Well we printed 354 billion to give to your banking mates.
It was actually nearer 700 billion.
700 billion to prop up the richest yet you think its bad to borrow(print) 100 billion to help everyone have a better life.
You turd.
Brexit, for once some facts.
- Thread starter flecc
- Start date
Well we printed 354 billion to give to your banking mates.
It was actually nearer 700 billion.
700 billion to prop up the richest yet you think its bad to borrow(print) 100 billion to help everyone have a better life.
You turd.
I wonder how much would be deemed too much to spend if the folk shouting we cant afford it were the ones in cardboard boxes this winter.???
Was it 354 or was it 700 £Billion? You seem to be confused. Don’t worry, money confuses Labour and their supporters, so you aren’t alone. It just comes from somewhere, don’t concern yourself with where.
Your post is of little or no relevance anyway. Thankfully, Labour is going to lose the election and we will have a Tory government. Not ideal, but the best outcome in the present climate. In all likelihood, you will be eating grass by this time next year.
Last edited:
Sorry but this is more Daily Mail style fantasy, so here we go
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/27/the-tories-created-two-thirds-of-the-uks-national-debt/
The Tories created two thirds of the UK’s national debt
And this comparison chart
Last edited:
No fingers, you are as usual making an even bigger idiot of yourself (if that is possible ) I watched the Broadcast and heard the laughter.
What appears to be being edited is the single brain cell in your head?
Are you saying the laughter was edited into the broadcast only to be edited out later?
My goodness, you really need treatment for delusions.
Go away and play quietly and stop applying your own description to me.
You silly boy
From the car or van doing the projection?
You aren't the expert you purport to be are you?
I just can't dumb myself down to explain things to you at this level Gerald.
When you rise back up to amoeba level I will try and answer you accordingly.
When you rise back up to amoeba level I will try and answer you accordingly.
I don't dispute your chart.Sorry but this is more Daily Mail style fantasy, so here we go
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/11/27/the-tories-created-two-thirds-of-the-uks-national-debt/
The Tories created two thirds of the UK’s national debt
And this comparison chart
It is a fact that Labour have manufactured a fifty eight thousand million pound policy in the space of 72 hours. That is straight from Labour's mouth, not the news papers. I heard them say it on LBC during an interview this morning. The extra fifty eight thousand million pounds is not in their "grey book" of costings for their spending pledges, it's just something extra that they thought of in the last few hours. Astonishing. Dangerous. Thankfully, not going to happen because they won't win, Johnson will.
Don't you concern yourself with all of this stuff, you don't fully understand it. You just stick to the small ads and stop repeating snippets that you overhear the big boys talking about in the staff canteen.
Now crack on and find me that hostess thingy, will you.
Was it 354 or was it 700 £Billion? You seem to be confused. Don’t worry, money confuses Labour and their supporters, so you aren’t alone. It just comes from somewhere, don’t concern yourself with where.
Your post is of little or no relevance anyway. Thankfully, Labour is going to lose the election and we will have a Tory government. Not ideal, but the best outcome in the present climate. In all likelihood, you will be eating grass by this time next year.
The amount that went to your overlords was well over 354bn but the quantitative easing lol. Quantitative easing was another 500bn.
Guess where that money went?
NO?
It went to the banks.
They could have given every person in the UK £30k in cash for that money. Imagine that. All that money you say doesn't exist going to the actual people.
Corbyn is proposing another round of quantitative easing but this time its going to be used for real things. It's barely a tenth of what the Tories have already given away and only17bn more than they took during their lost decade in power from the tax payers.
You utter turd.
You can't dumb down because no one anywhere, ever, has been as dumb as you. You are the -273 degrees centigrade equivalent of stupid, absolute stupidity, not possible to get any more stupid, either theoretically or in practice. Congratulations.
Can't dumb yourself down? you've proved your incompetence twice in a couple of posts, of course you can't explain what you so clearly don't understand.
And that £30K per person would have been spent, expanding the economy and increasing our GDP through those employed in satiating that expenditure
And once again that expenditure will boost the economy, and the real things it provides will increase our efficiency and grow our GDP.
Corbyn's expansionist policies make perfect sense if we all want to grow and prosper. Johnson's make sense if we only want our wealthy to grow and prosper.
.
It's true.
I ain't much for book learning.
But I do know if something smells like a turd, acts like a turd and looks like a turd AND is a racist.
It's usually you.
Labour's spending plans aren't especially unusual – just look at Sweden | Larry Elliott
The US favours small government and low taxes, but many developed countries thrive on the opposite
www.theguardian.com
I dont quite understand why many are telling us all we cant afford Labour's spending plan when right on our doorstep are examples of countries spending higher and being just as competitive on world stage.
