Govt. Budget Simplified. . Tate budget explained In simple English. I have " when complex things are simplified so that we can all , United States Tart revenue: Scumbag congess GOP liberal repub Republicans obamacare Government shutdown terrorist
x
Click to expand

Govt. Budget Simplified

Tate budget explained In simple English.
I have " when complex things are simplified so that we can all ,
United States Tart revenue: ,
Recent midget cut: 'wtt, , ,
limo. nieuwe 8 terns and pretend its a .
Annual 'FEIR' } F incence: '
u Haney the family spent: sae, aee
new debt on the credit card: ', SOB
balance an Credit card: ‘
Tittel budget cuts which some are about: sass
step the insanity new bore than an and demand a balanced mimed-
...
  • Recommend tagsx
+864
Views: 46335
Favorited: 184
Submitted: 10/06/2013
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to politicalhumor submit to reddit

Comments(165):

[ 165 comments ]
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#1 - jesterjlw (10/06/2013) [-]
Wow! That is the best explanation of the US budget I have ever seen. Good job OP.
#60 to #1 - xtremehivoltage (10/07/2013) [-]
By far the friendliest top comment I've ever seen on this site.   
   
Gif is us and OP
By far the friendliest top comment I've ever seen on this site.

Gif is us and OP
#10 to #1 - bann (10/07/2013) [-]
Macro and Micro economics are two totally different things, but I'll take this for what it's worth and accept it.
#51 to #10 - killerofcows (10/07/2013) [-]
they aren't two totally different things, they might not be the same and have many differences, but they share similarities, also it doesn't take a genius to see that the budget isn't working
#165 to #51 - bann (10/08/2013) [-]
All the debt calculators fail to show how much other countries have owed us in the past and how the debt counter acts one another. Debt on a federal level isn't a bad thing, it keeps nations on good terms and encourages growth...granted ours has gotten a bit out of hand, but not to the degree that this shows it.
#11 - Ruspanic (10/07/2013) [-]
This isn't the whole story.
First of all, it's important to note that most of our debt it owed to the American people, not to foreign countries.

Second, when you actually look at what money is spent on, the overwhelming majority is spent on things that have strong public support. The two biggest government expenses are national defense and entitlements (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid). If you try to cut Medicaid, you get attacked for hating poor people. If you try to cut Social Security or Medicare, old people come after you - and they have a lot of political power because they're more likely to vote than younger people. Old people are also a significant part of the Republican base, which is supposed to be the party of fiscal responsibility but can't touch the biggest parts of government spending because of pressure from their constituency.

What else? Well, there's the interest we're required to pay every year on our debt, so we can't cut that. What's left to cut? The EPA? We like our clean air and water. The CIA? No, there's terrorists to fight. The Department of Energy? The Department of Education? Both unpopular choices. NASA? Foreign aid is a common suggestion, but it's less than 1% of the budget.

It's really quite easy to see why Congress is only able to shave tiny fractions off our spending. We the voters won't let them do anything more substantial, despite all our complaining about the budget.

Of course, instead of cutting spending the other option is to raise taxes, but that's so unpopular with people that our politicians would rather just borrow more money.
User avatar #106 to #11 - skumbaner (10/07/2013) [-]
so uh... what part of that diagram is the military?
User avatar #107 to #106 - Ruspanic (10/07/2013) [-]
"Discretionary Defense".

The dark blue part.
User avatar #142 to #11 - cumwhore (10/07/2013) [-]
Not to mention that raising taxes at this point might not even take in more revenue. It would probably take in a little more, but not much. In other words I think we're just to the left of the top of the Laffer Curve. We need to reform S.S. and Medicare, and drastically cut military spending. Dems will never do it because, well, they don't really show interest in cutting anything, and Repubs won't do it because of their base being old people and the military.
#144 to #11 - anon (10/07/2013) [-]
I like how America has such a large defense budget when they have nothing to 'defend' against, they're on the offensive in most of their wars.
Should be called the offense budget.
User avatar #147 to #144 - Ruspanic (10/07/2013) [-]
"Defense" is just what we call the military sector of our government and all the associated programs (R&D, etc).

