More and more, I hear the phrase "artificial restrictions on the U.S. debt" from my university colleagues.  The idea behind the phrase is that Republicans should not be able to block the Democrats' enlightened and progressive programs simply by refusing to increase the debt limit.  Those university colleagues, however, would be wise to view the video below - one of the wisest and funniest explanations I've ever seen of the current U.S. debt and deficit. (Hat tip to Iowahawk, who linked to the video on Twitter.)

  • Comment Filters
Contributor Comments
Member Comments
Comment Popularity

Comments :

DocJay
Joined
Jul '11
DocJay

Priceless!

Aaron Miller
Joined
May '10
Aaron Miller

Thanks!

Sadly, a lot of people believe personal debts and government debts are completely incomparable because governments print money. What's a short and simple way to convince them otherwise?

The Republican candidate should make this an issue by appealing to voters' sense of honor. "We are Americans. We pay our debts because we want to." It's good to stay positive, right?

Edited on Jan 12 at 4:01pm
Frozen Chosen
Joined
Aug '10
Frozen Chosen

 Love it!

flownover
Joined
Aug '10
flownover

Makes me hate the iPad that I can't send it to a bunch of my benighted friends who can't afford to RICO -- or they're freaked out by the acronym.

dogsbody
Joined
Sep '10
dogsbody

Beautiful.  It's on my Facebook page now.

Jimmy Carter
Joined
Jul '10
Jimmy Carter

There is a significant difference:

The banker suggested asking for a raise as additional income. The government doesn't ask, they just raises taxes.

What Employee could imprison Their employer for not complying?

Edited on Jan 12 at 4:47pm
Freesmith
Joined
Jan '11
Freesmith

If I were a Democrat I'd say that the guy in debt not only needs to cut back his expenses ---- he also needs to take a second job to bring in more money.


Joined
May '11
Misha A.

Great find.  I shared a picture on Facebook that was very similar in concept, basically the government's spending in a year broken down as a household income (you have to chop a LOT of zeros off).  As expected, one of my hardcore leftist friends (more so since she started attending college at Ward Churchill's old campus) jumped in with the argument that if you support spending cuts until we are no longer in deficit you are in favor of cutting programs for our most needy citizens until they are homeless and starving in the street.  She also threw out the "if we just raised taxes on the 1% we could pay for everything" canard.  Since we are in fact friends, I decided to gently disengage with a statement that "This is a serious issue and I hope everyone keeps it in mind this election year".  I guess unfortunately no matter how non-partisan and factually you present the argument, there are some minds that are closed to any sort of discussion.  

No Caesar
Joined
Feb '11
No Caesar

 Brilliant!

More, Please!


Would you like to comment on this Conversation?

Become a Member for $3.67 a month.

Join the Conversation
Already a member? Sign In
Loading

Welcome Visitor

Already a Member?
Please Sign In

Become a Member to enjoy the full benefits of Ricochet:

Join Ricochet today!

Already a Member? Sign In