If we should keep on spending where is the money to come from?

by Clarkson Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:11 pm

The left on here constantly bleat about benefit cuts, This despite a general acknowledgement in the (sane)population that the benefit system had gone far beyond where Beveridge thought it should.

There is absolutely no acknowledgement of the Jeremy Kyle generations. This despite a number of senior figures in the Labour party acknowledging it has got distorted over time.

The theme seems to be that we should tax hard working people more to protect those who don't want to work. I fail to see how that is a blue print for encouraging enterprise.

I would not begrudge a single penny of welfare if it were targeted on the truly needy. Indeed we waste so much on the Jeremy Kylers those in desperate need and who aren't as savvy are fighting for tighter resources go without.

As long as the unthinking kneejerk left continue to deny there is a problem with reforming the system the really needy wont get what they deserve,

Moreover if we raise taxes as Hollande has done no one will.

It all the left have to offer is tax and spend and the electorate buy into the idea of a free lunch then we are doomed.

Whist I accept that simplifications of the tax system and better enforcement will grab some more money the amount of debt interest which already accounts for £50 billion per years means however much you bleat we have no choices left.

Had Labour had its way it would have done an Hollande, Balls has been explicit about that. We know how disastrous that has been so were do you lefties think you can do all you honk you can.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:33 pm

I notice you are studiously avoiding the posts I have made that show benefit spending is a moot point in all of this
Its all smoke and mirrors
the benefits bill is miniscule in comparison to the national budget
Yes really....provided you remove pensions first.
All this cobblers about reducing benefits to balance the books is like picking up a penny to reduce your mortgage, and has about as much effect.
Moreover it is now even admitted by that evil lot in westminster that the cuts are not just hitting the "scroungers" of which there are (relatively) few, BUT is also hitting hardworking POOR families as well, and that the further cuts they envisage will do so even more.
This hasnt been a "war" on benefit scrounging It has been a war on the poor in general, disguised as a war on scroungers.
The "benefit scrounger" always was a "straw man" to divert the attention of the real target....

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 6:40 pm

I would start by getting all those corporate tax dodgers to pay what they should.
That would raise so much more than fiddling with benefits ever could

by Clarkson Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:09 pm

grumpy old git wrote:I notice you are studiously avoiding the posts I have made that show benefit spending is a moot point in all of this
Its all smoke and mirrors
the benefits bill is miniscule in comparison to the national budget
Yes really....provided you remove pensions first.
All this cobblers about reducing benefits to balance the books is like picking up a penny to reduce your mortgage, and has about as much effect.
Moreover it is now even admitted by that evil lot in westminster that the cuts are not just hitting the "scroungers" of which there are (relatively) few, BUT is also hitting hardworking POOR families as well, and that the further cuts they envisage will do so even more.
This hasnt been a "war" on benefit scrounging It has been a war on the poor in general, disguised as a war on scroungers.
The "benefit scrounger" always was a "straw man" to divert the attention of the real target....

I see if its only a few billion which it isn't btw we shouldn't care about creating a barrier to work and families who have three generations who have never worked.

You lefties use the term bedroom tax for example. How can it be a tax benefits receivers don't pay tax! What it is is a means to control expenditure and ensure someone doesn't end up in a mansion which someone working all the hours god sends cant afford. Benefits are a basic provision not a luxury provision.

Personally I make a exception for very exceptional cases. e.g Someone who is quadriplegic requiring 24/7 care. Then I think as there no alternatives for that person then a higher provision should be made.

However because you guys continually defend the indefensible and resist all reforms as Labour has done you will ultimately disadavantage the really needy.

Nothing new there. The same applies to taxes. Tax the rich (as you call them not all high rate taxpayers are rich by any means) you force them away. The remaining modest earners are taxed more to fill the gap.

I's no point denying that will happen it did under Brown and it has under Hollande.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:23 pm

Clarkson wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:I notice you are studiously avoiding the posts I have made that show benefit spending is a moot point in all of this
Its all smoke and mirrors
the benefits bill is miniscule in comparison to the national budget
Yes really....provided you remove pensions first.
All this cobblers about reducing benefits to balance the books is like picking up a penny to reduce your mortgage, and has about as much effect.
Moreover it is now even admitted by that evil lot in westminster that the cuts are not just hitting the "scroungers" of which there are (relatively) few, BUT is also hitting hardworking POOR families as well, and that the further cuts they envisage will do so even more.
This hasnt been a "war" on benefit scrounging It has been a war on the poor in general, disguised as a war on scroungers.
The "benefit scrounger" always was a "straw man" to divert the attention of the real target....

I see if its only a few billion which it isn't btw we shouldn't care about creating a barrier to work and families who have three generations who have never worked.

You lefties use the term bedroom tax for example. How can it be a tax benefits receivers don't pay tax! What it is is a means to control expenditure and ensure someone doesn't end up in a mansion which someone working all the hours god sends cant afford. Benefits are a basic provision not a luxury provision.

