Can someone explain exactly what this means, please? Is this just a general "hey dudes, something's wrong when we consistently spend more than we make"? Am I missing something if it seems like the US government spends money the same way people who are in massive credit card debt spend money, in other words spending tons of money they don't actually have?

No, we do that, it is just that we have a legal restriction preventing that debt from growing beyond a certain point to provide a basis for faith in the world's largest economy. Since we don't have the self-will to fix the problem we've run into that barrier and now have to deal with the consequences.

Makes sense, so I'm looking at it a fair way? So where do we go from here? Do we find a way to not spend massive amounts of money? Or do we just do what any person with no self-control would do, and push the barrier higher?

I'm not sure if self-control is the only problem. We've also lost a lot of revenue from useless tax cuts and job losses. Restore the Clinton tax code and start working on jobs and that debt becomes that much easier to deal with. And don't give me that trickle-down BS. That's part of why we're here.

There are two kinds of debt:
a) (Responsible) Debt with a clear plan to pay it back (loans for a new car, or a house with a mortgage that you can pay before you die).
b) (Irresponsible) Debt due to lack of self control.

I'll give you a hint: we don't fall into category (a).


I agree with you, but obviously not everyone does, or we wouldn't be here.

But the commitments we made that generated that debt, weren't generating debt when they were made. The drop in revenue Bush gave us was where this all started. Then he started two wars, which greatly exacerbated the problem. All those programs Republicans want to cut were paid for before they dropped our revenue. As part of the solution, we need to bring that revenue back.

This is incorrect.
http://www.marktaw.com/culture_and_media/TheNationalDebt.html

I should say they weren't part of a deficit, at least not once they got off the ground. We've always had debt. During the Clinton years, we had a surplus, and nearly got our debt down to zero, while still paying for all those programs Republicans now want to cut. Cutting our revenue and starting two wars screwed that up, and high unemployment from a failed economic policy made it even worse. Simply cutting the poor won't be enough(and even if it was, the Ryan plan gives all those savings right back to the rich). We need to tackle the problem on both fronts: Spending, AND revenue. The graphs you link to actually show just what I've been saying: As employment rises, so does revenue, and the deficit goes down. Higher unemployment means much less revenue, and makes our spending look more irresponsible than it really is(or was).

If at any point the deficit is non-zero, there is something irresponsible taking place.

So the democratic Bill Clinton was our only responsible president?

Keep in mind, the way the government gets money is different from a household. A household has a constant income, and can budget on that revenue. A government's income is directly dependent on how much each person makes, and how many people are employed. Commitments made while employment is high aren't irresponsible, nor are ones made while employment is low with the goal of raising employment(new deal) and thus future revenue. The ecconomic collapse caused by a lack of regulation on Wall Street caused a steep drop in revenue for the country, which is why we have the deficit and debt we do. Get those employment numbers back up, and restore the Clinton tax levels, and that debt becomes much easier to get under control. Then we can talk about pulling out of our wars, cutting back on our military, and maybe making some reforms to Medicare and Medicaid(if they're even necessary at this point).

Considering the debt ceiling has been raised several times before, I'm not too worried. Well, worried, but no more than usual

Also, Social security is basically calling all americans incapable of financial planning and irresponsible. In fact, the gov. originally saved that money, but then they started using it, meaning now Social security is payed out of pocket by the gov. Now, who's the financially irresponsible here?

The way I see it, the government isn't and shouldn't try to be a charitable association. There are lots of those to go around.

He had our only responsible Congress


Keep in mind that higher income taxes have a positive correlation with higher unemployment.

Uh, maybe you should get off the Canibis. Unemployment went UP when we LOWERED taxes, and was LOWER when taxes were HIGHER during the Clinton years. There is no relation between taxes and employment, you've been lied to by GOP inc.

As of 2008, "the top 5 lowest unemployment rate states have a state income tax 3.46% compared to the average of 6.08% for the 5 states with the highest unemployment rates", and, also tellingly, Republicans controlled 7 of the 10 states with the lowest unemployment.

We're not talking about state taxes, we're talking about federal ones. That said, plenty of Republican-run states have absolutely abysmal unemployment(Jersey). I think those numbers are more because of the majority of states they run than actual governing prowess.

Taxes have the same economic impact regardless of who is levee-ing them.

The thing is, the numbers are flipped on the other end. 40% of the states with higher than average unemployment rates were Republican controlled, versus 60% Democratic.

I don't think you can draw conclusions from those numbers. They go one way or the other depending on where you get them from, so I don't think there is any real relation. That was my point on taxes all along.

Apply to a labor market, kthxbai.

Oh I don't even like sales taxes. Which is why I'm absolutely disgusted by Rand Paul's plan to get rid of income tax(the only fair way to tax people) and replace it with a crippling 25% sales tax, which would utterly destroy our economy.

Now we wait until it shuts down in September.