And it's simply not true that we have nothing to defend against. Terrorism is a legitimate threat. Before that, the Soviet bloc was a legitimate threat.
User avatar #13 to #11 - thebannedzombie (10/07/2013) [-]
Do we REALLY need more aircraft carriers than every other nation in the world combined?
#22 to #13 - whothewhereami (10/07/2013) [-]
Imagine if that money was spent on Nasa or Education.
#62 to #13 - Mahazama (10/07/2013) [-]
Do China and North Korea need militaries of 2.2 million and 1 million (respectively)
No, but they certainly have them.

It's not as simple as "War is mean, cut the defense budget"
User avatar #136 to #62 - jeminuzback **User deleted account** (10/07/2013) [-]
why are you worried about China ? US is the biggest consumer of chinese products, they won't attack or anything, and also, most of the debt is to China, so they won't attack US mainland ever.

Violence is not that effective, there are other much more intelligent ways for ******* up someone.
User avatar #91 to #62 - thebannedzombie (10/07/2013) [-]
Maintaining a standing force of 2 million men would be absurdly cheap compared to maintaining our airforce and navy. The two largest air forces in the world are the US air force, and the US navy. It's overkill. If china actually had enough military vessels to transport that 2 million man army overseas? Then I might be worried. As it is now, there is a very large ocean between us, and they haven't the means to cross it.
User avatar #101 to #91 - Mahazama (10/07/2013) [-]
And if you think attacking the mainland through the Bering is impossible or retarded, you seriously underestimate the resolve of the Chinese in wartime.
They have a HUGE industrial complex and could easily manufacture millions of vehicles to make the trip.
User avatar #97 to #91 - Mahazama (10/07/2013) [-]
That's not my point, my point is that these countries constitute a threat with these large armies
Put simply, we will keep our ridiculously large military if China and North Korea will keep theirs.
It's called the Bering Strait, it's 2 miles at it's most narrow, they could easily deploy thousands of short-range ferries to get their military across and maintain a supply line. Those millions of soldiers also threaten allies South Korea, Japan, and Taiwan (all of which we have binding defense obligations with and HUGE US national interests at stake {tech and automotive companies, near trillions invested from around the world, and most importantly the people})
The most expensive war is the one you lose.
User avatar #109 to #97 - thebannedzombie (10/07/2013) [-]
The Bering Straight's west side is controlled by Russia. The chances of Russia allowing Chinese forces to group up in force within their borders are so slim that it's funny. The only reason D-Day went as well as it did was because there were no satellites and the allied forces were able to assemble in secrecy. A sneak attack of that kind would be utterly impossible with modern technology. Even half our navy would be sufficient to stall a fleet of conscripted and refitted merchant vessels. Then we also have our air force, and the largest nuclear arsenal in the entire world. Our military is far beyond the point of assured supremacy. It's overkill.
User avatar #115 to #109 - Mahazama (10/07/2013) [-]
1. Russia doesn't really have any major population or infrastructure/business centers in the Siberia/Kamchatka area, Russia would easily turn a blind eye to a Chinese crossing of a basically empty area (or risk confrontation).


2. I never said anything about a sneak attack. It could just as easily be an exposed (intel-wise) crossing using proper yet limited air cover by the PLAAF and a blockade attempt by the PLAN in the Southern Strait.

