Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
spyguy

Budget Deficit @ ~7% After 7 Years From Start Of Recession

Recommended Posts

Just in case you were thinking Geogie could splash the cash or those nice Labour Eds could bail everybody out.

We have national debt getting to around 80%+ of GDP.

We have massive number of people in employment - although a hefty percentage are doing 16hours tax credits and getting topped up by the state.

Oh, and the boomer bulge has turned and are starting to retire and sell up.

And our major trading zone, Europe, is in a depression (still).

We also have massive, unheard of levels of private debt - banks + individual.

Thanks Brown, you one eyed c..t.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your figure of 80% excludes the extraordinary bank bailouts doesn't it?

Oh and the only lending going on is for houses and builders are still constraining new supply to maintain prices.

Banks and construction still on the drip feed in the emergency ward.

I used the official figures. Unfortunately, the people who spend the money are also in charge of the ledger entries.

I guess the bank loans are against assets ...

It doesn't include unfunded pensions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst brown was a nob, running a deficit is hardly a labour thing, the Tories ran deficits in all but 2 years of their 79-97 run, started the deregulation of banks which lead to the collapse.

New labour were really blue labour continuing the Tories good work with a sprinkling of extra spending to bring our services into line with other modern European countries.

I believe thatcher was quoted saying her greatest achievement was new labour.

But then you cannot ignore the hordes of feckwits queuing up to get 95-125% mortgages to pump this death bubble up in the first place or the plonkers dishing it out.

It's also worth remembering osbourne and Cameron pledged to match new labours spending in opposition and urged the to deregulate further and faster.

Ultimately osbourne rails against new labour mismanagement over 13 years when he would match it and currently is matching it spending as much in just 3-4 years that is a level of evil that goes beyond the mad one eyed jock as he didn't have hind sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only difference between Osborne and Balls is rhetoric. Both will take the National Debt to the limit, there is no austerity. PFI and bank bailouts are red herrings, one is tiny and the other should break even as bad debts become good. Far more weight should be given to off balance sheet final salary liabilities and then we have the NHS and state pension Ponzi scheme and unlike the final salaries debate the retired have not even come close to paying for these benefits (even thought they think they have) whilst working. But the mathematically challenged retired will always argue that 40 years work pays for 30 years retirement.

At the end of the day policy is run for the over 50s block vote so that we can pass the debt onto the younger generation who appear bent over and willing for some unknown reason.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only Osborne would stop 'splashing the cash'... :angry:

Screen-Shot-2013-11-21-at-14.41.361.png

Triple locks and increased health spending says we are bloody well worth it, just make sure the bill doesn't have to be paid yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Triple locks and increased health spending says we are bloody well worth it, just make sure the bill doesn't have to be paid yet.

Yes, if you exclude pensions and healthcare from spending cuts, allow housing benefit to keep rising, have millions of unemployed/underemployed people, and open up/legalise offshore loopholes, it makes it surprisingly hard to close deficits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, if you exclude pensions and healthcare from spending cuts, allow housing benefit to keep rising, have millions of unemployed/underemployed people, and open up/legalise offshore loopholes, it makes it surprisingly hard to close deficits.

Equally hard to close the deficit if you don't get elected though. The eternal political dilemma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

4 years is getting to be a long time to blame the last lot.

People are still blaming 'fatcher after 25, 4 years is nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Equally hard to close the deficit if you don't get elected though. The eternal political dilemma.

Once upon a time, the choice was 'Higher taxes and higher spending' or 'Lower taxes and lower spending'.

Regan was one of the first to go for the 'Lower taxes, higher spending and leave the mess for the next guy' approach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only Osborne would stop 'splashing the cash'... :angry:

Screen-Shot-2013-11-21-at-14.41.361.png

exponentials at work...doubling time now down to 5 years...feature of doubling?...spending more in the doubling period than the total of all the periods before.

If it continues, and I see no reason why it wont, the next parliament will spend more than all the periods before it too..probably into about 3/4 of the term.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Once upon a time, the choice was 'Higher taxes and higher spending' or 'Lower taxes and lower spending'.

