Would anybody advise that this is a good plan?

No...it would be a terrible plan.

 

The budget is planned spending and receivables. A poorly planned budget (or no budget at all) still needs to be criticized as that is the plan for the money.

 

so I should consider my family in debt, because I want to save for my kids to go to college.....even though I dont have kids and havent earned that money yet?

 

Balance sheets always add to zero. Assets = liabilities + owner's equity. Did you want to rephrase the question?

 

If I lower the price of my goods or services, yes traditionally I sell more. Eventually, that increased sales can overtake the loss.

 

First of all, budgets are usually year of year. Not long term planning.

Second. Not sure where you are going with this. The US didn't PLAN on being 14 trillion dollars in debt, we ARE 14 trillion dollars in debt.

 

We HAD balanced budgets in 1998-2001. Then YOUR clowns took over.

 

Saving money to pay for your k9ids college is fine, unless you're BORROWING that money, and the amount borrowed exceeds your ability to pay your bills.

That's where the USA[and many other liberal countries are right now], we have to borrow more to pay for what we already borrowed. That is blatantly stupid for a "smart" nation to be doing.

 

No disagreement, 17th, but then YOUR clown took over....

I've had it in my sig line a half-dozen times:

"Bush and Obama: proof that two clowns DO make a circus!"

and

"Bush and Obama: the "Beavis and Butthead of American Politics"

But "Beavis" Bush is gone, and we're stuck with Barack "Butthead" for another seventeen long, dreary, gut-wrenching months!

The Federal Reserve and its crime-boss, Benny Bernanke (who pulls Obama's puppet strings), decided yesterday to simply keep on doing exactly the same illogical, unsupportable, criminal things that have been going on since August 2007.

So, NOW what the hell do we do? Just hunker down, gut it out, and vote to finally get completely rid of Butthead in January of 2013? What else can we do?

 

It would be a terrible plan if you actually wanted America to be successful...

If you were trying to destroy America, Its a great plan...

 

so now taxes are sales?

how many times do you have to change the concept before your example just doesnt work?

 

Youre joking right?

Taxes arent wages...

If you destroy a business with high taxes, you dont get anymore revenue.

Its pretty obvious....

 

Nice argument. A specialty of the house in RightWingLand.

If you were there or had even seen the movie you would have known that there were no troops on the beach, and that the tragic deaths resulted from accidents that occurred during a poorly planned raid on a downtown building that did not contain the target(s) that it was supposed to. More than adequate backup was in fact available but had not been ordered or deployed. This was an on-the-ground failure of military commanders to plan and execute the mission properly.

You shouldn't have mentioned CRA either. It had no connection to any of the events in question, no matter how you might mislabel them.

Maybe Bush-41 would have benefitted from better support by his interns. His administration was rather shaky in comparison to Clinton's as things were.

Blah-blah-blah. Republicans wasted all of 1998 pursuing baseless charges of impeachment that they knew full well would never be upheld. It was just another partisan side-show conducted at the expense of the nation's actual interests. Republicans since at least 1994 have displayed no actual interest in the well-being of the nation at all.

 

if budgets are year to year why do I keep hearing 10 year projections from everyone?

and 2nd....how much of that 14 trillion is money we owe ourselves? do you count money you owe yourself in your family budget?

 

and its making it clear the comparison in the OP is far from valid

 

I dont know, In a general sense its valid.

You cant spend more than you take in.

 

do you know how much you will take in next year?

does govt?

 

1) You dont have an argument. Its just bs.
2) Thats a total lie. We had 2ooo guys on the beach. Clinton pulled all their backup as a campaign promise. 2 amphibious assualt groups and a carrier group. They coulda leveled Mogadishu if necessary. UN troops are not adequate back up.
3) Thats false, It had everything to do with it.
4) No Bush sr should not have hidden a cigar in an interns vagina.
5) Clinton got impeached, you need to read up on some history....

 

Over $100 billion just the first two years, then there was a carryover he was forced to accept in a two year deal then in 96 another $46 billion and then he finally learned Congress was not going to give him his higher spending and in 97 $12 billion. And that is what they SETTLED on, that was what Clinton had to come DOWN to and the Republicans had to come UP too. The only modern day President to request MORE spending than Congress authorized him.

If you believe Clinton was a spending cutter I got a bridge to sell you.

Congress not Clinton, he fought it tooth and nail even shutting down the government. Thank Gringrich and Kasich. And yes when Gingrich was successful at reigning in Democrat spending and tax policies they trumped up charges and ran him out, their typical way to deal with their opposition.

ROFLMAO and the second half didn't occur? The recession that started in March didn't occur?

And 2003, thankfully because of the first the recession and unemployment was rather mild and thankfully because of the latter the economy took off like a rocket and we had sustained growth for 52 months with full employment and deficits falling to $161 Billion.

Nope until 2003 when it bottomed and then revenues grew 44% and the deficits shrank to 1/10th of where the Democrats have taken them.

 

All the more reason to insist on reduced government spending.

Democrats knew darn well they werent gonna be able to cover Obamacare and the Stimulus, but they jammed em down our throats anyway.

Get freakn real, please.

 

be able to cover doesnt mean anything...

our debt problem is minor.

dont you remember as recently as 2001 we were afraid we would pay it off too FAST?

 

Obviously the family should increase their income and trim their spending.

 

Man, you've drunk the Tea Party koolaid bad.

The debt is a minor issue, as most economists have shown. Cutting spending in a deflationary environment is stupid for obvious reasons, apparently lost on you.

 

The Tea Party answer is to starve the children by cutting the food budget, and sell the car, even if that means the breadwinner can't get to work.

 

One party wants to only cut things they personally don't care about, but the other does and refuses new revenue.

The other party wants to cut things that are personal to BOTH parties, and bring in new revenue.

Since you seem to be big on analogies, let's use your family budget:

Republicans would drop health insurance, the grocery bill and the mortgage.

Democrats would stop leaving so many lights on, stop going out to the movies and dinner, cancel the gym membership and ask the housewife to stop buying so many clothes and to go get a job.