-Boomer- Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I love the why governments say they borrow to invest when in fact they mean they borrow to spend, and the economy was in balance when Labour took over, but it wasn't in balance at any time after 1999, it took them just two year to mess it up and then borrow to keep it going. 2010-2015 nuff said Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Exactly, and why all of the disingenuity regarding 'just a few months before we would fall like greece', 'not wanting our children to inherit our debts' is just fear-mongering & trying to lay blame where it's not due in order to further push an agenda. Didn't want our children to inherit the debt then proceeded to double the national debt in just 5 years in the pursuit of ideological economic and social experiments...... ---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 17:36 ---------- I love the why governments say they borrow to invest when in fact they mean they borrow to spend, and the economy was in balance when Labour took over, but it wasn't in balance at any time after 1999, it took them just two year to mess it up and then borrow to keep it going. It hadn't been in balance for much of the preceding 18 years had it. Probably just a happy coincidence that a strong upswing in the growth curve happened to coincide with the election. Maybe it would have been in balance years earlier if the Tories hadn't wasted all the oil revenue and nearly crashed the economy in 1992. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 2010-2015 nuff said This government didn't get take over with the budget in balance, Labour screw up and loose power, the Conservative fix Labours screw ups but that causes pain for some people, so Labour get back it to screw up again and the endless cycle continues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radomu Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Exactly, and why all of the disingenuity regarding 'just a few months before we would fall like greece', 'not wanting our children to inherit our debts' is just fear-mongering & trying to lay blame where it's not due in order to further push an agenda. The fear that the debt will burden future generations is a real concern IF the economy continues to stagnate while the government fails to pay it back in the long term. That can be mitigated by policies to stimulate recovery, but cutting the deficit during the recession wouldn't help anything. In fact, it will INCREASE the debt, notable in how Greece's debt has increased by 25% since its credit crisis began. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 Didn't want our children to inherit the debt then proceeded to double the national debt in just 5 years in the pursuit of ideological economic and social experiments...... It wouldn't have been possible to go from the massive budget deficit that Labour left, to no budget deficit in one term, so the debt was always going to increased under this government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radomu Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 There is always interest to pay back; why not accept that we cannot have growth 365 days a year, and year after year? You don't seem to understand how credit works. Interest rates on bonds increases as it becomes more risky for creditors to lend their money to the government. 'There is always interet to pay back' is something that Captain Obvious would say. The question is, how much is the interests? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 It hadn't been in balance for much of the preceding 18 years had it. Probably just a happy coincidence that a strong upswing in the growth curve happened to coincide with the election. Maybe it would have been in balance years earlier if the Tories hadn't wasted all the oil revenue and nearly crashed the economy in 1992. They spent it on public services and cutting everyone's taxs, why do you think it was wasted? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Radomu Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 I love the why governments say they borrow to invest when in fact they mean they borrow to spend, and the economy was in balance when Labour took over, but it wasn't in balance at any time after 1999, it took them just two year to mess it up and then borrow to keep it going. That is patently untrue. The economy maintained its growth until the collapse of 2008. They screwed up in other ways, namely by continuing the deregulation of the financial industry that was aggressively pursued under Thatcher and Major. Believing that Labour and Conservative represents two opposite polls in fiscal and monetary policy is completely wrong. They are more or less the same party, just with very nuanced differences such as their approach to the welfare state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 They spent it on public services and cutting everyone's taxs, why do you think it was wasted? Because there's none left. The only difference is they didn't leave a note saying so ---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 17:46 ---------- It wouldn't have been possible to go from the massive budget deficit that Labour left, to no budget deficit in one term, so the debt was always going to increased under this government. True, but it was never projected to double Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
loraward Posted May 4, 2015 Share Posted May 4, 2015 That is patently untrue. The economy maintained its growth until the collapse of 2008. They screwed up in other ways, namely by continuing the deregulation of the financial industry that was aggressively pursued under Thatcher and Major. Believing that Labour and Conservative represents two opposite polls in fiscal and monetary policy is completely wrong. They are more or less the same party, just with very nuanced differences such as their approach to the welfare state. Sorry, yes I said economy instead of budget, the budget was in balance when they took over but they started to borrow within the first couple of years so left a budget that wasn't in balance. ---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 20:33 ---------- Because there's none left. The only difference is they didn't leave a note saying so ---------- Post added 04-05-2015 at 17:46 ---------- True, but it was never projected to double I don't recall anyone saying anything about the debt, the idea was to cut the deficit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now