3. All of these will be thanks to the fact that we spent as much as we did. That's why we spend $700 billion, because of the "assured supremacy" and "overkill" you mentioned.
User avatar #95 to #91 - Ruspanic (10/07/2013) [-]
China has every reason to avoid war with the US, anyway. If it had higher military capacity, it would probably use it to secure regional dominance.
User avatar #104 to #95 - Mahazama (10/07/2013) [-]
Which it will very soon, given the Chinese economy is expanding and expanding at an explosive rate.
User avatar #27 to #13 - dogwars (10/07/2013) [-]
What do you suggest we do with them? Burn them? We can't exactly sell them.
#30 to #27 - angelusprimus (10/07/2013) [-]
Stop building them? New Gerard R. Ford class that is being planned and built now will cost over 100 billion dollars just to be built.
Each costs 160 million dollars just to run. That does not include aircraft flight cost and maintainance. That is budgeted separately.
We spend more money on defense then next 13 countries after us.
6 of them NATO members. Additional 3 very close allies.
Is that really ******* necessary?
User avatar #44 to #30 - drldrl (10/07/2013) [-]
I don't know where you got that 100 billion from, everywhere I've looked says about 14 billion total.
Same with the operational cost, 7 million daily.
That's still absurd though. We have 20 carriers already. That's more than enough, seeing as 10 are supercarriers and can hold 90 jets each. We could bomb the entire world with one.
#61 to #44 - angelusprimus (10/07/2013) [-]
Umm I was talking about entire class.
10 Gerard R. Ford ships will be built.
14 billion dollars for the first one, 7 billion for the second one, and then 8 more. If you calculate years needed to build them, and usual upgrades on later ships conservative estimate is that entire program will cost 100 billion.
And if its 7 million daily, its more then I thought. I used figure of 160 million a year that Nimitz class cost. If Ford class costs 7 mil a day then they cost 2.5 billion a year. Each.
That means when they will all be running, all ten, they will cost us 25 billion a year. Just to run them.
User avatar #105 to #61 - Mahazama (10/07/2013) [-]
Running an airbase from a sovereign nation's territory costs much, much more.
Having a nuclear aircraft carrier means being able to send an airbase anywhere in the world with water for 20+ years and an unlimited distance, all without having to secure permissions from any nearby countries (given international waters)
User avatar #94 to #27 - thebannedzombie (10/07/2013) [-]
What angelusprimus said, I was referring to all the new carriers under construction. Also, the mothball fleet could always use a few more ships.
User avatar #16 to #13 - vicsix (10/07/2013) [-]
YES.
User avatar #24 to #11 - completeaddiction **User deleted account** (10/07/2013) [-]
Social security also
User avatar #53 to #11 - hawaiianhappysauce (10/07/2013) [-]
I would cut these:

Dept. of Education: If each state had it's own department it would be much cheaper and more effective.

Medicaid: Poor people won't vote republican anyway, so they have nothing to lose.

Make it harder to get disability checks: There are many people who shouldn't be on disability but are.

Federal Aid: We give Pakistan aid, yet we find Osama right next to their biggest military camp. We give Egypt aid for recognizing Israel as a country, yet they attack our embassy. Then we have many embassies in countries we are no longer concerned about.

Pensions: This is an issue no one talks about. The pensions pay much more than social security (like 100k a year for some people). With more and more people working in the public sector, we have more pension plans.
User avatar #92 to #53 - Ruspanic (10/07/2013) [-]
Dept. of Education: I think I agree with you there, federal involvement in education tends to make things worse (*cough*nochildleftbehind*cough*). And federal tuition subsidies make tuition more expensive. Public education is mostly run by the states anyway. But nucularwar makes a fair point - what would we do if states do a poor job of running their own education systems? What if Mississippi wants to put creationism or propaganda in its textbooks? What if California has a 17% graduation rate?

Medicaid: Republicans might have less to lose than Democrats, but what about poor people themselves?

Disability checks: I don't know too much about that but sure.

Foreign aid: besides disaster relief and humanitarian aid, a lot of our foreign aid has the dual purpose of keeping countries like Pakistan on our side. We already know Pakistan's a ****** ally that hates us, but cutting off aid would take away what little leverage we have over that country.

Pensions: I could be wrong, but I think that's mostly a state function.
User avatar #108 to #92 - hawaiianhappysauce (10/07/2013) [-]
The things that we could cut but might have consequences are:
Defense: I know that there are a ton of government jobs in engineering, math, etc. that concern defense. Those cuts might hurt employment in those areas.

Medicare / social security: We can't cut these at all. I'm sick of hearing people call SS an entitlement. The word Entitlement is usually associated with welfare. People EARN social security. Unfortunately, the retirement age is not changing, and people are living longer. So it's pretty obvious that the retirement age will have to move up to 70. Romney proposed we only needed to bring it up one year, but I think it might be more than that.

And finally Romney proposed the idea of cuts through attrition. Instead of firing government employees, we just reduce the number of people to employ by moving people in departments. People will have to do a little bit more work, but based on my experience in the public sector, that wouldn't be hard.

Obamacare may sound like a great idea, but the consequences are costly. I live in Massachusetts where we already have basically the same thing. We have the highest rate of coverage and the highest quality of healthcare BUT the cost of private insurance is higher than anywhere else. Also, I think a state is better at managing health insurance issues than the Fed.

