I get that the government prints currency and is able to tax its citizens. Obviously big differences between the government and a household. But the thrust of these three articles seems to boil down to some version of "that's the way we've always done it" or "that's the way it's always been." So government can be better compared to businesses that are in debt. So what? Why is debt a good thing for a business? Does Social Security only become a problem if the government pays off their debt? Oh no, we can't let citizens be responsible for their own retirement! Back to my first sentence, I think the size of our government and the size of our debt makes is especially dangerous because the government can tax its citizens. Businesses cannot force customers to give them money.
That's just my 2 cents. I'm sure I'm just not smart enough to figure this out. I'm just a simpleton that thinks Dave Ramsey has half a clue, and that it might actually be possible to run a household, business, or government without significant debt.
re: The Federal Budget is NOT like a Household Budget: Here’s Why
I am intrigued the most by Point 3 (whenever there is significant debt reduction, there is a depression). I'd like to see more dots connected, though.
And I like what Josh said: Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it has to be that way.
But I also think a lot of spending habits - both household and government - are based on emotions: If I buy a new 60" TV I'll feel better about myself. If we spend money as a government on entitlements or defense, we'll feel better about ourselves.
I'd suggest merely being practical as a solution (both household and government) but some might consider the implications to be ideological.
4 comments:
Here's another helpful article about what would happen if we paid off the debt and the time our government actually considered doing so:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/21/141510617/what-if-we-paid-off-the-debt-the-secret-government-report
I get that the government prints currency and is able to tax its citizens. Obviously big differences between the government and a household. But the thrust of these three articles seems to boil down to some version of "that's the way we've always done it" or "that's the way it's always been." So government can be better compared to businesses that are in debt. So what? Why is debt a good thing for a business? Does Social Security only become a problem if the government pays off their debt? Oh no, we can't let citizens be responsible for their own retirement! Back to my first sentence, I think the size of our government and the size of our debt makes is especially dangerous because the government can tax its citizens. Businesses cannot force customers to give them money.
That's just my 2 cents. I'm sure I'm just not smart enough to figure this out. I'm just a simpleton that thinks Dave Ramsey has half a clue, and that it might actually be possible to run a household, business, or government without significant debt.
re: The Federal Budget is NOT like a Household Budget: Here’s Why
I am intrigued the most by Point 3 (whenever there is significant debt reduction, there is a depression). I'd like to see more dots connected, though.
And I like what Josh said: Just because it's always been that way doesn't mean it has to be that way.
But I also think a lot of spending habits - both household and government - are based on emotions: If I buy a new 60" TV I'll feel better about myself. If we spend money as a government on entitlements or defense, we'll feel better about ourselves.
I'd suggest merely being practical as a solution (both household and government) but some might consider the implications to be ideological.
Most of us have no clue on what our debt really looks like...millions,billion, trillions...we lose perspective.
US Treasury says that 1 million dollars in 100 dollar bills weighs 22 pounds. That's carry-on luggage.
Now how about 1 trillion dollars? Well, that is 22 MILLION POUNDS.
Post a Comment