Solutions Barbados’ Response to the S&P Downgrade – The Death Spiral

Submitted by Grenville Phillips II, leader of Solutions Barbados

As expected, Standard & Poor’s downgraded Barbados’ sovereign credit rating yet again, this time to CCC.  As long as the DLP continues to follow their developmental philosophy of high taxation, then further downgrades and eventual currency devaluation are certain.  So what is the solution?

First, we need to understand that the DLP’s developmental philosophy has benefitted Barbados immensely.  However, their philosophy no longer works when we have entered the death spiral.  Our problem is that the DLP continues to stubbornly embrace their failing philosophy, which will certainly ruin Barbados.  Pharaoh’s heart appears to be hardened to any good economic advice.

Some think that the solution is to simply change administrations.  That thinking is valid in normal circumstances.  However, once we have entered the death spiral, special measures are required to get us out.  The BLP and DLP are as inexperienced as all third parties in getting us out of this level of debt.  Therefore, the critical question that responsible voters need to ask those offering to manage Barbados’ economy is: how do you plan to get us out of this death spiral?

The DLP’s management of the economy has been continually examined by the international rating agencies. The now familiar downgrade announcements simply chart our progress to foreseen economic ruin.  However, would anything improve if voters selected the BLP?  To assess the likely outcome, we need to examine the BLP’s development philosophy.

The BLP’s development philosophy is to finance Barbados’ development through debt.  Barbados has benefitted immensely from this philosophy.  However, their philosophy no longer works when we have entered the death spiral.  Our problem is that BLP is also blinded by their developmental philosophy.  Even as we are racing towards economic ruin, the BLP’s solution is to burden Barbados with even more debt – they simply know no other way.

To get out of this death spiral, we need to understand how we got in.  All economic enterprises, whether they are households, businesses or countries, should be run within safe operating boundaries.  Banks normally protect individuals (and their families) and business owners (and their employees) from going outside of these boundaries, by limiting the amount of debt they can acquire based on their income.

Individuals or business owners may acquire additional debt from other sources.  However, once it reaches an unsustainable tipping point, then they enter the death spiral where their families will eventually have to vacate their houses, and their employees will eventually become unemployed.

Our elected politicians negotiate national loans on our behalf.  However, unlike individuals and business owners, international funding agencies willingly lend politicians any amount, but inflict punishing interest charges on citizens based on the risks of lending.  The IMF warned us citizen not to allow our politicians to enter the death spiral.  We enter this spiral when our debt exceeds 40% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP).

The BLP took us from the safety of 30% GDP debt to approximately 90% GDP debt.  Entering the death spiral is deceptive, since there is very little change in the circumference or size of the circle in the initial cycles.  However, as we move from the rim and inevitably travel downward towards the eventual drain, then with each successive cycle, the circle gets smaller, the effects of each cycle become more noticeable, and we become more alarmed.

If Barbados has the misfortune of electing the DLP, or any party that shares the BLP’s failed philosophy, then Barbados is sunk.  Solutions Barbados is the only party that has published a non-austerity plan for getting Barbados out of this death spiral.  It has undergone over 2 years of rigorous public scrutiny and is available on

Essentially it comprises 4 proven main steps.  The first is to increase Government revenues by lowering taxes and making them fair, and easier to calculate, pay and audit.  The second is to increase productivity in both the public and private sectors by managing each Government service to the international customer-focused quality management standard, ISO 9001.

The third step is to effectively address corruption by fining those who receive and pay bribes up to 10 times the value of the bribe, and rewarding the whistle-blower with the full value of the bribe.  The last step is to depoliticise the civil service by ensuring that all public workers are promoted on merit alone.  The details are on

In the upcoming election, the choice for voters could not be clearer.  We either complete the death spiral by voting for politicians who embrace the failed philosophies of the DLP and BLP that have brought us to this point, or we get out of this death spiral by voting for Solutions Barbados candidates.  Decide Barbados.
Grenville Phillips II is the founder of Solutions Barbados and can be reached at

153 thoughts on “Solutions Barbados’ Response to the S&P Downgrade – The Death Spiral

  1. Reason that Sinckler is still MOF and dlp is stiil govt even in the face of all efforts by blp operatives and members of oppsition party to bring down govt. Reason being that both operatives and Blp govt has not offered any durable alternative to the country. Yet you being the low grade yardfowl got nerve to criticize. Bro get out my face and as for your non constructive ideas there arent worth what paddy shot at. well except here on BU where some belive that there comments are worthy to be entertained

  2. And “the DLP govt has not offered any durable alternative to the country” either……… hence, your unprecedented achievement of 20 CONSECUTIVE credit rating downgrades (in NINE (9) YEARS) and economic policies that FAILED to achieve the desired objectives.