Again, Romney suggested to move most of these things back to the states, which is genius. You save a ton of money this way and everything is run efficiently. He lost the election the same way Kerry lost to Bush, his personality was off.
User avatar #113 to #108 - Ruspanic (10/07/2013) [-]
It's practically impossible to balance the budget without substantially cutting Medicare and Social Security, unless taxes were ********** .
If that we were to defund those programs, it'd be a gradual phasing out - people who already paid into them for years would still benefit from them, but in the future they'll be replaced with some other system.
User avatar #116 to #113 - hawaiianhappysauce (10/07/2013) [-]
What I don't understand is... "It's American debt owed to Americans." I hear this often. Do they mean it's debt the American's owed to the government? Or is this government owes it's citizens money?
User avatar #123 to #116 - Ruspanic (10/07/2013) [-]
It's money the government borrows from a bunch of different domestic creditors, including individual Americans (who buy Treasury bonds), banks, state and local governments, various private businesses and corporations, etc.
User avatar #134 to #123 - hawaiianhappysauce (10/07/2013) [-]
ah. So if we were .. kill those people who the government borrows money from... maybe we wouldn't have the debt? Just a joke thought, and the government would be able to pull that off if they wanted
User avatar #143 to #134 - Ruspanic (10/07/2013) [-]
The government needs people to buy Treasury bonds because that's a major source of its income. The reason people buy Treasury bonds in the first place is because they're a relatively safe investment, since the government really, really doesn't want to default on its debt. No one would buy government securities if the government went around killing its creditors.
User avatar #145 to #143 - hawaiianhappysauce (10/07/2013) [-]
Not if they don't find out about it. Which the government might be able to pull off.
User avatar #103 to #92 - hawaiianhappysauce (10/07/2013) [-]
Dept. of Education: Basically what I'm thinking. I think if people had more options to choose what schools to go to then the whole option of creationism will be warded off due to competition.

Medicaid: This is more like a last resort thing.

Disability checks: Whenever I go to midnight release at gamestop I always encounter about 5 people who are on disability for "back pain" or "depression" or "anxiety." Even drug addicts can get disability if they have a good lawyer (there was a story on this last night on 60 minutes).

Foreign aid: Exactly, we are basically bribing other countries to not give nukes to other countries. In other words, they are too nuclear to stop funding. It kinda sucks how we have the edge in a war against them. If we wanted to we could wipe their entire country off the planet. But the reality is that if they attack first, no matter how much we retaliate, they will get the best of us. We are not willing to kill innocent civilians whereas some extremists are.

Pensions: It is a state issue too, but there are federal employees as well. But you are right, the states would benefit more if they didn't pay as much for pensions. You also have block grants as well, basically the fed giving the states money. The states are becoming more dependent on grants.

User avatar #74 to #53 - nucularwar (10/07/2013) [-]
If each state had it's own Dept. of education it'd just make it easier for places like Texas to force feed stupidity to children
#65 to #11 - anon (10/07/2013) [-]
Cut. National. Defense.
User avatar #117 to #65 - rasberryassassin (10/07/2013) [-]
And stop buying all those fancy new tanks the army doesn't even want??? Are you mad??
User avatar #23 to #11 - completeaddiction **User deleted account** (10/07/2013) [-]
Yea I would cut the defense budget. Unpopular but effective.
User avatar #38 to #23 - retardedboss (10/07/2013) [-]
Defense creates a lot of jobs. We could cut it, but it would probably hurt the economy.
#48 to #11 - sanepane (10/07/2013) [-]
If you're spending more on your military budget than the 10 nations after you combined, then maybe you could afford some budget cuts in this department?
User avatar #57 to #48 - sketchE ONLINE (10/07/2013) [-]
most of its spent in R&D id cut that out not personel which is always cut first
#3 - grapesforall (10/06/2013) [-]
I think 38,5 billion dollars is still quite the budget cut... sure they could cut their army in half save about a trillion and still be the most powerful warring nation on the planet... and sure they could cut their war on drugs and safe about 6 billion and make some money.... but then who would we... i forgot where i was going with this... here is a picture of Lincoln with glasses
User avatar #8 to #3 - ilovemyguns (10/07/2013) [-]
We already cut our military, it doesn't need to be cut again.
#31 to #8 - angelusprimus (10/07/2013) [-]
We are still spending more then 13 countries after us combined.
We spend four times more then russia and china bombined.
If we stop swinging our dicks and keep to ourselves and intervene on limited basis like every other ******* major power in the world we could cut our defense budget by 300 billion.
AND STILL BE ******* SPENDING more then every non allied country COMBINED,
User avatar #9 to #3 - crazyhindu (10/07/2013) [-]
Still if you are spending more than you are saving and cutting it really isn't that much of a difference at all.
User avatar #66 to #3 - captnnorway (10/07/2013) [-]
Ye, really good and thought through Idea you got there. It's not like I'm for the military budget, but to cut it at such a extent (even if it is a exaggeration) would make millions jobless. Sure, you could make a million more jobs or something, but those would just be filled with soldiers. Then the gunsmiths and all other jobs that base it self of the military would lose it biggest client, and the state would lose millions in tax money. It isn't as simple as cutting one place will fix it. Unless you have a good and cheap suggestion on how to let people keep their job, even with those cuts.
User avatar #122 to #66 - noblekira (10/07/2013) [-]
Bring back national service, free military, more jobs because 16 year olds have other **** to do
#82 - anon (10/07/2013) [-]
That's not how it works....

