Would the GOP types push the USA into default ?

[bugwar]

I'm talking fiscal responsibility, not about your health. There are two components - income and expenditures. Is it fiscally responsible to move either component in a direction that works against your ability to reduce any deficit or debt?

You should be concerned about your health, cause working yourself into a physical and mental wreck to pay for a lifestyle you can't afford is kinda pointless.
But back to your question.


If you reduce your debt by cutting expenses, then you can reduce the amount of hours you work to pay for that debt, as long as the net effect is a decrease in the total debt.

So by reducing your expenses enough, you can safely cut your working hours (yea, more free time to enjoy life!) and still reduce your debt load.

Therefore you can be fiscally responsible and have a better life at the same time. Isn't that grand?

 

[El_Machinae]

JR: if I understand where you're going. I think the defense was "I quit working so I had more free time to help my kids with school, so they could move out". In other words, the tax cuts were to empower the enablers.

The actual thinking is sound. It's the theory vs. practice that was the problem. The problem was the actual place on the Laffer curve, not the idea of a Laffer curve.

 

[Cutlass]

You should be concerned about your health, cause working yourself into a physical and mental wreck to pay for a lifestyle you can't afford is kinda pointless.
But back to your question.


If you reduce your debt by cutting expenses, then you can reduce the amount of hours you work to pay for that debt, as long as the net effect is a decrease in the total debt.

So by reducing your expenses enough, you can safely cut your working hours (yea, more free time to enjoy life!) and still reduce your debt load.

Therefore you can be fiscally responsible and have a better life at the same time. Isn't that grand?

So people should just cut out that whole eating thing, because, you know, that's an unnecessary expense.

 

[JollyRoger]

You should be concerned about your health, cause working yourself into a physical and mental wreck to pay for a lifestyle you can't afford is kinda pointless.
But back to your question.


If you reduce your debt by cutting expenses, then you can reduce the amount of hours you work to pay for that debt, as long as the net effect is a decrease in the total debt.

So by reducing your expenses enough, you can safely cut your working hours (yea, more free time to enjoy life!) and still reduce your debt load.

Therefore you can be fiscally responsible and have a better life at the same time. Isn't that grand?

But if you still have a significant deficit and debt, isn't it fiscally irresponsible to purposely reduce your income? Assume you a very capable of producing your current level of income and in fact, once made a higher inceme and could very easily get a raise without impacting your health. Wouldn't it be fiscally responsible to take advantage of this easily obtainable income to help wipe out the deficit and debt that you have gotten yourself into? How is your health going to get better if your trip-deprived mother-in-law is stuck at home nagging the now lazier you?

 

[Gucumatz]

If you bring back MC, he might understand you JR

 

[bugwar]

But if you still have a significant deficit and debt, isn't it fiscally irresponsible to purposely reduce your income? Assume you a very capable of producing your current level of income and in fact, once made a higher inceme and could very easily get a raise without impacting your health. Wouldn't it be fiscally responsible to take advantage of this easily obtainable income to help wipe out the deficit and debt that you have gotten yourself into? How is your health going to get better if your trip-deprived mother-in-law is stuck at home nagging the now lazier you?

If you have a deficit between expenses and income, reduce spending till you don't.
That is a very fiscally responsible course of action. If you can't figure out how to do that, get a financial counselor to help you.

As for the 'raise' you postulate, that is a personal choice.
If you want to keep spending more than you earn and wish to take on the strings attached to the 'easily obtained' raise to pay the bills, more luck to you.

Me, I am happy to just spend less than I make and enjoy life. Simple and a lot less stressful.

Oh, and if your mother in law is still whining because you are cutting back on expenses, tell her to earn her own trips, and leave you to your life.
She wants a free ride, she can find another patron if she is in a hurry to vacation abroad.

 

[Mr. Dictator]

So if we're gonna run this like a household, shouldn't we set a population limit?

 

[JollyRoger]

If you have a deficit between expenses and income, reduce spending till you don't.
That is a very fiscally responsible course of action. If you can't figure out how to do that, get a financial counselor to help you.