As I can ascertain Corbyn would take our spending to 45% of GDP. Sweden is at 50%.What people are actually saying is they dont want to contribute or risk their hard earned cash to improve lives of those less fortunate.
Another issue worth pointing out is generally money gathered by the well off goes abroad, is secreted away in offshore tax havens, buys property in better climes etc etc. Look at Lewis Hamilton. Lives in Monte Carlo, avoids as much tax as possible. Now imagine that wealth (his taxes) were shared out amongst the real needy. That money gets spent, 99% of it locally. Money handed out to lower /mid earners actually stimulates economy far more than when used to maintain differentials of wealth.
Let Corbyn spend, lets align ourselves more with Sweden. Its the morally correct route and probably the best economic one too. Lets start paying nurses, police, teachers, fire service personell good wages. Why not, they deserve it way more than the Lewis Hamiltons.
We have economy upside down. Its not working that well this way. Give other way a try. Come on 50.It wont affect you.,well not much.
Last edited:
Labour's spending plans aren't especially unusual – just look at Sweden | Larry Elliott
The US favours small government and low taxes, but many developed countries thrive on the opposite
I dont quite understand why many are telling us all we cant afford Labour's spending plan when right on our doorstep are examples of countries spending higher and being just as competitive on world stage.
As I can ascertain Corbyn would take our spending to 45% of GDP. Sweden is at 50%.What people are actually saying is they dont want to contribute or risk their hard earned cash to improve lives of those less fortunate.
Another issue worth pointing out is generally money gathered by the well off goes abroad, is secreted away in offshore tax havens, buys property in better climes etc etc. Look at Lewis Hamilton. Lives in Monte Carlo, avoids as much tax as possible. Now imagine that wealth (his taxes) were shared out amongst the real needy. That money gets spent, 99% of it locally. Money handed out to lower /mid earners actually stimulates economy far more than when used to maintain differentials of wealth.
Let Corbyn spend, lets align ourselves more with Sweden. Its the morally correct route and probably the best economic one too. Lets start paying nurses, police, teachers, fire service personell good wages. Why not, they deserve it way more than the Lewis Hamiltons.
We have economy upside down. Its not working that well this way. Give other way a try. Come on 50.It wont affect you.,well not much.
He can't accept it.
People who sound funny might get something for free. And he didn't fight in the war for these people.
Vote Tory.
Those countries you list make stuff. They take raw materials, add value by applying a process to them and then sell the product. The difference between the cost of the raw materials and what they sell the product for is what pays for things.Labour's spending plans aren't especially unusual – just look at Sweden | Larry Elliott
The US favours small government and low taxes, but many developed countries thrive on the opposite
I dont quite understand why many are telling us all we cant afford Labour's spending plan when right on our doorstep are examples of countries spending higher and being just as competitive on world stage.
As I can ascertain Corbyn would take our spending to 45% of GDP. Sweden is at 50%.What people are actually saying is they dont want to contribute or risk their hard earned cash to improve lives of those less fortunate.
Another issue worth pointing out is generally money gathered by the well off goes abroad, is secreted away in offshore tax havens, buys property in better climes etc etc. Look at Lewis Hamilton. Lives in Monte Carlo, avoids as much tax as possible. Now imagine that wealth (his taxes) were shared out amongst the real needy. That money gets spent, 99% of it locally. Money handed out to lower /mid earners actually stimulates economy far more than when used to maintain differentials of wealth.
Let Corbyn spend, lets align ourselves more with Sweden. Its the morally correct route and probably the best economic one too. Lets start paying nurses, police, teachers, fire service personell good wages. Why not, they deserve it way more than the Lewis Hamiltons.
We have economy upside down. Its not working that well this way. Give other way a try. Come on 50.It wont affect you.,well not much.
In this country, I lend you a pound, you lend that same pound to 52 different people and somehow that makes money, except it doesn’t. So there is no money to pay for things. We can borrow, but just how are we going to pay that back? If we can’t afford these things now, so borrow instead, what is going to change to enable us to both service the mounting debt and continue to fund things at the proposed new level?
I’ve done ok financially. I puta big part of that down to never having to service debt. If you can’t afford it today, you can’t afford it tomorrow + interest.
I know the Tory party aren’t much better, but I think they are less reckless than Labour. Remember the note from the outgoing Labour administration? There’s no money left.
You seem angry and frustrated today. Is everything satisfactory in the trouser department?