Personally I make a exception for very exceptional cases. e.g Someone who is quadriplegic requiring 24/7 care. Then I think as there no alternatives for that person then a higher provision should be made.

However because you guys continually defend the indefensible and resist all reforms as Labour has done you will ultimately disadavantage the really needy.

Nothing new there. The same applies to taxes. Tax the rich (as you call them not all high rate taxpayers are rich by any means) you force them away. The remaining modest earners are taxed more to fill the gap.

I's no point denying that will happen it did under Brown and it has under Hollande.

Clarkson, they've heard that a million times - from the leaders of the country to posters on forums.

You have made it perfectly clear, perfectly fair and balanced, but it just doesn't matter.

I can't blame them one bit - there are a few people on benefits who I have heard admit that it just isn't fair but if you are given a good comfortable lifestyle for doing nothing while others struggle working a 40 hour week, wouldn't you also fight tooth and nail to keep your luxury, lazy lifestyle?

by Ben Reilly Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:29 pm

"Three generations who have never worked" is something that probably happens a lot less than you think it does, Clarkson. I'd like to see figures and percentages and I'll take those over anecdotes any day.

There will always be people who cheat on benefits; you can't have a benefits system, a tax code or any law or system that doesn't have cheaters.

When fraud constitutes a significant portion of it, you need to reform it, not abolish it and leave children to starve. And if someone leaves the country rather than pay its taxes, you're better off in the long run because that person was only loyal to low taxes, not to his or her community.

It's already been proven that austerity has hurt the U.K., not helped it. The negative effects of austerity will likely be felt by generations of Britons now. What you do is, you increase debt during recessions and you pay it off during times of prosperity, just like Keynes said.

The way you pay it off is you increase taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, and it doesn't even have to be a huge increase. Your average millionaire sees taxes go up by, say, 5 percent on everything he earns over a certain mark and has to decide whether that's worth completely uprooting his life and fleeing to some country that doesn't have its act together.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:29 pm

Ah, that old chestnut Drinky, tell a lie often enough and idiots will believe it:

The Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a study in December testing whether there were three generations of the same family that had never worked. Despite dogged searching, researchers were unable to find such families. If they exist, they account for a minuscule fraction of workless people. Under 1% of workless households might have two generations who have never worked – about 15,000 households in the UK. Families with three such generations will therefore be even fewer.

The graphic shows this broken down. Importantly, families experiencing long-term worklessness remained committed to the value of work and preferred to be in jobs rather than on benefits. There was no evidence of "a culture of worklessness" – values, attitudes and behaviours discouraging employment and encouraging welfare dependence – in the families being passed down the generations. The long-term worklessness of parents in these families was a result of complex problems (particularly related to ill-health) associated with living in long-term and deep poverty. In an already tight labour market, multiple problems combined to place people at the back of a long queue for jobs.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/apr/06/welfare-britain-facts-myths

What is indefensible is demonising people who, the very system that you are upholding is the system that stops them getting work. So many jobs have been lost because of this government, and those that have been created are part time or zero hours, very few are full, and those that are, are on minimum wage. That means that all those people this government put out of work, who before were earning decent money and not claiming any benefit, are now out of work claiming benefit, or in a large number of cases, earning a lot less or only working part time, and are there on working tax credit.

As for the rich will leave if they are taxed, does that apply to all those multinationals who it has been shown are on the most part paying a tiny percentage of the tax they should be paying. As for the rich running if they are asked to pay more tax, where the hell do they think they got the money from? Dirtying their own fair hands? No, they got it from people working for them, the rest of society, and they owe society a fair amount of taxes, and if they run, do you really think there is no-one else that can't do their jobs. Like hell there is not!

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:32 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:"Three generations who have never worked" is something that probably happens a lot less than you think it does, Clarkson. I'd like to see figures and percentages and I'll take those over anecdotes any day.

There will always be people who cheat on benefits; you can't have a benefits system, a tax code or any law or system that doesn't have cheaters.

When fraud constitutes a significant portion of it, you need to reform it, not abolish it and leave children to starve. And if someone leaves the country rather than pay its taxes, you're better off in the long run because that person was only loyal to low taxes, not to his or her community.

It's already been proven that austerity has hurt the U.K., not helped it. The negative effects of austerity will likely be felt by generations of Britons now. What you do is, you increase debt during recessions and you pay it off during times of prosperity, just like Keynes said.

The way you pay it off is you increase taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, and it doesn't even have to be a huge increase. Your average millionaire sees taxes go up by, say, 5 percent on everything he earns over a certain mark and has to decide whether that's worth completely uprooting his life and fleeing to some country that doesn't have its act together.

Nah sorry Ben, you're wrong on pretty much every count.

