Tea Party Group Casts National Debt as a Household Budget.

Isn't that nice. Yet another stupid chart from the biased Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.

Don't take my word for it though.....

http://www.theatlantic.com/business...ies-thinks-were-still-in-the-bush-era/241805/

 

The unwed male is less likely to support the child leaving the grandparents ( i.e. the gov't via taxpayers) to support the children. Have you been in a time capsule, since 1964 or something?


_

 

Where did I blame one president?

Did you see where I said $14 Trillion. I know it was compounded over many years.

again, your post has been a failure.

 

You are the one equating the "government budget" with a "family budget". I think it is a ridiculous concept to compare these two very different entities with very different charters and purposes.

NO well run business would budget like a household, either, the debt level most businesses maintain to maximize profits would be INSANE for a household, and the INSANE for a government too! The government's debt level is NOTHING compared to the usual corporation.

 

A very silly thing to say.

 

The Liberals don't even realize that the TEA Party is just the tip of the iceberg. Their party is the Titanic and they have already been struck.

 

If tax revenues in 2010 relative to GDP had been the same as in 2000, the Govt would have collected $829 billion more revenue, dropping the deficit by more than half even with the recessionary levels of spending.

K.I.S.S. It's revenues stupid. Also not you literally.

 

Because the author thinks its wrong to refer to the Bush tax cuts as the Bush tax cuts?

 

....that was 2000. This is trillions of dollars later.

 

True, true.

 

Really?

Other than in the Right Wing Blogoverse fantasy, I have never seen any figures that support that assertion.

 

The bold is the whole (*)(*)(*)(*) point. We don't want our taxes raised, and we don't want more money printed which has the same effect. It destroys the value of our savings.

You people don't always consider what is good for Government(i.e. more debt and social programs) is NOT good for individual Americans.

 

The USA is similar to the worlds big banks - too big to fail. That's the only reason China is subsidising you.

 

so what?

........

 

So clearly it's not a revenue problem anymore. Taxing the wealthy 90% wouldn't even balance the budget, let alone pay off the debt.

 

To the contrary, as I've shown, revenues are $829 billion lower than if they were the same proportion to GDP.

That makes it an $829 billion revenue problem.

 

Maybe they should stop spending money we dont have??

can that work?

 

Proportional to GDP is a useless proportion.

 

I love these "dumbed-down" views.
Its all the average T-Bagger can soak in.

"OMG! Honey we don't make enough money! Better stop buying Cheetos."

LOL...it just so...small minded.

 

Why?

............

 

Because this month we don't like that comparison...it does not support the T-Bag ideas...so its not good.

"What? No Cheetos? Couldn't I just get a better paying job so we have MORE REVENUE???"

"Gee Honey...what a novel idea."

 

Because elected officials will use it as a propaganda tool to overoptimistically portray the debt and deficit, which will still continue to climb regardless.

Anything less than a stalling or positive net deficit is meaningless, unacceptable, and too little too late.

 

This isn't a response, but a dodge.

Politicians should "use" it, if it reflects economic reality. A $1 debt for a man who makes $10 is quite different from a $1 debt to a man who make $100K.


So again, debt ratio is important. You still haven't answered. And I doubt you will. Stuck in the household metaphor meme.

 

Sure it will, just not in one year, which nobody is proposing.

So stop with the straw man.

Taxing the rich means less cuts where it counts and more money to spend on productivity.

And every economist on the planet (except those from the Von Mises Institute) accept that to be productive you have to invest in productivity.

 

No. Using that plan nobody but the very rich would own a house and car or get a college education. A recipe for disaster.

Credit is a good thing. Low interest credit is a great thing.

So stop with the stupid maxims. You aren't fooling anybody by baggers.