As Predicted, Austerity Policies Send US Economy Downward

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

No I don't. The argument that the federal government must - from a budget point of view - behave like a household is just so stupid that I can't help but make an effort to point out that the federal government is not the same as a private household. When someone can tall me how their specific household - or maybe just the household of someone they know - has managed to control the currency and inflation, then I'll start engaging in that kind of argument. Until then, it's just an utterly stupid argument to make.

Lets make this simple for you. No matter if a household our a country you can't spend more than you make indefinitely. That is a fact. Trying to derail that fact with some kind of "a households cannot control inflation nonsense" is utterly stupid and has nothing to do with the main point.

[OnMyWayID 1,489]

Lets make this simple for you. No matter if a household our a country you can't spend more than you make indefinitely. That is a fact. Trying to derail that fact with some kind of "a households cannot control inflation nonsense" is utterly stupid and has nothing to do with the main point.

Unfortunately you can't use logic to convince those who don't think for themselves - they just regurgitate from their favorite blog sites and hug tightly to whatever they want to be true.

Edited February 4, 2013 by OnMyWayID

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Lets make this simple for you. No matter if a household our a country you can't spend more than you make indefinitely. That is a fact. Trying to derail that fact with some kind of "a households cannot control inflation nonsense" is utterly stupid and has nothing to do with the main point.

Unfortunately you can't use logic to convince those who don't think for themselves - they just regurgitate from their favorite blog sites and hug tightly to whatever they want to be true.

You two Einsteins crack me up.

Wanna do simple? Let's do simple.

Suppose you start off with zero debt. Suppose the economy (GDP) is $15TN and grows by 2% annually. Further suppose you run a deficit equal to 1.5% of GDP each and every year. You'd be spending $225BN more than you take in year one. Year two, you spend $229.5BN more than you take in and so forth. After a little more than 75 years, you will hit your first deficit exceeding $1TN and you will run deficits exceeding $1TN indefinitely from there on in.

You know what happens with your debt to GDP ratio? It starts out doubling year two from 1.5% to 3%. Then it adds almost 50% in year three growing to 4.4% of GDP and so forth. Scary picture for a few years. After this initial rapid rise, the debt to GDP ratio grows slower every year and eventually plateaus at 76.5% of GDP. That happens after roughly 370 years after which the debt to GDP ratio remains at 76.5% indefinitely. Get that? You spend more than you take in and the debt relative to your economy stays the same. Doesn't go up even though you spend more than you collect in taxes. Go ahead and do the math. And then come back here and tell me how you can't sustain indefinite deficit spending.

Edited February 4, 2013 by Mr. Big Dog

[Dan and Judy 614]

You two Einsteins crack me up.

Wanna do simple? Let's do simple.

Suppose you start off with zero debt. Suppose the economy (GDP) is $15TN and grows by 2% annually. Further suppose you run a deficit equal to 1.5% of GDP each and every year. You'd be spending $225BN more than you take in year one.

Sorry but you screwed up simple on the first line.

[Dan and Judy 614]

I would say that waiting till you are in the middle the worst downturn in the economy in 70 years to pull your head out of your butt and scream for immediate cessation of deficit spending is simple.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Sorry but you screwed up simple on the first line.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

You two Einsteins crack me up.

Wanna do simple? Let's do simple.

Suppose you start off with zero debt. Suppose the economy (GDP) is $15TN and grows by 2% annually. Further suppose you run a deficit equal to 1.5% of GDP each and every year. You'd be spending $225BN more than you take in year one. Year two, you spend $229.5BN more than you take in and so forth. After a little more than 75 years, you will hit your first deficit exceeding $1TN and you will run deficits exceeding $1TN indefinitely from there on in.

You know what happens with your debt to GDP ratio? It starts out doubling year two from 1.5% to 3%. Then it adds almost 50% in year three growing to 4.4% of GDP and so forth. Scary picture for a few years. After this initial rapid rise, the debt to GDP ratio grows slower every year and eventually plateaus at 76.5% of GDP. That happens after roughly 370 years after which the debt to GDP ratio remains at 76.5% indefinitely. Get that? You spend more than you take in and the debt relative to your economy stays the same. Doesn't go up even though you spend more than you collect in taxes. Go ahead and do the math. And then come back here and tell me how you can't sustain indefinite deficit spending.

What you are missing is in the hair brained rambling diatribe. that even if your fair tail were true, at some point you are spending 76.5 % of every thing you take in just to pay the debt Genius...

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I would say that waiting till you are in the middle the worst downturn in the economy in 70 years to pull your head out of your butt and scream for immediate cessation of deficit spending is simple.

I would think trimming spending when you are in a cash flow crisis would be smart. Somehow in your twisted liberal logic, I guess if you find yourself unemployed , it's time to order the deluxe Direct TV package, buy a new car, order top tier internet service, eat at a five star restaurant every night.

Most normal humans would think when times are bad it's time to tighten the belt.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What you are missing is in the hair brained rambling diatribe. that even if your fair tail were true, at some point you are spending 76.5 % of every thing you take in just to pay the debt Genius...

I see. They really don't teach math in Georgia. Or you slept while they were teaching it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Most normal humans would think when times are bad it's time to tighten the belt.

Yes, and most people realize that as everyone tightens the belt, someone has to pick up the slack. If that doesn't happen, then you find yourself in a depression. That's how it works. It's a really easy concept.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

I see. They really don't teach math in Georgia. Or you slept while they were teaching it.

I understand 76% of 100% is more than 3/4. If 3/4 of your intake is going to service debt you are screwed.

Yes, and most people realize that as everyone tightens the belt, someone has to pick up the slack. If that doesn't happen, then you find yourself in a depression. That's how it works. It's a really easy concept.

So if i cut spending at my house my neighbor has to spend more ???

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I understand 76% of 100% is more than 3/4. If 3/4 of your intake is going to service debt you are screwed.

Who says that this is the case? Aside from yourself? You know what debt to GDP ratio is? You know that it is not the same as the cost of debt service? Yes? No? Maybe?

So if i cut spending at my house my neighbor has to spend more ???

No, your neighbor is tightening belts, too. As is everyone else in town and across the state and across the country. There's no private person or entity that is picking up the slack. It's left to the fed. They either step in and get the economy back on its feet or we all find ourselves in much deeper a recession or even in a depression. Really simple.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

Who says that this is the case? Aside from yourself? You know what debt to GDP ratio is? You know that it is not the same as the cost of debt service? Yes? No? Maybe?

No, your neighbor is tightening belts, too. As is everyone else in town and across the state and across the country. There's no private person or entity that is picking up the slack. It's left to the fed. They either step in and get the economy back on its feet or we all find ourselves in much deeper a recession or even in a depression. Really simple.

Or here is a far out idea. Maybe we all get by with less ? WOW

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Or here is a far out idea. Maybe we all get by with less ? WOW

Sure, we've done that before. Well, not we but our grand and great-grand parents have. How bad can it be?

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

There is your problem right there -- have you priced a men's suit lately?