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:26 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
[For example. We don't currently have enough cash to pay for everyone to get the horribly expensive cancer drugs they need. We could ration it, so that everyone gets 3/4's of the course of treatment they require. Result? Everyone dies. Instead, we portion out the drugs depending on need, age, fitness, and indeed sometimes by postcode lottery. Result: Some die, but some live. If we were to fund the drugs for everyone, then some other vital service would have to go to provide it.


Perhaps this money for cancer drugs could come from obscenely rich tax avoiders. What's your objection to that?


Last edited by Moderator General on Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:32 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Moderator General



Joined: 02 Nov 2009
Posts: 1149
Location: City of the Damned

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
If you believe in getting everyone off the streets, as B3 does, as I'm sure you do. As I do, how do you go about it if you can't afford to build or buy and all your housing cash is going on a relatively small amount of people being charged exorbitant sums in Central London?


There's a place in Central London called Buckingham Palace which strikes me as far too large for the pair of work-shy, tax-avoiding immigrants who live there.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Pex



Joined: 06 May 2007
Posts: 2514
Location: Paradise Towers

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Professor wrote:
It's asking them, seeing as they are living on government money, to live affordably.


Who says they're living on government money? They may have paid 30 years' NI contributions before being thrown on the scrapheap. Perhaps people who get big tax breaks are also living on government money? It's only fair to dictate to them how they should live too.
_________________
Coalition would mean Con policies, Con leadership by a Con party for a Con trick - Harold Wilson, October 1974
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Moderator General wrote:
Professor wrote:
[For example. We don't currently have enough cash to pay for everyone to get the horribly expensive cancer drugs they need. We could ration it, so that everyone gets 3/4's of the course of treatment they require. Result? Everyone dies. Instead, we portion out the drugs depending on need, age, fitness, and indeed sometimes by postcode lottery. Result: Some die, but some live. If we were to fund the drugs for everyone, then some other vital service would have to go to provide it.


Perhaps this money for cancer drugs could come from obscenely rich tax avoiders. What's your objection to that?


I have no objection.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Author Message
Professor



Joined: 15 Apr 2009
Posts: 1948

PostPosted: Tue Nov 09, 2010 11:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pex wrote:
Professor wrote:
It's asking them, seeing as they are living on government money, to live affordably.


Who says they're living on government money? They may have paid 30 years' NI contributions before being thrown on the scrapheap. Perhaps people who get big tax breaks are also living on government money? It's only fair to dictate to them how they should live too.


I don't claim the system is perfect. In fact I think it's been completely destroyed by the last 50 years worth of government. And consequently that is the system we have to get to work. At the moment it does not work.

Either that or tear it all down and start again. Call me once you have a plan to deal with 65 million people that won't cause interim pain and that won't go tits up within two months.
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    The Leisure Hive Forum Index -> Current Affairs, History & Politics All times are GMT
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Page 2 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
 :: 
BBTech Template by © 2003-04 MDesign