Most businesses run on debt, don't they?

[Freeper]

SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jul-30-11 08:35 AM
Original message
Most businesses run on debt, don't they?   Updated at 8:41 PM
   
Edited on Sat Jul-30-11 08:36 AM by SHRED
Business loans and such.

So when CONs say, "we need to run government like a business"...WTF are they talking about?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1611627

 
They really are clueless, if any business ran up a tab of almost 15 trillion dollars they wouldn't be in business long, in fact they would be forced out of business by even a fraction of that amount.

rfranklin Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jul-30-11 09:12 AM
Response to Reply #4
6. The government is not a business and its not a family checking account...
   
Edited on Sat Jul-30-11 09:12 AM by rfranklin
But if you want to make a comparison, any business that wants to survive would raise its prices to cover its operating expenses, cost of goods and profit. The fact is that the U.S. government is collecting the lowest percentage of GDP in 60 years and thus cannot cover its expenses. Eliminate the Bush tax gifts to the wealthy and the unbudgeted wars and the problem is solved.
   

Tax gifts to the wealthy? They act like the govt is handing them money. So if a DUmmy gets held up and the thief hands them back $2, is that a gift?

bluestate10 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jul-30-11 09:33 AM
Response to Reply #3
13. True governments are not businesses. If the US GOV was a business,
   
we would be paying $2 to mail a letter, or $0.25 to drink at a public fountain, or $5 for a day on the National Mall. Republicans are freaking blind dumb asses that have no idea of how central government is to a well functioning society.

That's the problem, you think that everyone needs govt to hold everyone's hand all through life. There is a reason the founders used the Constitution to limit the role of govt, they were crazy enough to think that freedom was a good thing, and people would value that freedom. Little did they know that little by little we would willingly hand over our freedoms, and some of you would beg to hand over even more of them.

rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jul-30-11 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
24. Not only that, but how many would survive under a BBA?
   
If they could only spend what they take in that year?

So now the Balanced Budget Amendment is going to kill people.

[jukin]

When business raise prices they usually lose business. The deal is in keeping a profit or increasing profit. Raise prices too much and sales go down to the point where you lose money.  In the make believe world of government this is the Laffer Curve.

If a business had $2 coming in each year, they owed $14.3, and were losing $1.65 each and every year no sane banker or investor would ever loan them any more money. This is a failure. Which is no surprise because since the new young inexperienced CE0 came into office there has been no business plan, no budget, and all around fail. The business has not stopped it's slide into fail but accelerated it exponentially.

A good way to see if the CE0 and the staff believe in a business is to see how much stock or debt they own and if they are buying or selling. II will bet everything I have that says 0bama and the congress own zero US Treasury Notes.

What we have done since 2007 is install a board of directors and a CE0 that actually are on the competing companies payroll and are running our company into the ground leaving the market free of competition.

[BattleHymn]

rucky Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jul-30-11 11:37 AM
Response to Original message
24. Not only that, but how many would survive under a BBA?
  
If they could only spend what they take in that year?

Good question, DUmmie.  Why don't you try asking some of the states listed below, all of which have some sort of balanced budget amendment in place (some obviously stronger than others):


Alabama   
Alaska   
Arizona   
Arkansas
California   
Colorado   
Connecticut   
Delaware
Florida   
Georgia   
Hawaii   
Idaho
Illinois   
Indiana   
Iowa   
Kansas
Kentucky   
Louisiana   
Maine   
Maryland
Massachusetts   
Michigan   
Minnesota   
Mississippi
Missouri   
Montana   
Nebraska   
Nevada
New Hampshire   
New Jersey   
New Mexico
New York
North Carolina   
North Dakota   
Ohio   
Oklahoma
Oregon   
Pennsylvania   
Rhode Island   
South Carolina
South Dakota   
Tennessee   
Texas
Utah
Virginia   
Washington   
West Virginia
Wisconsin   
Wyoming

[USA4ME]

The primitives are going to have to decide what they want; either (1) you can have New Deal social programs and the country will eventually go broke and vanish off the face of the earth, or (2) we can reduce these programs down to where they're affordable and the country will continue to exist.

The one thing you can't have is New Deal social programs AND the gov't not go broke.  Those two are incompatible.  You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Decide.

.

[franksolich]

The primitives are going to have to decide what they want; either (1) you can have New Deal social programs and the country will eventually go broke and vanish off the face of the earth, or (2) we can reduce these programs down to where they're affordable and the country will continue to exist.

