Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

braisler · 10-29-2004, 09:36 AM

I think that the posts referring to the analogy of buying a house are somewhat apt in this discussion. If you can afford to buy a $80000 house at 8% interest, what happens to your finances when the interest rates drop to 5%? Most people in this country opt up! That is to say, they buy a $140000 house because they can now "afford" it. After all, for the same monthly payment, they can now live in a nicer neighborhood, have a pool, extra bedrooms, or whatever. Nevermind that the $80000 house was just fine for their needs and was well within their means. That house is now "beneath" them. It is a very poor reflection on our society that we largely choose to spend rather than to save. In the above example, how many people could honestly say that instead of buying the larger house at $140000, they would buy the $80000 and live below their means, pocketing the difference as savings? I would, and I did.

To bring this back to the discussion at hand... Politicians ultimately, and in the best of all democratic ideals, are a reflection of the people who elect them. If we are a fiscally irresponsible populace, why should politicians be held to any higher standard? I have seen so many people buy a new car (nevermind that the bank actually owns it) or overextend their credit on the estimation of future returns. "Oh, I'm graduating college and I'll have a good job soon. I deserve that new BMW now." How is this different from our government saying that "we want these social programs/better roads/bigger military now. I am sure that the economy will be better soon and will pay for it." Both are examples of deficit spending and fiscally irresponsible.

Personally, I don't know which came first, but I believe that the relationship of government deficit to personal debt is reflective. People see their government massively in debt and still chugging right along and think, "why not me?" The government (by the people, for the people) spends on things that it doesn't have the money for in anticipation of future prosperity.

Yes, I recognize that their are times when deficit spending is needed in government and personal life. As a country, we might have an unanticipated war (not a pre-emptive one) that requires us to spend money that we don't have in the coffers currently. In my personal life, I might have the A/C at my house fail and need replacement. I don't have the money in my bank account right now, so I put in on my credit card. But I have it paid off next month. Why? How? Because I bought the $80000 house instead of the $140000 house. I live below my means and save money aside. If our federal government operated in a similar way, wouldn't we be safer and better off in the long run.

Feel free to add your comments.

10-29-2004, 09:36 AM	#56 (permalink)
braisler Addict Location: Midway, KY	I think that the posts referring to the analogy of buying a house are somewhat apt in this discussion. If you can afford to buy a $80000 house at 8% interest, what happens to your finances when the interest rates drop to 5%? Most people in this country opt up! That is to say, they buy a $140000 house because they can now "afford" it. After all, for the same monthly payment, they can now live in a nicer neighborhood, have a pool, extra bedrooms, or whatever. Nevermind that the $80000 house was just fine for their needs and was well within their means. That house is now "beneath" them. It is a very poor reflection on our society that we largely choose to spend rather than to save. In the above example, how many people could honestly say that instead of buying the larger house at $140000, they would buy the $80000 and live below their means, pocketing the difference as savings? I would, and I did. To bring this back to the discussion at hand... Politicians ultimately, and in the best of all democratic ideals, are a reflection of the people who elect them. If we are a fiscally irresponsible populace, why should politicians be held to any higher standard? I have seen so many people buy a new car (nevermind that the bank actually owns it) or overextend their credit on the estimation of future returns. "Oh, I'm graduating college and I'll have a good job soon. I deserve that new BMW now." How is this different from our government saying that "we want these social programs/better roads/bigger military now. I am sure that the economy will be better soon and will pay for it." Both are examples of deficit spending and fiscally irresponsible. Personally, I don't know which came first, but I believe that the relationship of government deficit to personal debt is reflective. People see their government massively in debt and still chugging right along and think, "why not me?" The government (by the people, for the people) spends on things that it doesn't have the money for in anticipation of future prosperity. Yes, I recognize that their are times when deficit spending is needed in government and personal life. As a country, we might have an unanticipated war (not a pre-emptive one) that requires us to spend money that we don't have in the coffers currently. In my personal life, I might have the A/C at my house fail and need replacement. I don't have the money in my bank account right now, so I put in on my credit card. But I have it paid off next month. Why? How? Because I bought the $80000 house instead of the $140000 house. I live below my means and save money aside. If our federal government operated in a similar way, wouldn't we be safer and better off in the long run. Feel free to add your comments.