UK to cut spending substantially

[StageLeft]

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."

When do you think it is the US' turn and is there any conceivable way this will not put the brakes on the "recovery"?

 

[Vette73]

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.

 

[Acanthus]

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.

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.

 

[tincart]

Less. Defense. Spending.

 

[LTC8K6]

The NHS is going to be getting big cuts, too...

 

[boomerang]

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.

 

[MotF Bane]

Less. Spending.

ffy.

 

[CycloWizard]

Less. Defense. Spending.

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.

 

[rudder]

The NHS is going to be getting big cuts, too...

What? I though government healthcare was perfect?

 

[tincart]

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.

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

Also: More. Taxes.

 

[MotF Bane]

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

Also: More. Taxes.

No.

 

[CycloWizard]

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

Also: More. Taxes.

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.

 

[boomerang]

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.

Wow, that almost sounds unsustainable over the long term. Surely we'll never run out of rich people, will we?

 

[rudder]

Less. Defense. Spending.

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..

 

[CPA]

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..

You obviously missed tin's other half of his brilliant equation: raise taxes.

 

[Schadenfroh]

Less. Defense. Spending.

Defense spending is #4 on the UK's expenditure's list:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_budget

(in millions of &#163
1. Work and Pensions: 132,732
2. Health: 104,464
3. Education: 68,060
4. Defense: 38,986

Defense spending seems rather low compared to 1 and 2.

 

[tincart]

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.

 

[drebo]

Wow, that almost sounds unsustainable over the long term. Surely we'll never run out of rich people, will we?

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.

 

[bamacre]

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.

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.

 

[BoberFett]

Wow, that almost sounds unsustainable over the long term. Surely we'll never run out of rich people, will we?

Tax the rich
Feed the poor
Until there are no
Rich no more

I'd love to change the world
But I don't know what to do

 

[GTaudiophile]

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.

Sig worthy!

 

[palehorse]

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.

this. well said!

 

[Schadenfroh]

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.

Excellent analogy!

 

[IGBT]

bailouts and social rackets spending will thrust debt beyond the GDP in the near future. debt velocity assures this will happen.