Budget cuts

[Cicero]

2 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don't understand the moral objection to healthcare if you're not morally objected to public education... why is it morally objectionable to make sure that even poor people can go to the doctor so they can get treatment to... live healthy lives (or live generally) - but it's not morally objectionable to make sure that poor kids learn how to read and can do maths?

Public (primary and secondary) education is a fundamental human right. It's a public good. It promotes your individual freedom and is essential for the exercise of all human rights. We also recognise the economic value of an educated population. 

Health does the same thing. Higher/post secondary education as well. The only difference is that healthcare is treated as a commodity and post secondary education as a private good.  So when taxpayers are being forced to involuntarily pay for someone else's consumption, it creates a moral implication  Specifically to our negative rights, which states that no one can leverage power over ourindividual rights.

It's also morally objectionable when you refuse to treat a patient who needs care, which is why I stated each argument is inevitably a double edged sword. 

[Inverted]

On 29/12/2018 at 02:24, Cicero said:

Public (primary and secondary) education is a fundamental human right. It's a public good. It promotes your individual freedom and is essential for the exercise of all human rights. We also recognise the economic value of an educated population. 

Health does the same thing. Higher/post secondary education as well. The only difference is that healthcare is treated as a commodity and post secondary education as a private good.  So when taxpayers are being forced to involuntarily pay for someone else's consumption, it creates a moral implication  Specifically to our negative rights, which states that no one can leverage power over ourindividual rights.

It's also morally objectionable when you refuse to treat a patient who needs care, which is why I stated each argument is inevitably a double edged sword. 

All of these things you claim are rights or are commodities are entirely subjective judgements made differently in different societies.

In Scotland we think it's a right for everyone to access all levels of education and make it free, same with healthcare. In some countries there's public healthcare but higher education costs. In some countries neither is free. 

Basically nobody thought of either as a right up until the 18th-19th centuries. 

Whether to make education or healthcare a right or a public good or a commodity, is in practise entirely a public policy decision. As it turns out, it serves overall society for people to be able to easily access healthcare and education.

As for negative rights, there is no negative right against taxation, in any system of thought, except the most extreme libertarian viewpoints. If you can tax people to establish a police force, or build a road, you can tax them to establish other institutions to the public benefit. It's a clear logical step. 

[Dr. Gonzo]

On 28/12/2018 at 18:24, Cicero said:

Public (primary and secondary) education is a fundamental human right. It's a public good. It promotes your individual freedom and is essential for the exercise of all human rights. We also recognise the economic value of an educated population. 

Health does the same thing. Higher/post secondary education as well. The only difference is that healthcare is treated as a commodity and post secondary education as a private good.  So when taxpayers are being forced to involuntarily pay for someone else's consumption, it creates a moral implication  Specifically to our negative rights, which states that no one can leverage power over ourindividual rights.

It's also morally objectionable when you refuse to treat a patient who needs care, which is why I stated each argument is inevitably a double edged sword. 

I’m not sure I follow this argument. I think people have more of a natural right to get health treatment when they need it than they have a natural right to be educated (personally I think people have a natural right to both). Ultimately an argument can be made that they’re both forcing taxpayers to pay for other peoples’ services for the greater good of society. But if there’s a moral objection to seeing someone else have their doctors bill paid for by the taxpayer, I don’t see why you wouldn’t have a similar moral objection to educating other people’s kids. One semi-prevents idiots, but not fully prevents them, and the other keeps more people alive. Maybe it’s because teachers are horrifically underpaid to deal with the little shits we call children, so it’s less offensive to ask taxpayers to foot that bill?

[Guest]

@Dr. Gonzo  @Harvsky sorry to bombard you with questions. Going back to the debt. I thought all countries borrowed and were always in debt and are always borrowing. Is this right? 

 

 

[Dr. Gonzo]

2 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Dr. Gonzo  @Harvsky sorry to bombard you with questions. Going back to the debt. I thought all countries borrowed and were always in debt and are always borrowing. Is this right? 

 

 

I don’t know if all countries are always in debt - but for the most part a lot of countries are in debt and always borrowing. 

 

[Guest]

47 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I don’t know if all countries are always in debt - but for the most part a lot of countries are in debt and always borrowing. 

 

I worded it slightly wrong. I meant to ask have we always been in debt and borrowing?

