Example collocations logo

Programs in sentence

3183 examples of Programs in a sentence

In the United States and Europe, a UBI of, say, $2,000 per year would not do much, except perhaps alleviate the most extreme poverty, even if it was added to existing social-welfare programs.
An UBI of $10,000 would make a real difference; but, depending on how many people qualify, that could cost as much as 10% or 15% of GDP – a huge fiscal outlay, particularly if it came on top of existing social programs.
Only by striking the right balance between individual choice and social-policy guidance can modern economies build the social-safety programs they need.
Smallpox, which is believed to have emerged even before rabies, has now been eradicated, and programs are currently under way to put an end to polio, Guinea worm disease, and other infectious ailments.
Iran proclaims that its programs are for peaceful generation of nuclear energy, but inspectors have already found traces of highly enriched weapons-grade uranium.
Perhaps most worryingly, Europe finally recognized the principle – long followed by the IMF – that countries in bailout programs should not be penalized on interest rates, but the same principle was not extended to countries that are not yet in bailout programs.
Alternatively, Spain and Italy will be driven inexorably into bailout programs.
If Merkel opts for substantial deficit spending now , she will lose support, which is already fading fast because of increased state debt, nationalization, stimulus programs, etc.
Austerity programs have been largely counterproductive, generating vicious cycles of slow or no growth, business closures, skyrocketing unemployment, and tax-base erosion.
China’s 12th Five-Year Plan, which will take effect in 2012, recognizes these policy imperatives and calls for several measures to fulfill them, including wage increases for urban workers; income support for rural households; enhanced access to capital for small businesses, especially in the underbuilt services sector; and more generous social-welfare programs, which would reduce Chinese households’ high levels of precautionary saving.
But curtailing social programs in both Europe and Russia would jeopardize human capital, their most valuable comparative advantage.
The fundamental problem that much of the world faces today is that investors are overreacting to debt-to-GDP ratios, fearful of some magic threshold, and demanding fiscal-austerity programs too soon.
In December, US officials, seeking to better their understanding of North Korea’s missile and nuclear programs – and enable commanders to react swiftly if potential threats materialize – announced a new information-sharing agreement with South Korea and Japan.
The risks to stability in Northeast Asia extend well beyond North Korea’s nuclear weapons and missile programs, and a joint intelligence agenda should address them.
By helping to strengthen the financial-management capabilities of grant recipients in Nigeria, Senegal, and South Sudan, the foundation is unlocking funding for health programs in those countries – and is now expanding its support to Chad and Zambia.
Dozens of low-income, food-deficit countries, perhaps as many as 40-50, have elaborated urgent programs for increased food production by small farms, but are currently held back by the lack of donor funding.
By pooling financial resources into a single-donor FCM, aid programs’ administrative costs could be kept low, the availability of aid flows could be assured, and poor countries would not have to negotiate 25 times in order to receive help.
Indeed, during the past 20 years, they actually cut aid for agriculture programs, and only now are reversing course.
But the size of the slowdown is surprising, as is the fact that it started several years before the 2008 recession – and not only in the private insurance system, but also in Medicare and Medicaid, the two major government health programs.
Indeed, for the first time on record, real health-care spending stalled on average in the OECD in 2010, as developed countries, reeling from budgetary constraints, clamped down on health programs.
These programs currently claim 21% of the budget, with Medicare accounting for two-thirds of that amount.
Even a small reduction in the growth of these programs would save billions of dollars.
Based on the unexpected slowdown in spending growth during the last few years, the Congressional Budget Office recently cut its ten-year projections for these programs by 3.5%, reducing the ten-year deficit by $382 billion.
Trends in the US budget reflect an inconvenient truth: If the growth of spending on health-care programs cannot be slowed, stabilizing the federal debt at a sustainable level will require deep cuts in spending on other priorities and increases in taxes on the middle class.
The hope is that the reduction in borrowing costs on new loans, plus the austerity programs promised by governments, will enable bond prices to recover to par without the need for the creditor banks to take a hit.
It was write-offs and devaluations, not austerity programs, that allowed bond prices to recover.
Obvious economic problems include Europe’s weak banks, China’s distorted property market, political uncertainty in the West, historically high private and public debt – 225% of GDP, according to the International Monetary Fund – and the reluctance of heavily indebted Greece and Portugal to comply with IMF programs.
But this argument ignores the typically large gap between what economists devise and what politicians promise, and what public-spending programs actually deliver.
Governments should certainly cut taxes and fund initiatives that pass rigorous cost-benefit tests; but broad new spending programs usually do not yield a significant or immediate economic boost.
In economies where stimulus programs are carefully vetted and can be implemented quickly, any temporary government spending should be coupled with gradual fiscal consolidation, to minimize economic risk and long-term costs.
BackNext