Bliss Roots Cbd Gummies™ Exclusive...
Food & Drink10 mins ago
The Budget
Seems ok to me. At least he didnt go on about 'investing' in schools 'n' hospitals like Brown used to always do.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dave50. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
“Why is increasing public spending always a good thing?”
Yes dave, it’s something that’s often puzzled me. As I’ve said before, many politicians measure their success by the amount of other people’s money they have spent and not by the results of that spending. Mr Balls talks of the Tories’ proposed “unprecedented massive cuts” and paints pictures of people dying in the gutters. In fact even taken at their worst (i.e. the level to which Mr Balls forecasts the cuts will take public spending) the total government spend as a proportion of GDP does not even approach the 35% which was seen in 2001 at the end of Labour’s first term in office.
There are some things which individuals clearly cannot provide themselves directly from their own funds (defence, roads, railways immediately spring to mind). But there are many things they could if only they were left with more of their own cash to spend. Not only could they do so but they would almost certainly find a provider who is far more efficient and effective than the State is. Education is a case in point and arguably healthcare are foremost among these. There is no earthly reason why the NHS in its current form should be sacrosanct. It works well enough for most of the time (but clearly does not do so in all circumstances) but its costs are immense and it is hugely inefficient, mainly because government interference in affairs which most politicians (and often their advisors) know little about.
It is an unhealthy situation where the State is spending around £4 in every £10 of the nation’s earnings and it is about time some items of spend were either removed from the State entirely or at least considerably curtailed.
Yes dave, it’s something that’s often puzzled me. As I’ve said before, many politicians measure their success by the amount of other people’s money they have spent and not by the results of that spending. Mr Balls talks of the Tories’ proposed “unprecedented massive cuts” and paints pictures of people dying in the gutters. In fact even taken at their worst (i.e. the level to which Mr Balls forecasts the cuts will take public spending) the total government spend as a proportion of GDP does not even approach the 35% which was seen in 2001 at the end of Labour’s first term in office.
There are some things which individuals clearly cannot provide themselves directly from their own funds (defence, roads, railways immediately spring to mind). But there are many things they could if only they were left with more of their own cash to spend. Not only could they do so but they would almost certainly find a provider who is far more efficient and effective than the State is. Education is a case in point and arguably healthcare are foremost among these. There is no earthly reason why the NHS in its current form should be sacrosanct. It works well enough for most of the time (but clearly does not do so in all circumstances) but its costs are immense and it is hugely inefficient, mainly because government interference in affairs which most politicians (and often their advisors) know little about.
It is an unhealthy situation where the State is spending around £4 in every £10 of the nation’s earnings and it is about time some items of spend were either removed from the State entirely or at least considerably curtailed.