People seem to forget everything just to bash the US.... no wonder in places full of ignorant kids.

So first of all. US has an income to debt ratio of 106% with debt over 17 trillion dollars. That means that US income is almost at the same level as their debt (pretty good actually). for example: Germany has 146%, UK has 406%

But that is not actually important, because:
1. If US wanted to repay debt it would shoot itself in the foot. Why? US makes stuff in China, right? (actually almost everyone makes stuff there cuz it's cheap) It's in US interest to manufacture cheaply, so if it would pay it's debt back the prices in China would go up, costing US even more. And since more than half of China's income comes from export (US is their biggest trade "partner") it would make China go "bankrupt" (not immediately) and it might force them to go in war.

....char limit....
#83 to #82 - anon (10/07/2013) [-]
2. While US is in debt, there are several countries owing US money too. (around 13 trillion in total or more)

All this means that US's debt is actually not that big of deal that they themselves make out of it (but that's actually for a reaaally good reason, but i won't go into politics now)
User avatar #29 to #17 - mrpavelowgrimm (10/07/2013) [-]
GOP and DEMS are both **** .
Republican president dug the country into a financial **** hole. and a Democrat keeps digging hoping to find gold.
User avatar #58 - jakols (10/07/2013) [-]
Ill just leave this here for those who want to see
how ****** up the whole thing really is...

The Debt Limit Explained

#152 to #58 - anon (10/07/2013) [-]
looked in to this link and its talking about a trillion dollar coin..
#39 - blarny (10/07/2013) [-]
How did you get ahold of the US' accounting book?
User avatar #40 to #39 - thisisspartah (10/07/2013) [-]
google
#41 to #40 - blarny (10/07/2013) [-]
The NRS thanks you for exposing this treasonous activity, expect a 0.001% tax refund next year.
User avatar #42 to #41 - thisisspartah (10/07/2013) [-]
but i lost my job on friday
#43 to #42 - blarny (10/07/2013) [-]
Your refund has been redacted as the form was turned over in a recent poll, it has been decided you are a traitor for lacking a job and demanding a refund, please pay your fines and leave the country.
User avatar #45 to #43 - thisisspartah (10/07/2013) [-]
I dont even live in america
#46 to #45 - blarny (10/07/2013) [-]
A ticket has been dispatched to your country of origin, the NSA has secretly disclosed your location, please enter the United States and pay you fines, unless you prefer to involve the UN and your country's representatives.
#47 to #45 - Deanoss (10/07/2013) [-]
then youv already won
User avatar #75 to #41 - dedaluminus (10/07/2013) [-]
The **** are you talking about, NRS? It's the IRS.
#168 to #75 - blarny (10/08/2013) [-]
NRS(National Revenue Service) Does not appreciate having to fund your further education, please refund the tax payers money or mail your brain to the provided address.
User avatar #169 to #168 - dedaluminus (10/08/2013) [-]
No such beastie. It's the Internal Revenue Service.
#171 to #169 - blarny (10/08/2013) [-]
As you've mentioned it, it does seem you did not file your mandatory forms(crt14-c4-g353), thusly you are no longer a citizen of the United States of America, please accept our sincerest apologies as we kindly request you re-apply for citizenship in 2023, your properties and financial assets have been re-appropriated for future investments and pursuits, your government thanks you for your cooperation in this economically stressful time.

#12 - frienderman (10/07/2013) [-]
While I don't necessarily agree that we need more cuts in the budget, this is indeed an over-simplification. By this model, we could also just "get a better job" to get more income (raise taxes) and we'd be completely fine.

