geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 07, 2010, 01:56
|
|
You've just wasted 5 minutes of your life.
|
PMM
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 07, 2010, 02:08
|
You think?
I spent some time trying to write a post that allowed other people to see where I'm coming from. In taking the time to do this, I've also clarified certain things in my own mind.
I'm not really arguing with YOU at all. Really. I'm not. I know pretty much how you're going to respond, whatever I write. So really, you're just a foil.
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 07, 2010, 02:21
|
|
ok..
|
PMM
|
Edited Aug 07, 2010, 02:23
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 07, 2010, 02:23
|
|
Yup. Think of yourself as the runty guy they used in the movies to make the cowboy look bigger :)
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 07, 2010, 02:29
|
well you are using cowboy terms like "yup". I am a bit disappointed this has fizzled out in this childish way...
but at least it's over.....for now.
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 09, 2010, 03:01
|
|
C'mon, you don't normally need a question..
|
geoffrey_prime
|
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 09, 2010, 03:07
|
You are "buying in" to this stupid hype that we have to "pull our belts in" now...only to "let the belt out", when the panic is over..".. that's not it!!
The "belts are in until further notice"...no promises..
Let's get the "book", "balanced".
|
stray
|
Edited Aug 09, 2010, 11:31
Re: Cameron - cuts are permanent, not to clear deficit.
Aug 09, 2010, 11:26
|
|
geoffrey_prime wrote:
Let's get the "book", "balanced".
Sorry, I can't resist, cos you've really overdone the quote thing here. This suggests you understand what the "book" actually is and what the correct definition of the term "balanced" is. I have a sneaking suspicion that you don't understand either what the "book" is, and what "balanced' actually means, within the context of this "book". You are also suggesting that we (the U-Know hive mind in your terms) don't understand it.
So.. assuming you mean by book "government spending" please define what you mean by "balanced". Do you think governments should return a true balance, and by that I mean a zero balance on years end ? do you think that is attainable ? (If not, what is acceptable or attainable in terms of difference share between incomes and expenditures ?) Do you have an example of any government or state system where this is not only possible, but is actually desirable within the political theory that the state/government is functioning within ?
It is only by being able to address this, that you can truly show us that you've actually thought about something for more than two minutes. Cos hey, you have to really. As you spend so much time belittling our analysis of political realities I think its time for you to actually try to backup your position of greater understanding with some proper analysis.
Or... (as is true of most on the right end of the political spectrum) do you just see someone in a nice suit use big words, who occasionally pays lip service to your own innate bigotries, and assume they know what they're doing and have our/your best interests at heart ? they know what they're doing right ? A lifetime spent in PR is a great preparation for handling international economics innit ?
|
