Do you want this government out?

[Hom3r]

I didn't even want them in.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Just to prove how much this government thinks of the problems this countrey has, they have decided to have three weeks off at Easter, what is it going to be for summer, 3 months.

According to the two puppets, this country is in dire straights, so it is about time they put the voters who put them in power, first, instead of looking after other countries.

[Ignitionnet]

They aren't having 3 weeks off at Easter, Parliament stops sitting. Government won't completely shut down.

Have a look at the historical recesses, it's not abnormal.

They are putting voters and future voters first, that's why they are taking the harsh decisions rather than following in the footsteps of Portugal and delaying the pain.

[Stuart]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Just to prove how much this government thinks of the problems this countrey has, they have decided to have three weeks off at Easter, what is it going to be for summer, 3 months.

According to the two puppets, this country is in dire straights, so it is about time they put the voters who put them in power, first, instead of looking after other countries.

Parliament is a part of government. It is not the whole government though. The government does not stop working just because Parliament isn't sitting. If it did, the government would stop working every year.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Just to prove...

Yet again you have proved nothing (See last two posts before this one for a clue), you cannot use such words 'Just to prove' when they are just your usual baseless rants.

[Angua]

The process of weaning people off benefit dependency started in 2008 with the ESA introduction.

Unfortunately due to the level of debt, cuts with unintended consequences have been put in place. All I hope is some of the more immediately detrimental cuts are looked at sooner rather than later. Who for instance would have thought the Tories would cut the military so savagely?

Regardless, we need the current government to kick start self reliance again.

[Pog66]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Just to prove how much this government thinks of the problems this countrey has, they have decided to have three weeks off at Easter, what is it going to be for summer, 3 months.

According to the two puppets, this country is in dire straights, so it is about time they put the voters who put them in power, first, instead of looking after other countries.

yawn

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Angua

The process of weaning people off benefit dependency started in 2008 with the ESA introduction.

Unfortunately due to the level of debt, cuts with unintended consequences have been put in place. All I hope is some of the more immediately detrimental cuts are looked at sooner rather than later. Who for instance would have thought the Tories would cut the military so savagely?

Regardless, we need the current government to kick start self reliance again.

I am lost for words, people becoming self reliant? thatcher thought the same and wrecked society by manipulating people to look after themselves and not have a country that people look after each other.

Benefit dependancy is typically not a choice. So your first comment suggests you out of touch, a hint is ignore what you read in the papers regarding welfare its 95% rubbish.

Since people already are self reliant it would seem to be you suggesting safety nmet's shouldnt exist so those who fail just die off unless their family/friends helps them out.

Given the modern peace in europe I think militiary cuts are not so serious as localised cuts in public services.

[Ignitionnet]

I suspect Angua is considerably more 'in touch' than most of us, she's slapped me down on more than one occasion.

You did see the link in her signature, right?

While I'm thinking about it - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvz8tg4MVpA - deja vu.

[Chrysalis]

so thatcher started that rubbish phrase.

I dont agree with the phrase taxpayers money. Once tax is paid its no longer taxpayer's money, its government money. Just because thatcher said it, it doesnt mean its true.

eg. if I buy something of you does that mean the money I have given you is still my money? of course not. Its like saying tesco is broke because their money is customer's money.

I may have misunderstood what angua meant by self reliance of course.

[Arthurgray50@blu]

Well please asnwer this question then, there must be a load of Tory lovers on this forum.

This country is always giving money to overseas aid, and then we give a further 600 MILLION to a rich country, that shouldn't need it.

Its a kick in the teeth for the voters, who are seeing cuts galore, in this country.

How much money in this this secret chest, where they seem to find money for that, BUT not for this country, remember its OUR MONEY.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

so thatcher started that rubbish phrase.

I dont agree with the phrase taxpayers money. Once tax is paid its no longer taxpayer's money, its government money. Just because thatcher said it, it doesnt mean its true.

eg. if I buy something of you does that mean the money I have given you is still my money? of course not. Its like saying tesco is broke because their money is customer's money.

I may have misunderstood what angua meant by self reliance of course.

Err trade is something quite different from taxation.

It's not government money, it is always taxpayers' money, the government is spending it on our behalf.

I doubt Thatcher started that 'rubbish phrase'. Your disdain for taxpayers is quite curious, I presume you are one yourself after all?

---------- Post added at 12:14 ---------- Previous post was at 12:12 ----------

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

Well please asnwer this question then, there must be a load of Tory lovers on this forum.

This country is always giving money to overseas aid, and then we give a further 600 MILLION to a rich country, that shouldn't need it.

Its a kick in the teeth for the voters, who are seeing cuts galore, in this country.

How much money in this this secret chest, where they seem to find money for that, BUT not for this country, remember its OUR MONEY.

Err the overseas aid budget is quite easy to find, there's nothing secret about it at all.

Pakistan is not a rich country by any stretch, they aren't super, super poor but are a long way from being rich. I've already provided their GDP, it's not huge and way lower than ours.

It is in our interests, in a big way, to keep them onside. The specifics of the deals that were made I do not know, but rest assured that money didn't come without strings attached. They are important in keeping terrorism under control.

Half of the investment would be on education, one of Pakistan's greatest weaknesses. More than 40% of children under 9 here don't go to school. Some of those who do find no one to teach them - a phenomenon known as 'ghost schools'.

The UK aims to supply 6 million sets of text books, train 90,000 teachers and get an extra 4 million children into schools over the next 4 years.

The new aid programme has ambitious targets well beyond the classroom - to save the lives of 110,000 children by expanding community health services, prevent 3,600 mothers dying in childbirth, and get another 2 million people to vote in the next general election.

For all the complaints about schooling in the UK we don't have 40% of under 9s not going to school. The money makes a genuine difference and, by serving others, we can serve our own international and domestic interests to some extent. You can't entirely shut the world out, we need it, we want other countries to become wealthy so that we can sell things to them and benefit from their wealth and in turn increase our own.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

How much money in this this secret chest, where they seem to find money for that, BUT not for this country, remember its OUR MONEY.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12589626

7.8 Billion. Next question.

[Chrysalis]

correct I am a taxpayer, I dont hate taxpayers.

But to label it taxpayer's money after it has changed hands is wrong. It is a legal transaction over to the state, at that point it is state money. If you dont consider it to be state money then openly refuse to pay your taxes and see what happens.

[peanut]

If the cuts and their ways of doing things didn't affect me the way they do, if I had the means or luxury of riding the cuts even meaning losing a bit of money in which that doesn't mean a chance of losing everything, then I'm sure my opinion would be based towards the country's needs instead of mine. I would probably have more of an opinion if that was the case.

It seems as it stands here 33 for yes and 36 for no says a lot, but by reading all the posts it looks more like 5/95%. I wonder why.