*Originally posted in the jokes thread because… well, you know. But since it’s starting to look like there might be a real run at this thing it deserves it’s own thread.
[quote=“Boing Boing”]Philip Greenspun divided the U.S. 2011 federal budget by 100,000,000 and wrote a little parable:[quote]We have a family that is spending $38,200 per year. The family’s income is $21,700 per year. The family adds $16,500 in credit card debt every year in order to pay its bills. After a long and difficult debate among family members, keeping in mind that it was not going to be possible to borrow $16,500 every year forever, the parents and children agreed that a $380/year premium cable subscription could be terminated. So now the family will have to borrow only $16,120 per year.[/quote]Understanding Congress’s solution to the federal deficit problem"[/quote]And spent $6,638 on guns and ammo, but cuts to that part of the family budget are ruled right out. In fact, they’re looking to spend more.
[quote=“Jaboney”][quote=“Boing Boing”]Philip Greenspun divided the U.S. 2011 federal budget by 100,000,000 and wrote a little parable:[quote]We have a family that is spending $38,200 per year. The family’s income is $21,700 per year. The family adds $16,500 in credit card debt every year in order to pay its bills. After a long and difficult debate among family members, keeping in mind that it was not going to be possible to borrow $16,500 every year forever, the parents and children agreed that a $380/year premium cable subscription could be terminated. So now the family will have to borrow only $16,120 per year.[/quote]Understanding Congress’s solution to the federal deficit problem"[/quote]And spent $6,638 on guns and ammo, but cuts to that part of the family budget are ruled right out. In fact, they’re looking to spend more.
heh. Good luck with that, guys.[/quote]Haha, nice parable. I’ve always said if I ran my finances the way the US runs its budget, they would probably find a way to throw my ass in jail. It doesn’t look good for the US by any measure. Any chance we could reelect Bill Clinton?
Microphone open and Obama speaks candidly. cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162- … 03544.html
Says Republicans are using budget to push agenda. He goes up in my estimation. You tell them Mr. President.
So, where does the anology break down then? It’s pretty hard to dispute that the US government spending is a problem. Of course you can’t make a direct comparision. Any family or business that conducted themselves in the same financial manner as the government would be jailed.
Says Republicans are using budget to push agenda. He goes up in my estimation. You tell them Mr. President.[/quote]
Sooo this whole budget debate actually had nothing to with the government getting it’s deficit and debt under control but was instead all about politics? … Seriously? This is news to you?
Neither a family nor a business carries the responsibility of supporting or protecting a nation. A government, unlike a corporation, does not exist for the sole purpose of making a profit.
So? That doesn’t mean that government is somehow immune to the laws of economics. Like any family or business no government can continously spend more than they take in. Oh and you have it backwards, it’s the nation that supports the government not the reverse.
So? That doesn’t mean that government is somehow immune to the laws of economics. Like any family or business no government can continously spend more than they take in. Oh and you have it backwards, it’s the nation that supports the government not the reverse.[/quote]
No, it does not mean the government is immune to economics, and you are right, the government can’t continuously spend more than it takes in.
However, neither a family nor a corporation has to provide society with infrastructure, national security, police & fire protection, a safety net (depending on your political beliefs), etc. A family just has to put food on the table and a business has to make a profit. Not a fair, or even rational comparison.
Additionally, sometimes a government will run a deficit, like when the economy is in the toilet. If the public sector stops spending AND the government stops spending, the problem is exacerbated. When the economy rebounds, the government’s financial balance sheet will likely improve.
That is not to say that there aren’t structural problems, but so far the discussion has been a little irrational: Keep cutting taxes for corporations and the rich while reducing services to the needy. Sorry, but this is nuts.
And perhaps “support” is not the best word to use for the government’s responsibility to society. We are a society.
But actually, in spirit, I find the family analogy to be quite apt.
My job, as the head of the family, is to see to it that the members of the family are fed, clothed, educated, housed, cared for in sickness, protected from outside harm and potential dangers, and generally enriched as people.
I spend the vast majority of my time generating revenue to do so.
I expect no financial reward for doing so.
In dire times, the family may, in order to maintain its existence in relative comfort, be forced, like it or not, to operate at some level of deficit, although every effort should be expended to avoid such circumstance, and every measure available should be exercised to return the organisation to, at least, a break-even basis.
As a wise family leader, should our circumstance evolve to the point where revenue actually exceeds expenditure, it’s incumbent upon me to either warehouse any surplus for future advantage, or to utilise the surplus to provide necessary improvements to our quality of life, as in home reno, vehicle upgrade, etc.
In all of these, substitute me with the government and the population for the family members, and you have a basic definition of the role of representative governing.
