It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

George Osborne: UK has run out of money

page: 1
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:20 AM
link   
Cited only in part. So what does UK do now? Austerity? Mega-Printing?

UK Telegraph


The Government 'has run out of money' and cannot afford debt-fuelled tax cuts or extra spending, George Osborne has admitted.

In a stark warning ahead of next month’s Budget, the Chancellor said there was little the Coalition could do to stimulate the economy.

Mr Osborne made it clear that due to the parlous state of the public finances the best hope for economic growth was to encourage businesses to flourish and hire more workers.

“The British Government has run out of money because all the money was spent in the good years,” the Chancellor said. “The money and the investment and the jobs need to come from the private sector.”




posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:25 AM
link   
reply to post by surrealist
 

If you want a guess from an American (and why would you?) I'd go for the mega-printing. Austerity means citizen protests and riots. England is good at riots. With mega-printing, the politicians will have a few years to end their careers and run to some island safe haven, before the hyper-inflation and death of the country occurs.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:28 AM
link   
reply to post by surrealist
 


He is basically saying do not expect cuts for things in the budget because there is no spare cash.

That is not the same as saying we are bankrupt (which running out of money would imply). It was only last week they were declaring they had spent billions less than expected so far this year, so the story isn't as bleak as painted.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:29 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


We always have the money for wars or to intervene in other countries business. Funny that.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by charles1952
 


We always have the money for wars or to intervene in other countries business. Funny that.



It is kind of strange, isn't it? Every country is moaning about money troubles, but here in the US, 16 trillion in debt, they are going to spend millions and billions more on new bunker busters. Next year the child tax credit is going down. According to the lady at H&R Block who does my taxes, it may be cut by 50%. But we Always got more money for the newest bomb.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 


Agreed it is sickening that people are living below the poverty line in both the US and UK but we are sending hundreds of millions in Aid to India
and we are spending billions on fighting useless wars. Pull all the troops home, defend our own shores and let the middle east go up in smoke, it will anyway



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:49 AM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 


Agreed it is sickening that people are living below the poverty line in both the US and UK but we are sending hundreds of millions in Aid to India
and we are spending billions on fighting useless wars. Pull all the troops home, defend our own shores and let the middle east go up in smoke, it will anyway



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:50 AM
link   
reply to post by DAVID64
 


Call me cynical but Defence is one of the few industries not heavily outsourced in the UK and USA (although it is going that way).

And lets not forget that high tech missiles are very expensive - more orders will keep the economies ticking over........



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 05:51 AM
link   
I took a look at US budget data and it seems that US Department of Defense and Homeland Security spending will total just under $800 Billion. Our defecit for next year will be over a Trillion dollars.

So, eliminate DoD and Homeland security completely and we'll still be losing money every year. Sorry, defense isn't the problem. My understanding is that the MoD in the UK is getting cut rather badly as well. Is the problem there solved?



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:02 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Not at all and i am not defending the ridiculous spends or wars when there are far more pressing issues to deal with. However, it does look good on the government figures if some industries are increasing output - it makes it look like they are doing their jobs!

We complain about the amount on Defence in the UK but the USA really is not just on another planet, it is in an entirely different galaxy compared to the UK - god knows how frustrated you must all be over there.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:18 AM
link   
reply to post by Flavian
 

Dear Flavian,

I think part of the reason the US is in a different defense galaxy is World War II and the Cold War. We picked up the idea that we are the military force for good in the world, (overlooking to some extent China's and Russia's contribution because they went aggresively communist so quickly after the war) and unfortunately not giving sufficient credit to the UK and our allies.

I think we took upon ourselves the role of being able to defeat another Hitler, Stalin, or Mao, or maybe all at once, so we needed the military to be able to do it.

Once that policy is accepted, a lot of the spending follows. There is a lot of waste, but in general, military spending is approved of by a large portion of the electorate. Social welfare spending is also widely accepted, up to a point, but for many Americans that point was reached some time back. Also, we prefer to do our own charitable giving at the individual or local level, federal welfare irritates many.

So, there you have it, another opinion worth its full purchase price. When you want another, stop by.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:19 AM
link   
There are several; comments that could be made re this issue. As previous poster stated most defence contracts are 'in country' so the industrail / military complex can keep running. As George has stated when we had the good times money should have been set aside, but oh no gormless broon and tony b-liar spent all the increased revenue and still borrowed on top almost to the point of no return.

