Spending less: Household budget vs. Political Gubment budget

[IceBergSLiM]

Household

2011 Food cost per month - $300

After careful budgeting and tightening of the belt
2012 food cost per month - $250

Cut monthly food Spending by 16% in 2012.


Political Gubment

2011 xyz cost - $100B

2012 estimated xyz cost - $150B

After Spending cuts:

2012 actual xyz cost - $125B

In political budgeting speak they just cut spending by 50%

In household budgeting terms, increased spending by 25%



Is this a correct interpretation of the clowns in washington?

If so how can anyone support any group calling real spend increases - "spending cuts"?

 

[werepossum]

Household

2011 Food cost per month - $300

After careful budgeting and tightening of the belt
2012 food cost per month - $250

Cut monthly food Spending by 16% in 2012.


Political Gubment

2011 xyz cost - $100B

2012 estimated xyz cost - $150B

After Spending cuts:

2012 actual xyz cost - $125B

In political budgeting speak they just cut spending by 50%

In household budgeting terms, increased spending by 25%



Is this a correct interpretation of the clowns in washington?

If so how can anyone support any group calling real spend increases - "spending cuts"?

This in a nutshell is how we got to a four trillion dollar budget. It is assumed that Washington cannot ever do with less, only less more, whereas making those funding government can always be squeezed a bit harder.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

This in a nutshell is how we got to a four trillion dollar budget. It is assumed that Washington cannot ever do with less, only less more, whereas making those funding government can always be squeezed a bit harder.

Insanity. This is pure insanity. Then they(status quo'ers in Dem/Rep parties) call teabaggers extremists because they are like every American household in what they interpret spending less to mean.

 

[yllus]

Well, inflation alone does do crazy things to extra-large numbers like when you're in the hundreds of billions. It won't do $25 billion worth of damage, but everything always increases in cost every year and government does has to pay more each year just to tread water.

 

[theeedude]

We don't want Washington, states, and consumers cutting spending at the same time. Only going to amplify the boom/bust cycles.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Well, inflation alone does do crazy things to extra-large numbers like when you're in the hundreds of billions. It won't do $25 billion worth of damage, but everything always increases in cost every year and government does has to pay more each year just to tread water.

Right but a household saving money has to account for inflation all the same. If I want to afford 4 dollar a gallon gas I have to cut something else.

 

[wuliheron]

Insanity. This is pure insanity. Then they(status quo'ers in Dem/Rep parties) call teabaggers extremists because they are like every American household in what they interpret spending less to mean.

Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results. You know, like Tea Baggers insisting on no tax increases a hundred times and being willing to drive the economy into the dirt rather then compromise.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Insanity is doing the same thing repeatedly expecting different results.

Like increasing the debt limit never really cutting spending? or creating unfunded entitlement programs. Or engaging in unfunded wars? That kind of insanity?

 

[yllus]

Right but a household saving money has to account for inflation all the same. If I want to afford 4 dollar a gallon gas I have to cut something else.

Yep. What I mean is the mild increase year over year, even when government is trying to save money, isn't a real revelation - it's bound to happen if government is bound to fulfill the same duties.

The real problem is that no matter what part of government you want to cut, some lobby will scream for your head and demand their pet project be left alone. And politicians aren't rewarded equally for good fiscal governance as they are for continuing to shovel money in all directions.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Yep. What I mean is the mild increase year over year, even when government is trying to save money, isn't a real revelation - it's bound to happen if government is bound to fulfill the same duties.

The real problem is that no matter what part of government you want to cut, some lobby will scream for your head and demand their pet project be left alone. And politicians aren't rewarded equally for good fiscal governance as they are for continuing to shovel money in all directions.

The people have been pretty vocal about reversing this trend.

 

[piasabird]

I guess as long as people still purchase giant SUV's and live in houses that are more expensive than they can really afford, then they are not really hurting enough to get it. So lets keep borrowing till we go into default. Default is the only way some people will get it. Just look at history! Go research what happened to NY City in the 70's, when New York City defaulted on its debt. No one would even lend NYC any money and it was literally crumbling into a giant hell hole. This is what you have to look forward to if we continue borrowing money.

The only solution is for the USA to default. When will we get it and come to the conclusion that the USA can not be the worlds superpower Nanny State!

 

[ProfJohn]

Household

2011 Food cost per month - $300

After careful budgeting and tightening of the belt
2012 food cost per month - $250

Cut monthly food Spending by 16% in 2012.

OMG!! Your family will starve on $250 a month!!

IceBerg wants old people to starve!!

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I guess as long as people still purchase giant SUV's and live in houses that are more expensive than they can really afford, then they are not really hurting enough to get it. So lets keep borrowing till we go into default. Default is the only way some people will get it.

<looks around>

ummm people have been defaulting at record pace. bankruptcies and foreclosures are skyrocketing.....The people do not want the status quo being sold by the Dem/Rep leadership anymore.

 

[yllus]

The people have been pretty vocal about reversing this trend.

Not really. Most of it is nonsense like this.

Vast forests have already been sacrificed to the public debate about the Tea Party: what it is, what it means, where it's going.

But after lengthy study of the phenomenon, I've concluded that the whole miserable narrative boils down to one stark fact: They're full of shit. All of them. At the voter level, the Tea Party is a movement that purports to be furious about government spending — only the reality is that the vast majority of its members are former Bush supporters who yawned through two terms of record deficits and spent the past two electoral cycles frothing not about spending but about John Kerry's medals and Barack Obama's Sixties associations.