And the people of the UK agree with me and George Osborne, which is why we voted them in.

by Clarkson Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:33 pm

No Andy I wouldn't but if I were an indolent idle bastard like many are yes I would.

What I can't understand Andy is the lefties cant do simple maths. We simply cant afford all they want. Even if they win, like before, they will go bust and the unions will bring them down when the IMF make them cut.

Why therefore do they hide their heads in he sand about the reality of where we are.

Nems I acknowledge that large corporates have been dealt with too leniently. However even if we were to have got every penny of them the gap would still be huge.

The left have to take on board the state is far too big to support. Indeed the pension commitments alone for superannuated public servants will prove a challenge which the coaliton have kicked into the long grass.

The thing is if you tell a lefty not to sit on a beach just there because the tide s about to come in when they are drowning they will still deny you are right. That's how pigheaded and thick they truly are.

by Clarkson Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:36 pm

Ben you are in denial. More moderate lefties acknowledge the system is corrupted. Beveridge was very concerned to keep the incentive to work in the system. Modern left wingers have done the opposite.

You cant afford to ignore it especially as this is still a democracy the politicians should do as the people want.

God forbid a lefty ever did that though.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:40 pm

Clarkson wrote:No Andy I wouldn't but if I were an indolent idle bastard like many are yes I would.

What I can't understand Andy is the lefties cant do simple maths. We simply cant afford all they want. Even if they win like before they will go bust and the unions will bring them down when the IMF make them cut.

Why therefore do they hide their heads in he sand about the reality of where we are.

Nems I acknowledge that large corporates have been dealt with too leniently. However even if we were to have got every penny of them the gap would still be huge.

The left have to take on board the state is far too big to support. Indeed the pension commitments alone for superannuated public servants will prove a challenge which the coaliton have kicked into the long grass.

The thing is if you tell a lefty not to sit on a beach just there because the tide s about to come in when they are drowning they will still deny you are right. That's how pigheaded and thick they truly are.

Very true Clarkson, very true.

As I read, or heard about 1 year ago, benefit spongers are the worst of the worst, because they are just so stupid - they take and take and when the river runs dry they're not good enough to go and earn money - they just sit there with their upturned cap, waiting for the workers to fill it with money.

And I don't need to go and find any statistics for this on the net - just look at the situation right now! They're screaming at a government with no money to go and take more loans out... SO THEY CAN CARRY ON SPENDING!!!

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:40 pm

What I can't understand is how you completely ignore the evidence, read the above and learn for one, what you are saying about three generations has been shown to be a complete and utter lie.

by Original Quill Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:41 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:"Three generations who have never worked" is something that probably happens a lot less than you think it does, Clarkson. I'd like to see figures and percentages and I'll take those over anecdotes any day.

There will always be people who cheat on benefits; you can't have a benefits system, a tax code or any law or system that doesn't have cheaters.

When fraud constitutes a significant portion of it, you need to reform it, not abolish it and leave children to starve. And if someone leaves the country rather than pay its taxes, you're better off in the long run because that person was only loyal to low taxes, not to his or her community.

It's already been proven that austerity has hurt the U.K., not helped it. The negative effects of austerity will likely be felt by generations of Britons now. What you do is, you increase debt during recessions and you pay it off during times of prosperity, just like Keynes said.

The way you pay it off is you increase taxes on the wealthy and on corporations, and it doesn't even have to be a huge increase. Your average millionaire sees taxes go up by, say, 5 percent on everything he earns over a certain mark and has to decide whether that's worth completely uprooting his life and fleeing to some country that doesn't have its act together.

Nah sorry Ben, you're wrong on pretty much every count.

And the people of the UK agree with me and George Osborne, which is why we voted them in.

I do laugh, andy. Because you guys never get it. You think that a nation runs just like the the family budget. Despite Ronald Reagan, who did get it, you appear not to have understood Keynesian economic theory.

Well, I'm not going to take the time to make up for when you cut class. Suffice it to say, a nation's economy is nothing like the family budget. It's more like a machine. And, as the overseerer, your job becomes that of engineer rather the bicycle peddler.

But you just keep peddling along, doncha?

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 7:53 pm

Sadly so does the chancellor

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:34 pm

http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2013/05/11/japan-is-about-to-prove-keynesian-economics-entirely-wrong/

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 8:37 pm

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/editorials/2013/10/19/history-shows-keynesian-economics-doesnt-work.html

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:34 pm

Clarkson wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:I notice you are studiously avoiding the posts I have made that show benefit spending is a moot point in all of this
Its all smoke and mirrors
the benefits bill is miniscule in comparison to the national budget
Yes really....provided you remove pensions first.
All this cobblers about reducing benefits to balance the books is like picking up a penny to reduce your mortgage, and has about as much effect.
Moreover it is now even admitted by that evil lot in westminster that the cuts are not just hitting the "scroungers" of which there are (relatively) few, BUT is also hitting hardworking POOR families as well, and that the further cuts they envisage will do so even more.
This hasnt been a "war" on benefit scrounging It has been a war on the poor in general, disguised as a war on scroungers.
The "benefit scrounger" always was a "straw man" to divert the attention of the real target....

