Continuation in the sense I was speaking about how the GOP works normally.  GOP has little interest in cutting anything either, because of how congress works.  Shrinking government is a mantra they like to chant, which they really don't follow up on.  They are more interested in dropping bombs and getting into wars, than making actual cuts, as is seen with why Ron Paul gets stuck around 10% vote and has like no shot of getting the nomination, or even anyone who is like Ron Paul (see Gary Johnson).

Reality is people like their government, so long as it doesn't gets in their way and gives them goodies.  Politicians run on this and get elected.  So, I get back to a pragmatic reality that it isn't really ending up doable to shrink government.  And shrink government has aspects to it, and it is important ask how.  By shrinking government do you mean:

1. Reducing the number of rules on the books and making it simplier.

2. Reducing the amount of taxes the government takes in.

3. Reducing the amount of spending it does, and funding of areas of society.

4. Reducing the amount of people working in government.

5. Reducing the amount of enforcement of rules on the books.

6. Reducing the amount of rulesmaking made by unelected people in government.

This is not discussed, particularly around the GOP, when discussing what is meant by shrinking government.  It is more of a nebulous comment thrown out there that sounds cools and gets votes in the primaries.  But, when you get to specifics, say you cut anywhere, and you get an uproar, and it costs votes.  

Then, throw on top of this the role lawmakers make.  They end up passing more laws, and say they are really addressing problems.  In other words, they create more rules for the game to be played in, as if more rules are some sort of magic solution.  Then you may not get it funded correctly, or enforced properly either.  You will often here, in the more laws front, have industry groups writing the laws, the lawmakers don't read it, and pass it, because lobbyists tell them to do it.   I will say, as someone who creates games, and works with rules regularly to come up with systems that work from a gameplay standpoint, merely adding laws isn't a guarantee to anything, and the best games have less laws, but clear ones.

So, I would suggest anyone seriously interested in discussing shrinking government needs to discuss what they mean by this.  Government can be smaller in a lot of ways.  Doesn't mean all ways are the best answer though.  Also, one needs to study the impact cutting government involvement can have in areas.  There is no guarantee that removing government magically solves anything.

By definition austerity cuts growth...

I'm not saying that governments should keep spending like crazy but any measure that reduce growth noticeably actually makes debt worse despite the reduce spending...

It's not difficult to do the maths...

Lets say country A deficit is 100% of GDP, it's running a deficit at 8% and 2% growth.

Next year the deficit will be 105.8% of GDP. So a deficit increase of roughly 6% of GDP.

Lets say country B deficit is 100% of GDP, it's running a deficit of 4% and negative 2% growth.

Next year the deficit will be 106.1% of GDP... Deficit increased a little more and due to the negative growth the amount of people needed social help actually increased in the country, making next year government finances look dire...

I'm not saying they shoudn't cut debt, but when you cut so far that it negatively affects growth it actually make things worse, which is what others countries have asked Greece and Spain to do.........

The new Deal is what got the US out of the Great Depression, not Austerity....

Personally I'm all for something being done to tax the cash companies are holding in foreign accounts...

As a shareholder of Apple and Google, that money actually does not benefit me, Apple,  Google and the others don't want to pay the tax so they don't bring the cash back and they can't put that cash to work or redistribute that cash to shareholders, it's a loose-loose situation and despite what all mighty Apple board says, it does not benefit me as an Apple shareholder........

They should change it back so that profits earned in foreign countries get taxed when they happen, not when the money is sent back so that i can get my hand on some of that money.

Besides huge companies sitting on huge pile cash rarely creates growth, it leads to costly merger-acquisitions on the end which most of the time end up destroying jobs and shareholder's money ( mercedex-chrysler, aol-time warner,....).

A) Then why didn't the EU do something about it? It certainly could force our hand. And what do you think is the cause of this spiral? What was the spark that lit the Greek crisis? If the Euro's the cause as I think, shouldn't Greece leave the Eurozone?

B) I know it's not viable, and even if it was, nobody would do it. People in Europe are already angry about lending money to Greece, let alone give it away for free.

PS: Although not entirely correct, it has some good insights on what's going on here in Greece and other PIIGS" countries: http://9gag.com/gag/2681884

A) That's only if you count government spending as growth through crude silly GDP calculations.   I mean, why don't we just spend 1000 trillion dollars a year over budget then?

If you really need a big overwhelming calcualation  C+I (X-M) would be better suited to be used for anything more then pure academic curiosity.

B) The New Deal did not get the US out of the Great Depression... practically no Economist believes that.  Not even modern Kenysians... they argue WW2 got us out of the war and WW2 should be counted as Government Stimulus since war greatly increases government spending.

That the new deal got us out of the Great Depression is roughly analagous to "Christopher Columus discovered the new world." 

A) The Euro wasn't the cause.  The cause was incompetant politcians who used shoddy book keeping to pretend they were following the fiscal rules set out by the EU.    Had the Greeks not kept in politicians who pretty much everybody knew was awful for so long, there would be no issue.

Well ok, there still would of been an issue, since Austerity would of been needed BEFORE the whole thing crashed but it would of been a LOT less painful.

The more you consume in the present, the less you can consume in the future because of interest.   Greece acted like a nation of children replacing instant gratification for long term gain.

B)  If it was viable, i'm sure somebody would do it, with some sort of restrictions.  Germany could technically bail out greece.... but then if Italy or Spain were to fall, well everyone would be fucked.

Greece's debt is something like $500 billion. That's a lot more than £100, especially when the highest GDP in the entire world is only ~30 times that.

Not true. The depression didn't end until after World War II, when the US's Government spending was cut by 60%, and taxes by 30%.

A) Completely agree with this one; Still, they are still on power, making matter even worse. And have you watched what the EU (Barozo, and others) "hint us" to vote for in the upcoming elections? The very same people that brought us to this mess!

Gallops here show that the 2 parties won't get more that 15% each, down from 45%! Yet, they have recently started talking about defaulting, chaos, even war if we don't vote them.

And lastly, don't forget what the latest memorandum bids us, as our corrupt politicians have signed it; any future government that rises, is forced to pass auterity measures or face default;again;in the land that gave birth to Democracy. It's sad, really...

You misunderstand earmarking.  Earmarking is not necessarily a bad thing.  If the money is not allocated for certain districts or projects, than the money all goes to the Executive branch who get to spend it.  So, in that situtation, you would actually want MORE earmarks, because it would mean those taxpayer funds are going back to the people rather than being used by the government.

And Ron Paul does earmark.  In fact, he wants everything to be earmarked, because that means states and local communities get the money instead of areas within the federal bureaucracy.  If Paul had his way, there would be nothing to earmark because there would be no money left over from basic government functions.  Taxes would be much lower, there wouldn't be an income tax, and what little revenue that came in would come from tolls and excises from usage fees and not from the IRS.  So, to suggest that Paul is no different than any other politician and just gets elected to bring money into his district is a gross distortion, and you do yourself a disservice by not looking further into it.