Britons told: Cuts will affect 'everyone'

[1bad65]

Another socialist country is in huge economic trouble. Obama and the liberals should take note...

"David Cameron on Monday warned that public sector pay, pensions and state benefits would face a squeeze as he prepared the country for the "enormous implications" of dealing with the £156 billion ($225 billion) deficit.

With just over two weeks until the Budget, Cameron promised an unprecedented level of public and business consultation before unleashing cuts that would hit "every single person in our country."

Answering questions at the Open University in Milton Keynes, he said: "It will inevitably mean difficult decisions in large areas of spending, like pay, pensions and benefits."

Cameron claimed that Britain would be paying £70 billion ($101 billion) a year to service its debt within five years unless action was taken, and said that Greece served as an example of what happened when fiscal crises developed unchecked.

"This is worse than anything people have had to deal with before," he said.

British Finance Minister George Osborne will say on Tuesday that he is looking at the possible creation of a Canadian-style "star chamber" of senior ministers and officials to grill cabinet members on their proposed spending plans.

Meanwhile, Lord Browne, former BP chief executive, has been approached to head a team of corporate heavy hitters brought in to advise on the Whitehall shake-up, although Downing Street said his appointment had not yet been confirmed.

"Anyone who thinks the spending review is just about saving money is missing the point," said a Treasury official. "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the way that government works.",

The moves are part of a carefully choreographed strategy leading up to the June 22 Budget, in which Osborne will set the framework for cutting the deficit and prepare for this autumn's departmental spending review.

Over the next fortnight he will publish independent forecasts by the new Office for Budget Responsibility, which are expected sharply to downgrade the Treasury's 3.25 percent growth forecast for 2011.

Cameron gave a foretaste of the likely conclusion when he said: "The overall scale of the problem is even worse than we thought."

The bleak rhetoric is an implicit recognition in government that politicians of all parties failed before the election to prepare the public for what Cameron described in The Sunday Times as a period of "pain."

While the election campaign saw skirmishes about whether £6 billion ($8.6 billion) should be cut this year, Cameron is now preparing the public for cuts that will hit all sections of society and include a squeeze on welfare.

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister, promised that the cuts would be "progressive" and avoid creating the divisions of the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher's government applied harsh economic medicine.

Cameron echoed that sentiment when he said: "As we deal with the debt crisis, we must take the whole country with us."

Osborne sees the next few days as crucial to turning Britain's rhetoric in favor of sound public finances into action. He was delighted by a change of tone at the G20 meeting of finance ministers in South Korea, which ditched the mantra of fiscal stimulus as a route to economic recovery.

"We've achieved a significant success in getting G20 endorsement for the British government's position," he told journalists. He was particularly pleased that the G20 communiqué welcomed "the recent announcements by some countries to reduce their deficits in 2010 and strengthen their fiscal framework and institutions.""

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/....ft/index.html

[Hardwork108]

Another socialist country is in huge economic trouble. Obama and the liberals should take note...

"David Cameron on Monday warned that public sector pay, pensions and state benefits would face a squeeze as he prepared the country for the "enormous implications" of dealing with the £156 billion ($225 billion) deficit.

With just over two weeks until the Budget, Cameron promised an unprecedented level of public and business consultation before unleashing cuts that would hit "every single person in our country."

Answering questions at the Open University in Milton Keynes, he said: "It will inevitably mean difficult decisions in large areas of spending, like pay, pensions and benefits."

Cameron claimed that Britain would be paying £70 billion ($101 billion) a year to service its debt within five years unless action was taken, and said that Greece served as an example of what happened when fiscal crises developed unchecked.

"This is worse than anything people have had to deal with before," he said.

British Finance Minister George Osborne will say on Tuesday that he is looking at the possible creation of a Canadian-style "star chamber" of senior ministers and officials to grill cabinet members on their proposed spending plans.

Meanwhile, Lord Browne, former BP chief executive, has been approached to head a team of corporate heavy hitters brought in to advise on the Whitehall shake-up, although Downing Street said his appointment had not yet been confirmed.

"Anyone who thinks the spending review is just about saving money is missing the point," said a Treasury official. "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the way that government works.",

The moves are part of a carefully choreographed strategy leading up to the June 22 Budget, in which Osborne will set the framework for cutting the deficit and prepare for this autumn's departmental spending review.

Over the next fortnight he will publish independent forecasts by the new Office for Budget Responsibility, which are expected sharply to downgrade the Treasury's 3.25 percent growth forecast for 2011.