Perhaps thinking about a country as a country and a household as a household would be a wiser choice.
User avatar #20 to #12 - bodasion (10/07/2013) [-]
A creditor nation like America (which makes its own currency) operates by rules which are FAR more lenient than any household (including Bill Gates') will ever get.

There's no good way to compare a creditor nation's debt load to a household's debt load. It's like comparing apples to the entire West Wing of Cook County Hospital in Chicago.
#5 - anon (10/07/2013) [-]
You can't treat the United States Government's budget like it's your household budget. That's a gross oversimplification of the issue and the fact that so many people think like this makes me want to kill people.

And we wonder why the rest of the world thinks Americans are dumb.
User avatar #7 to #5 - wellimnotsure ONLINE (10/07/2013) [-]
Actually you can. Its literally the same thing you stupid ******* anon
User avatar #67 to #7 - meganinja (10/07/2013) [-]
No it isn't you idiot lol. People always forget that other countries owe the United States a total of $14 Trillion.
User avatar #80 to #67 - nogphille (10/07/2013) [-]
they don't owe the US.

they owe the banking industry.

there is nothing tyeing the banking industry with the governmental.
User avatar #81 to #80 - meganinja (10/07/2013) [-]
no, the US government has $14 trillion in unpaid foreign assets.
User avatar #87 to #81 - nogphille (10/07/2013) [-]
could you link me to something factual?
User avatar #89 to #87 - meganinja (10/07/2013) [-]
don't really feel like finding a link.
User avatar #90 to #89 - nogphille (10/07/2013) [-]
don't really feel like believing you on your word.
User avatar #118 to #90 - meganinja (10/07/2013) [-]
that's fine. I could be incorrect, but as I recall reading it said assets owed to the US government.
User avatar #6 to #5 - flamingpie (10/07/2013) [-]
Actually it might be the over-complication rather than the over-simplification that's making people think we're dumb.
User avatar #120 - Darianvincent (10/07/2013) [-]
I've avoided political things my entire life as if it were the plague, I'm not well informed or versed in any of these topics. But couldn't a majority of these problems be solved if we didn't spend unnecessary and insane amounts of money on military?
#129 to #120 - timerce (10/07/2013) [-]
absolutely but thats out of the question because omg terrorists. if we werent killing women and children in other countries, didnt have hundreds of military bases in foreign nations, then stuff like health care, food stamps, etc wouldnt be an issue but thats a debate the politicians on both sides of the govt dont want us to have
#96 - crazyitalian (10/07/2013) [-]
the way i see it is, if we really slash welfare benfits to people who aren't disabled and are perfectly capable of working, and instead, we establish porgrams to give these people jobs, guess what happens? now instead of the Government paying these people to do nothing, they now earn an income, and pay more taxes. If we do our best to create new jobs within our country (by maiking it easier for companires to manufacure domestically, instead of outsourcing) we can increase tax revenue, without actually increasing the tax rate. I know the situation is extremely complicated, and we can't just say "oh, we need to pull this switch and people will get jobs!" but it's still something we cpuld work to achieve.

TL;DR, we should do our best to create jobs, and get people on welfare to start working
User avatar #162 to #96 - vortexrain (10/07/2013) [-]
That will never happen because our government is full of **** heads. What we need in the House and the Senate, is less lawyers, and more scientist, and economist.
User avatar #93 - stefanieg (10/07/2013) [-]
i feel that they need to raise taxes. especially on the 1%. but people dont want to lose a little money to help fix a country.
User avatar #138 to #93 - jacklane (10/07/2013) [-]
You could take every single cent from the 1%... we're talking everything they have on them and in their accounts. It wouldn't put a dent in our debt.

Raising taxes isn't the solution.
User avatar #155 to #138 - stefanieg (10/07/2013) [-]
there is more to it than that. but its a start.
User avatar #36 - FJSoldier (10/07/2013) [-]
I wonder how much of this the NSA cost? This is a serious question here
User avatar #28 - ubercookieboy ONLINE (10/07/2013) [-]
Throw out old politicians.

Get new politicians.

Pretend a change in government is going to make the debt go away.
#100 to #28 - anon (10/07/2013) [-]
It may help.

