G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
The GOP and it's faithful adherents like to use "folksy" analogies in their failed attempts to pose as populists.
http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.plain.html
Lately, they've been using this one:
Folks say, "We balance our budgets. Why can't Washington?"
It's worth noting that the question isn't just flawed -- the federal government of the world's largest economy and military superpower has to operate differently -- it's also based on a false assumption.
When a family goes to buy a home, its members don't simply write a check; they take out a mortgage. Almost no one can afford to simply and literally buy a home, so we take out very large loans, and make payments, with interest.
The same is true when a family wants a car, tackles college tuition, or thinks about starting a small business. American families, in other words, take on debts, some of them huge relative to their incomes, all the time.
There's nothing wrong with any of this -- these are just routine examples of people investing in themselves.
The government's debts aren't identical -- there is no mortgage or car payment, exactly -- but officials take on debts to invest in things they consider worthwhile, too.
A family that relies on student loans to pay for college should be able to relate to a government that relies on loans to pay for public services. The family thinks it'll be worth living in the red for a while, so long as it can make the payments and afford the interest, because they'll be better off in the long run -- and the government believes the exact same thing.
The comparison between families and governments "living within their means" tends to annoy me because of the lack of parallels, but I'm wondering if I should just embrace it and turn it around.
If Mr. and Ms. America take on debts they can afford to improve their position in life, why is it outrageous for their government to do the same thing?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_04/029094.php
http://www.propagandacritic.com/articles/ct.sa.plain.html
Lately, they've been using this one:
Folks say, "We balance our budgets. Why can't Washington?"
It's worth noting that the question isn't just flawed -- the federal government of the world's largest economy and military superpower has to operate differently -- it's also based on a false assumption.
When a family goes to buy a home, its members don't simply write a check; they take out a mortgage. Almost no one can afford to simply and literally buy a home, so we take out very large loans, and make payments, with interest.
The same is true when a family wants a car, tackles college tuition, or thinks about starting a small business. American families, in other words, take on debts, some of them huge relative to their incomes, all the time.
There's nothing wrong with any of this -- these are just routine examples of people investing in themselves.
The government's debts aren't identical -- there is no mortgage or car payment, exactly -- but officials take on debts to invest in things they consider worthwhile, too.
A family that relies on student loans to pay for college should be able to relate to a government that relies on loans to pay for public services. The family thinks it'll be worth living in the red for a while, so long as it can make the payments and afford the interest, because they'll be better off in the long run -- and the government believes the exact same thing.
The comparison between families and governments "living within their means" tends to annoy me because of the lack of parallels, but I'm wondering if I should just embrace it and turn it around.
If Mr. and Ms. America take on debts they can afford to improve their position in life, why is it outrageous for their government to do the same thing?
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2011_04/029094.php