    What constructive ideas have you and the other “low grade DLP yard-fowls” ever presented to BU, other than replying to every contribution with:

    (1) trying to defend the indefensible

    (2) referring to critics of this inept DLP administration as “BLP operatives, simply because they do not drink “DLP kool-aid”

    (3) asking about solutions, when the DLP clearly does not have any

    (4) “stabbing in the dark” about Mottley and a LEC, without being able to present any credible evidence to substantiate your claims.

    Unfortunately for you and the other idiots, your irrational, illogical comments and nonsensical political rhetoric identify you as DLP yard-fowls whose main role is to disrupt this forum.

    Based on their abysmal performance and continual failures, if the members of this inept DLP administration were the management team of any business organisation, I’m sure the Board of Directors would have asked them to resign long time ago.

    Barbados can be viewed as a business organisation and its citizens are the Board of Directors.

    The DLP needs to tender its resignation.

  3. @Angela
    You have the right to your own opinion, but you do not have the right to your own facts?
    “The reality being Barbados is cash poor”. Where have you been living? Barbados has more cash than the people know what to do with. That is what printing money does, it bloats the money supply. That is why this administration allowed the commercial bank savings rate to float, they knew it would drop, making their government issued bonds more attractive. If the bank rate was 4%, the GoB bonds would have to be 8-9%. Instead they can “try” and attract Bajans savings at the bargain rate of 5%.
    “The reality being our internal debts are high”. True. And they are largely internal to the government and its various boards and bodies.
    “And dispose of about 10,000 civil servants”. This is the current administration’s biggest fallacy. Yes they are keeping the civil service employed, albeit without raises, the cost of these employees is relatively decreasing every year. Yet the EXPENESES of government RISE every year. Why? Transfers and subsidies. Yes there are some jobs here, but not for the ordinary citizen. These are the big money jobs and contracts.
    What is UNSUSTAINABLE is current policy. Don’t mind the early report on the NSRL, this group has consistently found a way to spend all they can collect and then some.
    You didn’t read DrJR telling yah that if by chance any of the big owners of Bonds cash them in as opposed to renewing them (rolling over), we are up the creek. That is because we are out of homegrown lenders, they have loaned all they have.
    So let’s see if some group in Latin America will lend us $US, just remember that means repayments in $US.
    Maybe, just maybe, SB can COLLECT taxes owed, and stop the gravy train in Transfers and Subsidies. That way they don’t have to send home a single civil servant. And maybe stop this 9 years of deficits.

  4. Northern observer thanks for your valuable information, However with all the cash barbadians have stached away in banks it is hard to believe that the opposition would tell the whole world how poor and despondent barbadians are , anyhow that being the reality of gutter politics

  5. NorthernObserver October 11, 2017 at 12:19 AM #

    “@Angela: You have the right to your own opinion, but you do not have the right to your own facts?”


    Angela Skeete is an idiotic political yard-fowl whose contributions are reflective of the morons in this inept DLP administration.

    The jack-ass yard-fowl wrote:

    “angela Skeete October 11, 2017 at 5:39 AM #: Northern observer thanks for your valuable information, However with all the cash barbadians have stached away in banks it is hard to believe that the opposition would tell the whole world how poor and despondent barbadians are……….”

    But the jack-ass yard-fowl previously contributed the following:

    “angela Skeete October 10, 2017 at 12:38 AM #: The reality being Barbados is CASH POOR.”

    After you highlighted the shiite in her comments, she blames the BLP for saying what she wrote in a previous contribution.

    “………….anyhow that being the reality of gutter politics.”

    I hate politicians…………… BUT I HATE YARD-FOWLS EVEN MORE.

  6. Good morning Artac i see you got up with a bone stuck in your throat called angela sjeete
    Furthermore like all blp yardfowls u take and interpret what comments made by me and others dlp supporters into your own twisted version
    My comment stated barbados being poor made only as an indicator to the country financial debt but of course u and the other jerk makes useless noise to retract
    However i advice u and northern to take his retractions and show them to the leader of the blp. Mia as evidence that barbadians are not poor barbadians are poor and needs any kind if financial help from govt. After all as stated by another yard fowl barbadians have millions lying dormant in banks with is a truth.
    Hopefully before Mia opens her mouth she would bring Facts instead of her own twisted version of Truth

  7. Firstly, unlike you, I am not a supporter of any political party and it’s about time you stop associating me with the BLP.

