U.S. Tax revenue: $2,170,000,000,000 Fed budget: $3,820,000,000,000
New debt: $ 1,650,000,000,000 National debt: $14,271,000,000,000
Recent budget cuts: $ 38,500,000,000Remove 8 zeros and pretend it's a
household budget: Annual family income: $21,700 Money the family
spent: $38,200 New debt on the credit card: $16,500 Outstanding
balance on the credit card: $142,710 Total budget cuts: $385Here's
another way to look at the Debt Ceiling: Let's say, You come home
from work and find there has been a sewer backup in your neighborhood....and
your home has sewage all the way up to your ceilings. What do you
think you should do?Raise the Ceilings, orPump out the sewage
Your Choice is coming November 2012 for all incumbents.
@David Since according to your numbers you have no money in your budget to
pay to pump the sewage out how exactly would you pay for it? Wait? Your analogy
is a rather poor one dont you think?
Good question. How does our government do it? They borrow. I am sure that you
can see the folly of that. We cannot continue down that road, which is what the
primary aim of my analogy presents.I would propose that the only
course of action is to reduce spending. The family that is taking in $21K and
spending $38K must reduce spending. Our government recently cut its budget, to
appease voters. But the reductions are hardly going to make a difference.Most leaders in congress are talking about reducing spending by $1-4
Trillion over 10 years. Is that even enough? NO! Not when $1 Trillion is
being added each year. If $4 Trillion was reduced over 10 years, but $6
Trillion was still added, we are still having the same problem. Budgets are supposed to balance.That is the purpose of my analogy.
To show that it is ridiculous to raise the ceiling. You must cut spending,
stop the outflow of money.The law of the harvest cannot be avoided,
even by governments that write their own rules and laws. Our uncontrolled
spending will require a day of payment. Just look at Europe.
Greece here we come lead by Obama's out of control spending!
nice side step david if given your analogy your house flooded what would you do
since you have no money in your budget? leave it? I think not? At times your
only options are to barrow money since I am pretty sure you would not leave your
house flooded until you where able to cut your budget so you would be forced to
act now and figure out how to generate additional funds (do without, get
additional income) to repay the loan. Obama has said for years now that he is
willing to consider cuts to programs (do without) and for years now the GOP has
refused to let "temporary" tax cuts for the rich expire (additional
income). It is going to take both if you ever expect to start paying down the
debt. We need real answers by people willing to stand up and admit its going to
effect everyone not silly analogies.
George, I can understand your position, as well as the position of Phranc.
Borrowing is a tool that can be used, though judiciously. Look again at the
family example. Would you continue to borrow if your total debt was 6 figures?
If you annual debt was $16K but you earned $22K? It would be foolish to not
reduce spending.The debt is not the only stuff filling the house.
Included are all those who add to the mess, ie, our Representatives and Senators
that continue allowing the mess to grow irresponsibly. Shovel them out and
clean house. Leave those who understand the problem and can fix it. Like I said, debt can be a tool. But if it is not balanced, and used wisely,
you find yourself in a big mess. That is where Greece, and other European
countries are at. That is where the Soviet Union was at. Lets not go there.
@david I can agree with that position, I would point out that these same
countries have turned to massive cuts in government programs while not doing
enough to generate more income and it has done nothing but lead to further
problems The issue must be addressed from both ends if there is to be any long
$1.2 trillion. And they don't even bat an eyelash.I miss the good
old days under bush when it took 3 years to rack up an additional $1.2 trillion
in debt (2 years when he had a dem congress). Under BO it's an annual thing, if
not more frequent.
I agree that it would be ideal to both cut spending & increase revenue
(taxes). My concern at this point regarding increased taxes is that the fed
government has a terrible track record of raising taxes to decrease debt. What
has happened is that taxes are raised & more or bigger programs are created.
Actual debt & deficit reduction doesn't occur. I am loathe to raise taxes
until government shows me it can first reduce programs & spending. After
that I will vote to increase taxes...for debt reduction. Dems love
to state how deficit spending disappeared during the Clinton years. What Dems
don't readily acknowledge is that the stock market rose dramatically, yielding
greater tax revenue to the treasury, entitlement programs were modified to
reduce spending, & Republicans had the House & Senate. Repubs fail to recognize that Clinton has been the last president who
compromised to get things done. Since Clinton the demagoguery & extremes of
both parties have made a mess of governing.
Apparantly some people like Obama don't think these debts will ever come due or
need to be paid back. Maybe Obama should just be honest and say so. In his
state of the union speech he should just state: "America can borrow
hundreds of trillions of dollars from all over the world and the world will
never ask for the money back. So all is well." If he would say something
like that at least he would be showing us his economic belief system.
Unfortunately there are some Democrats and Republicans in Congress who have
about the same belief system too.