CNN Host Schools Bobby Jindal For Spouting ‘Misleading’ Economic ‘Nonsense’

$100Billion on repairing a bridge only after it has collapsed into the river with hundreds of cars on it than spend $20Billion repairing it before hand.

...and tax cuts for those who need it the least at the expense of everyone else.

Obama has put forward a plan that makes serious cuts and does prioritize the cuts in ways that will be least harmful to the economy and the American people. And it also closes just a few of the many loopholes that Ryan and Romney were so vocal about jest 4 months ago. Don't forget that Romney was planning to balance the whole budget by eliminating loopholes that mostly favor the rich. He said that over and over.

Election is over. The people decided. Let's get on with it.

Book it.

babylonsister!

money on some level. If it were otherwise, the entire economy would grind to a halt.

Our entire economy would crash if credit was no longer used.

Because Jindal thinks that government should live within its means.

Oh no no no no! There's a difference between borrowing to invest in the future and borrowing to pay operational expenses.

People don't buy a new house every week without selling their old one first. Comparing Federal spending to buying a house is just a lousy comparison.

It makes sense to borrow to invest in the future, or to recover from an unusual, unexpected situation. But it does *not* make sense to add long-term debt to cover routine, recurring expenses.

Two examples ... would it make sense to always put your monthly electric bill on a credit card account -- and then only pay the minimum charge on the bill when it comes? Or to go on a permanent vacation (borrowing for all your expenses) until your credit runs out?

Of course not, that's just living beyond your means and before long you'll be buried in debt and unable to make even minimum payments.

Acquiring new debt makes lots of sense when it's an investment in the future or for covering unexpected emergencies. But routinely increasing your debt, spending more than you have, is a path to destruction ... for individuals, businesses, or governments.

And no, I'm not a right-wing troll. I'm way left of Obama and most of the folks here on DU. But I believe in raising taxes to pay for what we spend unless it's a capital investment or an unusual expense that can't be deferred.

Please, no more buying-a-house comparisons.

"Acquiring new debt makes lots of sense when it's an investment in the future . . . "

but you don't buy another new house every week. the national debt includes lots of 'non-house' type expenses. it's not at all appropriate to compare the federal deficit to investing since so much of it is for short-term recurring expenses.

because they've paid off the house they bought. You won't be able to convince them that their decision to borrow money to buy a house wasn't an investment in their future.

... if you think I don't believe that buying a house is an investment in the future. The point is that's the only kind of deficit spending that does make sense. But it's not the kind of spending we're doing with the fed budget.

Yes, buying a house is an investment in the future. And when the govt spends to invest in the future I have no problems with it going into debt to pay for that. E.g. even slightly dubious spending like "stimulus" spending. You can make the argument that it's improving the economy short-term and will pay us back big-time by avoiding a depression and with increased tax revenue.

But you can't look at the federal budget without realizing that way too much of the debt is just unchecked spending that has nothing to do with investing in the future. E.g. the entirely optional war in Iraq.

is an ongoing expense. That monthly expense is called "housing". Otherwise we'd all be renting and that is a monthly expense also. So we buy a home as an investment. Therefore, we add long term debt to cover ongoing expenses. See? It's simple. The comparison is appropriate and informative.

The comparison sucks because we go into debt to buy a single house. We don't borrow money (w/out paying it off quickly) to pay the rent.

The federal budget is deeply in the red because of ongoing expenses. There are a few "buying a house" items in there, but way too much of it is going for ongoing expenses that should be covered by taxes.

No new warehouses. Nary a tractor or drill press.

It isn't investing in our people either, unemployment insurance, food stamps, WIC, and all of that is fairly minor. NASA gets about a half a fucking peanut. Non-military/security research gets the other half. We spend a fair little chunk on education but it seems largely to be spent to destroy rather than invest. The Arts? You jest! Masterpiece Theater best eat their peas!

Meanwhile, revenue really more or less only covers the on the budget and on the books military spending which means even if the military spending was zero we'd still have deficits and much of it would seem to be crap as well.

You are likely to spin in circles with a lot of folks. Democrats are shifting taxaphobic as well unless it is some bullshit "sin" tax, restrained nibbles at the wealthiest, and apparently weird tithes to predatory corporations supposedly to "keep them in check" and "curb their worst excesses".

that we must cut taxes on the rich in order to grow the economy and ignore the deficit and debt.

has screwed up Louisiana's economy even worse than it already was and now spends his time running around the country pontificating and trying to avoid his constituents.

Of the bill because the President does not have the authority to pick and choose what spending he will cut because it was designed as across the board in nature to make it unpalatable and thus would never go into effect. Now if Jindal supports a new bill to give the President that authority that would be something else but I don't see where he is calling for that. Instead, he is just saying stupid stuff.

Generating more income and borrowing are certainly known to every family.

But, it's good that the TV idiots do, on occasion, point out the obvious, rather than sit silently between one Republican telling his or her version and one Democrat telling his or her version.

It's not all about competing idea (read competing propaganda)

Facts do still matter, regardless of the formats the television idiots choose to adopt.

mainly you and your rich republican't friends and craperations
someone should tell him to shut the fuck up

I thought only old backward conservatives repeated that bromide. I first heard it when Reagan was running and it was totally false. First, as noted above, household do have debt and second, it's a straw-man argument because households are not the federal government. Today, most young conservatives understand the difference and don't repeat such nonsense.

The ironic and tragic twist is that BECAUSE of Reagan, household debt increased dramatically. Reagan always lied to us.

Thanks for the thread, babylonsister.