    Secondly, you are not only a political yard-fowl, but a LIAR as well. You were caught in a “lie trap,” and similarly to notorious liars as politicians in your DLP behave when they are caught in a lie………. you are “dipsy doodling.”

    There isn’t anything in any of your contributions that suggests the comment re: “angela Skeete October 10, 2017 at 12:38 AM #: The reality being Barbados is cash poor,” was “made only as an indicator to the country financial debt.”

    You specifically mentioned “the reality being Barbados is cash poor,” but you’re now attempting to “change direction” after Northern Observer highlighted the shiite you wrote.

    Thirdly, confession is good for the soul………….. after lying about your association with the DLP, you have finally admitted you’re a DLP supporter.

  8. Sir if you were following my comments without jaundice eye you would not have made such an asinine assumption for certainly all my comments were in regards and reference to Solutions alternatives to the barbados economy and had nothing to do with how much barbadians have or own within their financial interest monetary or other wise. Have a good day sir and stop being an infactual intrepretator of any one comments except your own

  9. Any body who is spouting lies and misinformation about barbadians finances would be MAM because accordingto one of the blp yardflow sources and supported by You the yard bird and chief Artax barbadians are cash rich. Maybe You and Northern should send her a memo

  10. The arrogance of blp operatives to condemn and maligned govt efforts to secure barbados interest by way of a tax increase and stand bold faced and infers with refence to back up that barbadians are cash rich makes me winder if barbados interest does at all matter to You operatives ir it all about self interest.

  11. @Angela
    You are correct, the opposition BLP has offered no proposals of what they might do. Yet, they are not governing, nor have they for many years. So if we are talking about the health of the COUNTRY, and not the health of any political party, certain issues are relevant. And I mean relevant to country, not any political party.
    The Barbadian Public debt, is the result of years of spending more than we collect. It began with a BLP administration, and has continued every year under the current DLP administration. You appear to believe that is now OK, because you can rationalize that over spending to “social economy”. (even though that isn’t totally accurate)
    Yet, one cannot endlessly spend more? And it is the same persons you are trying to protect, who are hit the hardest, when their employer (the GoB) cannot find money to borrow. And that time will come. In fact it already arrived, that is one reason they printed money.
    Don’t you think it is the responsibility of every government to protect the most vulnerable in society? You don’t protect by giving a little scratch grain today, while simultaneously exposing them via negative financing, so they could get nothing tomorrow.

    • @NO

      Following your effort with keen interest. Hopefully there is the opportunity to model the outcome BUT you still have some ‘ways’ to go!

  12. And yes the govt is trying hard to protect the vulnerable reason why the NSRL was put in place to finance much needed revenue for the freebies people of your ilk rich or poor have got accustomed and belive that you are entiled
    But let us not forget that you stood at the front of the class with raised hands and declare barbadians are rich.
    Yet you have these grandiose expectations that govt should provide free services with out people paying their fair share
    After you declaration that barbafians are cash rich i am left with the assumption that govt is too lenient in their implementation of measures to put Country first.
    Barbadians are cash rich . your words Northern Observer not mine

  13. So why is this administration, and certain ones which came before, so piss poor at collecting what they are rightfully due? Is this the continuing chorus of having “friends”?
    But again, what you fail to accept, is the #1 expense item is Transfers and Subsidies. #2 is debt servicing. And these are the two areas which have been GROWING rapidly. The civil service salaries and wages are FLAT. In fact, they have DECLINED as a % of GDP.
    So you may be personally convinced, this administration is protecting the vulnerable. But the expense growth areas say, where the money borrowed is being spent is within Transfers and Subsidies. And this is causing the debt to grow. Not the public service, which is admittedly 9% larger than any comparable Caribbean nation.
    The fact Bajans are cash rich, has many factors. If government borrows billions, and then print another billion, naturally some part must end up in the citizens bank accounts? Yet dey ain’t buying Bonds? Why not?
    You need to pay attention to where the government is actually spending.
    Now maybe you have a sweet job, or get sweet contracts, because you are a party loyalist. I am confident you are not alone. But at some point the spending has to be accounted for. Or the nation will crash. If there was an unlimited amount of money to borrow or print without consequences, then no worry. But they are limits and consequences.