[The Artful Dodger]

5 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I worded it slightly wrong. I meant to ask have we always been in debt and borrowing?

Prior to WW1 we were largely a self-funded country, although this was often down to exploitation of other countries, colonialism is just theft rather than borrowing. Since WW2 this country has been an absolute basket case of debt, how anyone can claim that Britain is an economic powerhouse when the level of national and personal debt is sky high is beyond me.

[Inverted]

9 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

I worded it slightly wrong. I meant to ask have we always been in debt and borrowing?

It's also important to understand that economically speaking, it's not practically possible for every country to run a surplus. The United States, for example, runs an enormous debt, in terms of government spending, in terms of trade balance, and also in private citizens' debts - and though it sounds bad to have debt, it serves an enormous economic function in basically allowing it to consume the productivity of the rest of the world. China for example would never recall its debts from America, because America's enormous debts allow to continue to purchase all of the goods being produced in China. If America ceased to to do so, China's economy would collapse too.

Think of it this way - where would Audi or Honda be without hundreds of thousands of Americans taking enormous loans to purchase their vehicles every year? 

If countries collectively made it policy to eliminate and then refuse to take on debt, the global economy would collapse near instantly. Some people in countries with surpluses, like the old finance minister Wolfgang Schauble in Germany, criticise others for failing to follow their example. The obvious stupidity of this argument however is that Germany prospers and pays so much tax because of its large trade surplus, and it's logically impossible for every country on earth to have a trade surplus.

Surplus countries look down on deficit countries whilst being absolutely dependent on their existence.

[The Artful Dodger]

The problem for Britain is we make so little of value anymore and having nothing to back up our debt, our only real thriving export is the nebulous 'financial services'.

[Guest]

41 minutes ago, Inverted said:

It's also important to understand that economically speaking, it's not practically possible for every country to run a surplus. The United States, for example, runs an enormous debt, in terms of government spending, in terms of trade balance, and also in private citizens' debts - and though it sounds bad to have debt, it serves an enormous economic function in basically allowing it to consume the productivity of the rest of the world. China for example would never recall its debts from America, because America's enormous debts allow to continue to purchase all of the goods being produced in China. If America ceased to to do so, China's economy would collapse too.

Think of it this way - where would Audi or Honda be without hundreds of thousands of Americans taking enormous loans to purchase their vehicles every year? 

If countries collectively made it policy to eliminate and then refuse to take on debt, the global economy would collapse near instantly. Some people in countries with surpluses, like the old finance minister Wolfgang Schauble in Germany, criticise others for failing to follow their example. The obvious stupidity of this argument however is that Germany prospers and pays so much tax because of its large trade surplus, and it's logically impossible for every country on earth to have a trade surplus.

Surplus countries look down on deficit countries whilst being absolutely dependent on their existence.

When you hear debt some people automatically think ow no. However it can see how it allows things to function on small and large scales. E.g I have to pay my car tax. Now I put that on my credit card because I can't quite manage it in one go. I then spread the payments out. Now what happens if I say never spend more than you earn and so declare my car as of road.  I then can't go to work so then my income stops, you get what I mean.                          Saying you never be in debt ignores that most home owners have morgages. One thing though I don't get. When we got in enourmous debt during the recession the government said it wanted to clear the debt by 2019 which then became 2020 etc. Were they referring to that 400 billion or whatever it was but not saying we would be debt free as we would have to borrow more in the future?

From what I understand about American debt a lot of there debt is internal and it is owed to companies in the USA. 

 

[Honey Honey]

On 27/01/2019 at 03:31, Gunnersauraus said:

I worded it slightly wrong. I meant to ask have we always been in debt and borrowing?

The government has always been in debt. However the government hasn't always been borrowing if you look at things on an annual basis. Some years the government made more than it spent. However it has overwhelmingly spent more than it has made nearly every year since the world came off the gold standard in the 1970s (among other major financialisation changes). Whether this is actually a problem or not is hotly debated. The fact that the UK can go into far more debt now if it wants indicates either that creditors haven't a clue what they are doing, they're gambling, it's a confidence trick or government debt is somewhat of a red herring.

Most governments these days follow the view that debt simply needs to be below certain key indicators. It helps simplify things and provide order for a political class that can't or does not want to question the status quo. Take for example that in 2010 95% of politicians did not know how money is created. What. 