Cameron gave a foretaste of the likely conclusion when he said: "The overall scale of the problem is even worse than we thought."

The bleak rhetoric is an implicit recognition in government that politicians of all parties failed before the election to prepare the public for what Cameron described in The Sunday Times as a period of "pain."

While the election campaign saw skirmishes about whether £6 billion ($8.6 billion) should be cut this year, Cameron is now preparing the public for cuts that will hit all sections of society and include a squeeze on welfare.

Nick Clegg, Liberal Democrat deputy prime minister, promised that the cuts would be "progressive" and avoid creating the divisions of the 1980s, when Margaret Thatcher's government applied harsh economic medicine.

Cameron echoed that sentiment when he said: "As we deal with the debt crisis, we must take the whole country with us."

Osborne sees the next few days as crucial to turning Britain's rhetoric in favor of sound public finances into action. He was delighted by a change of tone at the G20 meeting of finance ministers in South Korea, which ditched the mantra of fiscal stimulus as a route to economic recovery.

"We've achieved a significant success in getting G20 endorsement for the British government's position," he told journalists. He was particularly pleased that the G20 communiqué welcomed "the recent announcements by some countries to reduce their deficits in 2010 and strengthen their fiscal framework and institutions.""

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/BUSINESS/06/....ft/index.html

And the looting of the masses continues and the wealth of the population is being more and more concentrated in a few hands - ultimately the bankers!

[1bad65]

And the looting of the masses continues and the wealth of the population is being more and more concentrated in a few hands - ultimately the bankers!

There is a serious flaw in your argument/theory. Do you see it?

[Drake]

Aww hell yeah... HW vs 1bad!

[brothernumber9]

You mean because so many banks are/were failing? Say it ain't so.
So if the "bankers" don't have the money, who has it? Money? what is that? Is that some wierd out-dated tangible that existed before my value was based on credit and "speculation"? I have some paper in my pocket with pictures of past Presidents on them with different numbers. I found they are really useful for getting sodas and chips out of vending machines at my place of work, or taking public transit, and occassionally to get a drink or few at the local bar.

[1bad65]

You mean because so many banks are/were failing?

Nope. Try again...

[Hardwork108]

There is a serious flaw in your argument/theory. Do you see it?

I am not sure what you are getting at. Tell me, who do the US and British governments owe money to? I mean Cameron was talking about the huge debt? Who is this debt to?

Why are all of this rich countries in debt and to whom? Why did they bail out "inefficient" banks, who then turned around and rewarded their top managers with millions of dollars of bonuses?

NOw we have on one hand the government getting bigger (read, more taxes/extortion), while at the same time infringments on personal freedoms continue, together with, at least in the US, government ownership of big business. Is this pseudo communism or fascism?

As I see it the wealth is transferred to the few and big government facilitates this.

[Hardwork108]

Aww hell yeah... HW vs 1bad!

At least 1bad is his own man, while you are just a brainwashed brown nosed, "Don't blame me, I was just following orders", kind of a guy.....!!!

[RenDaHai]

Much as I disagree with Hardworks Conspiracy theories (He's one step away from believing the Jews are a race of lizard people from space who rule the world from behind the scenes)

He does raise a good point, exactly WHO do WE (England, one of the most powerful nations on Earth, with THE most poweful history) WHO do WE owe money to?

Where does that 70 billion go this year?

[Hardwork108]

Much as I disagree with Hardworks Conspiracy theories (He's one step away from believing the Jews are a race of lizard people from space who rule the world from behind the scenes)

To be honest, I have not even hinted at going there. The fact is that we are being coaxed into giving up our freedoms, accepting wars and mass murders and as you would put it, given "dodgy" explanations of even dodgier "terrorist" attacks!

He does raise a good point, exactly WHO do WE (England, one of the most powerful nations on Earth, with THE most poweful history) WHO do WE owe money to?

You are not just powerful but also one of the richest nations on earth. London is the financial center of the world. British Multinationals have interests in almost every mining operation in the world. Billions of pounds go through London' s financial centers; Britain has its own oil resources (as well as other mineral resources); Britain has an enviable industrial base; Britain has an enviable technological base and on and on.

Now the British people are told that recessions just happen because of some "mistakes" by banks????? The sad part is that many people buy the "fantasy" explanations? And that is even more ironic when all of the justifications for loss of pensions and higher taxes come from none other than dishonest politicians who could not say a single sentence without throwing a couple of lies into it.

