Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Addison

(299 posts)
Wed May 8, 2013, 12:29 PM May 2013

Boehner Accidentally Explains Why His Deficit Position Is Phony

Yesterday, in an interview with Bloomberg Television, House Speaker John Boehner warned that the U.S. government must balance its budget. After all, he said:

"We have spent more than what we have brought into this government for 55 of the last 60 years. There’s no business in America that could survive like this. No household in America that could do this. And this government can’t do this."

It’s hard to think of better evidence for the sustainability of budget deficits than the fact that we have run them for 55 of the last 60 years. If our fiscal practices haven’t caught up to us after 60 years, when will they? Or does Boehner take a David Stockman-like position that the last several decades of American advancement have in fact been a ghastly failure?

Of course, budget deficits work because the government is different from a household. A government does not have a life cycle, does not ever expect to stop generating income to support itself, and, therefore, does not ever have to retire its debt. It must keep its debts at a manageable size relative to the economy, which the U.S. has done over that 60 year period. If the economy is growing over the long term, that means the government can run a deficit and grow the debt every year -- sustainably.

Boehner is right that no household could keep borrowing like that. He’s not quite right about a business though. Look at the accompanying chart. The orange bars show the net debts of Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. They have soared -- up 5,760 percent since 1987. By comparison, the roughly 600 percent rise in the U.S. public debt over the same period looks restrained. Is Wal-Mart mad? How long can it go on just borrowing and borrowing and borrowing?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-05-08/boehner-accidentally-explains-why-his-deficit-position-is-phony.html

3 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Boehner Accidentally Explains Why His Deficit Position Is Phony (Original Post) Addison May 2013 OP
The only time repukes tell the truth is when it accidentally slips out meow2u3 May 2013 #1
Not to mention the fact that the budget WAS due to be balanced (w/surpluses) Proud Liberal Dem May 2013 #2
I disagree with the comparison to a business. Maybe that was a freudian slip? Government's function okaawhatever May 2013 #3

meow2u3

(24,774 posts)
1. The only time repukes tell the truth is when it accidentally slips out
Wed May 8, 2013, 12:53 PM
May 2013

Otherwise, everything they say is a lie, especially when it comes to the budget. They've been trying to sell us this bill of goods from Day One that a government budget is just like a household budget. Last I checked, households can't print or coin money.

Thank God the truth slipped out. We can use this information to bludgeon repukes politically.

Proud Liberal Dem

(24,438 posts)
2. Not to mention the fact that the budget WAS due to be balanced (w/surpluses)
Wed May 8, 2013, 01:36 PM
May 2013

at the beginning of Bush's (P)residency. Eight years later we all know what kind of shape the economy/deficit was in. Coincidence?

okaawhatever

(9,462 posts)
3. I disagree with the comparison to a business. Maybe that was a freudian slip? Government's function
Wed May 8, 2013, 01:42 PM
May 2013

isn't to earn profit, a businesses' is. Shall we start assessing wars based on the return on investment? Profit potential?
How many years did it take google, apple or dell computer to make a profit?
How many years have american businesses showed a loss? Is the first course of action when Ford, Citibank or Chevron have negative quarters to slow down spending? Sometimes, it depends on the reason for the negative quarters. Sometimes they borrow, increase infrastructure with the aim of increasing revenue. Sometimes the appropriate response is to cut back spending.

The answer to the federal debt and deficit question isn't always the same. The question is, what is the answer for the current situation? Secondly, are you willing to support that answer even if it doesn't support your party's position?

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Boehner Accidentally Expl...