Put in Perspective...

"Typical knuckle-dragger oversimplification. Insert keynesian bullshit here." -sini

amirite?

No worries. Massive deficit reduction is coming Jan. 1.

Just to add, now Obummer wants to give the VP, congress and other federal workers a raise. I don't think he knows where the the fuck money comes from. Either that or he doesn't care. This is what happens when stupid people vote, or at the least very naive. It seems like Obama wants to nose dive this country into the ground. It's simple fucking math, if you have to borrow money in order to keep funding the things you do, then you have a serious problem. It WILL NOT go away by simply Ignoring it. Want more tax revenue? PUT MORE PEOPLE TO WORK!

Since you want to talk in distorting oversimplifications - what going on right now is your household turning down a raise because the wife (GOP) believes the rich neighbors deserve that raise more.

Yes, thank you. Comparing taxes to salary and country's financial situation to a household is apples to oranges.

150,000 on 20,000 income seems like a lot of debt? Yes, but you also have 5mil+ in assets AND you borrowed in monopoly money that you can print in your garage.

At the same time, cuts to any spending directly impacts your salary. You cut spending to 20K, your salary goes down to 10K and you still in the hole.

The fact that you don't see this as a problem is an indicator of just how little you understand about history...

non sequitur

[sing-song voice] Nailed it! [/sing-song voice]

So in response to your apples to oranges comment, I will say this: You are mostly correct. The difference between a household budget and the federal budget is vast, and not just in numbers. The key point here is, that is exactly the problem. The federal government loses money when it cuts spending because it has spent so many years spending on bloated, inefficient schemes trying to manufacture jobs when that is not the purpose of the federal government.

Rather than working within their means, which is what every family in America must do, lest they go into debt, they over-spend and then try to stick a band-aid on it later and wrap it up in some job creation bill to gloss over the bullshit. If they would simply use the tax revenue they have, and I assure you there are smart enough people to project an approximation of the annual tax revenue, and spend it on the things that the federal government is supposed to be responsible for then magically the spending deficit would disappear and the free market would keep making the country rich. As an aside, if you don't believe that the free market was the reason this country became so wealthy and powerful, I'd love to hear your opinion as to what that reason was.

As for your "turning down a raise" bit, I have to chuckle because I know this will not make sense to you. Comparing a tax break to a "raise" is exactly the sort of mindset that Jefferson and Tyler warned us about.

AAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH You really are a boob aren't you? Next time you retreat to Latin to try and make yourself sound intelligent you might want to look up the words before you use them.

Now, be a good little boy and go look up the financial woes of Zimbabwe and the Wiemar republic. There are several more examples of what happens when governments print money willy nilly, but these two should get you started.

Paying down the debt is pretty much the most uncontroversial position in the nation. The real questions are:

1) Who bears the burden (middle class, upper class, seniors, etc)

2) When you do it. Traditional economics say you pay when times are good, go into debt during the bad times. Pretty much the opposite of what we've been doing the last several years.

3) Aggressiveness. Do you risk a recession during shaky economic times when we are in no danger of defaulting? Or take things easy?

Answer these, then we can't get into the nastiness of specific policy.

"the most uncontroversial position in the nation"

Depends on whom is viewing it.

From the non-elected side of things, absolutely. This is just common sense to us.

From the governments point of view ? Limiting their spending is ludicrous and treasonous ! Does the government even bother with a budget anymore ?

Raging against education again? I don't understand why would Conservatism position itself as anti-intellectual, but it does not suits you.

As to translation and explanation (because Google is too hard for Kaotic) - your attack does not follow. We are discussing differences between government and household budgets, and you went on raving rant about fiat currency. These are entirely different arguments - as such does not follow is appropriate response.

Spending cuts would be #4. Current spending level is undeniably too high for the level of tax revenue collected. We all like everything, all the time, at the same time - most practical solution is to cut what possible, and make up the rest with tax increases. Unfortunately meaningful cuts (e.g. defense) are political non-starter and most harmful cuts (e.g. social safety nets) are politically fetishized.

As to answers - nobody going to sign up constituents (and re-election prospects) for #1; and unfortunately #2 and #3 are used as a weapon to manipulate #1.

Here, I'll post it again for you since you have such trouble reading.

You're the one who brought up monopoly money (i.e. fiat currency). So, if you want to wave your arms in the air and declare someone has responded with an illogical argument, then you're pointing at yourself. I merely responded what you said and pointed out that you can't see why that is a problem. I'm seriously thinking about getting you a copy of Rosetta Stone English so you can work all this out for yourself.

I brought up fiat currency as an example of household vs. government budget differences, you latched on this comparison and started ranting about fiat currency, plus misrepresented my comparison as an evidence of support.

Your argument really has nothing to do with what was discussed in this topic. As such you ether a) did not understand what is being discussed here b) intentionally decided to derail discussion into confrontation. In ether case - non sequitur.

Fiscal Cliff Deal



I am personally disappointed with this outcome. I have seen Fiscal Cliff as the only way to meaningfully trim defense spending. Now it will unlikely to happen and I don't have to explain how we cannot afford to spend so much on defense.

Next - Debt limit increase negotiations and very likely default and another downgrade. This might (should, if markets were rational) increase cost of debt and would make reaching balanced budget much harder (more money spent just paying interest).

rant/ At the same time, I won't be shorting US bonds. In my mind we are clearly into Japan-like illogical financial twilight zone. Just another example where market fails to rationally respond to the situation. Tulips all the way down. /rant

I dont think anyone is particularly happy about how it turned out. Some of us saw it coming though.

There is rarely incentive to stop freely spending other peoples' money.

The only shot we have at spending decreases will be with the Debt Ceiling bill.

Since they didn't get it in the Fiscal Cliff bill, I will be willing to bet the debt ceiling will go NOWHERE without language that seriously cuts spending.

They cannot possibly argue raising the ceiling without also introducing some serious cuts. Otherwise, why have a debt ceiling at all ?

Good question. Considering that debt ceiling is mostly concerns covering the bills for the expenses already incurred by a budget passes by the Congress... Wouldn't budget bill be a more appropriate way to handle spending cuts?

I would be all for "honor debt obligations" bill, then they can shut government and services all they want until they agree on something. Until then, defaulting on your financial obligations is a big "No No" in my book.

Actually the govt is Constitutionally obligated to honor debt. Default is never a legal option, though of course the govt can lay off workers. (Considering shut down of services a temp layoff in this case)