Why do politicians at the for front of conspiracies lie? Because they are paid to do so. That is their job!

What happens for a job well done? They, the politicians, are awarded great and cushy careers when they leave politics in the corporate or the financial sector.

Others, such as Tony Blair, the former British Prime Minister, who repeatedly lied, among other things, about Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction, and whose lies contributed to the bloody war where hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis, not to mention innocent Allied soldiers,died.

What was his reward for a job "well done"? He was chosen, by the powers that be, to be a MIDDLE EAST PEACE NEGOTIATOR!!!

Yes, the corruption is immense and it is as dirty and sick as it can be.

Where does that 70 billion go this year?

I believe the final destination will be the pockets of international bankers who ultimately ,in the UK through the Bank of England [and the City of London], choose the Prime Minister, and in the US, through the PRIVATELY OWNED Federal Reserve choose or select the President.

This information is coming out more and more because many people are waking up to the con-job. Some people, like you, are starting to ask about where all the money is going?

Some researchers say that the New World Order (I really hope that you don't think that NWO is a "conspiracy" theory. IF you do then I can prove to you, even here, that it is not, just ask me) plan is to get rid of the middle class and just have a one world government elite and a worker class. Having seen what the middle class have been through recently then one must consider this to be a real possibility.

In the UK, some people are paying up to 70% tax (direct and indirect), yet people still hear about there not being enough money for hospitals, schools and other government social programs. Yet there are always billions of pounds to put CCTV cameras all over London and other city centers, to "stop crime" apparently...LOL

There is always money for wars as well.........

Now, in my younger days, i was always under the impression that in richer countries one paid less tax. Doesn't that make sense? If your country's coffers are full, then why should the public pay high taxes? Yet, this is not so!

I don't know about now, but long time ago one used to hear of oil rich countries whose citizens hardly paid any taxes. The US and the UK (together with Germany and and other industrialized countries) were and are much richer than the oil rich states. Yet, the people are taxed up to their necks and they are programmed since a young age to accept this.

A lot of food for thought..........

[RenDaHai]

Living in England you have about the best quality of life one can find in the world. This is because of our high taxes. That way the middle pay to bring the poor almost the same quality of life as they enjoy. So i agree with high taxes. In England no one is starving, everyone has free medical care and everyone has the same rights. Corruption is abundant but at least mildly hidden from public view. You can never for example slip a policeman a tenner to get off a speeding ticket.

So high taxes are good and neccessary for a civilised country. Being English we pay these taxes to be part of one of the best clubs in the world, and the membership fee is worth it. But I'd still like to know who we owe all this money to? They should publish some list that actually tells us exactly who we owe this 70 billion a year to. I mean, thats a lot of money.

[Hardwork108]

Living in England you have about the best quality of life one can find in the world. This is because of our high taxes. That way the middle pay to bring the poor almost the same quality of life as they enjoy. So i agree with high taxes. In England no one is starving, everyone has free medical care and everyone has the same rights. Corruption is abundant but at least mildly hidden from public view. You can never for example slip a policeman a tenner to get off a speeding ticket.

So high taxes are good and neccessary for a civilised country. Being English we pay these taxes to be part of one of the best clubs in the world, and the membership fee is worth it. But I'd still like to know who we owe all this money to? They should publish some list that actually tells us exactly who we owe this 70 billion a year to. I mean, thats a lot of money.

Again, if the UK was a poor country then what you say would have made sense, but people there are brought up to think that there is never ever enough money, in one of the richest nations on the planet. There is something definitely wrong with the accounting here and a lot fo other rich countries. In the UK it seems to be given that once the government establishes a new tax then they will continue with it even when it is not necessary anymore, why "because they never have enough money", or perhaps a better reason would be because they are thieves an steal from their own people to line their and their masters' pockets, while keeping the financially struggling masses in control.

On top of publishing a iist of where the 70 billion is going the British government should also publish a list of where your taxes go to. I have lived in England. I still believe that the taxes are extortionate, but then England is not alone in this. As I mentioned, or at least implied, in my previous post, more than enough tax is being paid by the population to have first class health service; first class schools; effective crime fighting and so on....but when I was living there the government never seemed to have enough money for the hospitals, the schools and for effective crime fighting.

