• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

UK to cut spending substantially

StageLeft

StageLeft

No Lifer
http://www.cnbc.com/id/37548650

Regarding the deficit and cuts, the new PM says
"How we deal with these things will affect our economy, our society -- indeed our whole way of life," Cameron says.

"The decisions we make will affect every single person in our country. And the effects of those decisions will stay with us for years, perhaps decades to come."
Click to expand...

When do you think it is the US' turn and is there any conceivable way this will not put the brakes on the "recovery"?
 
When people stop voting for parties and vote for people. When large number of the hard right/left vote the other way.


I like how a lot of incumbents are losing in the primaries this election cycle. And I don’t mean a couple no-name congressmen; I mean big name senators and such.
I would love to see people like Rengal lose, but I doubt that will happen.


But also this is just what they are saying. I will believe it when I see it.
 
Marlin1975 said:
When people stop voting for parties and vote for people. When large number of the hard right/left vote the other way.


I like how a lot of incumbents are losing in the primaries this election cycle. And I don’t mean a couple no-name congressmen; I mean big name senators and such.
I would love to see people like Rengal lose, but I doubt that will happen.


But also this is just what they are saying. I will believe it when I see it.
Click to expand...

This is just history repeating itself. There is always an anti-incumbency attitude at the voting booth during tough times, regardless of who is at fault.
 
It's going to take a change at the top in 2012 to change our spending habits. It may happen before that if there's enough turnover in Congress to restore sweet gridlock.

Glad you put recovery in quotes because there is none. Counting census workers multiple times when generating false jobs numbers is a dirty trick that benefits no one.
 
CycloWizard said:
That could have solved the problem 10 years ago, but not anymore. Defense spending is now dwarfed by spending on social programs to the point where even a 100% cut to the defense budget would only cut the deficit in half.
Click to expand...

True, but cuts to defense spending seem anathema in a way that cuts to other federal programs are not.

Also: More. Taxes.
 
tincart said:
True, but cuts to defense spending seem anathema in a way that cuts to other federal programs are not.

Also: More. Taxes.
Click to expand...
Not really. There's a reason all of the social programs have been labeled "mandatory spending," whereas defense spending is "discretionary." In the end, the problem is that the number of people on social programs will always increase, necessarily decreasing the number of people paying for them.
 
CycloWizard said:
Not really. There's a reason all of the social programs have been labeled "mandatory spending," whereas defense spending is "discretionary." In the end, the problem is that the number of people on social programs will always increase, necessarily decreasing the number of people paying for them.
Click to expand...
Wow, that almost sounds unsustainable over the long term. Surely we'll never run out of rich people, will we?
 
tincart said:
Less. Defense. Spending.
Click to expand...

Not counting the Iraq and Afghanistan operations... Bush increased the Federal budget the largest amount since WW2. I haven't ran the numbers... but safe to say it is likely well above the rate of inflation. Obama is blowing those budget numbers out of the water topping Dubyas largest budget by over a trillion dollars. Even if we disbanded the military completely... we would still have tens of trillions in liabilities from medicare, social security, federal pensions, etc over the coming decades above the national debt that stands at $13 trillion..
 
rudder said:
Not counting the Iraq and Afghanistan operations... Bush increased the Federal budget the largest amount since WW2. I haven't ran the numbers... but safe to say it is likely well above the rate of inflation. Obama is blowing those budget numbers out of the water topping Dubyas largest budget by over a trillion dollars. Even if we disbanded the military completely... we would still have tens of trillions in liabilities from medicare, social security, federal pensions, etc over the coming decades above the national debt that stands at $13 trillion..
Click to expand...

You obviously missed tin's other half of his brilliant equation: raise taxes. 😵🙄
 
I said absolutely nothing about reducing funding to other federal programs. One feature of any successful reduction of federal spending will involve reducing defense spending. Reducing that spending to zero is obviously not practical nor is it ever going to happen - but if you can't at least agree that reductions are necessary and beneficial, I can't really take your positions on any other spending reductions seriously.

I'm not sure what the issue with raising taxation would be. Lowering liabilities helps the problem. Raising receipts helps the problem as well.
 
boomerang said:
Wow, that almost sounds unsustainable over the long term. Surely we'll never run out of rich people, will we?
Click to expand...

The idea that a government can tax any population enough to provide for that population 100% is stupid, but that's what we're moving to.
 
drebo said:
The idea that a government can tax any population enough to provide for that population 100% is stupid, but that's what we're moving to.
Click to expand...

It's like doing a blood transfusion from your right arm to your left arm, and spilling half of it on the floor in the process.
 
bailouts and social rackets spending will thrust debt beyond the GDP in the near future. debt velocity assures this will happen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top