I see if its only a few billion which it isn't btw we shouldn't care about creating a barrier to work and families who have three generations who have never worked.

PROVE IT.....you cant, whereas I CAN prove its insignificant, and using the govts own figures too.

You suffer badly from cognitive dissonance in these matters drinky....

You lefties use the term bedroom tax for example. How can it be a tax benefits receivers don't pay tax! What it is is a means to control expenditure and ensure someone doesn't end up in a mansion which someone working all the hours god sends cant afford. Benefits are a basic provision not a luxury provision.

there you go turning the truth on its head to suit your transparent agenda, Bed room tax ISNT a tax benefit ...IS IT? Its a penalty for having (often) been placed in accomodation that is admittedly too large, not from choice but because THAT is what the housing authority had available (since there is a patent LACK of smaller accomodation.)

Personally I make a exception for very exceptional cases. e.g Someone who is quadriplegic requiring 24/7 care. Then I think as there no alternatives for that person then a higher provision should be made.

However YOU view it, plainly from the bedroom tax thread, It doesnt work like that...does it????

However because you guys continually defend the indefensible and resist all reforms as Labour has done you will ultimately disadavantage the really needy.

Nothing new there. The same applies to taxes. Tax the rich (as you call them not all high rate taxpayers are rich by any means) you force them away. The remaining modest earners are taxed more to fill the gap.

I's no point denying that will happen it did under Brown and it has under Hollande.

possibly true...BUT making them, and the greedy grasping big corporations pay THEIR DUE would solve the problems we have and then some.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:37 pm

I love how right-wing liars cite other right-wing liars in an attempt to prove right-wing lies ...

::lies:: ::lies:: ::lies:: ::lies:: ::lies:: ::lies::

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:38 pm

NemsAgain wrote:Sadly so does the chancellor

+1

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:40 pm

Anyone want to comment on the idea that Keynesian economics has been proven not to work? As demonstrated in my links above?

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:40 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
Clarkson wrote:No Andy I wouldn't but if I were an indolent idle bastard like many are yes I would.

What I can't understand Andy is the lefties cant do simple maths. We simply cant afford all they want. Even if they win like before they will go bust and the unions will bring them down when the IMF make them cut.

Why therefore do they hide their heads in he sand about the reality of where we are.

Nems I acknowledge that large corporates have been dealt with too leniently. However even if we were to have got every penny of them the gap would still be huge.

The left have to take on board the state is far too big to support. Indeed the pension commitments alone for superannuated public servants will prove a challenge which the coaliton have kicked into the long grass.

The thing is if you tell a lefty not to sit on a beach just there because the tide s about to come in when they are drowning they will still deny you are right. That's how pigheaded and thick they truly are.

Very true Clarkson, very true.

As I read, or heard about 1 year ago, benefit spongers are the worst of the worst, because they are just so stupid - they take and take and when the river runs dry they're not good enough to go and earn money - they just sit there with their upturned cap, waiting for the workers to fill it with money.

And I don't need to go and find any statistics for this on the net - just look at the situation right now! They're screaming at a government with no money to go and take more loans out... SO THEY CAN CARRY ON SPENDING!!!

Of course you dont andy, finding out the truth would destroy that comfortable little illusion you live in...

The right NEVER want to face the reality.....

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:43 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Very true Clarkson, very true.

As I read, or heard about 1 year ago, benefit spongers are the worst of the worst, because they are just so stupid - they take and take and when the river runs dry they're not good enough to go and earn money - they just sit there with their upturned cap, waiting for the workers to fill it with money.

And I don't need to go and find any statistics for this on the net - just look at the situation right now! They're screaming at a government with no money to go and take more loans out... SO THEY CAN CARRY ON SPENDING!!!

Of course you dont andy, finding out the truth would destroy that comfortable little illusion you live in...

The right NEVER want to face the reality.....

How can something that is subjective be faced?

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:49 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Very true Clarkson, very true.

As I read, or heard about 1 year ago, benefit spongers are the worst of the worst, because they are just so stupid - they take and take and when the river runs dry they're not good enough to go and earn money - they just sit there with their upturned cap, waiting for the workers to fill it with money.

And I don't need to go and find any statistics for this on the net - just look at the situation right now! They're screaming at a government with no money to go and take more loans out... SO THEY CAN CARRY ON SPENDING!!!

Of course you dont andy, finding out the truth would destroy that comfortable little illusion you live in...

The right NEVER want to face the reality.....