However, the same government has always had the money for wars, and I don't know if you know this, but to also subsidize arms purchases by Third World countries who cannot afford British arms. This is how it works. The British government will give a given, lets say, African government, a certain amount of money (in millions) to buy arms from British arms manufacturers. That money comes from you, the British tax payers and ends up in the coffers of British Arms manufacturers. I don't know about you, but I see a lot of corruption there. Anyway, the US government has a similar system.

Also, as I mentioned before the British government somehow has billions of pounds to quickly and many times silently put up CCTV cameras in almost every major road in London and many other cities, yet, and at least when I was living there, the street crime rates were going up and not down, despite the very sophisticated surveillance equipment installed all over London.

Why was the crime not going down? Because, "the police force was over stretched", apparently. AND, the revolving door prison policy was not really a deterente. Why put up cameras if you know that not punishing violent criminals is not going to deter them from committing crimes?

I sincerely believe that all the hi-tech cameras were installed to keep an eye on the public, and not to primarily, deter crime. Anyway, nowadays with the Global Warming hoax at full swing, people will be asked to pay more taxes and government officials, on local council level, are allowed to snoop around inside one's dust bins and to hand out fines for those who do not dispose of their garbage as the state requires based on an international hoax. This is going on at the same time as this climate hoax is being torn apart. LOL

The problem is that once this generation gets used to paying even more extortionate taxes, and fines, while having heir privacy torn apart, then the next one will see this as the norm, as they will be born into it, so the system will invent other reasons to clamp on their political, economical and financial liberties, and this will continue until the trap door shuts on the human race.

In the light of the technology available, a scenario such as the one I have described is down right scary. People used to laugh at "conspiracy" theorists who for many years were warning about the authorities micro chipping their populations, nowadays however, certain people are already being microchipped because of their jobs and so on. These people, or "pioneers", I believe are used and promoted to get the mass human mindset accustomed to the idea of having micro chips under their skins. These are chips that will be carrying different types of info about a person, and will also be able to locate them.

All the stuff I mentioned above are not conspiracy theories but facts. There are a lot of researchers out there and the relevant facts are in the public domain. There are many well researched documentaries out there that don't talk about lizards or Martians, etc. I

hope that you will take the time to do some research on your own so that it won't be a case of my word, or "his word", or "their word", which in the end turns into a battle of words, egos and even agendas, while everybody involved ends up loosing the plot.

Hey, sorry for the long post.

[1bad65]

I am not sure what you are getting at. Tell me, who do the US and British governments owe money to? I mean Cameron was talking about the huge debt? Who is this debt to?

Not sure about England, but we owe billions to China.

Why are all of this rich countries in debt and to whom? Why did they bail out "inefficient" banks, who then turned around and rewarded their top managers with millions of dollars of bonuses?

They are all in debt because of their oversized governments and their massive entitlement programs.

NOw we have on one hand the government getting bigger (read, more taxes/extortion), while at the same time infringments on personal freedoms continue, together with, at least in the US, government ownership of big business. Is this pseudo communism or fascism?

True. But how you can you blame business/banks?

As I see it the wealth is transferred to the few and big government facilitates this.

And where is the wealth being transferred to?

[Hardwork108]

Not sure about England, but we owe billions to China.

I know about the US debt to China but I was referring to the trillions that the US owes to the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve.

They are all in debt because of their oversized governments and their massive entitlement programs.

I agree to a point, but the irony is that both the US and the UK are rich enough to afford an oversized government. Of course, I am not saying that such a centralized system is necessarily a good thing.

I would say that if you look more into the workings of the Federal Reserve in US then you will see why so much money is owed to it.

True. But how you can you blame business/banks?

Don't get me wrong. I am a self employed capitalist, however, I see that things are not alright on the top of the business "food chain", where big business interests buy and even select political leaders who in turn bale those businesses out during the current "difficult" times using billions of dollars of tax payers' money.

And where is the wealth being transferred to?

Well if you take billions of dollars that are collected as taxes from the common man and give to filthy rich bankers, then your money is being transferred ultimately to those who own the banks and the banking cartels that have so much influence on our economies, hence our lives. To add insult to injury some of these same banks have been paying out millions of dollars in bonuses to their top management just after having received their "bailouts" from their politician employees.

Generally speaking, the US government is and will be transferring more wealth to the bankers through taxation because of what it owes them, that is trillions of dollars. Why the rihest country in the world can owe so much money or needed to borrow so much money is a mystery to many but not all of us.....

The best way I can explain and make it short is that the top segments of given societies in the world have always done their best to control the large bottom and majority segment. Throughout history this has been done through, wars, military power, political manipulation, religion and so on. However, there are a few ways that come even close to control by DEBT.