As for the 'raise' you postulate, that is a personal choice.
If you want to keep spending more than you earn and wish to take on the strings attached to the 'easily obtained' raise to pay the bills, more luck to you.

Me, I am happy to just spend less than I make and enjoy life. Simple and a lot less stressful.

Oh, and if your mother in law is still whining because you are cutting back on expenses, tell her to earn her own trips, and leave you to your life.
She wants a free ride, she can find another patron if she is in a hurry to vacation abroad.

It doesn't seem to me that purposely cutting easily obtainable income, especially in the face of a massive debt you have already run up, is fiscally responsible.

 

[peter grimes]

But bugwar, your grandma saved up for the trip, and you told her that you'd buy the tickets for her since she doesn't "Do that Internet thing".

And now you're saying that you won't complete the transaction even though she gave her money to you week after week, year after year. That's a pretty crappy thing for a grandson to do.

 

[Gucumatz]

This is why the Grandma should pick her favorite grandson more closely

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

From analogy to anal logic in 1 step.

Beat that Kevin Bacon!

 

[El_Machinae]

If you have a deficit between expenses and income, reduce spending till you don't.
That is a very fiscally responsible course of action.

Yes, but it's very often not the correct choice in action. I'm not disagreeing with the premise at all; there are MANY times where tightening the belt is the correct choice of action. Sometimes, though, it's the opposite of wise. And sometimes the belt-tightening is insignificant, and it's being inappropriately focused on. Like, straight out welfare is insignificant compared to employment insurance. Obamacare is insignificant compared to Medicare. Social Security is mainly okay, really, because it's fairly balanced (all told). The interest on the debt isn't really a problem, but runs the risk of being a giant one. Military spending needs to be wisely balanced due to Pax America benefits, workfare benefits, and inefficiencies. etc.

A simple analogy should be shunted as soon as people show the critical thinking required to see its faults.

 

[bugwar]

But bugwar, your grandma saved up for the trip, and you told her that you'd buy the tickets for her since she doesn't "Do that Internet thing".

And now you're saying that you won't complete the transaction even though she gave her money to you week after week, year after year. That's a pretty crappy thing for a grandson to do.

Now your just making stuff up to create a scenario that will fit an outcome you want.

Sorry, I don't play that way.

 

[peter grimes]

No I'm not.
This is exactly the analogy if you're trying to make a household budget represent the federal budget.

 

[bugwar]

Yes, but it's very often not the correct choice in action.

For democrats, you have expressed their dogma well.
At least until your financiers cut you off, as Greece found out.

For fiscal realists though, balancing the budget is the self-discipline used to keep the creditors from enforcing reality checks on your spending.

 

[peter grimes]

Yeah, China and the EU are really putting the screws to our thumbs, demanding exorbitantly high interest rates on short term and long term bonds

 

[bugwar]

Yeah, China and the EU are really putting the screws to our thumbs, demanding exorbitantly high interest rates on short term and long term bonds

Good point.

Greece got away with her massive deficit spending for quite a few years before it all came crashing down.

I prefer to avoid that whole mess by not spending three dollars for every two I earn.

 

[bugwar]

No I'm not.
This is exactly the analogy if you're trying to make a household budget represent the federal budget.

Well in that case, grandma is in for quite a shock. She will just have to learn to work with reduced entitlements.

 

[JollyRoger]

Now your just making stuff up to create a scenario that will fit an outcome you want.

Sorry, I don't play that way.

It seems to me that you have been playing that game in your exchange with me.

 

[peter grimes]

Well in that case, grandma is in for quite a shock. She will just have to learn to work with reduced entitlements.

Customer: I'd like to withdraw 50$ from my savings account please.

Banker: Ok, let's just check here.... Oh, I'm sorry - you'll just have to get by with 25$ instead. We've reduced our expenditures, you see.

Customer: Umm, that's not how this works. I've been making deposits out of every paycheck. I signed this contract here that shows that in exchange for me letting you have temporary use of my money, you will keep it safe for me until the day I want to withdraw it.

Banker: Yes, of course - but now kids are in charge of things, and they don't like the promises their parents made. So screw you.