I got this from a friend, interesting analogy.

This is one of the best explanations of this country's economic condition I ever received...

that is why I'm sending it out to you... Maybe you will appreciate it as I did...

Lesson # 1:
* 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: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 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: $385

OK now:

Lesson # 2:
Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
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, or pump out the crap? Your choice is coming Nov. 2012

I got this from a friend, interesting analogy.

This is one of the best explanations of this country's economic condition I ever received...

that is why I'm sending it out to you... Maybe you will appreciate it as I did...

Lesson # 1:
* 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: $ 38,500,000,000

Let's now remove 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: $385

OK now:

Lesson # 2:
Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
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, or pump out the crap? Your choice is coming Nov. 2012

I'd figure out where the crap is coming from first before I bothered with any clean up. Anyone think, honestly, that the will be real cuts in spending after this fall regardless of who wins?

I'd figure out where the crap is coming from first before I bothered with any clean up. Anyone think, honestly, that the will be real cuts in spending after this fall regardless of who wins?

Possibly not, but a few things almost as good might be --

1. Basically eliminate Obamacare. That takes future debt right off the table.
2. I do believe business owners will trust Romney more and be more willing to hire - he is not antagonistic to businesses, large and small.
3. That being the case, more working Americans and more tax revenue. LESS drain on public expense.
4. Republicans aren't exactly thrifty, but we're not bankrolling wars, expanding Medicare or bailing out banks. I don't see any likelihood of massive spending increases.

So maybe not any cuts, but certainly not huge increases.

I'd figure out where the crap is coming from first before I bothered with any clean up. Anyone think, honestly, that the will be real cuts in spending after this fall regardless of who wins?

maybe not, but I think the people are hoping Romney will jerk the chains tighter on the EPA, TSA, HHS, & any other agency that has a stranglehold on businesses in general

Here's another way to look at the Debt Ceiling:
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, or pump out the crap? Your choice is coming Nov. 2012

Aside from perhaps Ron Paul, who's offering that choice?

I remember seeing this same cute little analogy (read: rhetorical straw man) back during, or maybe it was right after, the debt ceiling controversy (read: blatant dog and pony show). What it conveniently ignores is that the choices being offered weren't raising the ceiling by the one hand and pumping out the crap by the other. Rather, the choices being offered were raising the roof while continuing to pump in crap by the first hand and continuing to pump in crap but refusing to raise the ceiling by the second. As a matter of fact, a few months after offering the second choice - and with comparatively little fanfare - that same hand joined with the first to order that we continue to pump in crap, and at basically the same rate that we had been pumping it.

When it actually had the chance (again) to shut down the crap pumps, or meaningfully restrict their flow, it instead said 'full speed ahead with the crap pumping' just as it had done a few months prior to staging the debt ceiling dog and pony show. You see, the only time it was interested in stopping the crap flowing into the house was when it wasn't actually deciding how much crap to pump into the house. And even then it wasn't really interested in doing something about the problem, it just wanted to take advantage of the opportunity to trick its ideological sheep into believing that it was committed to doing something about the problem.

Don't raise the ceiling. Okay, but the crap's still pouring in, the roof's gonna blow; can we stop pumping the crap in? No, keep the crap a coming, just don't raise the roof - if we raise the roof it'll make it look like we don't mind all the crap being pumped in. But you don't mind all the crap being pumped in, you just ordered us to keep the crap a coming. Yeah, and we're gonna reissue that order once the spotlight is off again - but right now we need to insist for a bit longer that we don't want to raise the ceiling. Oh, so you aren't actually going to let the roof blow off, you're just pretending for appearances sake? Of course, what do you think we are crazy? We don't mind a bigger and bigger house full of crap, but we sure as heck don't want that pile of #### blowing up and covering the whole neighborhood.

The government needs to cut a lot of it's fat. Enough of the little bits being removed here and there.

Whole agencies need to be cut, along with it's government workers.