Regan was one of the first to go for the 'Lower taxes, higher spending and leave the mess for the next guy' approach.

Fatcher too, of course.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exponentials at work...doubling time now down to 5 years...feature of doubling?...spending more in the doubling period than the total of all the periods before.

If it continues, and I see no reason why it wont, the next parliament will spend more than all the periods before it too..probably into about 3/4 of the term.

That's what happens when you throw everything at a ponzi to stop it collapsing. Every policy free childcare, help 2 buy, increasing tax bands etc. has some slant to keep the ponzi going and make mortgage payments affordable.

The money is all going to the top 5% who own the largest percentage of the monopoly board. They don't even need or want the money, government must keep shovelling money to stop the system collapsing, rather than changing the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whilst brown was a nob, running a deficit is hardly a labour thing, the Tories ran deficits in all but 2 years of their 79-97 run, started the deregulation of banks which lead to the collapse.

New labour were really blue labour continuing the Tories good work with a sprinkling of extra spending to bring our services into line with other modern European countries.

I believe thatcher was quoted saying her greatest achievement was new labour.

But then you cannot ignore the hordes of feckwits queuing up to get 95-125% mortgages to pump this death bubble up in the first place or the plonkers dishing it out.

It's also worth remembering osbourne and Cameron pledged to match new labours spending in opposition and urged the to deregulate further and faster.

Ultimately osbourne rails against new labour mismanagement over 13 years when he would match it and currently is matching it spending as much in just 3-4 years that is a level of evil that goes beyond the mad one eyed jock as he didn't have hind sight.

No, you're wrong.

Labour 1997->2000 carried on with Major/Clarke spending.

2000-2002 Brown started to really let rip.

2002-2007 was insane. Brown spent 20 years money in 5 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

exponentials at work...doubling time now down to 5 years...feature of doubling?...spending more in the doubling period than the total of all the periods before.

If it continues, and I see no reason why it wont, the next parliament will spend more than all the periods before it too..probably into about 3/4 of the term.

Another 5 years of the same? Debt interest repayments would double (at least) from the current troubling 4% to a murderous 8% of GDP. Impossible to sustain. The UK govt would then be faced with a choice of default or go Weimar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fatcher too, of course.

She had North Sea oil..

Edit: And wage/price inflation, without which it's hard to any government to get on top of deficits.

Edited by fluffy666

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another 5 years of the same? Debt interest repayments would double (at least) from the current troubling 4% to a murderous 8% of GDP. Impossible to sustain. The UK govt would then be faced with a choice of default or go Weimar.

well,that is how exponentials kill...the sky is clear five periods before the maxout....And you are suggesting the sky is not clear...that means the exponential is close to being noticed...and that means close to blowout.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

well,that is how exponentials kill...the sky is clear five periods before the maxout....And you are suggesting the sky is not clear...that means the exponential is close to being noticed...and that means close to blowout.

That's something to worry about after the General Election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If only Osborne would stop 'splashing the cash'... :angry:

Screen-Shot-2013-11-21-at-14.41.361.png

Is that a labour chart?!

I mean, i dont disagree with it, its obscene. It just makes me laugh when Balls spends half the time saying 'Osbourne is borrowing more than us' and the rest of the time saying 'damn this austerity chancellor and his lack of borrowing'

Which is it Balls-up?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your figure of 80% excludes the extraordinary bank bailouts doesn't it?

Oh and the only lending going on is for houses and builders are still constraining new supply to maintain prices.

Banks and construction still on the drip feed in the emergency ward.

Extraordinary!? HA

Ponzi scheme is mathematically certain to keep needing injections bailouts

Not extraordinary my dear friend...INEVITABLE!!!

The British consumer has not lost his appetite for debt, no. But when they have piled on some more, and find rates cant go down further. Then BOOM. Bailout 2 is ON!

Cant be long now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She had North Sea oil..

Edit: And wage/price inflation, without which it's hard to any government to get on top of deficits.

any DEMOCRATIC Government is what I think you mean.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   215 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.