mossdog Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 I don't really need to do I? I don't recall Amstrad being run as a workers collective and I doubt Alan Sugar really advocates public or common ownership and cooperative management of the means of production and the allocation of resources. Never mind, you're still funny. Which begs the question,why have Labour given him such an exalted position?........sure! you can understand the Coalition giving Phillip Green the job,because like Sugar he will identify waste and mismanagement at the blink of an eyelid,but Socialists do not find waste and mismanagement comfortable bedfellows generally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Which begs the question,why have Labour given him such an exalted position?........sure! you can understand the Coalition giving Phillip Green the job,because like Sugar he will identify waste and mismanagement at the blink of an eyelid,but Socialists do not find waste and mismanagement comfortable bedfellows generally. So Phillip Green and Alan Sugar must share something in common with Socialists? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 21, 2010 Author Share Posted October 21, 2010 You sound like a bit of a socialist/protectionist/unionist/welfare supporter to me. In other words, a person who thinks everyone else should pay for the policies/spending and bad decisions of the last government who no-doubt you supported as long as you personally don't have to feel the pinch as you can't afford it yourself. Typical socialist views to fund your life style as those earning more can afford to pay it. Have you ever asked yourself why they can afford to pay more? I bet not. Maybe they just applied themselves at school and worked hard in life to get where they are and maybe they resent people like you calling in their aspirations to fund your own lack of them because the world owes you a living as directed by the last socialist regime that left us all in this very mess that we once again find ourselves in after the leaving of a labour party throughout history that we find ourselves on our knees again. There are no front line jobs in the civil service that are going and needed, only non-titles like " football street coordinator" (google it) and no announcement over police jobs at all, in fact, the police federation say that over the last 10yrs they have had increased funding of 45% but productivity has gone down and they are more than relieved by the reductions which they were expecting more of. Take away the red tape from the last controlling Labour regime and you can probably employ more officers. You Titanic, are just re-arranging the deck chairs on your own vessel to suit your own purpose but like your namesake, you will sink in the end along with the last Marxist regime. What has any of this to do with a thread about who lost most following yesterdays announcements? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 21, 2010 Author Share Posted October 21, 2010 Why should you expect to eat the old boys cake as you should put it? Can't you bake your own or do you rely on the old boys who risk their money to create jobs for old socialists like you that don't have the money or capability to do it for yourself? When you can't do anything for yourself enterprising its always the fault of the entrepreneur who employs you. Which risks are these? My experiences of businesses tells me that those who succeed, will have done their planning and homework first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 Oh Lordy! another socialist. . They are all over here. The place is riddled with them. They will gang up on you shortly, then insult you, then make it very difficult to argue with, because they will all fire things at you until you become bored or frustrated with their obstinance. A bit like 20 Margaret Becketts Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stan Tamudo Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 What has any of this to do with a thread about who lost most following yesterdays announcements? It seems the forums right wingers are trying their best to out do each other for the MUMBO JUMBO post of the year award. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 21, 2010 Author Share Posted October 21, 2010 Socialism is fine, until you run out of other people's money. Oh hang on, Gordon did, didn't he... Back O/T though. The biggest losers from the cuts will be the underclass. They'll lose sleep as they might actually have to get up in the morning. I must be the only person who hasn't run out of money, in fact the last time I checked I was worth considerably more than I was in 1997. In fact as my signature points out, it tooks thousands of years for the wealth of the uk to go from nothing to 3 Trillion, it then took 13 years for it to go from 3 to between 7 and 9. I'm not sure how this is messing the economy up but perhaps you can enlighten me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RonJeremy Posted October 21, 2010 Share Posted October 21, 2010 That is it in a nutshell. I don't know any well off or wealthy people that have any problem at all paying into the pot to support those who for whatever reason, be it disability, mental illness, old age, etc, cannot take care of themselves. What they do have a problem with is paying an astronomical amount in taxes to support those who are too lazy to work, the 17 year old mom who gets knocked up so she can get her own council housing, the family of 12 where the dad and mom have decided its a good idea to let the tax payer support their "habit" of having as many children as possible knowing they could never support them by working. To whom much is given, much is expected. The wealthy know this but they don't want to take responsibility for those able bodied individuals who wont take responsibility for themselves. If forced to do so by ever rising taxes, they will flee and I, for one, wouldn't blame them. They are already fleeing Immigrants are coming in, natives are leaving. When they talk about immigration they mean NET immigration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 21, 2010 Author Share Posted October 21, 2010 I suspect he, as I, would have to tell you it's because Labour overspent for more than a decade and the country is financially on its knees as a result. I feel for you if you are on your knees" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Titanic99 Posted October 21, 2010 Author Share Posted October 21, 2010 You could however, branch out on your own and try starting your own business, you don't need a degree for that, just a little bit of effort. Really, if I was setting up a business I'd like to feel some sound business sense would be valuable. Following on from that I suppose those with the sound business sense deserve to make their billions, whilst those of us who have other skills deserve to pick up the crumbs left over at the end. Oddly enough I think it would be harder to (for example) do the job of a Software Developer, than to formulate a successful business plan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.