Permitting processes need to be easier, in turn promoting small business ownership.

the automatic indexing of entitlements to inflation needs to be ended .........



this yearly expansion of payouts with no debate, no incentive to rein them in


is going to CRUSH this country .........

taxes revenues are down, so should handouts be down ..........

The government needs to cut a lot of it's fat. Enough of the little bits being removed here and there.

Whole agencies need to be cut, along with it's government workers.

Permitting processes need to be easier, in turn promoting small business ownership.

Almost two thirds of government spending can be tied to 1) Medicare/Medicaid, 2) Social Security and 3) Defense/Miscellaneous National Security.

Huge cuts need to be made to the 35% or so of the budget, but I think cuts have to start with the big 3.

Almost two thirds of government spending can be tied to 1) Medicare/Medicaid, 2) Social Security and 3) Defense/Miscellaneous National Security.

Huge cuts need to be made to the 35% or so of the budget, but I think cuts have to start with the big 3.

Agreed. If you think about it, 4 out of every 10 cents of the budget is borrowed. Which means with the big three - we're ALREADY in debt. Something has to be done with entitlements.

Agreed. If you think about it, 4 out of every 10 cents of the budget is borrowed. Which means with the big three - we're ALREADY in debt. Something has to be done with entitlements.

I know! Let's elect republicans! The last time they had a chance to fix entitlements they didn't hesitate to act!

I know! Let's elect republicans! The last time they had a chance to fix entitlements they didn't hesitate to act!

I know! The last Congress that made ANY attempt to reduce the deficit was a Republican one.

I know! The last Congress that made ANY attempt to reduce the deficit was a Republican one.

The numbers don't look too good for the current GOP lead House.

The numbers don't look too good for the current GOP lead House.

The Republican led House really has no power to DO anything.. Anything they do has to get through the Dem led Senate, and the Dem President..

The ONLY thing the House can do is stop silly crap from the Dems getting through, like trillion dollar TARPs or Billion Dollar Solyndra buyouts.. at least until Obama circumvents the process with his "executive powers" and does what he wants anyways.

I know! Let's elect republicans! The last time they had a chance to fix entitlements they didn't hesitate to act!

I know, let's elect democrats since we KNOW what they will do: raise taxes so they can spend, spend, spend!

Really Larry, what is our choice here? Those we KNOW will tax and spend or those that are at least talking about fiscal responsibility? Or just not vote at all? :shrug:

I know, let's elect democrats since we KNOW what they will do: raise taxes so they can spend, spend, spend!

Really Larry, what is our choice here? Those we KNOW will tax and spend or those that are at least talking about fiscal responsibility? Or just not vote at all? :shrug:

Please, even a shred of evidence that the GOP has any interest at all in reducing spending.

Please, even a shred of evidence that the GOP has any interest at all in reducing spending.

I'm not saying they do. But they are SAYING they do. I'm not anymore convinced than you are that they actually will. But what I'm asking is, what are our choices? Not vote at all? Vote for democrats who we KNOW will go spend crazy if given the opportunity, increase and add more entitlements, more intrusion with the food police and healthcare nonsense, pushing their 'green' agenda down our throats, and raising taxes? Sorry, all things considered, as much as I know it may be for nothing, I'm voting GOP with hopes they might cut some of this stuff under control.

I know! Let's elect republicans! The last time they had a chance to fix entitlements they didn't hesitate to act!

They had a chance in 2003 and they did not. I say keep turning over the elected offices until they get it right no matter what party they are in.

It's about time for a Libertarian President

It's about time for a Libertarian President

Yes? And? What now, in this election? And we're not just talking about POTUS. We're talking about congress all the way down. In fact, I think those positions are far more important than POTUS.

