[Austerity Fail] Spending Cuts Push UK Into Recession

Cut spending and raise taxes.

 

Nationalize the Health Insurance industry? the pipeline industry and the power grid?

(I'm just asking questions, not advocating , science fiction, " its a New Depression, a majority of people figure out they can vote for whatever they want like on change.org, they play hardball and end government debt by taxing corporate wealth at a one time rate of 51%")

 

You do realize that your (totally sensible and even bland) post makes you a raving socialist in the stated view of today's GOP leadership, right?

 

Yes. Basically states can write crap exams that everyone passes to get federal funding.

This is an absolute abuse of states' rights and in my opinion education needs to be taken out of state hands.

A national curriculum just makes sense.

 

Depends on the details - which taxes, how much, who benefits, what is the current financial situation of those who benefit, who pays for the added debt, etc.

 

Sure thing.

We'll take every penny of profits from FY2011.

That's about $100 billion for the 5 top companies.

So we're down to $977 billion, but then you have to add the combined average tax rate of 40% back into the deficit, so we're back to $1,017 billion (The top five paid about $40 billion in taxes in FY11 to go w/ their $100 billion in profit, since your nationalizing you can't double count the revenue).

So we're taxing the rich, cut military spending, and nationalized the oil companies (which will never bring in $100 billion in profits again once the federal government takes over).

We've got $1,017 billion in revenue to go to match the spending that's left.

 

I'll let you win teh interwebz for the day.

I post a lot of numbers on this forum. I pull almost all of them from OMB. Some I get from the IRS, some from the CBO, some from JCT, and a very few from another source that I won't reveal because it will say more about what I do for a living than I want any of you guys to know.

My whole point is this. The liberals on this board live in math fantasy land where we can get huge chunks of revenues from ending the Bush tax cuts and nationalizing (or cutting tax breaks for) oil and cutting military spending. I understand why liberals live in this fantasy world.

Your representatives in Congress, your Senators, your Presidents (notice the plural) have been lying to you for 60 years. The only - ONLY - way to EVER balance the budget is to reform entitlements in this country. You need to understand, we could have cut every penny of discretionary spending last year - all of Defense, the alphabet agencies, Congressional, Judicial, and Executive branch salaries - everything, and we would have still run a $100 billion deficit last year.

That is because two thirds of our spending every year goes roughly five items - Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, Welfare, and debt interests. In four budget cycles, that percentage goes to 75%. In 10 budget cycles, that percentage grows to 99%.

By 2020, we will spend at least $1.25 trillion on Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Debt Interest. To put that in perspective, in 2020, Defense is slated to be in the $650 billion range.

We have a spending problem. It can't be a revenue problem because there isn't enough revenue to generate from all Americans (not just the rich) to even get close to solving the problem.

We have to cut spending and reform entitlements, because if we don't, by the time most people on this board, Republican or Democrat, Liberal or Conservative, Black or White, there won't be anything left for us when it comes time for us to retire. No safety net, nothing. It will all have been consumed in the coming and entirely predictable tsunami.

 

Liberals understand the issue of entitlement reform and agree with it wholeheartedly. Medicare and Medicaid need to go and we need a single payer system. For SS you need to eliminate the cap and tax all earnings equally.

What liberals disagree with is the notion that spending cuts specifically to entitlements and tax cuts will fix the debt. You need tax increases on those that have benefited without trickling down a damn thing over the last 30 years along with military spending cuts and entitlement reform.

 

What, Bloomberg or Capital IQ?

lol.

numbers, they scary.

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/readme/2008/09/politicians_lie_numbers_dont.html

we should probably elect more democrats and keep that correlation going

 

What does the equation (15,000,000,000,000 + 1,300,000,000,000{annually}) add up to?

 

This is what you're actually looking for.

gt corresponds to growth; you know, the kind of thing that debt deleveraging can push down for a decade?

 

butlibertarian/conservative economics have proven that this is scientifically impossible. It must be that they have socialistic medicine.

 

The problem is clearly multiculturalism.

 

Historically, nations with great military strength have use colonial exploitation to maintain a quality of life above their GDP, or fascism to face their government debt. I don't know if a democracy has ever reduced entitlements before. So I don't think there is a politically acceptable and predictable course of action out there. We will probably just make incremental adjustments and react to the unforeseen consequences.

(is the ability to pay developing nations with fiat money of variable value a form of colonialism?)

 

This is such a great post. Repped.

Colonialism never died - it was just altered. The statement above is one very effective method to maintain the empire in our "civilized" age.

 

^The wheels are slowly unhinging. Unless some technology magically transforms the West's aging population and infrastructure, other rising nations won't grin and bear shouldering the main load.

The currency battles and negotiations taking place now are hedges for future assurances.

How many Conservatives know who Grover Norquist is and why he's one of the most influential and powerful man in politics today?

I mean really, has anyone seen that sniveling b*stard in debates and interviews?

 

Awesome point. Our ability to exchange paper green/white pictures of historical figures for goods/services from developing nations is very much key.

How do we ensure our green/white pictures retain their value? By ensuring that there's a massive market full of things that can be purchased with them. In other words, this country needs to continue producing. Productive economic output gives currency its value.

IMO, one of the reasons why various historical empires and hegemonies declined over time was that they essentially became a nation of consumers relying various tributary states to produce for them. They stopped producing. That's precisely why I believe our trade deficit is much more important issue than the budget deficit.