  14. The cat bite ya tongue?

    A friend sent me a copy of the letter Herbert, in his position with the PSA, sent the PM. I decided it must be fake or doctored, as it never contained any threats. You got a copy of the real letter yet?

  15. Angela Skeete, thanks for the correction…… I am forced to accept that my assumptions were asinine, because based on the shiite you contribute, you (and the other shiite DLP politicians who also contribute under your name) are BU’s resident expert in what is asinine.

    Excellent contributions, Northern Observer……… I’m sure your comments and explanation of the facts have gone over Angela “Yard-Fowl” Skeete’s head.

    Government cannot continue to provide free social services for all Barbadians or continue to subsidize bus fare, because the freeness has become unsustainable.

    Those who can pay, should pay, while those who cannot pay should be determined by “means testing.”

    Yes, the yard-fowl was “spouting lies and misinformation” (angela Skeete October 11, 2017 at 9:39 AM #) about Charles Herbert’s letter.

  16. Artax
    the anomaly is…and where I was headed….had 10 years ago, the administration raised VAT and placed an NSRL, the outcry would have been massive. Recall why PLT opposed GP’s flat tax. It is regressive, for it’s a consumption tax. The poor person pays a relatively higher tax than the better off persons. But now, such increases are explained as a way to get revenue, irrelevant of who shoulders the bigger load. It is all good, only because, there is little choice.
    The message is potentially instructive…. if the NSRL works, then GP’s argued tax strategy gains credence. The underlying logic….Bajans don’t pay tax voluntarily, but they will consume. Hence tax consumption, but at the source, for they can pocket VAT. It increases the cash flow outlays, but the government is guaranteed their share, and up front.
    This I believe is the Bermuda model.

  17. Artax October 12, 2017 at 11:09 PM #

    Those who can pay, should pay, while those who cannot pay should be determined by “means testing.”


    Who should pay for those who cannot pay ?

  18. You have a problem with comprehension, so let me break this down to you as simply as I can.

    For weeks you were coming to BU posting information, which suggested Charles Herbert, in his capacity as President of the Private Sector Association, sent a letter containing threats, to PM Stuart.

    However, Northern Observer mentioned he’s in possession of a copy of the letter the PSA letter and since it did not contain any threats, as you were constantly mentioning, he concluded it may be a fake document………

    …………. and is therefore challenging you to present your copy of the letter for all and sundry can read.

    I’ll answer that silly question after you present the letter.

  19. Yes i do understand means test. But what you guys want to avoid is a relevant question that those who cannot afford to pay would still remain a continual financial burden to the govt which means that govt would have to find measures to make up the revenue for the majority who cannot pass the means test.
    Furthermore the burden would inevitably fall on those who have been exempt or exclude from accesd to free docial services because of their financial abilty to pay.
    Go figure and tell what practical measures would govt be able to implement to makevup for shortfall in order not to pass on the additional financial responsiblity on those who can pay in order to help those who cannot pay

    • Thr point is that people who are currently being subsidized who can pay will offset those who cannot.


  20. In reality what Artax is suggestion is asking govt to place additional burden on few who can pay for social services and in addition most likely having to pay a tax which would have to be placed in order to generate any revenue shortages.
    Btw should govt employ another two thousand people to process the”means test applicants”
    David you talking bull shit i am speaking of volume that financial input cannot handle you know that the majority which includes children would be counted in every household which increases the likelihood that most households would not be able to pay
    The NSRL levy is a fair way if asking not a few but all to pay for social services which makes certain that no one falls through the cracks

  21. The fact being you cannot dispute so you modus operandi. is to attack.
    You blp operatives have now exposed your hand with a policy which would deplte govt of revenue under the misguided conclusuon of helping the vulnerable. Wuh loss

  22. @ NorthernObserver October 13, 2017 at 1:36 AM

    Your argument does make an appealing countervailing case for a return to the pre-VAT high import duties regime when the Bajan economy was less sophisticated and the Roebuck Street merchants ruled the roost of importation and distribution which made up the lion share of the GDP based primarily on sugar and other agricultural pursuits.

    So what happens to the NSRL on locally-produced goods and services in order to comply WTO rules?

    The NSRL imposition and collection at the point of importation is just another method of revenue collection to finance the never-ending increase in the fiscal deficit without raising the rate of customs duties which would require WTO approval.

    The difficulties still arise in regard to local production.

    The NSRL will never replace VAT or any other consumption-based tax as long as services make up a large slice of the general tax base where the VAT method is far superior as an effective tax gathering regime.

