On Aug 30, 5:28Â pm, JNugent
noparticularplacetogo.com> wrote:> ®i©ardo wrote:
>> John Wright wrote:
>>>> ®i©ardo
nowhere.com> wrote:>
>>>>> Given my impressive tax bill, and, given that I very rarely drink
>>>>> and I don't smoke, I don't have a 42" flat panel TV, my car is many
>>>>> years old and my computer is one that I built myself, whilst my
>>>>> mobile 'phone is only good for telephone calls, it always amuses me
>>>>> to see that many of those with no job and no visible means of
>>>>> support and claiming poverty seem to be far more materialistically
>>>>> endowed than I am.
>>>> Recent governments in this country have tightened up the benefits
>>>> system so much it is impossible for anyone to be living the good life
>>>> whilst on benefits unless of course they are on the fiddle
>>>>> If none of this is anything to do with the taxation of one to fund
>>>>> another,
>>>> But this situation is the same throughout the world its alright Obama
>>>> shouting his head of in Denver the other night
>>>> but if the majority of American people vote him into the white
>>>> house then its God help them .
>>> The fact remains that Bill Clinton left a huge budget surplus that
>>> George W. Bush has reversed to a massive deficit. This (as my American
>>> friends tell me) always happens - the democrats build America up, the
>>> Republicans knock it down again.
>> Whereas in the UK it was the Tories who built up the surpluses and the
>> Labour Party who went for even bigger levels of indebtedness than
>> previously known. I wonder if the IMF will get involved again?
>> "Crisis, what crisis?"
>
> Darling has now admitted that there is a crisis, and that it is worse than
> any previous crisis still within (reasonable) living memory.
>
> But apparently, it isn't the fault of the party that has been in charge for
> the past eleven years and four months. Perhaps he and von Braun will get
> Blair back on TV to blame it on the forces of conservatism.
I don't understand why anyone thinks that which of the conservative
parties happens to be in government makes any difference.
Surely the reason for the crisis is that the financial institutions
that now fund both largest parties (NOT the unions) have effectively
been printing money by allowing house prices to rise to five times
what they should be and basing all their forecasts on the insane
assumption that all those correspondingly enormous mortgages are going
to be paid back.
Does which person sits in Downing Street make diddly squit of a
difference to this situation?