I love when labour supporters keep citing them as being the party of the working man, they are not. Lets take a quick look at their stats. When they came to power the average house price was 3 times the average wage, when the bust happend (the one gormless said would never happen again, boom and bust are over, lmfao) the average house price was 8 times the average wage, that doesnt sound like a party of the working man. Bearing in mind the working man allegedly makes up the 99%. They didn't touch the threshold for what stamp duty was paid on said purchases, hence they pushed the house prices up for a greater return on the Tax 1.5% upto 250K. 3 % for anything above that. So not only did they preside over the largest intake of tax revenue ever, which should have given them more money, they borrowed and spent on top of that. This is only 1 statistic, there are probably loads more about how reckless Labour was with the UK cheque book.

Through that at a labour supporter and ask them how they define their party as of the working man with those stats



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:20 AM
link   
The money pinch is going to bite way bigger time this year everywhere.....
Nobody who has escaped the meltdown so far is going to be spared.
The drying up of the money , will now follow its path till the war breaks out.
When that happens well borrow some more from the illuminatti......and gladly get back to killing each other off for them.....



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Flavian
reply to post by surrealist
 


He is basically saying do not expect cuts for things in the budget because there is no spare cash.

That is not the same as saying we are bankrupt (which running out of money would imply). It was only last week they were declaring they had spent billions less than expected so far this year, so the story isn't as bleak as painted.


Exactly. The headline is misleading. The Chancellor is saying we cannot afford tax breaks, not that we litterally have no money. It is basically him warming the public up to the coming budget so we don't get our hopes up.


Originally posted by On the level
Agreed it is sickening that people are living below the poverty line in both the US and UK but we are sending hundreds of millions in Aid to India
and we are spending billions on fighting useless wars. Pull all the troops home, defend our own shores and let the middle east go up in smoke, it will anyway


I see what you're saying, but what would happen to the price of oil if the ME was left to go up in smoke, or worse yet, China and Russia decide to intervene instead and we lose all control over our supply of vital oil. You may not like "wars for oil", but it's stopping your life being turned upside down by a fuel crisis.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
Don't we (UK) owe nearly a trillion pounds? And isn't the interest on that about £120m a day?

That pretty much tells me we're out of money.


I think most countries in the west are facing similar levels of debt and a similar lack of money.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:22 AM
link   
We're broke, yet we still give aid to multiple countries like Brasil who actually are richer than us. Yet, we still go to war, Yet we still pay 30million a day for a membership that holds very minimum benefits - You would of thought if we're that broke, we would cut all this stupid spending and spend it where it needs to be spent, Apprenterships and manufacturing. Also the government needs to stop spending money on private firms who deal with our unemployed, like A4e, E2e, BEST etc - instead of funding these firms, who in allot of cases can take up to £3,000 for a job seekers attendance, the goverment should get rid of these new deal muppets who only have a job themselves because people are unemployed, they should offer that £3,000 to tradesmen or local businesses to take an unemployed person on for 2 or 3 months and teach them the tricks of the trade. That £3,000 would cover the unemployed persons minimum wage for that 2-3 month period and it would give the trainer/employer an extra workforce.

But hey, we dont know what we're onabout do we - we should just leave it to the idle oldies in offices, im sure they'll be able to sort it out (sarcasm)



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:28 AM
link   
We've already tried some austerity measures hence the ridiculous amount of unemployed we have here. Hyper-inflation seems to be the only way we can go, even though it won't work. Capitalism is a sinking ship, the people just haven't realised it yet.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by blupblup
Don't we (UK) owe nearly a trillion pounds? And isn't the interest on that about £120m a day?

That pretty much tells me we're out of money.


I think most countries in the west are facing similar levels of debt and a similar lack of money.


It isn't as simple as that. The UK national debt is actually a lot less than countries such as Japan, France, Germany and the USA, in terms of a % of GDP or per capita. Also, around half of the money was added in 2008 to bailout the banks. When they are sold (whenever that may be) much of the money will be recouped.

Also, the debt is time limited in bonds, so all we need is 5 years of a budget surplus (very do-able as the Tories actually left one to Labour in 1997 which they promptly pissed away) and much of our debt will be cleared off.

In short, don't just rely on the headline figures, actually look at the meat of it and it isn't that bad. Hence why we still have our AAA rating and many others don't.



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Tea4One
 


Again, in relation to other countries, our unemployment is rather low! And the budget cuts were needed as Labour had been spending money like there was no tomorrow for over ten years, usually so they could create a class of client voter so reliant on state handouts they would have to vote Labour for fear of losing their "entitlements"....



posted on Feb, 27 2012 @ 06:33 AM
link   
reply to post by On the level
 


Yeah, and apparantly India said they don't want or need the aid money from the UK.
edit on 27-2-2012 by goinglocodowninacapulco because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<<   2 >>

log in

join