SA Footy

I am sure its probably not this simple but lets give it a go anyway!

They spend too much on wars, I thought that was the explanation.

Someone needs to tell right-wingers running a country is not analogous to a household budget, Bananaby Joyce often specialises in rubbish like this too.

Perhaps the clowns that run the US could ease up on inavding countries and start making billion dollar corporations pay tax.

What the situations have in common is that no one - household or nation - can go on spending more than their income without a plan to pay the debt in the end.
Debt needs to be treated cautiously if there is not guarantee of increased income sufficient to cover it in future.
Nations have focussed on the dream of ongoing (or returning) economic growth as the salvation, and gone on spending in tight times assuming it will come good..

In the end if the growth stops, or slows, being less in debt than the guys next door is small consolation - you are still in trouble.
A government counting on perpetual economic growth is not much different from a family gambling on the breadwinner(s) getting better paid jobs, or a Pokies or lottery win.

In the US case they spent more than they could afford, with no plan for what to do if things turned bad, and they did turn bad.
The job they expected to keep as world's leading manufacturer didn't stay theirs, but went to the new kids in Asia..

We in OZ are just fortunate some of our governments have been more prudent than those in the US or Europe.
That doesn't mean we can forget about paying off our smaller debt.

Was an interesting chart the other day about what executives earn compared with the average wage in different countries. Sojurner may remember it, it was on the same website as Nyan Cat

From memory, the ratio of executive wage:average wage for some was

Japan 11:1
Germany 14:1
USA 247:1

Let the civil war begin.

Found the image. My memory was slightly off.

It started with the banks.....

..and the banks became involved because of the US Govt I think. During Clinton's administration I think?

GWW wrote:..and the banks became involved because of the US Govt I think. During Clinton's administration I think?

Correct. Nice theory, poorly thought out. Often a symptom of a popular government and poor opposition. If you get a good government that has to make sure every step is right and an effective opposition that picks any hole in sight, you should end up with good legislation. Amazing how we find out later on when government is most popular they make the worst errors. School hall bungles, insulation schemes. Both meritorious. Both terriblly implemented. Both happened under the watch of a very popular government and woeful opposition.

Every report on the BER has concluded it was eminently successful.

Say the opposite often enough, or just read the headlines and it becomes 'truth'.

fish wrote:

i think the term is 'practice what you preach'