Yes, it's different. Yes, we could carry x% of income as debt, but we could never have our debt exceed our income indefinitely, and still have that business. We could not forever project our income as going up just by arbitrarily saying it will. We could not say we had reduced our debt by saying we were planning on spending more, but decided to spend less, even though less is more than it was last year. No, individuals don't have those luxuries.
I suggest a long bicycle ride. Think about math while you're out there: 1 + 0 = 1. Simple, transparent, honest.
C.B.O.’s Take on the Stimulus By David Firestone June 8, 2012 "Congressional Budget Office Director Douglas Elmendorf testified on Capitol Hill June 6, 2012. "A certain ritual plays out whenever the director of the Congressional Budget Office testifies before a House or Senate committee. While partisans from each side try to score ideological points about spending or taxes, he has to remain studiously neutral, sticking to the numbers and inevitably frustrating his questioners. "On Wednesday, however, Douglas Elmendorf, the current director, annoyed Republicans on the House Budget Committee a little more than usual when they made several unsuccessful attempts to get him to say that President Obama’s stimulus program was a failure. "First, Bill Flores, Republican of Texas, asked him which was more effective at increasing economic activity, private- or public-sector spending. The congressman clearly wanted the answer to be private-sector, but Mr. Elmendorf wouldn’t help him, saying both would be equally effective. Mr. Flores pushed on anyway, asking why a second stimulus would be any more effective than the first one. “But Congressman,” Mr. Elmendorf replied, “as you understand –and I recognize you don’t agree with us – but our position is that the recovery act was not a failed program. Our position is that it created higher output and employment than would have occurred without it.” "To which the congressman could only respond, rather sarcastically, “Thank you, that was fascinating.” "A few minutes later, Tim Huelskamp, a freshman Republican from Kansas, made the often-stated point that the stimulus didn’t bring the jobless rate down as low as the Obama administration predicted it would, and demanded to know how that could have happened. "Mr. Elmendorf explained that the recession turned out to be far deeper than anyone had anticipated, but said a University of Chicago survey of distinguished economists showed that 80 percent of them believed the stimulus was good for the economy. “Because of the recovery act, the unemployment rate was lower at the end of 2010 than it would have been without the stimulus bill,” he said. In fact, he said, it saved or created more than 3 million jobs. "Republicans quickly changed the subject. To them, the Recovery Act will always be the “failed stimulus program,” and they’d rather not hear any information to the contrary. Particularly from someone who knows what he’s talking about." http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com...1E7E2792BA99E4A59A9&gwt=pay&assetType=opinion
First people elected a moron. Now they expect the moron to take responsibilities for his action. That is not what morons do... It is time finally for the people to take responsibility for their action.. unless they are morons too...
House Republicans Are Trying To Slip Bank Deregulation Into Highway Bill "WASHINGTON -- House Republicans are angling to slip two pieces of bank deregulation into a major highway funding bill that is expected to pass with broad bipartisan support. "According to a source familiar with discussions, Republicans are trying to remove tighter regulations that were imposed on banks with at least $50 billion in assets after the 2008 financial crisis. They also are aiming to weaken the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau -- a brainchild of Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), which has worked to prevent big banks, payday lenders and other financial firms from ripping off households." More >>