And in my humble opinion that is what it is all about. Once you have a nation (or people)under your debt then you have them by the b@lls and that is what has happened to the US and other rich countries who had never had a need to borrow a dime from anyone, but have somehow ended up in a no win situation under trillions of dollars of debt.

Of course, brunt of that debt is suffered by the common man in the street, who is kept in ignorance of this sad reality by the politicians (selected for him by the same business interests that are screwing him), who lie and manipulate the masses with the help of the mass media and the intelligence agencies (owned by the same business interests).

By the way, the trend that you see towards big government, collectivism (Communism) and control did not start just now, it has been in the works within the US, as a long term agenda, since at least the early 1900s, independent of whose political party happened to be in power. If you need more info then I can give you references.

[1bad65]

I know about the US debt to China but I was referring to the trillions that the US owes to the private banking cartel known as the Federal Reserve.

Are you a Ron Paul supporter? He is for abolishing the Federal Reserve.

I agree to a point, but the irony is that both the US and the UK are rich enough to afford an oversized government. Of course, I am not saying that such a centralized system is necessarily a good thing.

No country is rich enough to support oversized governments. The USSR was the largest country in the history of the world, and the richest in natural resources. And look at what happened to them.

Don't get me wrong. I am a self employed capitalist, however, I see that things are not alright on the top of the business "food chain", where big business interests buy and even select political leaders who in turn bale those businesses out during the current "difficult" times using billions of dollars of tax payers' money.

Well if you take billions of dollars that are collected as taxes from the common man and give to filthy rich bankers, then your money is being transferred ultimately to those who own the banks and the banking cartels that have so much influence on our economies, hence our lives. To add insult to injury some of these same banks have been paying out millions of dollars in bonuses to their top management just after having received their "bailouts" from their politician employees.

Generally speaking, the US government is and will be transferring more wealth to the bankers through taxation because of what it owes them, that is trillions of dollars. Why the rihest country in the world can owe so much money or needed to borrow so much money is a mystery to many but not all of us.....

The best way I can explain and make it short is that the top segments of given societies in the world have always done their best to control the large bottom and majority segment. Throughout history this has been done through, wars, military power, political manipulation, religion and so on. However, there are a few ways that come even close to control by DEBT.

And in my humble opinion that is what it is all about. Once you have a nation (or people)under your debt then you have them by the b@lls and that is what has happened to the US and other rich countries who had never had a need to borrow a dime from anyone, but have somehow ended up in a no win situation under trillions of dollars of debt.

Of course, brunt of that debt is suffered by the common man in the street, who is kept in ignorance of this sad reality by the politicians (selected for him by the same business interests that are screwing him), who lie and manipulate the masses with the help of the mass media and the intelligence agencies (owned by the same business interests).

By the way, the trend that you see towards big government, collectivism (Communism) and control did not start just now, it has been in the works within the US, as a long term agenda, since at least the early 1900s, independent of whose political party happened to be in power. If you need more info then I can give you references.

Some of the above makes some sense, but I want your opinion on this statement. FYI, I saw it posted on a discussion on another site. These are not my words, but I do agree with the poster's point.

"Do you think if the "ruling elite" controlled the elections, that we would have Obama, Reid and Pelosi in charge? The "rich elite" got where they are by building businesses, creating things, investing in things--this administration is blatantly anti-business, anti-wealth. The only "elite" they don't want to destroy is the "hollywood elite!" Get out into the fresh air."

Another thing to consider is how the Obama regime bailed out GM, and it's effects. Obama fired the CEO they had pre-bailout and replaced him with a new CEO Obama chose. Obama also set the new CEOs pay, he did not get to enrich himself (or the Board of GM) with the bailout (ie the taxpayer's) money. The ones who got the money were not the rich guys, it was the union workers. Without the bailout, they would have lost everything, their jobs, their pensions, their healthcare, etc. So it was not taking from the taxpayers and giving the rich. It was taking from the taxpayers and giving it to union workers.

And what Obama did with Chrysler is even worse. He took the stock from the investors (the rich) and GAVE it to the people of his choosing! Lawsuits were filed by those whose stocks were literally stolen from them, but Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is assigned to emergency motions arising from the United States Appeals Court for the Second Circuit, in a one-sentence order, stayed the orders of the bankruptcy judge allowing the sale, pending further order by Justice Ginsburg or the Supreme Court.

Source:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/09/bu...sler.html?_r=1