ricgem2002 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 May 2025 ? bet you its before Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 sorry but i was right (again) the tories left labour with a £400 million debt That would be "a debt", not "the debt". Unless you use 'the' in a different way to everyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Spending money you don't have if it results in more coming back than what you spent makes sense. Is there any evidence that it does though. I never said infinite amounts should be spent. It's the logical extension of your argument, if spending money you don't have results in more coming back, then spend as much as you can and you'll gain as much as possible. Spending money accumulated earlier would be better of course. It rarely works out to be possible though. It works out that way whenever Labour aren't in government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 That would be "a debt", not "the debt". Unless you use 'the' in a different way to everyone else. i use it any way i like the tories still left a debt when labour took over so i was right Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 That's right, you've changed what you're saying The tories left "a debt". Labour more than doubled the size of that debt. Labour left the coalition "the debt" as in the current debt, which was £600 billion more than the one they inherited. If you use words in any way other than the accepted one then they won't make any soup* * I use soup here to mean 'sense', demonstrating how using words in an alternate way is rather pointless as all meaning is lost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 Is there any evidence that it does though. It's the logical extension of your argument, if spending money you don't have results in more coming back, then spend as much as you can and you'll gain as much as possible. It works out that way whenever Labour aren't in government. There is evidence that certain types of fiscal stimulus do offer long term net gains. No it is not a logical conclusion at all. You could only apply so much stimulus before you would run out of reasonable and sensible target projects. You seem to be ignoring the fact that the Tories are spending money we don't have too. And this will increase as we go into recession, employment falls and with it revenue. As I stated earlier the major cause of our debt increase was reduced revenue due to a falling economic output. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 That's right, you've changed what you're saying The tories left "a debt". Labour more than doubled the size of that debt. Labour left the coalition "the debt" as in the current debt, which was £600 billion more than the one they inherited. If you use words in any way other than the accepted one then they won't make any soup* * I use soup here to mean 'sense', demonstrating how using words in an alternate way is rather pointless as all meaning is lost. just admit i was right and you was wrong (oops i got my words wrong again) get the spelling police in :hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 That's right, you've changed what you're saying The tories left "a debt". Labour more than doubled the size of that debt. Labour left the coalition "the debt" as in the current debt, which was £600 billion more than the one they inherited. If you use words in any way other than the accepted one then they won't make any soup* * I use soup here to mean 'sense', demonstrating how using words in an alternate way is rather pointless as all meaning is lost. How did they double the debt? What do you think caused the increase? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 17, 2012 Share Posted January 17, 2012 My prediction is that the deficit will increase this year. Public debt will increase quite markedly. You agree with the Chancellor of the Exchequer then. The mess the last lot left behind is THAT bad. Our AAA rating will be at some risk and perhaps the only things we have in our favour are independence in monetary policy and the fairly unique structure of our public debt (dominated by long-term borrowing for which previous governments of all persuasions deserve credit). Those factors might just save the rating but the markets will become increasingly concerned about the state of UK public finances. Finally, I think Ed Balls supporting the coalition cuts will turn out to be one of the most spectacular miscalculations he has ever made - the markets and the IMF will be calling for exactly the opposite this year as we sink deeper and deeper into the mire. I agree with you here, but from what I can see the UK economy will recess and then generally flatline while the rest of Europe decends further. Thank goodness we have pounds, can print money, and aren't in the Eurozone. Cameron's played a blinder - relatively speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 18, 2012 Share Posted January 18, 2012 How did they double the debt? What do you think caused the increase? Massive spending spree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.