Of course I don't need to show statistics - have a look at this bloody forum, git - 50% of the threads are from left wing spongers complaining that their golden goose has stopped laying eggs for them and they just don't know what to do about it.

Well I have the answer for them

GET A JOB

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:50 pm

well now, subjective/objective....yes I have dealt with this before

subjective when it doesnt suit you and objective when it does

(hardly the dictionary definition but definitly how it is used in practice)

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 9:56 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

Of course you dont andy, finding out the truth would destroy that comfortable little illusion you live in...

The right NEVER want to face the reality.....

Of course I don't need to show statistics - have a look at this bloody forum, git - 50% of the threads are from left wing spongers complaining that their golden goose has stopped laying eggs for them and they just don't know what to do about it.

Well I have the answer for them

GET A JOB

yeah just the typical R/W er.....we dont need proof, our predjudice is suficient

I know of an era and another place when the justice system worked like this......

I know of a here and now where freedom from oppression for minorities works like this,

I know of some here who complain that the left dont debate, when all the right want to do is pontificate at length with no substance

So far The ONLY R/W poster on here that has my respect is Sphinx, who at least sometimes provides actual evidence, and makes reasoned arguments for her case even if her evidence is only hearsay....I may disagree, but thats the nature of debate.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:07 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Of course I don't need to show statistics - have a look at this bloody forum, git - 50% of the threads are from left wing spongers complaining that their golden goose has stopped laying eggs for them and they just don't know what to do about it.

Well I have the answer for them

GET A JOB

yeah just the typical R/W er.....we dont need proof, our predjudice is suficient

I know of an era and another place when the justice system worked like this......

I know of a here and now where freedom from oppression for minorities works like this,

I know of some here who complain that the left dont debate, when all the right want to do is pontificate at length with no substance

So far The ONLY R/W poster on here that has my respect is Sphinx, who at least sometimes provides actual evidence, and makes reasoned arguments for her case even if her evidence is only hearsay....I may disagree, but thats the nature of debate.

Sphinx prefers not to use the old LW/RW classification of political belief but rather the more accurate big stateist/small stateist descriptor where belief is defined around the size of the states role in peoples lives.

by Ben Reilly Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:11 pm

sphinx wrote:Anyone want to comment on the idea that Keynesian economics has been proven not to work? As demonstrated in my links above?

I did -- both of them are right-wing frauds, peddling lies. ::lies::

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:21 pm

Ben_Reilly wrote:
sphinx wrote:Anyone want to comment on the idea that Keynesian economics has been proven not to work? As demonstrated in my links above?

I did -- both of them are right-wing frauds, peddling lies. ::lies::

Oh right.

So when there is a subject on which there is divided opinion with both sides putting forward supporting evidence the side someone disagrees with is are lie peddling fraudsters.

I will bear that in mind when I see arguments I disagree with.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:50 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

yeah just the typical R/W er.....we dont need proof, our predjudice is suficient

I know of an era and another place when the justice system worked like this......

I know of a here and now where freedom from oppression for minorities works like this,

I know of some here who complain that the left dont debate, when all the right want to do is pontificate at length with no substance

So far The ONLY R/W poster on here that has my respect is Sphinx, who at least sometimes provides actual evidence, and makes reasoned arguments for her case even if her evidence is only hearsay....I may disagree, but thats the nature of debate.

Sphinx prefers not to use the old LW/RW classification of political belief but rather the more accurate big stateist/small stateist descriptor where belief is defined around the size of the states role in peoples lives.

I think, that in order to answer that sphinx, we must first define what the role of the state in peoples lives is per se. Does the state own and control its citizens, and thus its citizens are expendable "worker ants"
(a view held by both extremes of the political spectrum) or does the citizenry own and control its government?

is the role of the state to use its citizens or is it to protect and provide for its citizens in as much as "providing for" could be taken to mean "providing the circumstances conducive to the best interests of its citizens and not necesarily "providing for" as in handing out largesse

Is the role of the state merely to provide security, and if so security of person only or much more?

you see what you are asking is predicated on so much more than the object of your question.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 10:58 pm

grumpy old git wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Sphinx prefers not to use the old LW/RW classification of political belief but rather the more accurate big stateist/small stateist descriptor where belief is defined around the size of the states role in peoples lives.

I think, that in order to answer that sphinx, we must first define what the role of the state in peoples lives is per se. Does the state own and control its citizens, and thus its citizens are expendable "worker ants"
(a view held by both extremes of the political spectrum) or does the citizenry own and control its government?

is the role of the state to use its citizens or is it to protect and provide for its citizens in as much as "providing for" could be taken to mean "providing the circumstances conducive to the best interests of its citizens and not necesarily "providing for" as in handing out largesse

Is the role of the state merely to provide security, and if so security of person only or much more?

you see what you are asking is predicated on so much more than the object of your question.

I believe the state should be the servant of its citizens - something that has not been the case in the UK for quite a while.