The average Tea Partier is sincerely against government spending — with the exception of the money spent on them. In fact, their lack of embarrassment when it comes to collecting government largesse is key to understanding what this movement is all about — and nowhere do we see that dynamic as clearly as here in Kentucky, where Rand Paul is barreling toward the Senate with the aid of conservative icons like Palin.

 

[dullard]

Is this a correct interpretation of the clowns in washington?

Almost, but there is one problem wrong with your analogy. The government is required by law to spend on many items. Laws that the previous governments have signed into law. A better analogy would be this:

A man gets divorced in August 2011. His wife is pregnant. He spends $500/month in alimony in late 2011. But then his wife gives birth, and by law, he must now increase that spending to $1500/month. He fights in court and gets it lowered to $1400/month. What was his savings over not fighting? $1400 is better than $1500. And it isn't like he can just keep it at $500 legally.

The problem with the clowns is that they pass long term spending bills with no correlating long term tax bills. Think about the prescription drug plan as an example. Billions of dollars spent (and skyrocketting year after year by law due to the increased elderly population) without a single cent to pay for it. All spending bills should be required to have roughly equal tax bills. I'll give an exception to urgent wartime spending bills, if general taxes go up later to pay for it.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

Almost, but there is one problem wrong with your analogy. The government is required by law to spend on many items. Laws that the previous governments have signed into law. A better analogy would be this:

A man gets divorced in August 2011. His wife is pregnant. He spends $500/month in alimony in late 2011. But then his wife gives birth, and by law, he must now increase that spending to $1500/month. He fights in court and gets it lowered to $1400/month. What was his savings over not fighting? $1400 is better than $1500. And it isn't like he can just keep it at $500 legally.

The problem with the clowns is that they pass long term spending bills with no correlating long term tax bills. Think about the prescription drug plan. Billions of dollars spent (and skyrocketting year after year by law due to the increased elderly population) without a single cent to pay for it. All spending bills should be required to have roughly equal tax bills. I'll give an exception to urgent wartime spending bills, if general taxes go up later to pay for it.

Kill the wife and take the baby?

 

[ProfJohn]

Not really. Most of it is nonsense like this.

Actually he totally missed it.

The tea party is made up of people who were pissed at Bush but had no other choice. Now they have a choice and they are making their voice heard.

You seem to forget that many of the biggest Bush supporters on here bitched endlessly about his spending and debt. I started many threads about it myself.

 

[OrionAntares]

I'll give an exception to urgent wartime spending bills, if general taxes go up later to pay for it.

And that would only apply if we're defending our territory. If we're the aggressors into someone else's territory then there is no "urgency" exception.

 

[OrionAntares]

Actually he totally missed it.

The tea party is made up of people who were pissed at Bush but had no other choice. Now they have a choice and they are making their voice heard.

You seem to forget that many of the biggest Bush supporters on here bitched endlessly about his spending and debt. I started many threads about it myself.

Actually, the ORIGINAL Tea Party started out that way. However, once Obama was elected social Conservatives high-jacked the, at that time very small movement, and turned it into what that guy assessed it to be.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

And that would only apply if we're defending our territory. If we're the aggressors into someone else's territory then there is no "urgency" exception.

I don't understand the general taxes go up later thing. If people were hit right away with the taxes how many would still support all our wars?

 

[dullard]

I don't understand the general taxes go up later thing. If people were hit right away with the taxes how many would still support all our wars?

Think about the depression. People didn't have money to support high taxes to pay for a war when we were invaded. We had 3 options: 1) Not defend ourselves, 2) raise taxes and kill any chance of ever getting out of that depression, or 3) debt. I support government debt in cases like that. I don't want our enemies to be able to just time their attack when we can't raise taxes and win by default.

I don't support government debt in times like 2003-2006 when we didn't need those wars nor was there a bad economy.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, and are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget and debt, reduced to a level that we can understand."

&#8212;

Dave Ramsey

 

[Atreus21]

Not really. Most of it is nonsense like this.

In response to the tea-party-didn't-complain-about-bush-deficits claim:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yxFtTwDcc

 

[Genx87]

Insanity. This is pure insanity. Then they(status quo'ers in Dem/Rep parties) call teabaggers extremists because they are like every American household in what they interpret spending less to mean.

Yeah it is so pathetic the left and their media outlets have painted people wanting to curb the growth of govt as "extremist". I have been subject to commercials paid for by some pac in the Minneapolis area for a Wisconsin state senator who voted for Gov Walkers plan to strip collective bargaining rights on health benefits from teachers. In the commercial they admit "I want to cut govt spending but gov walker goes too far and sheila voted for it". They end the commercial with labeling gov walkers attempt to reign in out of control teacher benefits as "extremist".

Founding fathers are rolling in their grave when limiting the size and scope of govt is now an extremist position.

 

[HendrixFan]

"If the US Government was a family, they would be making $58,000 a year, they spend $75,000 a year, and are $327,000 in credit card debt. They are currently proposing BIG spending cuts to reduce their spending to $72,000 a year. These are the actual proportions of the federal budget and debt, reduced to a level that we can understand."

—

Dave Ramsey

So wouldn't the best solution, in order to not disrupt our current lifestyle, be to raise the amount of money we make? How will cutting our expenditures to the bone ever hope to pay off the $327,000? Even if the spending is cut from $75k to $25k a year (an absurd cut, basically forgoing an semblance of a happy life and just working and sleeping) that only frees up $32k a year, taking more than a decade to pay down that insane debt which will still grow with interest.

Sounds like we need to look at making more money.