If we throw out all the old politicians, the new ones will realize that the people are paying attention. They'll be less inclined to be corrupt or wasteful because they will know their very jobs are at stake if they make a mistake against the people who are now watching their every political move.
User avatar #55 to #28 - sketchE ONLINE (10/07/2013) [-]
might make them try harder if we keep doing it
User avatar #141 - madmario (10/07/2013) [-]
I'm so tired of seeing these stupid over-simplifications of the budget. The reason we put ourselves in debt is to stimulate an economy. Like an investment. A few years ago, we hit a recession because the poor could not spend and the rich did not want to invest in a sinking economy. The debt raise was INTENTIONAL. The concept is that lower and middle income citizens still are able to spend money and thus stimulate economic growth. Historically, this works. Its a trickle up effect rather than the trickle down effect (give large business owners tons of money through laissez faire policies and then say they will make more jobs). Essentially the two extremes here are that conservative economic policy (what got us in this **** mess in the first place, along with unnecessary military funding in all fairness) is doing sorta what we did in the industrial revolution - no government involvement in the economy. This creates a huge income disparity between the rich and the poor (the whole "99%" thing on Wall Street was about this. Also all the socioeconomic reform after the Industrial Revolution was necessary because these policies were put in place). What the Democrats are trying to do right now is sort of like the thing that FDR (during WWII so really should be taken with a grain of salt when talking about economics) or Clinton did, both of which put the nation into a big debt and then a gradual rise to a surplus. If you don't believe me, go study economics instead. Using FJ posts (like this post) to get economic insight is stupid.
On that note, this post is literally just there to start a political debate. Stop doing that **** . It's not funny or interesting or entertaining. Just annoying.
TL;DR this post is stupid and undermines a lot of economic theory and just generally makes me angry enough to rant and probably start some ****** political debate thread with red thumbs flying everywhere
User avatar #146 to #141 - durkadurka (10/07/2013) [-]
Yeah, load of good it's done us. Keynsian economics is not a good model to follow.
It's much simpler (and cheaper) to create favorable economic conditions by changing your economic policy than it is to inject trillions of dollars you don't actually have into the economy.


How about we just let the economy be?
User avatar #149 to #146 - madmario (10/07/2013) [-]
Keynism is actually an amazing thing to follow because it's worked pretty much every time its been employed (unless you know something I don't) and its a least a hell of a lot better than Laissez-faire. laissez faire is just ******* stupid. Poor get poorer and rich get richer.
0
#159 to #141 - tupacwakur has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #160 to #141 - tupacwakur (10/07/2013) [-]
So much respect for this comment, would thumb up I could.
#32 - angelusprimus (10/07/2013) [-]
And this is a very basis of ignorance.
We take 2 things that are completely different. Dumb it down, pretend they are equivalent, and teach the sheep not to think, just to accept dumbed down versions.
Sheep are much easier to control if they don't understand things, but think they do.
User avatar #50 - darthacerbus (10/07/2013) [-]
International debt does not work like credit card debt.
User avatar #73 to #50 - dedaluminus (10/07/2013) [-]
Exactly. If every country paid every other country every cent that is owed to them, about 15 countries would be totally screwed, but most of the rest would be at about the same level they are today. Debt is the modern day equivalent of royal families holding hostages from each other, to make there be less incentive to cause trouble.
#14 - dryctael (10/07/2013) [-]
A lot of denial in the comment section... lot of ppl complaining how this is not accurate. That might not be the most accurate picture but the message is still true, US is spending 			*********		 more than it makes.
A lot of denial in the comment section... lot of ppl complaining how this is not accurate. That might not be the most accurate picture but the message is still true, US is spending ********* more than it makes.
User avatar #19 to #14 - bodasion (10/07/2013) [-]
Yes, but that's economically incredibly obvious.

Do you have more money during good economic times or bad ones? Do you borrow money from your bank when you have money or when you're running out?

Why would your government be any different?
User avatar #56 to #19 - sketchE ONLINE (10/07/2013) [-]
because the people are paying for it with little to no consent
User avatar #25 to #19 - corso (10/07/2013) [-]
Well, because it isn't one person for starters. But mainly so we don't end up in the exact situation we're in.
#33 - jimli (10/07/2013) [-]
Sure, you can make anything look like the problem when you use an inaccurate analogy.

Pick up a book by John Maynard Keynes and teach yourself; don't let misinformed internet posts or comments sway you
User avatar #156 to #33 - achimp (10/07/2013) [-]
Keynes is not the end all, be all, and this New Keynesian economics ******** is really hard not to laugh at.