Starting from that point the answers to the other questions become dependent on what the citizens of that state want.

It is a political belief system that can make campaigning rather difficult as I know all too well.

by Guest Tue Jan 07, 2014 11:41 pm

sphinx wrote:
grumpy old git wrote:

I think, that in order to answer that sphinx, we must first define what the role of the state in peoples lives is per se. Does the state own and control its citizens, and thus its citizens are expendable "worker ants"
(a view held by both extremes of the political spectrum) or does the citizenry own and control its government?

is the role of the state to use its citizens or is it to protect and provide for its citizens in as much as "providing for" could be taken to mean "providing the circumstances conducive to the best interests of its citizens and not necesarily "providing for" as in handing out largesse

Is the role of the state merely to provide security, and if so security of person only or much more?

you see what you are asking is predicated on so much more than the object of your question.

I believe the state should be the servant of its citizens - something that has not been the case in the UK for quite a while.

Starting from that point the answers to the other questions become dependent on what the citizens of that state want.

It is a political belief system that can make campaigning rather difficult as I know all too well.

I agree wholy with both phrases of your first line there, and to a measured extent with your second line.

is it beyond reason that in general the majority of "normal people" would want for others what they want for themselves within reason. Can we, for the sake of argument invoke the "reasonable man fiction" i. e what would the ficticious "reasonable man" want for others...perhaps a decent standard of living, suficient food, housing suitable for his needs, light and heat, and so on. would the "reasonable man" deny that there should be some differentiation in rewards for some, I do not believe he would, since to deny that would be counter productive and demoralising to those who carry greater responsibility and skills, would he seek to have this differentiation restrained, I think he would, because not to do so would lead to great injustice and an unreasonable shift in power when this is not desirable.

Given that, I think we can say that the state is responsible for creating the conditions whereby such a scenario is possible, I do not believe that a "BIG state" is either necessary OR desirable in order to achieve that end, indeed Too big a state mechanism actually works against this desirable state of affairs.

what we have at the moment is too big a state machine, because it is required in order to provide for people who, if the state worked correctly would not need to be provided for. This is not an issue of left or right, both sides of the political divide have been and still are culpable of neglecting the real situation.
Not only that but the state is too far involved with the minutiae of life, it spends too much time regulating this or that aspect of everyone's life, thus ensuring a burgeoning mass of departments for this that and the other, listening to loud voiced but unrepresentative minorities, and failing to notice the increasing irritation of the "silent majority", It fails to see that great truth that silence does NOT mean agreement.

I think therefor, not withstanding your first point, we can say that in fact the state, has for many years, under many governments FAILED to carry out its required duties, of providing jobs of ensuring our industry and (as far as is possible)security of food and power.

does that make britain a "failed state"?

by Original Quill Wed Jan 08, 2014 4:08 am

sphinx wrote:
Ben_Reilly wrote:

I did -- both of them are right-wing frauds, peddling lies. ::lies::

Oh right.

So when there is a subject on which there is divided opinion with both sides putting forward supporting evidence the side someone disagrees with is are lie peddling fraudsters.

I will bear that in mind when I see arguments I disagree with.

Sphinx, that is just the same RW elitist argument...they shouldn't have to answer. Well, you do have to answer. You have to provide proof. And Logical proof...I know you don't like the term logical, but that is the common understanding within which we all live. If you are backing a bad horse, he is just going to lose. Those are the breaks, hon.

by Beekeeper Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:00 am

Clarkson wrote:
The left on here constantly bleat about benefit cuts, This despite a general acknowledgement in the (insane asylums) population that the benefit system had gone far beyond where the Beverage bottlers thought it should.

There is absolutely no acknowledgement of the Kylie minogue generations.........................

.................................................
Had Labour had its way it would have done more Hollandaise Sauce, another Tory Balls Up! if been explicit about that. We know how disastrous Cameron's goons has been so were do you lefties think you can do all ?

THE biggest load of shite that YOU keep peddling is that the imaginary "benefits system" is somehow bankrupting your country ~ whereas the sad truth is that shirkers/scroungers/cheats and wastrels make up LESS THAN 2% of recipients...

HENCE your Tory masters' continual attacks on the disabled, single mothers and single pensioners ~ your bosses, "Clarkson", know that they can't clean up non-existent messes, BUT they still need to cover up the facts that THEY themselves are stealing more than TEN TIMES as much through tax loopholes and non compliance by their own "white collar criminal" family members..

CLEAN UP your own bosses sins, "Clarkson", and your country's Tory-synthesised "debt problems" would disappear overnight ! cheers

by Guest Wed Jan 08, 2014 7:21 am

Beekeeper wrote:
Clarkson wrote:
The left on here constantly bleat about benefit cuts, This despite a general acknowledgement in the (insane asylums) population that the benefit system had gone far beyond where the Beverage bottlers thought it should.