The one thing you can't have is New Deal social programs AND the gov't not go broke.  Those two are incompatible.  You cannot have your cake and eat it, too.

Decide.

I think one fix--but a woefully incomplete one, alas--for it is that social security revert back to what it originally was, for those over 65 years of age.  That, and nothing more; not even "early retirement" at 62 years.

I dunno how much this would save, but I suspect it'd be a substantial chunk.

[AllosaursRus]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x1611627

 
They really are clueless, if any business ran up a tab of almost 15 trillion dollars they wouldn't be in business long, in fact they would be forced out of business by even a fraction of that amount.

Tax gifts to the wealthy? They act like the govt is handing them money. So if a DUmmy gets held up and the thief hands them back $2, is that a gift?

That's the problem, you think that everyone needs govt to hold everyone's hand all through life. There is a reason the founders used the Constitution to limit the role of govt, they were crazy enough to think that freedom was a good thing, and people would value that freedom. Little did they know that little by little we would willingly hand over our freedoms, and some of you would beg to hand over even more of them.

So now the Balanced Budget Amendment is going to kill people.

Actually, they'd be in ****in' jail!!!!

[Skul]

Good question, DUmmie.  Why don't you try asking some of the states listed below, all of which have some sort of balanced budget amendment in place (some obviously stronger than others):


Alabama   
>list<
Wyoming

Vermont doesn't?
How about the other seven?  

[USA4ME]

I think one fix--but a woefully incomplete one, alas--for it is that social security revert back to what it originally was, for those over 65 years of age.  That, and nothing more; not even "early retirement" at 62 years.

I dunno how much this would save, but I suspect it'd be a substantial chunk.

Some savings, no doubt, but the whole concept was built on sand, as you well know.  Age 65 was chosen because, at the time, the average male only lived to approx. age 60 (using men because they were the main "breadwinner" in the family at the time).

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

Not so hard to pay out a few bucks to the few remaining when the majority that paid into it are dead and can never collect nor be reimbursed.

Today, the general population is living to age 78+.  Social safety nets don't work so well when too many people live long enough to collect.

.

[BattleHymn]

Vermont doesn't?
How about the other seven?  

Vermontistan does not.  The jury is still out on the states of North Hopeistan, South Hopeistan, Taxbaijan, Changeladesh, Progressivia, Fascistania, and West Capitulatia.

[franksolich]

Some savings, no doubt, but the whole concept was built on sand, as you well know.  Age 65 was chosen because, at the time, the average male only lived to approx. age 60 (using men because they were the main "breadwinner" in the family at the time).

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005148.html

Not so hard to pay out a few bucks to the few remaining when the majority that paid into it are dead and can never collect nor be reimbursed.

Today, the general population is living to age 78+.  Social safety nets don't work so well when too many people live long enough to collect.

That's what I was thinking, sir; even something as draconian as that--limited social security to retirement benefits only, at the age of 65 years not earlier, no surviving spouse or dependents benefits, no social security disability gravy-train--might not be near enough.

[delilahmused]

SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jul-30-11 08:35 AM
Original message
Most businesses run on debt, don't they?   Updated at 8:41 PM
   
Edited on Sat Jul-30-11 08:36 AM by SHRED
Business loans and such.

So when CONs say, "we need to run government like a business"...WTF are they talking about?

Any business that walks into a bank and says, "Hey, I can't pay my bills and I think I need to buy more stuff, can you up my debt limit so I can go further into debt?" would be laughed right out of there.

Cindie

[BlueStateSaint]

Vermontistan does not.  The jury is still out on the states of North Hopeistan, South Hopeistan, Taxbaijan, Changeladesh, Progressivia, Fascistania, and West Capitulatia.

Coffee almost flew . . . H5!

[DumbAss Tanker]

SHRED Donating Member (1000+ posts)  Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list    Sat Jul-30-11 08:35 AM
Original message
Most businesses run on a balance between debt and expected revenue, don't they?   Updated at 8:41 PM

FIFY.  Ignorant loser.

[NHSparky]

Dear DUmmies:

Imagine a business which has revenues of $1 Million per year.  Not bad, right?

Now imagine that same business has: 1--operating expenses/expenditures of $1.8 Million per year, and debt of over $7 Million, with assets that don't even come close to covering debts.

You know what that business would be called?  BANKRUPT.  If you were a bank, would YOU loan to this business?  Of course not.  But this being the US government, it doesn't need a "loan" per se.  It just prints up more money, and damn the consequences.

Now you know why we are so concerned.