You're in college, you've taken a sophomore level economics course, your professor has shown you some writing by some douchebag from the New York Times; suddenly you're an expert in economics.

Yeah, that's not how it works.

**** off.
#166 to #156 - jimli (10/08/2013) [-]
"			****		 off"   
That's exactly the attitude we need if we're going to make any progress.  I never said I was an expert.  Not taking any classes in economics currently, and the one I took was in Supply-Side Economics -- pretty much the opposite of Keynes.   
   
Guess what got us out of the depression: WWII, which was funded through a Keynesian model of economics... stimulation of industry through deficit spending.   
   
You know what's really hard not to laugh at? When people who have no understanding of economics make posts like this, comparing the economy to a household.  The economy is not a zero-sum game; the government doesn't have a bank account with a certain amount of money.  Our wealth is in our potential, our output.  That means funding industry and business and keeping people employed and productive.   
   
That's not even Sophomore-level.  That's 101.
" **** off"
That's exactly the attitude we need if we're going to make any progress. I never said I was an expert. Not taking any classes in economics currently, and the one I took was in Supply-Side Economics -- pretty much the opposite of Keynes.

Guess what got us out of the depression: WWII, which was funded through a Keynesian model of economics... stimulation of industry through deficit spending.

You know what's really hard not to laugh at? When people who have no understanding of economics make posts like this, comparing the economy to a household. The economy is not a zero-sum game; the government doesn't have a bank account with a certain amount of money. Our wealth is in our potential, our output. That means funding industry and business and keeping people employed and productive.

That's not even Sophomore-level. That's 101.
User avatar #34 to #33 - smithforprez (10/07/2013) [-]

"Lenin is said to have declared that the best way to destroy the capitalist system was to debauch the currency. By a continuing process of inflation, governments can confiscate, secretly and unobserved, an important part of the wealth of their citizens. By this method they not only confiscate, but they confiscate arbitrarily; and, while the process impoverishes many, it actually enriches some..." - Keynes

That money the govt borrows from itself does not exist until the govt borrows it, and the debt gets paid when the govt decides to devalue the entirety of accumulated wealth in the US. Its a bit like levying a tax on everyone's bank accounts, but inverted.

"...There is no subtler, no surer means of overturning the existing basis of society than to debauch the currency. The process engages all the hidden forces of economic law on the side of destruction, and does it in a manner which not one man in a million is able to diagnose." - Keynes

Diagnosed, Bitch.

Why don't you read keynes again, I think there's something you missed
#167 to #34 - jimli (10/08/2013) [-]
The government is not devaluing the currency... that would require expansionist Fiscal Policy -- lowering taxes, raising transfer payments, stuff like that, to bring wealth to citizens and encourage them to spend to artificially raise prices. We've seen neither of those things.  There has actually been little-to-no developments in Federal Taxes in either direction lately.   
The problem right now is with the Federal Reserve... they're the ones who are 			*******		 with money that doesn't exist, devaluing currency by raising the money supply and playing with toxic loans.   
Keynes never dealt with the Federal Reserve... he was talking about Fiscal Policy.  You quote-mined, and found some good lines that sounded like they supported your point, but you didn't bother informing yourself about the context.   
I'd be happy to read Keynes again, but I think another review might benefit you more.
The government is not devaluing the currency... that would require expansionist Fiscal Policy -- lowering taxes, raising transfer payments, stuff like that, to bring wealth to citizens and encourage them to spend to artificially raise prices. We've seen neither of those things. There has actually been little-to-no developments in Federal Taxes in either direction lately.
The problem right now is with the Federal Reserve... they're the ones who are ******* with money that doesn't exist, devaluing currency by raising the money supply and playing with toxic loans.
Keynes never dealt with the Federal Reserve... he was talking about Fiscal Policy. You quote-mined, and found some good lines that sounded like they supported your point, but you didn't bother informing yourself about the context.
I'd be happy to read Keynes again, but I think another review might benefit you more.
#4 - jakatackka (10/06/2013) [-]
You're forgetting that A, those little budget cuts add up, and B, in the past four years the budget deficit (extra amount that we're spending) has gone down 54.6%, or $771 billion, or $7,710 off the "New debt on the credit card". They are working towards a balanced budget, but to continue with your example, you can't just undo $20,000 of spending without having massive side effects.

I'm not saying the current government is perfect - far from it - but this analogy doesn't tell the full story.
[ 165 comments ]
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)