I want more money! well your getting more debt!

So you’ve really got to wonder. Do you trust any government enough to allow it to get even more in debt to the world bank systems?

Over the last few years more and more laise faire capitalism has been pushed onto workers and what has it brought us, world wide depression bought about by appalling mismanagement of the USA debt; workers offered loans they can’t repay by a banking system run by bastards. And were told that the only way we workers can get out of this debt is to allow the government to take on more debt in your name? Yeah get right you wanted your free market “bankers” you wanted to screw everyone and your own children for the sake of money and now as the system starts to fall apart you want to go cry and hide behind your mam.

Tax change could lift British borrowing
By Chris Giles in London, Economics Editor

Published: July 18 2008 03:00 | Last updated: July 18 2008 03:00

British finance ministry officials are working on plans to reform the prime minister’s fiscal rules on government spending and debt, with a new framework which would give to more room to increase borrowing.

The details will not be finalised until the outcome of the huge revisions to the national accounts are known. The government’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) is looking towards the end of September with the autumn pre-budget report seen as the right time to announce the change.

As Gordon Brown is on course to break one of his current rules – the cap on net public sector debt to 40 per cent of national income – a new fiscal framework would initially be looser than at present. A consequence will be to make it easier for his government to borrow more in the coming downturn – although officials stress the principal reason for the change is to restore confidence in the rules widely criticised in recent years.

The British Treasury department’s work to redraw the rules on public spending and taxation comes as public finances are severely strain although oil prices will boost North Sea revenues.

Public sector borrowing was 50 per cent higher in the first two months of the financial year and taxes as diverse as value-added tax and stamp duty will be hit by rising inflation and falling housing transactions.

The Treasury said last night that it had long made it clear that when it declared the end of the cycle, that would be the right time to reassess the fiscal framework and the pre-Budget report was when it would be able to give its view on the economic cycle.

Dave Ramsden, the Treasury’s chief economic adviser, gave a hint along these lines to Parliament in March, saying that the Treasury was looking forward to the ONS producing its book of national accounts figures, as it was planning to do this summer.

Treasury officials expect the ONS revisions will enable Alistair Darling, the chancellor, to declare the economic cycle, which the Treasury believes started in 1997, to have finished and Gordon Brown’s two fiscal rules to have been passed.

If it kept the same rules, only to borrow to invest over the economy cycle and to keep net public sector debt at a low level, it is likely to be faced with unpalatable choices in the months to come.

With net debt likely to exceed 40 per cent of gross domestic product as the economy slows, the government would have to choose between breaking the rule or raising taxes in a downturn.

This, Treasury officials believe, would conflict with their desire to see fiscal policy supporting monetary policy and it would be better to bite the bullet and redraw the fiscal rules instead.

They have sought outside advice from fiscal policy experts in their quest for new rules that have a wider acceptance and following than those at present.

Robert Chote, director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, yesterday said the “existing rules are not seen as a credible constraint on public policy” and supported a new framework to anchor taxation and spending levels.

Many independent experts argue that that the current rules are so discredited that the government will not lose much credibility by replacing them with a new framework alongside some independent external monitoring of the government’s performance against the rules.

A political consensus on a new fiscal framework would be possible with David Cameron, the opposition leader, yesterday also saying a Conservative government “as a bare minimum” would impose independent scrutiny of the fiscal controls.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/02a6e0a0-5461-11dd-aa78-000077b07658.html?nclick_check=1

Don’t forget the money systems all a big fat lie,

Your comrade unto death

h

facsists want your data

So yet again the fascist state wants to stop your free association all under the guise of ‘protecting the public’, you never know you might be a terrorist, you might be a criminal, you might be the messiah.

Never mind the fact that no self righteous terrorist would actually get caught buggering about on the internet in such a way, what you don’t think that the terrorists are smart enough to protect there data?

Tell the fascist state to go get stuffed, intall a TOR service, encrypt your emails with GPG, buy your mobiles second hand off market stalls, and send off for your free 10 sim cards from every phone retailer and swap then with your mates…it’s your freedom protect it and use it or you’ll lose it.

‘Big Brother’ database for phones and emails

May 20, 2008

Richard Ford

A massive government database holding details of every phone call, e-mail and time spent on the internet by the public is being planned as part of the fight against crime and terrorism. Internet service providers (ISPs) and telecoms companies would hand over the records to the Home Office under plans put forward by officials.

The information would be held for at least 12 months and the police and security services would be able to access it if given permission from the courts.

The proposal will raise further alarm about a “Big Brother” society, as it follows plans for vast databases for the ID cards scheme and NHS patients. There will also be concern about the ability of the Government to manage a system holding billions of records. About 57 billion text messages were sent in Britain last year, while an estimated 3 billion e-mails are sent every day.

Home Office officials have discussed the option of the national database with telecommunications companies and ISPs as part of preparations for a data communications Bill to be in November’s Queen’s Speech. But the plan has not been sent to ministers yet.

Industry sources gave warning that a single database would be at greater risk of attack and abuse.

Jonathan Bamford, the assistant Information Commissioner, said: “This would give us serious concerns and may well be a step too far. We are not aware of any justification for the State to hold every UK citizen’s phone and internet records. We have real doubts that such a measure can be justified, or is proportionate or desirable. We have warned before that we are sleepwalking into a surveillance society. Holding large collections of data is always risky – the more data that is collected and stored, the bigger the problem when the data is lost, traded or stolen.”

David Davis, the Shadow Home Secretary, said: “Given [ministers’] appalling record at maintaining the integrity of databases holding people’s sensitive data, this could well be more of a threat to our security, than a support.”

The proposal has emerged as part of plans to implement an EU directive developed after the July 7 bombings to bring uniformity of record-keeping. Since last October telecoms companies have been required to keep records of phone calls and text messages for 12 months. That requirement is to be extended to internet, e-mail and voice-over-internet use and included in a Communications Data Bill.

Police and the security services can access the records with a warrant issued by the courts. Rather than individual companies holding the information, Home Office officials are suggesting the records be handed over to the Government and stored on a huge database.

One of the arguments being put forward in favour of the plan is that it would make it simpler and swifter for law enforcement agencies to retrieve the information instead of having to approach hundreds of service providers. Opponents say that the scope for abuse will be greater if the records are held on one database.

A Home Office spokesman said the Bill was needed to reflect changes in communication that would “increasingly undermine our current capabilities to obtain communications data and use it to protect the public”.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/telecoms/article3965033.ece

Your comrade unto death

h