I'm not saying they do. But they are SAYING they do. I'm not anymore convinced than you are that they actually will. But what I'm asking is, what are our choices? Not vote at all? Vote for democrats who we KNOW will go spend crazy if given the opportunity, increase and add more entitlements, more intrusion with the food police and healthcare nonsense, pushing their 'green' agenda down our throats, and raising taxes? Sorry, all things considered, as much as I know it may be for nothing, I'm voting GOP with hopes they might cut some of this stuff under control.

The GOP will NOT change unless and until it has to. That means losing. So, perhaps your vote won't be for nothing. Perhaps it will simply be for the status quo. It is little comfort, in my view, that we are supporting a party because of what they say they will do when we have already seen what they did when they had all the power a party could ever expect to wield. The excuse of 9/11 is just that; an excuse. There will always be an excuse to not reduce the size and scope of government. There will always be an excuse to not do more with less.

The GOP had Obama by the short hairs after the '10 mid terms and...Baynor let him off the hook trading nothing, maintaining existing tax rates, for something, more spending when all he, the GOP, had to do was insist on getting something. They passed. They made the excuse that getting nothing was something.

They've had him by the short hairs on the wars by simply taking the position that hey, we don't trust the guy with our wallets. There is no way we trust him with the military. Best to withdraw and save our people than let this leadership challenged goof harm us where it really counts. The response? Pass.

The GOP does what it expected of them by their constituents; more spending. More government. If ever there was going to be a huge push for reducing government, it was this past cycle and no one wanted the one guy, Paul, who actually is for that. It's not even like it was a close race. The entire establishment and, to be honest, the voters, declared him a kook.

The ugly truth is we, the people, do NOT want less government nor less spending. We just don't want Democrats doing it. So, ideally, Mitt will serve your personal interests where Obama's leadership was not and that's a good enough reason. All the rest of this is so much academic entertainment, what the GOP should or should not do. They are simply going to continue to serve their constituents and that means more spending and more government. It just does.

:buddies:

Yes? And? What now, in this election?

Unfortunately, 3rd parties do not have the nearly enough voters, money, or press coverage to become president. Delegates, Senators, Governors, yes....President? Doubt it...

The GOP will NOT change unless and until it has to. That means losing. So, perhaps your vote won't be for nothing. Perhaps it will simply be for the status quo. It is little comfort, in my view, that we are supporting a party because of what they say they will do when we have already seen what they did when they had all the power a party could ever expect to wield. The excuse of 9/11 is just that; an excuse. There will always be an excuse to not reduce the size and scope of government. There will always be an excuse to not do more with less.

The GOP had Obama by the short hairs after the '10 mid terms and...Baynor let him off the hook trading nothing, maintaining existing tax rates, for something, more spending when all he, the GOP, had to do was insist on getting something. They passed. They made the excuse that getting nothing was something.

They've had him by the short hairs on the wars by simply taking the position that hey, we don't trust the guy with our wallets. There is no way we trust him with the military. Best to withdraw and save our people than let this leadership challenged goof harm us where it really counts. The response? Pass.

The GOP does what it expected of them by their constituents; more spending. More government. If ever there was going to be a huge push for reducing government, it was this past cycle and no one wanted the one guy, Paul, who actually is for that. It's not even like it was a close race. The entire establishment and, to be honest, the voters, declared him a kook.

The ugly truth is we, the people, do NOT want less government nor less spending. We just don't want Democrats doing it. So, ideally, Mitt will serve your personal interests where Obama's leadership was not and that's a good enough reason. All the rest of this is so much academic entertainment, what the GOP should or should not do. They are simply going to continue to serve their constituents and that means more spending and more government. It just does.

:buddies:

They did lose in ’06. They got partial power back in ’10. They have tried budget after budget and bill after bill just to have it sit in Reid’s desk rotting. Blame Boehner all you want but they only have some much leverage against a dem-controlled senate.

But I ask you again, what is your alternative? What REAL choice do we have?

I know! Let's elect republicans! The last time they had a chance to fix entitlements they didn't hesitate to act!

Oh, bullpucky (to your sarcasm). You know darn well that the last time the Republicans were running all three political policy arms they acted on entitlements. They expanded them.