There is absolutely no acknowledgement of the Kylie minogue generations.........................

.................................................
Had Labour had its way it would have done more Hollandaise Sauce, another Tory Balls Up! if been explicit about that. We know how disastrous Cameron's goons has been so were do you lefties think you can do all ?

THE biggest load of shite that YOU keep peddling is that the imaginary "benefits system" is somehow bankrupting your country ~ whereas the sad truth is that shirkers/scroungers/cheats and wastrels make up LESS THAN 2% of recipients...

HENCE your Tory masters' continual attacks on the disabled, single mothers and single pensioners ~ your bosses, "Clarkson", know that they can't clean up non-existent messes, BUT they still need to cover up the facts that THEY themselves are stealing more than TEN TIMES as much through tax loopholes and non compliance by their own "white collar criminal" family members..

CLEAN UP your own bosses sins, "Clarkson", and your country's Tory-synthesised "debt problems" would disappear overnight !

Considering you do not live n the UK you really have not the first clue how people feel here being the fact the majority have backed the benefits cuts because they did benefit people to not work than be in work.
The worst thing you left do is excuse incompetence, judging by the fact you excuse the last government making a financial mess of this country for years to come and everything the left has claimed about this Coalition has been wrong and the economy has grown faster than anywhere else in the EU this yea.

The reality is many people have gotten themselves into debt 9 million into severe debt and as seen this will be mainly down to the individuals themselves as they live clearly beyond their means. You fail as do many others here to explain why those on minimum incomes are able to get through lives normally and not struggle on their finances because they are sensible with their money, but because the left are so incompetent with money they seek to excuse all those who are also, which does not solve this issue and people will continue to be irresponsible with money, that is the left wing way, squander money when as seen people manage well even on low incomes. You would take away the ability to have goals in life, because you there is no need to work your way through life and when you reach the top you end up giving all your money away, how daft is that. The reality is the left way of life is nothing but a culture of blame and not seeing the reality of what is really wrong. Benefits are there to assist only and not a way of life a fact sadly lost on the left!

The fact is the left ignore one point time and again as stated if many can live on small incomes then the amount is not the problem, the problem is the individuals themselves living beyond their means who get themselves into debt with irresponsibility

by Guest Wed Jan 08, 2014 10:32 am

Original Quill wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Oh right.

So when there is a subject on which there is divided opinion with both sides putting forward supporting evidence the side someone disagrees with is are lie peddling fraudsters.

I will bear that in mind when I see arguments I disagree with.

Sphinx, that is just the same RW elitist argument...they shouldn't have to answer. Well, you do have to answer. You have to provide proof. And Logical proof...I know you don't like the term logical, but that is the common understanding within which we all live. If you are backing a bad horse, he is just going to lose. Those are the breaks, hon.

I did provide proof - or at least evidence of equal validity and it was promptly declared to be lies and fraud.

Now why should I treat evidence provided for conclusions with which I disagree with any more respect than that which others treat evidence which I provide?

by Guest Wed Jan 08, 2014 1:57 pm

Wonga?

by Original Quill Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:29 pm

PhilDidge wrote:

Considering you do not live n the UK you really have not the first clue how people feel here being the fact the majority have backed the benefits cuts because they did benefit people to not work than be in work.

Desperate positions lead to cheap shots. Admit it didge, you are afraid he's right.

PhilDidge wrote:The worst thing you left do is excuse incompetence, judging by the fact you excuse the last government making a financial mess of this country for years to come and everything the left has claimed about this Coalition has been wrong and the economy has grown faster than anywhere else in the EU this yea.

No one is more incompetent than the right. They are so busy stealing money and having extramarital affairs they haven't got time to govern. In fact, they have even made up a theory to justify their incompetence: minimal government. They've learned over the years that the less they do, the less trouble they get into. Knowing the right, I suspect there's an element of truth to that. Cause when they start wars, look at the mess they make.

by Guest Wed Jan 08, 2014 5:39 pm

Original Quill wrote:
PhilDidge wrote:

Considering you do not live n the UK you really have not the first clue how people feel here being the fact the majority have backed the benefits cuts because they did benefit people to not work than be in work.

Desperate positions lead to cheap shots. Admit it didge, you are afraid he's right.

PhilDidge wrote:The worst thing you left do is excuse incompetence, judging by the fact you excuse the last government making a financial mess of this country for years to come and everything the left has claimed about this Coalition has been wrong and the economy has grown faster than anywhere else in the EU this yea.

No one is more incompetent than the right. They are so busy stealing money and having extramarital affairs they haven't got time to govern. In fact, they have even made up a theory to justify their incompetence: minimal government. They've learned over the years that the less they do, the less trouble they get into. Knowing the right, I suspect there's an element of truth to that. Cause when they start wars, look at the mess they make.

