[jeffkrol]

Well more shattering of the tax and spend liberal I am........
–Everyone knows the best way to drain blood out of an anemic.

Balancing the federal budget means federal taxes would equal federal spending, so the government would add $0 net dollars to the economy. Combine that with our $50 billion negative trade balance, and a balanced budget would cause the economy to lose $50 billion every year.
Imagine that your own personal expenses equaled your salary, with nothing left over (balanced budget), but in addition you had to pay thousands every year to support your parents. How would your personal “economy” look?
The notion of a federally balanced budget not only is wrong; it’s downright stupid. But stupid is as stupid says, and here are the answers given:

15% of the respondents said to Cut Medicare
29% of the respondents said to Raise Taxes
13% of the respondents said to Cut Social Security
43% of the respondents said to Cut Defense Spending.

In total, 57% of the respondents wanted the government to remove dollars from their pockets, to help crash the economy. As for the other 43%, apparently they aren’t among the millions of people who work for defense-related industries, or for vendors to those people, and who would see their paychecks disappear if defense spending were cut.
In short, 100% of the respondents have been fooled by the 1% into believing the federal deficit and debt are too large. The poll names sample members of the 99% who would vote against their own best interests:
Josh Smith, 35, IT manager, New York City said: “Cut defense. We have the world’s largest budget.”
Shola Asenuga, 44, Physical therapist, Hampton, VA said: “Taxes should be raised across the board.”
Russ Homsy, 38, Attorney, Boston said: Cut Social Secuirity. The system is broken, anyway.”
This is the belief of America: Cut military spending because we spend the most. Raise my taxes and reduce Social Security. Yikes!
I can’t blame these people too much. They have been fed this nonsense by the media and the politicians, all owned by the 1%. But gosh, how difficult is this to figure out.

For instance, the article says:
$125 billion: Projected savings by 2021 if the Medicare eligibility age were raised from 65 to 67, today.
$208 billion: Added to revenue by 2016, if the tax rates on ordinary income were raised by one percentage point.
$125 billion “saved” for whom? America, the government would take $125 billion out of your pockets. $208 billion “added” for whom? America, the government would take $208 billion out of your pockets. This is what you want?? Really?

But there’s more:

[jeffkrol]

http://pragcap.com/a-disturbing-trend-in-republican-convention-speeches

We have a unified political entity with a Treasury and central bank that can always procure funding by harnessing private banks. The threat is never insolvency in this regard. Ie, the USA is NOTHING like Greece, a household or a business. There is no such thing as the USA “running out of money”. Our only constraint is inflation and that’s a very different constraint than solvency….

If the politicians understood how the modern monetary system actually worked they wouldn’t make such silly comparisons and waste so much breath focusing on the wrong constraint. Sadly, I don’t think the Democrats are any better on these issues….