Unfortunately, 3rd parties do not have the nearly enough voters, money, or press coverage to become president. Delegates, Senators, Governors, yes....President? Doubt it...

I’m really not getting this “what could be” mentality. We have to deal with what is until we can actually get “what could be”. I have no idea how we get Americans to get there; except to believe what Larry said (which is what I’ve been saying for a long time): Americans really don’t want fiscal responsibility. They want FREE stuff. They want the government to solve their problems. Given the GOP is only about 2 steps behind democrats on this, I fail to see what choices we have except to complain about it.

Or move to some remote mountain in West Virginia in a one room log cabin.

the automatic indexing of entitlements to inflation needs to be ended .........



this yearly expansion of payouts with no debate, no incentive to rein them in


is going to CRUSH this country .........

taxes revenues are down, so should handouts be down ..........

Sure. But you remember what happened not too long ago when the automatic adjustments would have meant that Social Security beneficiaries wouldn't have been getting an annual increase, don't you? They were up in arms at the idea that they wouldn't be getting an increase, even though the reason was that they had previously gotten an outsized increase due in large part to the spike in oil prices in the first half of 2008.

Many insisted that they were entitled to another increase in their benefits even while they decried government spending. People insist that they get theirs even while they complain about other people getting some. Our political system isn't set up to tolerate sensible - and more importantly, needed - limits on entitlement spending. Many of the same people that want to see 'welfare' spending cut and that vilify 'welfare' recipients would have a conniption if we were to eliminate Medicare Parts B and D, which are themselves 'welfare' programs. They aren't, and aren't supposed to be, paid for by Medicare taxes - they are paid out of the general fund.

Oh, bullpucky (to your sarcasm). You know darn well that the last time the Republicans were running all three political policy arms they acted on entitlements. They expanded them.

A ha! I have you! I intended no sarcasm and merely tee'd the ball up for the more astute!

I’m really not getting this “what could be” mentality. We have to deal with what is until we can actually get “what could be”. I have no idea how we get Americans to get there; except to believe what Larry said (which is what I’ve been saying for a long time): Americans really don’t want fiscal responsibility. They want FREE stuff. They want the government to solve their problems. Given the GOP is only about 2 steps behind democrats on this, I fail to see what choices we have except to complain about it.

Or move to some remote mountain in West Virginia in a one room log cabin.

Unfortunately, I completely agree with you. I say unfortunately because it seems that people are either willfully ignorant, and/or we live in a completely dumbed down society that chooses to take the easy way out.

Not until something major/unfortunate happens will people finally wake up.

Our government shouldn't be handing out to just everyone. At the bare minimum they need to severely limit what goes to whom, and if that involves taking away, then so be it.

It really all comes down to personally responsibility. People want less government, but they don't want to work hard for things they want.

It really all comes down to personally responsibility. People want less government, but they don't want to work hard for things they want.

It goes deep, much deeper than that. The entire purpose of socialism is to motivate the populace to ever more dependence on it. People who HAVE worked hard and 'earned' the things they want face a government that has destroyed the value of their work and efforts be it a saved dollar, a home, you name it. Therefore, what are they left with? Just accept the loss? Or, seek redress from the only power that can give it back? It's a vicious circle and it why it would be better to be VERY careful before EVER adding a government benefit that goes beyond promoting the general welfare as opposed to providing it.

I've had some wonderful conversations with folks not inclined to see things from a limited government view where they DO understand the principles of it, the evil of growing dependence, the benefit on every level of LESS government intrusion but, they found THE key; the transition cost and time away from a given government benefit. It's much harder to end a bad program than to start one.

Despair.

A ha! I have you! I intended no sarcasm and merely tee'd the ball up for the more astute!

Tee ball is for children. And politics. But I repeat myself.

Tee ball is for children. And politics. But I repeat myself.

:lol:


Hey...wait a minute!