Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would have thought that Europeans would want to stop the pointless Ukrainian war given the economic cost to Europe and the fact that it’s been in stalemate for years. Presumably the same logic applies to Ukraine as to Iran." I agree. Problem is, Putin needs to agree. Maybe he will if the UK/EU agree to take responsibility of the situation without Uncle Sam’s involvement? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would have thought that Europeans would want to stop the pointless Ukrainian war given the economic cost to Europe and the fact that it’s been in stalemate for years. Presumably the same logic applies to Ukraine as to Iran." Putin could stop the war tomorrow if he gave up on the land-grab. Agreeable? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Considering Fat Donnie's spiteful nature and his rage that NATO countries didn't join his illegal war, will he now take revenge by stopping all forms of military and intelligence aid to Ukraine? Will Russia see a chance to invade a NATO country and watch as the alliance tears itself apart deciding how to respond in an era where nobody has the money for spending billions on defence?" All NATO countries have the money to spend on defence, they just choose not to. Europe is like a group of weakling kids on the school playground who have a big brother watching over them. Some of these weaklings hate the big brother but happy to use and takes advantage of the big brothers protective nature. The big brother spends a fortune on weapons to protect the weaklings while the weakings spend next to nothing on weapons and instead buy sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks to make them feel good. Then one day the big brother gets in a fight with a big bully. The big brother asks the weakings for a bit of help but they don’t want to get in a fight with the bully in case the bully punches them in the face when the big brother isn’t around. The big brother realises this is a bit of a one way deal and starts to wonder if the arrangement is actually in their best interests. So what do the weakling kids do? Apologise? Try to make things better? Promise to step up more and take some self defence classes to help out more? NO! They actually start discussing which of the bullies who’ve been picking on them for the last 80 years they can team up with to attack the big brother. The bullies are the good guys now, despite the fact that between them they have murdered millions of other children. And the big brother needs bringing down a peg or two. And even worse, he’s orange. But that’s not being colour prejudice cos he’s not brown. The number of people that cry like a baby when they have to lie in the bed they prepared for themselves is just comical. If I was Trump I’d close every base in Europe tomorrow and see if the money we were happy to give to Pakistan for condoms we would spend on defence. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You don't think that the US did all that because it's absolutely in its best interests to have a peaceful, prosperous Europe to trade with?" Surely Europe can trade with whoever they wish? There’s no clause in the NATO pact that requires trade. If trade was their only interest, they would never have gotten involved in the European aspect of WWII, they would have been financially better off just selling us stuff. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Carney has hit the nail on the head - a US that's turned into a rogue state isn't just something that the rest of the world can hand-wave away. " The U.S. is effectively trashing around having a fit because its days as unchallenged global hegemon are slowly coming to an end as far as I see. Carney IS right. The US is not reliable and the sooner we follow Carney’s suggestion in creating a middle power economic and military co-dependency, then ‘great power’ leverage is limited | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As can the US - whose trade with Europe is worth trillions of dollars to the US economy every year and is the largest bilateral trade deal in the world Now do you think that trade will increase or decrease if Europe descends into chaos and war? NATO has spent the last 60-odd years keeping the rules based economic system running, which has benefitted the US far more than any other member." I think it would increase. If Russia is bombing Western Europe with more precision than Germany bombed the UK, the US will be the only place to get supplies from. Just like it was in WWII. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump’s thinking on NATO flies in the face of the Washington blob. Obviously NATO’s original raison d’etre ended when the Soviet Union ended. They decided to keep it going as a tool of US hegemony. It suited the blob that Europe underspent on defence because it kept Europe reliant on & compliant with the US. You are seeing that now in Europe’s muted response to current US foreign policy. Trump seems to want to retract, prioritising the Western hemisphere over Europe. The Donroe Doctrine. However, the blob under Biden made steps to protect their interests by requiring a two thirds majority in the Senate to revoke US NATO membership. Where it goes from here I’m not sure but I’d rather the UK’s defence not be at the whims of US voters who think the likes of Trump make good presidents every four years." Has anyone forced the UK/Europe to rely on the US? It is just a decision that Europeans have been happy to take because it’s allowed them to become Benefits Central while scrounging off American largesse. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump’s thinking on NATO flies in the face of the Washington blob. Obviously NATO’s original raison d’etre ended when the Soviet Union ended. They decided to keep it going as a tool of US hegemony. It suited the blob that Europe underspent on defence because it kept Europe reliant on & compliant with the US. You are seeing that now in Europe’s muted response to current US foreign policy. Trump seems to want to retract, prioritising the Western hemisphere over Europe. The Donroe Doctrine. However, the blob under Biden made steps to protect their interests by requiring a two thirds majority in the Senate to revoke US NATO membership. Where it goes from here I’m not sure but I’d rather the UK’s defence not be at the whims of US voters who think the likes of Trump make good presidents every four years. Has anyone forced the UK/Europe to rely on the US? It is just a decision that Europeans have been happy to take because it’s allowed them to become Benefits Central while scrounging off American largesse." I agree. Old habits die hard I guess… But the Americans have got benefits out of it as well. If Trump gets his way, US influence over Europe will be less. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Trump’s thinking on NATO flies in the face of the Washington blob. Obviously NATO’s original raison d’etre ended when the Soviet Union ended. They decided to keep it going as a tool of US hegemony. It suited the blob that Europe underspent on defence because it kept Europe reliant on & compliant with the US. You are seeing that now in Europe’s muted response to current US foreign policy. Trump seems to want to retract, prioritising the Western hemisphere over Europe. The Donroe Doctrine. However, the blob under Biden made steps to protect their interests by requiring a two thirds majority in the Senate to revoke US NATO membership. Where it goes from here I’m not sure but I’d rather the UK’s defence not be at the whims of US voters who think the likes of Trump make good presidents every four years. Has anyone forced the UK/Europe to rely on the US? It is just a decision that Europeans have been happy to take because it’s allowed them to become Benefits Central while scrounging off American largesse." Did Europe ask trump to bomb the fuck out of Iran, or invade Venezuela or starve the population of Cuba? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Considering Fat Donnie's spiteful nature and his rage that NATO countries didn't join his illegal war, will he now take revenge by stopping all forms of military and intelligence aid to Ukraine? Will Russia see a chance to invade a NATO country and watch as the alliance tears itself apart deciding how to respond in an era where nobody has the money for spending billions on defence? All NATO countries have the money to spend on defence, they just choose not to. Europe is like a group of weakling kids on the school playground who have a big brother watching over them. Some of these weaklings hate the big brother but happy to use and takes advantage of the big brothers protective nature. The big brother spends a fortune on weapons to protect the weaklings while the weakings spend next to nothing on weapons and instead buy sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks to make them feel good. Then one day the big brother gets in a fight with a big bully. The big brother asks the weakings for a bit of help but they don’t want to get in a fight with the bully in case the bully punches them in the face when the big brother isn’t around. The big brother realises this is a bit of a one way deal and starts to wonder if the arrangement is actually in their best interests. So what do the weakling kids do? Apologise? Try to make things better? Promise to step up more and take some self defence classes to help out more? NO! They actually start discussing which of the bullies who’ve been picking on them for the last 80 years they can team up with to attack the big brother. The bullies are the good guys now, despite the fact that between them they have murdered millions of other children. And the big brother needs bringing down a peg or two. And even worse, he’s orange. But that’s not being colour prejudice cos he’s not brown. The number of people that cry like a baby when they have to lie in the bed they prepared for themselves is just comical. If I was Trump I’d close every base in Europe tomorrow and see if the money we were happy to give to Pakistan for condoms we would spend on defence. " perfect well put | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"As can the US - whose trade with Europe is worth trillions of dollars to the US economy every year and is the largest bilateral trade deal in the world Now do you think that trade will increase or decrease if Europe descends into chaos and war? NATO has spent the last 60-odd years keeping the rules based economic system running, which has benefitted the US far more than any other member. I think it would increase. If Russia is bombing Western Europe with more precision than Germany bombed the UK, the US will be the only place to get supplies from. Just like it was in WWII. " So couple of trillion dollars in EU trade will be dwarfed by the demand for patriot missiles and powdered egg? Don't think so. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Isnt NATO a defensive force, not an attacking one. What Trump wanted was a defensive force, to attack another country. NATO won't help out, as it is not what they were mean't to do." Yes… in the NATO constitution it explicitly states they are a defensive coalition …. Also… he can’t unilaterally pull the US out of NATO, it needs an act of congress and he would not have enough senate votes for it to pass there.. let alone the house! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Europe is like a group of weakling kids on the school playground who have a big brother watching over them. Some of these weaklings hate the big brother but happy to use and takes advantage of the big brothers protective nature. The big brother spends a fortune on weapons to protect the weaklings while the weakings spend next to nothing on weapons and instead buy sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks to make them feel good. " I hate to interrupt when you’re having so much fun, but there are some facts that you should probably know. 1. America is insolvent. It holds $6 trillion of assets against $47 trillion in liabilities. This recent data is from the US Treasury itself. By the way, this is why they are after the oil in Iran and Venezuela. 2. The largest financier of American debt is Europe, which collectively holds $3 trillion of US Treasury bonds. This is roughly 35% of the total issued. So… the situation is pretty much the opposite of what you’re describing here. Personally, I think NATO would be just fine without the USA. Perhaps if we sold the American debt (which would be catastrophic for the US) and rearmed ourselves things would work out just fine. Putin can’t win a war against one country, so I sincerely doubt he would make much progress against a collective effort. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Europe is like a group of weakling kids on the school playground who have a big brother watching over them. Some of these weaklings hate the big brother but happy to use and takes advantage of the big brothers protective nature. The big brother spends a fortune on weapons to protect the weaklings while the weakings spend next to nothing on weapons and instead buy sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks to make them feel good. I hate to interrupt when you’re having so much fun, but there are some facts that you should probably know. 1. America is insolvent. It holds $6 trillion of assets against $47 trillion in liabilities. This recent data is from the US Treasury itself. By the way, this is why they are after the oil in Iran and Venezuela. 2. The largest financier of American debt is Europe, which collectively holds $3 trillion of US Treasury bonds. This is roughly 35% of the total issued. So… the situation is pretty much the opposite of what you’re describing here. Personally, I think NATO would be just fine without the USA. Perhaps if we sold the American debt (which would be catastrophic for the US) and rearmed ourselves things would work out just fine. Putin can’t win a war against one country, so I sincerely doubt he would make much progress against a collective effort. " The US is not insolvent, you are correct that Europe holds bonds, however the US ownership is around 70% and Europe dumping their bonds would cause a drop in bond value and a loss for Europe too. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The US is not insolvent, you are correct that Europe holds bonds, however the US ownership is around 70% and Europe dumping their bonds would cause a drop in bond value and a loss for Europe too. " I was pitching my response in terms that would be easier to understand for the quoted party, but I fully appreciate the nuances and shared implications of offloading the debt. And I note your cautious phrasing that acknowledges the US private sector. However, sometimes you need to cut your losses. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Europe is like a group of weakling kids on the school playground who have a big brother watching over them. Some of these weaklings hate the big brother but happy to use and takes advantage of the big brothers protective nature. The big brother spends a fortune on weapons to protect the weaklings while the weakings spend next to nothing on weapons and instead buy sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks to make them feel good. I hate to interrupt when you’re having so much fun, but there are some facts that you should probably know. 1. America is insolvent. It holds $6 trillion of assets against $47 trillion in liabilities. This recent data is from the US Treasury itself. By the way, this is why they are after the oil in Iran and Venezuela. 2. The largest financier of American debt is Europe, which collectively holds $3 trillion of US Treasury bonds. This is roughly 35% of the total issued. So… the situation is pretty much the opposite of what you’re describing here. Personally, I think NATO would be just fine without the USA. Perhaps if we sold the American debt (which would be catastrophic for the US) and rearmed ourselves things would work out just fine. Putin can’t win a war against one country, so I sincerely doubt he would make much progress against a collective effort. " Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. The US doesn’t release data on who holds its debt. Only where the nominal owners are based. The biggest individual nominal holders are Japan, the UK, and China but the ultimate beneficiaries could be based anywhere. Pension funds, asset managers etc. They invest in US government securities because they provide a secure investment and return and are very low risk. Not due to some temporary whim or political temper tantrum. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities." True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. " Agree, and I pretty much posted as much on another thread the other day. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I’d expect more countries to start considering offloading US debt tbh after Trump’s shenanigans. The trick is how you do it. China have been going slow & steady." Which is the smart move, and typical of China. Denmark has done the same since 2021. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. " The G7 average is 128%. What resources have the US “taken from others”? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The G7 average is 128%. What resources have the US “taken from others”?" Very true, but which member of the G7 has recently undertaken military action against two countries holding 30% of the world’s oil reserves? You’ve employed the past tense to justify your second point, but the strategic intent has been made very clear… although I am not going to post direct quotes here. But we’re off topic… my point is that Europe should absolutely rearm and divest themselves from American hegemony. NATO can easily survive without the US, with proper investment. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"I would have thought that Europeans would want to stop the pointless Ukrainian war given the economic cost to Europe and the fact that it’s been in stalemate for years. Presumably the same logic applies to Ukraine as to Iran." You know who could stop it? Putin | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Considering Fat Donnie's spiteful nature and his rage that NATO countries didn't join his illegal war, will he now take revenge by stopping all forms of military and intelligence aid to Ukraine? Will Russia see a chance to invade a NATO country and watch as the alliance tears itself apart deciding how to respond in an era where nobody has the money for spending billions on defence? All NATO countries have the money to spend on defence, they just choose not to. Europe is like a group of weakling kids on the school playground who have a big brother watching over them. Some of these weaklings hate the big brother but happy to use and takes advantage of the big brothers protective nature. The big brother spends a fortune on weapons to protect the weaklings while the weakings spend next to nothing on weapons and instead buy sweets, crisps and fizzy drinks to make them feel good. Then one day the big brother gets in a fight with a big bully. The big brother asks the weakings for a bit of help but they don’t want to get in a fight with the bully in case the bully punches them in the face when the big brother isn’t around. The big brother realises this is a bit of a one way deal and starts to wonder if the arrangement is actually in their best interests. So what do the weakling kids do? Apologise? Try to make things better? Promise to step up more and take some self defence classes to help out more? NO! They actually start discussing which of the bullies who’ve been picking on them for the last 80 years they can team up with to attack the big brother. The bullies are the good guys now, despite the fact that between them they have murdered millions of other children. And the big brother needs bringing down a peg or two. And even worse, he’s orange. But that’s not being colour prejudice cos he’s not brown. The number of people that cry like a baby when they have to lie in the bed they prepared for themselves is just comical. If I was Trump I’d close every base in Europe tomorrow and see if the money we were happy to give to Pakistan for condoms we would spend on defence. " You are bang on the money, and who actually believes Pakistan spends tgat money on condoms | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. " Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits" State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first?" Most of them pensioners have paid into a system that promised them a pension for more 50yrs, as opposed to the millions who now claim for anxiety but seem all to happy in a nightclub bar or day out at the beach | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first? Most of them pensioners have paid into a system that promised them a pension for more 50yrs, as opposed to the millions who now claim for anxiety but seem all to happy in a nightclub bar or day out at the beach" State Pensions are paid for via the current working persons NI contributions. So when you pay into the ‘system’ you aren’t paying for your pension. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Considering Fat Donnie's spiteful nature and his rage that NATO countries didn't join his illegal war, will he now take revenge by stopping all forms of military and intelligence aid to Ukraine? Will Russia see a chance to invade a NATO country and watch as the alliance tears itself apart deciding how to respond in an era where nobody has the money for spending billions on defence?" Yeah, it is a possibility. I disagree we don't have the money, we do have the money, we choose to spend it differently. It's up to us to decide what our priorities are | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first? Most of them pensioners have paid into a system that promised them a pension for more 50yrs, as opposed to the millions who now claim for anxiety but seem all to happy in a nightclub bar or day out at the beach State Pensions are paid for via the current working persons NI contributions. So when you pay into the ‘system’ you aren’t paying for your pension." That's true but you pay in on the understanding that when you get to that age, you get that same benefit. There is a link as the deal is, to get a full state pension you need to have paid 35 years of NI | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first? Most of them pensioners have paid into a system that promised them a pension for more 50yrs, as opposed to the millions who now claim for anxiety but seem all to happy in a nightclub bar or day out at the beach State Pensions are paid for via the current working persons NI contributions. So when you pay into the ‘system’ you aren’t paying for your pension. That's true but you pay in on the understanding that when you get to that age, you get that same benefit. There is a link as the deal is, to get a full state pension you need to have paid 35 years of NI" That can be changed, the same as higher education used to free, dentistry used to be free. So why not the scroungers claiming pension? Apparently all the young can't afford homes because they're dancing in clubs whilst anxious  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first? Most of them pensioners have paid into a system that promised them a pension for more 50yrs, as opposed to the millions who now claim for anxiety but seem all to happy in a nightclub bar or day out at the beach State Pensions are paid for via the current working persons NI contributions. So when you pay into the ‘system’ you aren’t paying for your pension. That's true but you pay in on the understanding that when you get to that age, you get that same benefit. There is a link as the deal is, to get a full state pension you need to have paid 35 years of NI" I understand that, on current NI contributions that I should get the Triple Lock protection on my state pension. I know full well that will be gone by the time I get to state pension age. Nothing is guaranteed | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first? Most of them pensioners have paid into a system that promised them a pension for more 50yrs, as opposed to the millions who now claim for anxiety but seem all to happy in a nightclub bar or day out at the beach State Pensions are paid for via the current working persons NI contributions. So when you pay into the ‘system’ you aren’t paying for your pension. That's true but you pay in on the understanding that when you get to that age, you get that same benefit. There is a link as the deal is, to get a full state pension you need to have paid 35 years of NI That can be changed, the same as higher education used to free, dentistry used to be free. So why not the scroungers claiming pension? Apparently all the young can't afford homes because they're dancing in clubs whilst anxious "It’s inevitable that benefits of all kinds are going to have to be cut. On current projections the UK debt to GDP ratio is heading to between 275-325% of GDP in about fifty years’ time on OBR figures which is unsustainable. Benefits/public sector costs are going to have to be slashed, and I imagine in time things like healthcare and state pensions will have to be phased out for new workers in the system. The healthcare we get isn’t particularly good anyway so that shouldn’t be any great loss. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first? Most of them pensioners have paid into a system that promised them a pension for more 50yrs, as opposed to the millions who now claim for anxiety but seem all to happy in a nightclub bar or day out at the beach State Pensions are paid for via the current working persons NI contributions. So when you pay into the ‘system’ you aren’t paying for your pension. That's true but you pay in on the understanding that when you get to that age, you get that same benefit. There is a link as the deal is, to get a full state pension you need to have paid 35 years of NI I understand that, on current NI contributions that I should get the Triple Lock protection on my state pension. I know full well that will be gone by the time I get to state pension age. Nothing is guaranteed " Yes totally agree that pretty much anything can change and nothing is guaranteed for ever. I believe the retirement age used to be 65 but is now 67 so nothing is set in stone. Although you do not pay NI into your own pot, at present the amount of NI years you pay directly affects how much pension you get at the end. I'm not aware of any other benefit that links NI contributions to what you receive in that way. That said my knowledge of benefits is very limited so maybe that's normal | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first? Most of them pensioners have paid into a system that promised them a pension for more 50yrs, as opposed to the millions who now claim for anxiety but seem all to happy in a nightclub bar or day out at the beach State Pensions are paid for via the current working persons NI contributions. So when you pay into the ‘system’ you aren’t paying for your pension. That's true but you pay in on the understanding that when you get to that age, you get that same benefit. There is a link as the deal is, to get a full state pension you need to have paid 35 years of NI I understand that, on current NI contributions that I should get the Triple Lock protection on my state pension. I know full well that will be gone by the time I get to state pension age. Nothing is guaranteed Yes totally agree that pretty much anything can change and nothing is guaranteed for ever. I believe the retirement age used to be 65 but is now 67 so nothing is set in stone. Although you do not pay NI into your own pot, at present the amount of NI years you pay directly affects how much pension you get at the end. I'm not aware of any other benefit that links NI contributions to what you receive in that way. That said my knowledge of benefits is very limited so maybe that's normal " To a point, you get the full state pension if you have 35 years NI contribution but the state will still provide support even if you don't. If the young have to stop Netflix and eating avocados why can't the old go with out the daily mail or the telegraph prescription? We've created a society that fetishes the old because they are more likely to go out and vote but what's happened is we've created a society that isn't worth living for the young. And we have to get over it most of these oaps only ever heard stories about the war and have never served so the fetishisation of the war and the old needs to stop. They've had everything free or cheap all their lives from milk, education and housing and at every turn they've voted to create a harsher world for those that followed. Enough!