Tea Party Group Casts National Debt as a Household Budget.

You know that the word "economy" comes from the Greek "oikonomia" which literally translates as "the managing of a household."

 

Still doesnt change the fact its nothing like a household.

 

Btw:" Oikonomia (also spelled oikonomeia, economia or economy) literally means "household management," the "law of the house," or "house building," and refers primarily to two related concepts in the Orthodox Church—the divine plan for man's salvation and the specific episcopal application of the canons in the life of the Church. The latter usage is a derivation of the former."

LOL dont think thats the way used here.

 

But it is; Keynes would just like you to think otherwise so his upper class buddies can ignore the laws of supply and demand to inflate their own pockets.

 

Ok show me one houshold that by spending more or less in the house itself can increase or decrease its own income. Show me one in wich the household budgets matters wether or not the people living in it have a job. ,... Households dont work that way.

 

If you are in a deficit and can't afford a car pr 4$ a gallon gas, you can't drive to work.

Take the credit card away and American living is impossible.

 

If you are in a deficit and can't afford a car pr 4$ a gallon gas, you can't drive to work.

Take the credit card away and American living is impossible.

 

Spending more than you have is identical, whether you are talking Government or a household budget. The comparison is applicable, and the nitpicking about why it is or why it is not is irrelavant.

You can't live above your means to pay, at home or at a Government level. It just doesn't work.

 

Rubbish. Households don't but back on what they need to make more money. They don't stop the car and mortgage payment, and they don't stop taking the kids to the dentist.

Rather, they borrow to pay for this, and pay it back later.

So in that sense you're right -- credit is the core tool for a modern economy, whether its the government or a household.

So why are you **********s against credit again? Go into detail.

 

Typical Tea Party lunacy.

You borrow to keep your car so you can continue to make money, which when the economy picks up you use to pay off the loan.

Only a fool or a ********** would abandon their car and hence their income in order to promote the austerity fetish. It's a perscription for permanent poverty (which is the Tea Party vision of America)

Man, you guys are just nihilists.

 

You don't understand Keynesianism or the "law" of supply and demand.

Typical ********** knownothingism.

Here's a concept: if people want to float you a low interest loan that lets you increase your productivity, pay off the loan and increase your wealth, take it.

Only a fool or a ********** thinks low interest credit is a bad thing.

 

Low interest credit is bad if after you run up the debt, the interest rate increases - just ask all the people who lost their homes when their ARMs increased.

 

T-bills aren't ARMS, so again the Tea Party "household" meme fails.

But it sounds like you're conceding that low interest credit that lets you increase your productivity, keep your home and car, and pay off everything in the future, with more wealth at the end of the line is a good thing.

Well, that's what T-bills do.

 

Loans, including t-bills only allow you to spend tomorrow's money today at a much higher cost than it will be tomorrow.

If you buy a $150,000 house with a standard 30 year, 8% loan, you will actually pay $396,000 for the house, plus will not have any profit that investing the money might have accrued. If you rented the whole time in a house that cost $200 less per month (considering the cost for maintenance, PMI, etc it is pretty easy to do so), you will spend $324,000 - nearly the same amount. However, if you invest that $200 in a below-average mutual fund during the same time, you'll end up with $293,000 saved that you can use to buy a new house.

As for interest rates, bonds rates haven't increased because only one rating house lowered the US credit rating. If more do so, the bond rates will increase, raising the interest rate on the treasury debt.

 

Nope. Low interest loans lets you invest in productivity, as any company knows. That's why companies take out loans when they want to expand.

Once again, the Tea Party meme breaks down due to a fundamental lack of understanding of basic economic principles.

Here's a concept: low interest credit is GOOD! It's why we have a modern economy and why most Americans, not just the superwealthy, own homes.

 

What you keep saying is pay back the loans later. What you fail to realize is that the government is not paying back the loans it has and is instead taking out more loans for every day expenses every year. Thus cannot continue indefinitely, unlike the fantasy land you libs seem to live in.

You can sit there and say well Bush started it, Clinton had a "balanced " budget, Regan was a deficit spender, etc, but that doesn't change the situation we're in today. We, as a government, have been living beyond ourmeans for decades. We now have to live below our means and actually start paying back the debt. Getting another job isn't an option because there isn't another job out there stop spending must be cut.

Knight

 

Funny how those low interest loans inflate the currency isn't it?

 

why is it different than a houshold budget? Spend within your means and save for a rainy day.....works for me

 

Then you take out a loan, pay the gas and from your paycheck pay back the loan. You ade more profit then if you quit your job because you momentarily had a lapse of funds .

Not really it might go down a bit but not all that much.

That also was nowhere near an answer to the question: again a household is quit different then a gouvernement budget .

 

Ok show me one houshold that by spending more or less in the house itself can increase or decrease its own income. Show me one in wich the household budgets matters wether or not the people living in it have a job. ,... Households dont work that way.

 

True, so it needs to increase revenue and cut but on spending. And now you et into area's that have no relation to houshold budgets and that is why the comparison is foolish at best.

 

Wrong. The basic premise is exactly the same. A household that is overspending eventually must cut it's spending below it's income to pay back debt. The problem is the those in power in the government are so worried about buying votes and looking out for themselves that they won't make the tough decisions that will save this country in the long run. Spending must be cut across the board. There is simply not enough money available to keep this up. Look at the "jobs bill." It's applying a seven year "surcharge" on "the rich" to pay for one year of spending. This then leaves the states to pay for the"new" jobs next year on their own. What are they gonna do to pay for next year? Another seven years of surcharges? It's simply not sustainable. We're taking out loans to part for the interest on other loans and it has to stop.

Knight

 

The effects arent the same.

When a household cuts back on expsnes its employment and revenue doesnt
drop. Thats why its infinite more dificult to manage a thus large economy as the USA.

BS this costs them just as much votes as it brings in . They want whats best for the average citizen at this moment, its expenses like the bush tax cuts that are tailored to bring votes.

And revenue mist go up.

That is to jump start the economy, thats why its uncomparable to an household.

Investing in the economy leads to spending wich leads to economic growth wich leads to job creation. Cuts leads to job loss and that leads to economic dwnturn wich leads to more job loss.