What's happening to the US of A?

I thought it was around £120 billion (excluding BOE moving monies, RM Pension subsidies, etc.) and with no chance of it reducing before the next election in 2015 (whatever changes that will bring).

And no complete removal of 'structural deficit' until 2018 according to our current government (and Office of Budget Responsibility), but those figures are based upon GDP projections which may be over optimistic.

 

Ta. £120B feels like more than 2012 - which is worrying as it is supposed to be coming down. Probably all blinking Smoke and Mirrors anyway :(

That is such an oxymoron. "Responsibility" my left foot

 

Classic!

 

So what would happen if we (the UK) had something similar to the USA's system, so if the Office of Budget Responsibility got it's forecasts wrong we'd all be completely stuffed?

I'm also wondering just how Mark Carney is now running the UK's economy, rather than George Osborne.

 

The 50% of the population not employed by the government carry on working and paying taxes ... the 50% employed by the government are sent on unpaid leave.

National Debt would be repaid PDQ I reckon bit tough on anyone employed by the government, but tough-times & tough-measures eh?

 

The amount of NHS staff included in that 50% figure would probably mean a complete shutdown of the HNS, including facilities for 'private' patients.

The NHS are already just such just a flipping incompetent shambles it would collapse.

 

Most of the NHS is part time anyway.
Oh we have A&E, but they usually make you wait the customary 4 hours, even if they are slack.

 

Cynical, but amusing

 

I think what is missed here. Is this is the FIRST time in his whole 8 years that he has "tried" to pass a budget. The constitution says he had to pass one last term, did not. And he has the habit of pushing things through without correct review. So they--the republicans want to hold fast and do it right.

 

The constitution was written over 200 years ago by British rebels in the wake of civil war of British government forces vs British rebels. Treaties and charters arising in peace time following war often have great merit, but what was relevant over 200 years ago might not be relevant now. For example, after the Brits, French and Dutch stole the land from the natives, it was appropriate to allow the colonists to bear arms in case the original occupants of the land decided they wanted it back, or indeed in case the British government sent forces back for another go. Is it still applicable now in 2013 when its several generations since the US citizens could be called British, and when it seems your more likely to be killed by your own neighbours than a soldier of the British army or a disgruntled native American who is upset that you've occupied his hunting ground?

In Britain we have outdated laws too. Main difference is we don't take them seriously, choosing instead to see them as historically amusing and good material for jokes. For example, and this is very specific, if you are a young man and you are standing on the walls of the city of York, and you are armed with a long bow, and you see a french man inside the city walls between 12 noon and 1PM, you may shoot him with the bow and arrow. Or, if you are a boy between the ages of 5 and 13 living in England, you are required to attend the nearest town or village square on Sunday mornings to practice Bill Drill.

I don't know if Obama is a good lad or not, and I don't understand the whole Republican vs Democrat thing. But I do know that the last Republican US president was hell bent on conquest, and would have done a lot more damage globally had he not be so incredibly intellectually challenged. The man couldn't even form a coherent sentence. In his reign he managed to start not one but two large scale wars and financially wiped out the US, alienated half the world, and invited Islamic extremism to his own shores and ours. In the last few months of his reign, he also very nearly started a third war of his term, with Iran. Had he or his comrades been allowed to do so, while Afghanistan and Iraq were still in full swing, that would have been the end for the US, because contrary to Bush's incoherent babbling, the US was already over stretched both financially and militarily and simply could not win on a third front. We should all thank our lucky stars that Mr Obama got into power before that happened, and that he then set to work immediately on trying to undo the damage without being seen to be showing weakness. I certainly didn't envy him that task, but the US is still there and WW3 is not on yet, so it seems he managed it and for that alone, he should be commended.

 

No, the budget not passing is not the only reason but just part of it.
In the begining of his office reign, the house was in his favor and he had issues passing things. As I recall he wanted to pass 30 different things. He made some excuses, which is his style. Now that the house is not in his favor, of course he has another excuse.
And if you look at the below article, it speaks of the democrats holding things up.

http://thehill.com/blogs/on-the-money/budget/289989-senate-passes-first-budget-in-four-years

 

Here is how it works over here. Did you see the news about some "Black Women" with her one year old that tried to ram her car into the whitehouse area. She was shot. Because she was "Black" there will be a certain "special" twist on it. But if she was white ---Oh--Boy another type of twist will be happening. Unfortunately---another one of Obama talents is to divide the black from the white and the conservatives from the liberals etc. He is NOT about joining us together as we are ONE American, but wants to class it up.