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first? Most of them pensioners have paid into a system that promised them a pension for more 50yrs, as opposed to the millions who now claim for anxiety but seem all to happy in a nightclub bar or day out at the beach State Pensions are paid for via the current working persons NI contributions. So when you pay into the ‘system’ you aren’t paying for your pension. That's true but you pay in on the understanding that when you get to that age, you get that same benefit. There is a link as the deal is, to get a full state pension you need to have paid 35 years of NI I understand that, on current NI contributions that I should get the Triple Lock protection on my state pension. I know full well that will be gone by the time I get to state pension age. Nothing is guaranteed Yes totally agree that pretty much anything can change and nothing is guaranteed for ever. I believe the retirement age used to be 65 but is now 67 so nothing is set in stone. Although you do not pay NI into your own pot, at present the amount of NI years you pay directly affects how much pension you get at the end. I'm not aware of any other benefit that links NI contributions to what you receive in that way. That said my knowledge of benefits is very limited so maybe that's normal To a point, you get the full state pension if you have 35 years NI contribution but the state will still provide support even if you don't. If the young have to stop Netflix and eating avocados why can't the old go with out the daily mail or the telegraph prescription? We've created a society that fetishes the old because they are more likely to go out and vote but what's happened is we've created a society that isn't worth living for the young. And we have to get over it most of these oaps only ever heard stories about the war and have never served so the fetishisation of the war and the old needs to stop. They've had everything free or cheap all their lives from milk, education and housing and at every turn they've voted to create a harsher world for those that followed. Enough!! " Nobody voted for any of this. You have to be naive to believe we live in a functioning democracy. FPTP is designed to give the illusion of choice. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Most countries are “insolvent” on that basis. The UK certainly is, before even taking into account unfunded public sector pension liabilities. True. But the problem for the USA is that their current debt is 123% of their GDP, which for an economy of that size is worrying. Very soon, they will struggle to service that debt. From there on, all options are problematic: 1. printing dollars will devalue the currency, 2. increasing interest rates will damage the economy, 3. taking resources from others involves confrontation. In the UK, we’re currently at 93% of GDP, while the EU as a whole is about 80-85%. None of this is ideal, but given their current and future liabilities, the US has a particularly acute situation. Do you not think we’re a busted flush, we are spending more on benefits than the working populace pay in tax. It’s a situation that can’t continue yet our leadership wants to pay out yet even more in benefits State pension payments are the biggest benefit handout. Shall we stop those first? Most of them pensioners have paid into a system that promised them a pension for more 50yrs, as opposed to the millions who now claim for anxiety but seem all to happy in a nightclub bar or day out at the beach State Pensions are paid for via the current working persons NI contributions. So when you pay into the ‘system’ you aren’t paying for your pension. That's true but you pay in on the understanding that when you get to that age, you get that same benefit. There is a link as the deal is, to get a full state pension you need to have paid 35 years of NI I understand that, on current NI contributions that I should get the Triple Lock protection on my state pension. I know full well that will be gone by the time I get to state pension age. Nothing is guaranteed Yes totally agree that pretty much anything can change and nothing is guaranteed for ever. I believe the retirement age used to be 65 but is now 67 so nothing is set in stone. Although you do not pay NI into your own pot, at present the amount of NI years you pay directly affects how much pension you get at the end. I'm not aware of any other benefit that links NI contributions to what you receive in that way. That said my knowledge of benefits is very limited so maybe that's normal To a point, you get the full state pension if you have 35 years NI contribution but the state will still provide support even if you don't. If the young have to stop Netflix and eating avocados why can't the old go with out the daily mail or the telegraph prescription? We've created a society that fetishes the old because they are more likely to go out and vote but what's happened is we've created a society that isn't worth living for the young. And we have to get over it most of these oaps only ever heard stories about the war and have never served so the fetishisation of the war and the old needs to stop. They've had everything free or cheap all their lives from milk, education and housing and at every turn they've voted to create a harsher world for those that followed. Enough!! Nobody voted for any of this. You have to be naive to believe we live in a functioning democracy. FPTP is designed to give the illusion of choice." I have posted elsewhere for proportional representation. However, until that happens (if in my lifetime). We have to deal with the world as it is. The war generation actually created the NHS and the welfare system because they saw first hand how easy it is to turn people against people on perceived differences. And the generations after have removed those safety blankets for their children and grandchildren and here we are with the right openly hating Muslims and Jews being terrorist and war in Europe and a madman in the White house waging war on Iran. Sudan, Lebanon, Mali, Congo and Gaza on fire. But please tell me how this extreme vulture capitalism is working out for the world | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The war generation actually created the NHS and the welfare system because they saw first hand how easy it is to turn people against people on perceived differences. And the generations after have removed those safety blankets for their children and grandchildren and here we are with the right openly hating Muslims and Jews being terrorist and war in Europe ..." The war generation were quite happy hating Muslims and Jews. It was legal to discriminate against black people, and women were legally paid lower wages. Things have got rather better since then. And the NHS was effectively created by the war generation's grand parents in 1911 with the National Insurance Act. Though it only applied to workers (i.e. men). The NHS itself was proposed well before the war and had nothing to do with people seeing first hand how foreigners were treated. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The war generation actually created the NHS and the welfare system because they saw first hand how easy it is to turn people against people on perceived differences. And the generations after have removed those safety blankets for their children and grandchildren and here we are with the right openly hating Muslims and Jews being terrorist and war in Europe ... The war generation were quite happy hating Muslims and Jews. It was legal to discriminate against black people, and women were legally paid lower wages. Things have got rather better since then. And the NHS was effectively created by the war generation's grand parents in 1911 with the National Insurance Act. Though it only applied to workers (i.e. men). The NHS itself was proposed well before the war and had nothing to do with people seeing first hand how foreigners were treated." Ok, nothing to do with the Beveridge report and the Atlee government   | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But please tell me how this extreme vulture capitalism is working out for the world" We don't have extreme culture capitalism. We have a system where high earners pay more than 50% tax, which is then given out to the poor and needy in benefits. We have a system where large companies need to employ teams of people just to handle compliance with the regulations. "Capitalism", yes; "extreme culture capitalism", no. And capitalism isn't doing badly for us. 70 years ago people lived in unheated houses and walked to their work, with only the more well off having bicycles. Today we all have centrally heated homes and cars to get wherever we want to be. Capitalism has improved things. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But please tell me how this extreme vulture capitalism is working out for the world We don't have extreme culture capitalism. We have a system where high earners pay more than 50% tax, which is then given out to the poor and needy in benefits. We have a system where large companies need to employ teams of people just to handle compliance with the regulations. "Capitalism", yes; "extreme culture capitalism", no. And capitalism isn't doing badly for us. 70 years ago people lived in unheated houses and walked to their work, with only the more well off having bicycles. Today we all have centrally heated homes and cars to get wherever we want to be. Capitalism has improved things." Ok, that's why we have healthy rivers? People and places over profits? That's why the privatisation of trains worked out so well? How about those poor people in Grenfell? At every turn when you privatise and put shareholders profits over people and places. It's the poor and defensless that loose out. But why will they care that we have dirty water and a depleted nature? They either already are or can apparently fuck off at the drop of a hat, so please let's not tax them!! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"But please tell me how this extreme vulture capitalism is working out for the world We don't have extreme culture capitalism. We have a system where high earners pay more than 50% tax, which is then given out to the poor and needy in benefits. We have a system where large companies need to employ teams of people just to handle compliance with the regulations. "Capitalism", yes; "extreme culture capitalism", no. And capitalism isn't doing badly for us. 70 years ago people lived in unheated houses and walked to their work, with only the more well off having bicycles. Today we all have centrally heated homes and cars to get wherever we want to be. Capitalism has improved things." My grandfather and grandmother didn't have free GPs before the war! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The war generation actually created the NHS and the welfare system because they saw first hand how easy it is to turn people against people on perceived differences. And the generations after have removed those safety blankets for their children and grandchildren and here we are with the right openly hating Muslims and Jews being terrorist and war in Europe ..." "The war generation were quite happy hating Muslims and Jews. It was legal to discriminate against black people, and women were legally paid lower wages. Things have got rather better since then. And the NHS was effectively created by the war generation's grand parents in 1911 with the National Insurance Act. Though it only applied to workers (i.e. men). The NHS itself was proposed well before the war and had nothing to do with people seeing first hand how foreigners were treated." "Ok, nothing to do with the Beveridge report and the Atlee government" You're aware that the Labour Party proposed a State Medical Service in 1932, and then changed the name to National Health Service at their conference in 1934? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The war generation actually created the NHS and the welfare system because they saw first hand how easy it is to turn people against people on perceived differences. And the generations after have removed those safety blankets for their children and grandchildren and here we are with the right openly hating Muslims and Jews being terrorist and war in Europe ... The war generation were quite happy hating Muslims and Jews. It was legal to discriminate against black people, and women were legally paid lower wages. Things have got rather better since then. And the NHS was effectively created by the war generation's grand parents in 1911 with the National Insurance Act. Though it only applied to workers (i.e. men). The NHS itself was proposed well before the war and had nothing to do with people seeing first hand how foreigners were treated. Ok, nothing to do with the Beveridge report and the Atlee government You're aware that the Labour Party proposed a State Medical Service in 1932, and then changed the name to National Health Service at their conference in 1934?" Proposed, what good is that? Are you aware a war was fought between that proposal and the British government kicking Churchill out for a socialist government to set up the NHS and the welfare state. Because how Hitler sowed division was during a period of hyper inflation and when people have nothing it's easier to turn them against one another. Neighbour against neighbour about how they, dress, pray, skin colour or fuck. And that's exactly what the right do. They remove our basic rights and needs until we fight eachother on difference. Reform are actively engaging it | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And