How is it a cheap shot when that person has no real understanding of life in the UK including yourself when you live here daily, it would be the same for me making such a call on where you live when gauging the views of people here, you would mainly have to go by what you read or people you knew, that is not the same as being there.

What a poor stereotype, so Churchill was now wrong by that logic to stand against Hitler and not give into him then by your logic?
You are saying no left wing people are incompetent?
Your stereotypes are as bad as racists have, as there have been many people with RW views that have been very competent. I suppose you will be telling me Stalin was competent next

I am very happy with the present Government thanks

by Guest Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:39 pm

says the man living in one of the richest areas in England, A classic case of I'm all right Jack

by Guest Wed Jan 08, 2014 8:49 pm

grumpy old git wrote:says the man living in one of the richest areas in England, A classic case of I'm all right Jack

Says also that I have grown up in poverty understanding the situation very well thank you, as experience is way better than trying to read about it would you not agree?

by Guest Wed Jan 08, 2014 9:00 pm

and of course you live in a county which is 90%white british, which kind of disqualifies you from commenting on racial issue which you clearly do not see or experience the day to day reality....insular is the term i believe.

You espouse R/w ideology on fiscal matter but are worse than the most raving "leftie" when it comes to matters of demographics. So I dont exactly know where to put you apart from the observation that you appear to be that worst and most poisonous of all creatures, the rabid, extremist liberal. :\\:[:

Granted a lot of the R/W media hype on immigration is rubbish, deliberately designed to stir people up, but that should not surprise you....after all the masses have to have something to distract them whilst they are being royally shafted by the government....heavens above man, if it wasnt for the daily fail, folks might wake up and start hating the govt for what its doing.

by Clarkson Thu Jan 09, 2014 2:45 am

I take it comrade that £50 billion per year in interest payments on Labours debts is far too small and I don't understand about debt.

I take it that when Labour in their wisdom in the 70s tried to ignore their expenditures and eventually ran out of money that was because no one understood them.

I take it that £Two Trillion in debt and rising is but a trifle despite the fact that our grandchildren will be paying for the public sector wages of today.

I take it that Beveridge was wrong and you modern day Marxist have it right the system must not encourage work.

I take it that Hollande is right despite every metric pointing to the opposite and that your prescription is to follow his economics here.

I take it that any lessons we learned from history re high taxes result in lower takes when people deem them unfair are wrong even though ALL the evidence is to the contrary.

Try telling that to the people who lend money to countries when you run out.

We shall see who is wrong.

Cloud cuckoo land.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 7:22 am

grumpy old git wrote:and of course you live in a county which is 90%white british, which kind of disqualifies you from commenting on racial issue which you clearly do not see or experience the day to day reality....insular is the term i believe.
What a daft response being the fact I have lived in London most of my life and some of my family still do, so there goes that daft point out of the equation on being able to work and get along with immigrants being the fact my parents also came here as immigrants, seriously do you have to hit your head on the side board to come out with some of the rubbish you do?

You espouse R/w ideology on fiscal matter but are worse than the most raving "leftie" when it comes to matters of demographics. So I dont exactly know where to put you apart from the observation that you appear to be that worst and most poisonous of all creatures, the rabid, extremist liberal. :\\:[:
Complete babble again ignoring the points OI have made which is what an anarchist normally does really, try addressing my points instead of avoiding them with gobblegygook

Granted a lot of the R/W media hype on immigration is rubbish, deliberately designed to stir people up, but that should not surprise you....after all the masses have to have something to distract them whilst they are being royally shafted by the government....heavens above man, if it wasnt for the daily fail, folks might wake up and start hating the govt for what its doing.

Again more babble and not addressing the points I have made, seriously, do the left ignore the evidence and just hope it goes away. You made a daft assertion that I live in a richer area even though I grew up in poverty, surrounded by the highest immigration in the land, seems your whole views points have come crashing down in flames, just like the left always do

by Clarkson Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:04 pm

Didge the can split a hair a thousand ways pontificate about Marxist theory and the oppression of the workers er non workers but ask them to face up to the REALITY we are bust they completely ignore that.

If this lot were in govt having run out of money they would spend hours talking about the pantone of the ink to be used on the revolutionary 500 pound note special issue to replace the pound coin which is too heavy by the bucket load to buy a small loaf.

They would have a wonderful time talking about how people will appreciate the artwork whilst the economy sinks under the burden of its debt.

I haven't met a Socialist yet who didn't run out of other peoples money.

by Guest Thu Jan 09, 2014 9:08 pm

Marxist theory, can't you come up with anything new. Don't forget, the national debt is bigger now, so I've never yet met a conservative that didn't spend on the money on themselves and fuck everyone else. And even with the so called recovery, built on a total artificially manufactured house price bubble and people spending their savings, the economy still isn't back to what it was.

by Sponsored content