English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I ask because I know that alot of Colleges have budget cuts right now-Thats how I got made redundant. I dont know if its the same for schools.
My question is, are these budget cuts due to spending in other areas-i.e. 'The war on terror'? Or is this argument too simplistic? Keeping troops in Iraq and Afganistan must cost an awful lot of tax payers money. Although from what I hear, our troops are chronically short of equiment. Is our country just skint?

2006-10-24 01:49:43 · 10 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Government

yeah, sorry, U.K. Im talking about here.

2006-10-24 01:55:28 · update #1

10 answers

Skint? If you are refering to the fact that we have been running a huge deficit in spending since the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, the answer is yes!

2006-10-24 01:57:50 · answer #1 · answered by Anarchy99 7 · 0 0

That argument's a bit simplistic, but there is indeed only so much money in the government coffers, and a lot of it has to go to cover the defence budget or interest on your mahooosive national debt.

Thing is though, America has always had a pretty huge defence budget and a pretty huge debt. Your economy is also starting to slow down quite badly, which means less tax revenue. Something has to give, but there isn't a single cause for that.

None of this is to say that I in any way support the US spending such huge amounts on defence, it just raises the bar for other countries defence spending which unlimately means we're all taxing too much, growing our economies too little and sitting on a big toxic pile of explosives that we're supposedly not keen to use.

As for shortage of equipment, that's almost never down to a lack of money (the gear costs peanuts compared to what it costs to actually get a man there in the first place), just bad organisation and logistics.

EDIT:

A lot of this makes no sense now I know you're talking about the UK. Still, some of it does, so I'll leave it here.

2006-10-24 01:59:28 · answer #2 · answered by wimbledon andy 3 · 0 0

Social Security and welfare are two completely different things. Yes the federal handouts such as HUD should end. Most benefits we call welfare are given by the state and should be cut as well. Too much is wasted on people who don't actually qualify and certainly don't deserve it. Eliminate the waste and fraud and we would have plenty for those who truly need it while spending far less. Community programs such as youth activities and neighborhood beautification are a complete waste of time. They achieve nothing. Defense - Like anything else, eliminate the waste. Spend smarter. Boondoggles like the V-22 osprey are driven more by lobbyists more than military need. That needs to stop.

2016-05-22 05:40:06 · answer #3 · answered by Ivette 4 · 0 0

Wars are always expensive. The people who profit from them are called profiteers. There is a theory that since the machinery of war calls on people to make it, there are more jobs, and that leads to more money in the economy. This isn't spoken of, it is on the minds of the men who make the decisions about whether or not war is good for us at any on particular time. War was one of the things that lifted countries out of the great depression of the 30's. The fact of the matter is that both sides of the pond are going to have to ante up to keep its citizens safe, and you can only get so much money out of your average citizen. So cuts are going to have to be made, and taxes are going to have to go up. No matter which party in the US wins or if Blair goes or stays to tea. I will say that the tax cuts for the rich that went through under Bush will have to be cut back or eliminated and there will be much wailing about that by the Republicans but things do have to get paid for and they can pay it much more easily than I can.

2006-10-24 02:40:19 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 0 0

The way Bush is blowing America's future? The money being siphoned away from education is probably going toward the fabrication of the anchor that will weigh the country down to the depths of the deep blue until (perhaps) the dawn of the next paleolithic period. That would also explain the short-handedness of equipment in the field... anchors take a lot of steel. ;) I'm glad I'm not American.

2006-10-24 02:00:27 · answer #5 · answered by wreck_beach 4 · 0 0

Skint? That is a British term. What country are you talking about? The United States or Great Britain? You should clarify which country you are talking about.

What a dumb statement Paul. Bush never said that.

Thanks Dave... I thought maybe that was the case. You may want to ask this question again and point it directly to the British. As you can see, people tend not to really pay attention.

2006-10-24 01:52:53 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

10 billion a month goes to Iraq and Afghanistan, 10 billion will buy many text books. 10 billion would buy health care for those that do not have access to affordable health care. 10 billion would build clean safe and dry homeless shelters. All this money going to Iraq when there are people that are hurting in this country and cannot afford to go to school to correct it. A war based on a lie told by the president of the U.S. Yes, the money going to warfare takes money that would actually do good in this country.

2006-10-24 01:56:18 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

You hear wrong. Some one is feeding you bull about everything.
Colleges should have budget cuts. They should cut a lot of waste.

2006-10-24 01:57:34 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Bush's theory is that defense spending will drive the economy. I think he is wrong about that, too.

2006-10-24 01:54:00 · answer #9 · answered by Paul K 6 · 0 2

'pect so

2006-10-24 01:51:15 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

fedest.com, questions and answers