capitalism isn't doing badly for us. 70 years ago people lived in unheated houses and walked to their work, with only the more well off having bicycles. Today we all have centrally heated homes and cars to get wherever we want to be. Capitalism has improved things." "Ok, that's why we have healthy rivers?" We've never had healthy rivers. The only reason we don't talk about how bad the rivers were in the 1970s is because we weren't measuring pollution levels. Things have got significantly better since privatisation (though often not because of the water companies themselves). "That's why the privatisation of trains worked out so well?" Are the nationalised railways in Wales significantly better or cheaper than those in England? "How about those poor people in Grenfell?" That's just criminality, people mislabeling products and not performing the correct regulatory tests. It's not a failure of capitalism. "At every turn when you privatise and put shareholders profits over people and places. It's the poor and defensless that loose out" That's not true, the rich lose out too, it's just that they're rich enough to cope with the problems. And it's also not true that people lose out. The privatisation of the telephone system resulted in a much better and cheaper service. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"And capitalism isn't doing badly for us. 70 years ago people lived in unheated houses and walked to their work, with only the more well off having bicycles. Today we all have centrally heated homes and cars to get wherever we want to be. Capitalism has improved things. Ok, that's why we have healthy rivers? We've never had healthy rivers. The only reason we don't talk about how bad the rivers were in the 1970s is because we weren't measuring pollution levels. Things have got significantly better since privatisation (though often not because of the water companies themselves). That's why the privatisation of trains worked out so well? Are the nationalised railways in Wales significantly better or cheaper than those in England? How about those poor people in Grenfell? That's just criminality, people mislabeling products and not performing the correct regulatory tests. It's not a failure of capitalism. At every turn when you privatise and put shareholders profits over people and places. It's the poor and defensless that loose out That's not true, the rich lose out too, it's just that they're rich enough to cope with the problems. And it's also not true that people lose out. The privatisation of the telephone system resulted in a much better and cheaper service." Came back with one positive, phones! Cheers 🥂 capitalism As for the rivers you sound like Donald Trump saying if we stop testing for COVID it will go away. You can't possibly know what the rivers were like if they weren't tested!! Grenfell was deregulation so your mates the vultures could get away with not putting fire safety systems in a block. Profit over people at every turn! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware that the Labour Party proposed a State Medical Service in 1932, and then changed the name to National Health Service at their conference in 1934?" "Proposed, what good is that? Are you aware a war was fought between that proposal and the British government kicking Churchill out for a socialist government to set up the NHS and the welfare state. Because how Hitler sowed division was during a period of hyper inflation and when people have nothing it's easier to turn them against one another. Neighbour against neighbour about how they, dress, pray, skin colour or fuck." Not relevant. Your original statement was that "The war generation actually created the NHS and the welfare system because they saw first hand how easy it is to turn people against people on perceived differences". The truth is that it was Labour Party policy in 1932, showing that it was not created purely because of the war. Your original statement was incorrect. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware that the Labour Party proposed a State Medical Service in 1932, and then changed the name to National Health Service at their conference in 1934? Proposed, what good is that? Are you aware a war was fought between that proposal and the British government kicking Churchill out for a socialist government to set up the NHS and the welfare state. Because how Hitler sowed division was during a period of hyper inflation and when people have nothing it's easier to turn them against one another. Neighbour against neighbour about how they, dress, pray, skin colour or fuck. Not relevant. Your original statement was that "The war generation actually created the NHS and the welfare system because they saw first hand how easy it is to turn people against people on perceived differences". The truth is that it was Labour Party policy in 1932, showing that it was not created purely because of the war. Your original statement was incorrect." No, completely relevant, prior to the war there was a build up of rhetoric, there was also a recognition that things can't go on like this. Similar to now, Gary lineker called Cruella out for her rhetoric because WWII didn't happen in a vacuum. It's a build up things, turning people against people for perceived differences being chief amongst it! So the parallels are there, history never repeats but it rhymes. And the toxicity that Trump, Farage, le pen, afd, Orbàn are sowing is reminiscent! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Came back with one positive, phones! Cheers capitalism" There are other examples, but phones is enough to prove your statement that "the poor always lose out" is just untrue. "As for the rivers you sound like Donald Trump saying if we stop testing for COVID it will go away. You can't possibly know what the rivers were like if they weren't tested!!" In that case you can't possibly claim that privatisation has made them worse. But the data we do have shows that they were bad when we started measuring, and have got significantly better since then. "Grenfell was deregulation so your mates the vultures could get away with not putting fire safety systems in a block. Profit over people at every turn!" What regulations were removed? I'm going to say none. The fire was caused by a cladding material that no one knew could burn. No one knew because the proper tests hadn't been carried out, but the manufacturer labelled them as if they had. Nothing to do with putting profits over people. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware that the Labour Party proposed a State Medical Service in 1932, and then changed the name to National Health Service at their conference in 1934?" "Proposed, what good is that? Are you aware a war was fought between that proposal and the British government kicking Churchill out for a socialist government to set up the NHS and the welfare state. Because how Hitler sowed division was during a period of hyper inflation and when people have nothing it's easier to turn them against one another. Neighbour against neighbour about how they, dress, pray, skin colour or fuck." "Not relevant. Your original statement was that "The war generation actually created the NHS and the welfare system because they saw first hand how easy it is to turn people against people on perceived differences". The truth is that it was Labour Party policy in 1932, showing that it was not created purely because of the war. Your original statement was incorrect." "No, completely relevant, prior to the war there was a build up of rhetoric, there was also a recognition that things can't go on like this." So you're now saying that all of your references to the war and 'the war generation' were wrong, and you actually meant the war generation's parents in the 1930s. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Came back with one positive, phones! Cheers capitalism There are other examples, but phones is enough to prove your statement that "the poor always lose out" is just untrue. As for the rivers you sound like Donald Trump saying if we stop testing for COVID it will go away. You can't possibly know what the rivers were like if they weren't tested!! In that case you can't possibly claim that privatisation has made them worse. But the data we do have shows that they were bad when we started measuring, and have got significantly better since then. Grenfell was deregulation so your mates the vultures could get away with not putting fire safety systems in a block. Profit over people at every turn! What regulations were removed? I'm going to say none. The fire was caused by a cladding material that no one knew could burn. No one knew because the proper tests hadn't been carried out, but the manufacturer labelled them as if they had. Nothing to do with putting profits over people." That's how the fire spread outside the building, inside the building the fire systems failed. The sprinklers that were supposed to be in place failed. And on the point of the cladding. Was done on the cheap so that the freeholders made more profit. You can either look at everything as isolated problems and continually find yourself fixing the next. Or you can see that everything is interconnected and try and fix the root cause so that we can have some stability before the next crisis. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"You're aware that the Labour Party proposed a State Medical Service in 1932, and then changed the name to National Health Service at their conference in 1934? Proposed, what good is that? Are you aware a war was fought between that proposal and the British government kicking Churchill out for a socialist government to set up the NHS and the welfare state. Because how Hitler sowed division was during a period of hyper inflation and when people have nothing it's easier to turn them against one another. Neighbour against neighbour about how they, dress, pray, skin colour or fuck. Not relevant. Your original statement was that "The war generation actually created the NHS and the welfare system because they saw first hand how easy it is to turn people against people on perceived differences". The truth is that it was Labour Party policy in 1932, showing that it was not created purely because of the war. Your original statement was incorrect. No, completely relevant, prior to the war there was a build up of rhetoric, there was also a recognition that things can't go on like this. So you're now saying that all of your references to the war and 'the war generation' were wrong, and you actually meant the war generation's parents in the 1930s." The war started in 1939 so unless they were 8 piping out kids that's not how generations work | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fire was caused by a cladding material that no one knew could burn. No one knew because the proper tests hadn't been carried out, but the manufacturer labelled them as if they had. Nothing to do with putting profits over people." "That's how the fire spread outside the building, inside the building the fire systems failed. The sprinklers that were supposed to be in place failed." The sprinklers didn't fail, because there were none. There is not, and has never been, a requirement to fit sprinklers in residential buildings in England. It's likely that had they been fitted they would have saved lives, but that's not the same thing as saying that the deaths were caused by the lack of a sprinkler system. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The war started in 1939 so unless they were 8 piping out kids that's not how generations work " The usual definition of "the war generation" is 'those that were of fighting age during WWII, i.e. those between 20 and 40. It's mathematically possible for a Labour party member to have been instrumental in the defining of the State Medical Service in 1932 and still be under 40 in 1939, but it's very unlikely. But I've just realised that we've moved a long way from the thread topic of the status of NATO. We should let people get back to discussing that. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The fire was caused by a cladding material that no one knew could burn. No one knew because the proper tests hadn't been carried out, but the manufacturer labelled them as if they had. Nothing to do with putting profits over people. That's how the fire spread outside the building, inside the building the fire systems failed. The sprinklers that were supposed to be in place failed. The sprinklers didn't fail, because there were none. There is not, and has never been, a requirement to fit sprinklers in residential buildings in England. It's likely that had they been fitted they would have saved lives, but that's not the same thing as saying that the deaths were caused by the lack of a sprinkler system." My bad not sprinkler the smoke detractors failed and it was supposed to contain it to one floor. But suprise suprise. Businesses cutting corners after Eric Pickles deregulation spree on housing requirements rendered it all useless including the cladding. So yes it's to with profit margins and deregulation, or not keeping people safe! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"The war started in 1939 so unless they were 8 piping out kids that's not how generations work The usual definition of "the war generation" is 'those that were of fighting age during WWII, i.e. those between 20 and 40. It's mathematically possible for a Labour party member to have been instrumental in the defining of the State Medical Service in 1932 and still be under 40 in 1939, but it's very unlikely. But I've just realised that we've moved a long way from the thread topic of the status of NATO. We should let people get back to discussing that." Lol!! Typical. Sees he's wrong and wants to shut debate down. I'll do a mea culpa, it looks like what I meant by war generation is the greatest generation! And it actually isn't that far off NATO because it's the same generation and while you want to keep mentioning parties it was a labour government of the war generation that helped create NATO. That has kept us all safe for so many years. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