    The problem is not with the VAT but with the incompetent and politically-compromised officials.

    If the problem was with the VAT per se, the UK would have long dumped it in the basket for tax failures like the Poll Tax to be confined to the history of man-made mistakes,

  23. Also Northern can you answer another relevant question to means testing and in what manner it can be applied and how would govt fast track the process

  24. Your comments re: “angela Skeete October 13, 2017 at 7:44 AM” and “angela Skeete October 13, 2017 at 8:09 AM” are so much nonsense and political motivated shiite that they do not deserve a response.

  25. NorthernObserver October 13, 2017 at 9:01 AM #

    “Every now and then, the similarity to Kellman’s incoherent writings is striking.”

    Northern Observer

    I concur………

  26. So you too answer the question. How is the mean testing process be applied and where would the revenue come from to screen the applicants

  27. @Angela
    Artax raised means testing, not I.

    Given the current administration raised VAT, and placed the NSRL, both consumption style impositions, I am unaware that anybody cared about means? The objective is to raise public revenue, to attempt to cover costs, and avoid another annual deficit. If the DLP do not care about means, how might we expect the B’s or other potential parties to care?

    The greater point, is what has been suspected for years. Bajans do not pay voluntary income tax at the level they should, and even the involuntary taxes like property tax and VAT, remittances are being withheld. You know “it en me, I pay, it is he and she who don’t pay”.

    I have no idea given the preceding, how one gets accurate and truthful information to assess means. And if successive administrations have been so poor at tax collection, what makes us think they can assess means?


    Mine was an observation, not an argument, for or against. You raise valid points. And yet there is usually “a way around” these hurdles.

    Personally, I have little time for the WTO. A eunuch organization. Rarely about trade, mostly about politics.

    When non compliance becomes the rule and not the exception, the tax structure may have to be focused on ensuring compliance.

  28. Donville should tell you keep away from the computer for a while as well.

    Once AGAIN, I’m going to HIGHLIGHT your STUPIDITY.

    If you understood what is means testing and how it is conducted, you would never have made the comment about employing thousands to conduct the tests or “where the revenue come from to screen the applicants.”

    Means testing or assessment is simply a way to determine if an individual has enough means to support him/herself. Welfare Officers, who are trained social workers are trained to conduct means testing……… IT’S THEIR JOB.

    Anyone, for example, applying for services from the Welfare Department or National Assistance Board is interviewed by Welfare Officers who, based on the applicant’s information, also makes an assessment, of the applicant’s means, to determine whether or not the applicant i deserving of the services.

    Or, how about people applying for social welfare assistance?

    Welfare Officers from the Welfare Department investigate each case to determine if the applicant is eligible for a welfare grant. This is done by examining the applicant’s sources of income or details of your means. (This is a form of means testing).

    How does UDC determine whether or not an applicant is eligible for house repairs or a house?

    Welfare Officers (some of whom were transferred from NAB when the Housing Welfare Program was closed and “rebranded” as UDC & RDC) investigates each applicant’s case to make those determinations. Assessments include testing the individual’s “means.” (Ask Derek Alleyne or Colvin Mascoll, I’m sure you them…….. they are your DLP yard-fowls associates).

    NAB, QEH, RDC, UDC and many other government agencies that provided welfare services, employ Welfare Officers.

    All the processes mentioned above are a form of means testing. So why would government need to employ more people?

    The current applications used by these organizations could be amended to include any additional information required.

    Unless of course you are of the belief the means test is done at the Conference Center or UWI, UNDER EXAMINATION CONDITIONS and there will be a need to EMPLOY extra TEACHERS to teach the “means test syllabus” and INVIGILATORS to supervise the exam.

  29. You do not have to tell me what is means testing.The problem with your plan is one that would require additional funding which govt does not have . in other words the process would initiate govt having to increase some level of employment to initiate and speed up the process
    Furthermore the outcome of the testing would not orovide any different statistical results which most likely show that a majority if barbadians would remain in the safety net because of low wages.
    Albeit that after all the testing nothing would have been achieved except that of additional govt spending to suppirt another govt agency
    Your suggestion is nonsencial given that revenue statistics already bears out a fact that low wages and high unemployment is a cause for many of the govt sponsered social programs.
    Sir you can go around the mulberry bush all you want with your suggestion but the long and short end is that those who can pay are not enough to sustain the large basket of freebies that barbadians have grown accustomed.
    Have a nice day.

