And that is relevant how? Of COURSE the government can just print bills in any amount at any time it wants to. So why HASN'T it? Because money has to be WORTH something. What would happen if the Feds just decided to print enough currency to pay off all the national debt? $10,000 for a visit to Starbucks perhaps? (perhaps a slight exaggeration, but a massive flood of currency proportionally devalues the currency, which is not a good thing). Doing such a thing would be essentially national suicide, which is of course why they do not do it. It doesn't change the fact that going into debt is not a preferable course of action.
A government has tools like monetary policy and fiscal policy that an average Joe Sixpack such as yourself doesn't have access to, as well as a distinctly different purpose so your point about expecting it to behave like your conception of a 1950s tv middle class family is profoundly flawed. That's why your policy prescription is so stupid. There's nothing inherently evil or wrong about debt which is why pretty much everybody and everything takes advantage of using it at some point. The decision should be based on whether or not it makes sense to do so, which for government with ultra low borrowing costs is nearly always
Yes. Citizens do not spend exactly the same amount of money as they bring in during any given year. They often - especially when buying things like houses or starting businesses - spend more than they brought in. The idea that you'd want to take that option away from government is ... bizarre.
Except that you're wrong and the poor most definitely do pay taxes. Plenty of illegal immigrants not only pay taxes, they almost never collect refunds from the govt.
Re-Read my post. I said people that say Illegal immigrants and the poor pay no taxes are misinformed and using class warfare. Republicans use false information and in some cases 'blame the poor'. Democrats blame the rich quite a bit and also create class warfare. I think class warfare on both sides is in poor taste. I think Obama talking about something that will never pass and using class warfare to highlight it is in very poor taste. Just as Romney's 50% don't pay income taxes was in poor taste.
Humm... I think class warfare was invented by the Right. Anytime there is a proposed tax hike on higher earner, it's class warfare. I don't think the Left have used that much at all. Thus, Major asks... why is it only consider class warfare when it's one way and not the other. Whatever the case, since what, the 50's, the majority of tax cuts are aimed at the top earners. If we really want to talk about "movement" of wealth, it has been tipping toward the higher earner (or really investors) for decades now. The lower earner gets a tax cut here and there, but in reality, when you add up all the numbers, the shift is definitely going toward the top. And this isn't by accident. It's the Republican's Trickle-down strategy. I think we have enough past data, especially in the last few decades to said American has been fooled. But the Right remain stubbornly stuck to that idea. Not just stubborn, but tripling down on it. They wouldn't allow a single 0.00001% hike in tax even if it means balance budget, cuts to programs, and so on. Really, they are a crazy bunch that IS IN FACT protecting the 1% at all costs - including let the US default on it's debt obligation. So, to said this is on both side, I think is not accurate. It's easy to blame both, and you are fine to do so, but lets try to be accurate.
