"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think.

Short summary can be viewed and read he

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...mapSummary.pdf


Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he

http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...tirereport.pdf

Have fun,
Eisboch



Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not
contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must. This
was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration.


Pssst... (looking around nervously) .... the "gov't" is broke.....

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think.

Short summary can be viewed and read he

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...mapSummary.pdf


Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he

http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...tirereport.pdf

Have fun,
Eisboch



Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not
contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must. This
was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration.


Pssst... (looking around nervously) .... the "gov't" is broke.....

Eisboch




No it isn't. It's called deficit spending. This is a normal practice, and
it's perfectly acceptable and even valuable to do during a major downturn.

Broke implies insolvent or lacking in funds.

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Jan 27, 6:52*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...







"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

Just finished reading this. *It's worth consideration, I think.

Short summary can be viewed and read he

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum....

Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he

http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_....

Have fun,
Eisboch

Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not
contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must. This
was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration.

Pssst... *(looking around nervously) *.... *the "gov't" *is broke.....

Eisboch

No it isn't. It's called deficit spending.

Broke implies insolvent or lacking in funds.

"Deficit spending is the amount by which a government, private
company, or individual's spending exceeds income"

Let's see... I spend more than I make, so I'm lacking in funds, so
therefore I'm "broke".

If I weren't broke, I'd be spending my surplus, and by definition not
in a deficit.

Just... think.

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 27, 6:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Eisboch" wrote in message

...







"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think.

Short summary can be viewed and read he

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum...

Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he

http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_...

Have fun,
Eisboch

Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not
contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must.
This
was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration.

Pssst... (looking around nervously) .... the "gov't" is broke.....

Eisboch

No it isn't. It's called deficit spending.

Broke implies insolvent or lacking in funds.

"Deficit spending is the amount by which a government, private
company, or individual's spending exceeds income"

Let's see... I spend more than I make, so I'm lacking in funds, so
therefore I'm "broke".

Really? So, I guess you've never purchased anything on your credit card that
you couldn't immediately afford. You've never bought a house, because you'd
be unable to pay off the mortgage immediately. Same goes with a car.

If I weren't broke, I'd be spending my surplus, and by definition not
in a deficit.

Just... think.

Good advice. I think you should take it!


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Jan 27, 8:05*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Jan 27, 6:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Eisboch" wrote in message

m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think.

Short summary can be viewed and read he

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum...

Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he

http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_...

Have fun,
Eisboch

Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not
contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must.
This
was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration.

Pssst... (looking around nervously) .... the "gov't" is broke.....

Eisboch

No it isn't. It's called deficit spending.

Broke implies insolvent or lacking in funds.
"Deficit spending is the amount by which a government, private
company, or individual's spending exceeds income"

Let's see... I spend more than I make, so I'm lacking in funds, so
therefore I'm "broke".

Really? So, I guess you've never purchased anything on your credit card that
you couldn't immediately afford. You've never bought a house, because you'd
be unable to pay off the mortgage immediately. Same goes with a car.

Having a line of credit and being broke are not mutually exclusive.
Signing up and getting credit neither rescues you from being broke,
nor does it protect you from it. In fact, it exposes you even more to
the possibility of ending up broke.

Never heard of an entity overextending their credit line or buying
such a large house that they become insolvent, broke, and ultimately
they have to file for bankruptcy? Really? Someone is broke, uses a
line of credit, then are still broke and can't service that credit?

If you're broke and you have to reach into a line of credit to buy
some gas, you aren't "less" broke when your tank is full. In fact,
you're even more "broke".

Sure you went to school? They taught this basic stuff at least by the
8th grade or so.

Just... think.

Good advice.

Yep, hope you take it!

"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Jan 27, 8:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Jan 27, 6:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Eisboch" wrote in message

m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think.

Short summary can be viewed and read he

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum...

Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he

http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_...

Have fun,
Eisboch

Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not
contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must.
This
was learned the hard way by the Hoover administration.

Pssst... (looking around nervously) .... the "gov't" is broke.....

Eisboch

No it isn't. It's called deficit spending.