  30. “Albeit that after all the testing nothing would have been achieved except that of additional govt spending to suppirt another govt agency”

    isn’t that good? isn’t that job creation? where the ass do you think all the GROWING expenses in Transfers and Subsidies is being spent? In a bunch of non performing public sponsored NGO’s and agencies and fees and the good lord only knows what else. It is NOT in civil service wages. It is NOT in increased benefits.
    that is from the Central Bank, not me. Look and see for yourself.

    • Agree with NO that the NSRL is a money grab, simple. VAT has the flexibility to exempt or give preferential treatment to different areas of the economy as a means to ensure the economic engine is efficiently calibrated.

  31. Money Grab or whatever you want to call it. However it serves a useful and necessary purpose which would be of benefit to all specifically in the area of generating much needed revenue at front

  32. Northern i do not have tp tread the path with you concerning govt having to expand the public service because i have heard you and others openly state that the public servants produce nothing of relevence economically and most of them should be fired.

  33. @ angela Skeete October 13, 2017 at 12:32 PM
    “Albeit that after all the testing nothing would have been achieved except that of additional govt spending to suppirt another govt agency
    Your suggestion is nonsencial given that revenue statistics already bears out a fact that low wages and high unemployment is a cause for many of the govt sponsered social programs.
    Sir you can go around the mulberry bush all you want with your suggestion but the long and short end is that those who can pay are not enough to sustain the large basket of freebies that barbadians have grown accustomed.”

    Oh happy day when ac the angelic skeet(e) has finally found solace in the arms of her long-in-waiting lover called “Privatization”!

    Why not recommend Angela Skeete as the CEO of that only remaining parasitic agency responsible for vetting those down-and-out citizens in dire need of State-funded assistance provided by the private sector?

    Here is the only criterion you need to employ to determine if someone (‘D’ or ‘B’) is in dire need of State-funded assistance is if that person has a mobile phone with a data package to surf the Internet to worship their pastor called social media.
    If Yes, then No.

    The time is soon approaching when the ghost from the cost of servicing the national debt would become like a heroin or cocaine addict chasing the dragon or following the white lady.

    If you, ac, believe that any government (D or B) can continue spending at the profligate rate of over $22 billion in less than 10 years with little of infrastructural importance to show, then Jesus’s father was a Hindu god called Krishna.

  34. Ya lie. I don’t preach firing. I preach expenditure reduction, along with revenue generation to produce balance or surplus. Note GP doesn’t promote firing either. There is enough slack in T&S to suffice.

    Anyhow, I understand you is DEM now, DEM forever, regardless of the facts. I am for good governance now, and good governance in future. I don’t care what banner those in power run under, only they don’t endanger the island’s future. Today, it is in danger.

  35. Northern Observer

    A level of means testing is done to facilitate the delivery of social services…….

    ……. how the hell would means testing “require additional funding,” “initiate government having to increase some level of employment” and how would could one correlate means testing with statistical results, when providing statistics is the not purpose of the process?

    Why would government need to establish another agency specifically for conducting means testing, when the Welfare Department conducts a level of the testing to determine whether or not an individual qualifies for a welfare grant?

    The Welfare Department could modify the current application forms to include the necessary information or create one specifically for means testing.

    That political jackass yard-fowl is attempting to preserve the DLP’s image of a party that embraces social services, in an environment where the current model is unsustainable.

    And this is the same idiot who DEFENDED the DEM’s policy to let UWI students pay tuition fees, ARGUING it was unsustainable for government to continue doing so………….. ignoring the plight of the same poor people she is attempting to shamelessly and hypocritically defend.

    Clearly, her responses are politically motivated rhetoric and not sensibly thought out.

  36. That is how intellectual jerks react .it is either they say or nobody say at al. He proposed govt spend money to initiate his silly idea. Go figure

  37. Angela Skeete, I have to agree with Artax, you are indeed an idiot and your contributions are based on political rhetoric.

    Typical DLP response, you ask for solutions and cuss people when they bring them.

    Means testing is an excellent idea that can save government money, and it is done all over the world to determine eligibility to social services and does not incur any cast to government. So, you are wrong, admit it and not continue to display how foolish you are.
    Could you point out in any of his contributions that he implies government should spend money to introduce means testing?

    Angela Skeete a you are a real idiot, can you not think for yourself or must you think no further than the DLP hand book?

    Go and do dome reach on means testing and stop thinking within the confines of the DLP.

Leave a comment, join the discussion.