[Fairy In Boots]

On 23/12/2018 at 15:59, Gunnersauraus said:

In the last election I voted for the conservatives for various reasons. However in the next election I would consider labour because of the cuts. However a conservative voter would respond that the cuts are necessary because of the debt the country is in. How would a labour voter respond to this?

 

Probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen on this forum. 

I’m not happy with a lack of throwing money at problems so I’ll vote for a Marxist. Literally pouring fuel on a fire. 

The Tories are shit, Corbyns labour are dog shit on fire. 

[Guest]

3 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen on this forum. 

I’m not happy with a lack of throwing money at problems so I’ll vote for a Marxist. Literally pouring fuel on a fire. 

The Tories are shit, Corbyns labour are dog shit on fire. 

Where as you just vote for ukip or the bnp

[Fairy In Boots]

9 hours ago, Gunnersauraus said:

Where as you just vote for ukip or the bnp

Never voted for either in my life nor would I both completely redundant. 

Slow clap for you though, did you change your Facebook to “for the many not the few” to get a few likes off other morons? 

[Guest]

10 minutes ago, Fairy In Boots said:

Never voted for either in my life nor would I both completely redundant. 

Slow clap for you though, did you change your Facebook to “for the many not the few” to get a few likes off other morons? 

I have no idea what you are in about nor do I really care

[Dr. Gonzo]

Isn’t BNP fairly big in Birmingham in comparison to the rest of the country?

[Fairy In Boots]

5 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Isn’t BNP fairly big in Birmingham in comparison to the rest of the country?

No hasn’t been for years, UKIP had some traction in the Black Country I believe. We voted leave though so must be racist

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 hours ago, Fairy In Boots said:

No hasn’t been for years, UKIP had some traction in the Black Country I believe. We voted leave though so must be racist

Well I doubt the people who were voting BNP in 2000 suddenly stopped being racist  - and if you’re a BNP/UKIP voter you are a racist.

[Inverted]

On 04/02/2019 at 08:03, Fairy In Boots said:

Probably the most ridiculous thing I’ve seen on this forum. 

I’m not happy with a lack of throwing money at problems so I’ll vote for a Marxist. Literally pouring fuel on a fire. 

The Tories are shit, Corbyns labour are dog shit on fire. 

More like "I'm not happy with the economy stagnating for the vast majority of people, the vulnerable being thrown out on the streets to die, and then being lied to with doctored employment figures, so I'm going to vote for the party that acknowledges the reality that austerity was based on bogus economics, and instead prioritises real job creation and social security for ordinary people". 

 

[Guest]

@Harvsky @Dr. Gonzo how much of a socialist is Jeremy Corbyn? I've been told he is quite an extreme socialist?

[Azeem]

No one does ideological politics anymore around the world. 

Any country's Socialist, Liberal, Conservative party etc aren't really made up of those people 

[Dr. Gonzo]

14 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

@Harvsky @Dr. Gonzo how much of a socialist is Jeremy Corbyn? I've been told he is quite an extreme socialist?

I mean people on the far right say he wants to implement Venezuela style socialism in the UK, but that’s not ever going to happen. The far right are collosal morons, at best, and malicious liars at worst. And honestly I think it’s the latter.

He supports socialist programs like NHS and wants strong worker support - so he’s a socialist in that regard. But he’s not a Marxist or a classic socialist, more of a democratic socialist.

I’m more afraid of Corbyn’s party leadership than I am of his politics. Like May, I think he’s inept.

[Guest]

27 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

I mean people on the far right say he wants to implement Venezuela style socialism in the UK, but that’s not ever going to happen. The far right are collosal morons, at best, and malicious liars at worst. And honestly I think it’s the latter.

He supports socialist programs like NHS and wants strong worker support - so he’s a socialist in that regard. But he’s not a Marxist or a classic socialist, more of a democratic socialist.

I’m more afraid of Corbyn’s party leadership than I am of his politics. Like May, I think he’s inept.

So he doesn't want the government to own most of the businessess ect?

[Dr. Gonzo]

8 minutes ago, Gunnersauraus said:

So he doesn't want the government to own most of the businessess ect?

No, he doesn’t want the government to own most businesses.

[Guest]

34 minutes ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

No, he doesn’t want the government to own most businesses.

What about his old Labour policies. I've heard he is more old Labour and wants to tax people a lot more ect