Broke implies insolvent or lacking in funds.
"Deficit spending is the amount by which a government, private
company, or individual's spending exceeds income"

Let's see... I spend more than I make, so I'm lacking in funds, so
therefore I'm "broke".

Really? So, I guess you've never purchased anything on your credit card
that
you couldn't immediately afford. You've never bought a house, because
you'd
be unable to pay off the mortgage immediately. Same goes with a car.

Having a line of credit and being broke are not mutually exclusive.
Signing up and getting credit neither rescues you from being broke,
nor does it protect you from it. In fact, it exposes you even more to
the possibility of ending up broke.

Never said it did. I said that using your credit doesn't mean you're broke.
Which is what you're claiming.

Never heard of an entity overextending their credit line or buying
such a large house that they become insolvent, broke, and ultimately
they have to file for bankruptcy? Really? Someone is broke, uses a
line of credit, then are still broke and can't service that credit?

Since the US gov't isn't insolvent, broke, perhaps you would like to try for
some other point? We're servicing the debt just fine. It can't go on
forever, but it's still manageable.

If you're broke and you have to reach into a line of credit to buy
some gas, you aren't "less" broke when your tank is full. In fact,
you're even more "broke".

You're saying the same thing over and over, hoping it will make a different
point. It won't.

Sure you went to school? They taught this basic stuff at least by the
8th grade or so.

I guess you missed that grade then.

Just... think.

Good advice.

Yep, hope you take it!

You really sound pathetic. Why not just admit you're wrong.


--
Nom=de=Plume

On Jan 27, 11:23*pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Jan 27, 8:05 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Jan 27, 6:52 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:

"Eisboch" wrote in message

m...

"nom=de=plume" wrote in message
...
"Eisboch" wrote in message
om...

Just finished reading this. It's worth consideration, I think.

Short summary can be viewed and read he

http://www.house.gov/ryan/press_rele...ses/RoadmapSum...

Detailed report with the numbers to back it up he

http://www.house.gov/budget_republic...dmap_detailed_...

Have fun,
Eisboch

Competely DOA as thunder said. Now is the time to spend money not
contract. If the private sector doesn't create jobs, the gov't must.

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 20:23:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

Since the US gov't isn't insolvent, broke, perhaps you would like to try
for
some other point? We're servicing the debt just fine. It can't go on
forever, but it's still manageable.

This really gets down to net worth. If you owe more than you could
cash out for, you are broke. I had this explained to be by a financial
planner in the early 70s and it turned my life around.

The federal government probably has a positive net worth but are we
really willing to sell off all the federal properties?


We have quite a bit more than a slight positive net worth, and there's no
reason to sell off anything. We're not being liquidated.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 17:05:38 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:


Really? So, I guess you've never purchased anything on your credit card
that
you couldn't immediately afford. You've never bought a house, because
you'd
be unable to pay off the mortgage immediately. Same goes with a car.

I figured out pretty early in my life that was a losing proposition.
It is a whole lot better to save your money until you can afford what
you want. Otherwise you are just making bankers rich. If you can't
afford a $15,000 car on your salary, how in the hell can you afford to
pay $19,000 for the same car? (a 4 year 12% note)
I understand young people borrowing money early in their life but if
they are still borrowing money in their 40s they will always be broke.

Have you looked recently at what percentage of the federal budget goes
to servicing our debt?


You're certainly right that it's not a good idea to finance things that you
can pay for without putting yourself in a cash flow problem situation. Cars
are a great example of people spending more than they should. I've never
purchased a new car, and I've never purchased one on credit. Some people
don't have that option, but one should avoid it whenever possible. Houses
are a different story. The vast, vast majority get a mortgage. Credit card
use is dangerous if not done properly, but I certainly use mine. I don't run
a balance, and I haven't seen grad school. It's still a loan, however.

I believe the service on the debt is 15% or so of the budget... something
like that.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Jan 2010 22:04:22 -0800, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

I believe the service on the debt is 15% or so of the budget... something
like that.


$383,071,060,815.42 last year 12,3%

Expect to see that shoot up with the extra $2 trillion


What extra $2T? And, it won't make that much difference. The "debt" issue is
seriously overblown. It's not insignificant, but it's not anywhere close to
a crisis.

--
Nom=de=Plume