But one thing is definite, operating in an ongoing deficit situation, year in and year out, well that’s just shitty management, and someone, maybe the next generation, but someone, is definitely going to be called upon to answer for it.
[quote=“the chief”]
But one thing is definite, operating in an ongoing deficit situation, year in and year out, well that’s just shitty management, and someone, maybe the next generation, but someone, is definitely going to be called upon to answer for it.[/quote]
Actually, I think that WE are that next generation.
In 2012 the US national debt will exceed US GDP.
I believe that we have reached an important conversion point. In terms of paying back the US debt, the US has gone from WILL NOT to CAN NOT.
When the rest of the world realizes this… and when the US dollar ceases to be a major foreign reserve currency… There is going to be a crash beyond anything that anyone has ever seen.
Time to get out of dollar denominated investments.
First let me say that you are blowing what is supposed to be a loose analogy way out of proportion. The purpose of the analogy on the part of the individual is to hightlight the seriousness of US financial condition. It’s not suposed to be a point by point paralell between a familly or business and government.
So? That doesn’t mean that government is somehow immune to the laws of economics. Like any family or business no government can continously spend more than they take in. Oh and you have it backwards, it’s the nation that supports the government not the reverse.[/quote]
No, it does not mean the government is immune to economics, and you are right, the government can’t continuously spend more than it takes in. [/quote]
Of course it’s a rational and fair comparison. The point of the analogy is that any organization regardless of function has to live within the confines of economic reality.
Sometimes? How often in the last decade has the government run a surpluss? (I don’t know I’m asking because I don’t think its been too often). As for the government’s financial balance sheet improving when the economy improves how is this suppose to happen? Spend what Craig? The US economy is in the toilet because of too much borrowing and spending and you propose that the solution is even more borrowing and spending? That somehow the economy will just magically catch fire and fix everything? That really is nuts.
The US is bankrupt the only way out is to either default on the debts or destroy the currency there is no way they are going to grow their way out of it. Forget politics this is simple math.
Really? Those are the only ways? Couldn’t raise taxes? Cut defense department to the point at which it matches only the next top two or three nations combined, rather than the top ten combined? There are many options – they’re simply considered politically unpalatable.
Really? Those are the only ways? Couldn’t raise taxes? Cut defense department to the point at which it matches only the next top two or three nations combined, rather than the top ten combined? There are many options – they’re simply considered politically unpalatable.[/quote]
Yes, you might be able to do it if you cut defense AND entitlements. Entitlements are the single largest part of the budget.
Why are you only looking at the spending side, and not the revenue?
And, it took Bush and the Republicans 8 years to turn the Clinton surplus into this earth battering deficit, but you can’t give Obama more than 2 years to turn things around?
Really? Those are the only ways? Couldn’t raise taxes? Cut defense department to the point at which it matches only the next top two or three nations combined, rather than the top ten combined? There are many options – they’re simply considered politically unpalatable.[/quote]
Yes those are the only two ways for the US to retire ALL of it’s debts. Raise taxes? US corporations rank 6th in the world in terms of the taxes they pay. The top 10% Americans pay 70% of the income tax collected in the country so how much higher is “fair”? Do you propose that they go ahead and make US corps the highest taxed corps in the world? At what point do you think they decide that it’s no longer worthwhile to be US corps? How about the top 10% percent of Americans would having them pay 90% be more to your idea of what constitutes fair?
Simply politically unpalatable? You wish! You just saw a political war over cutting a mere 38 billion from this years budget and if some are to be believed, the true figure for those cuts is really on the order of $352 million. It’s not merly politically unpalatable it’s politically impossible. So I rate the idea of the US government suddenly becomming more responsible from a fiscal perspective as a possibilty in the same order as the probability of an asteriod of pure gold landing gently on the White House front lawn.
Would that corporate tax rate be before or after all the deductions, loopholes and subsidies?
And, the wealthiest 10% of Americans may pay 70% of the income tax collected (I’ll take your word for it), but maybe because that’s because they also control 70% of the wealth. sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri … ealth.html
Would that corporate tax rate be before or after all the deductions, loopholes and subsidies?
And, the wealthiest 10% of Americans may pay 70% of the income tax collected (I’ll take your word for it), but maybe because that’s because they also control 70% of the wealth. sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesameri … ealth.html[/quote]
There is no question that there are big inequalities in the distribution of wealth Craig but that’s another problem entirely and one the government has played a very big role in creating and they are about to make it much much worse. Inflation destroys the middle class of a society. It’s not about revenue it’s about spending. You really think the government of the US can really fix things if they could only get more money??