Lets make the analogy realistic.
Suppose the sewage is up to a line on the wall that has been drawn by the wife. The marriage contract states that if the sewage goes over the line, the couple must get a divorce.
Husband: "lets just move the line a little higher."
Wife: "not a chance, I'd rather have a divorce".
Husband: "The reason why we have all this sewage is because you insist on using the toilet but won't pay the council for sewage collection or for the plumber to fix things."
Wife: "If I give you any money, you just go and get drunk, so no more money for you!"
Wife: "I believe in the freedom to use the toilet whenever I want! And nobody should force me to pay for sewage collection! Freedom!"
Husband: "But the sewage is creeping higher up the walls!"
Wife: "Freedom!".
Originally posted by twhitehead Lets make the analogy realistic.
Suppose the sewage is up to a line on the wall that has been drawn by the wife. The marriage contract states that if the sewage goes over the line, the couple must get a divorce.
Husband: "lets just move the line a little higher."
Wife: "not a chance, I'd rather have a divorce".
Husband: "The reason why we have all t ...[text shortened]... ection! Freedom!"
Husband: "But the sewage is creeping higher up the walls!"
Wife: "Freedom!".
Originally posted by twhitehead "Lets make the analogy realistic.
Suppose the sewage is up to a line on the wall that has been drawn by the wife..."
And let's also posit the question: what was the rationale for "the wife" alone making the decision on the position of the line? Having done so it's little wonder their marriage has become dysfunctional. Also what does choosing a drunk for a husband say about her judgment; or is the question about the husband's judgment in choosing a wife who would drive him to drink?
The husband is a bit more popular with the children because at least he pays their school fees, and buys them food. The wife is popular with the Church going children because she wants to institute a family religion. She is also popular with some because she wants to get rid of the foster children.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby And let's also posit the question: what was the rationale for "the wife" alone making the decision on the position of the line?
Yes, that's a bit of the problem, because only the Husband is allowed to actually spend money on the sewage fees and plumber.
The important thing to note however, is neither husband nor wife, actually wants to pay the sewage fees or the plumber. The husband has other uses for the money, whilst the wife, has no real plan at all as her main aim is to get a divorce.
There are basically two choices. The Government needs a sum $x to function. It can:
Issue bonds, which are purchased by those wealthy enough to have savings, and pay interest to those wealthy people, providing an additional income over and above work.
Raise taxes from people wealthy enough to have more than they need so that they have surplus savings looking for someone to pay risk free interest. (If they were wealth creating entrepreneurs, they would not be buying government bonds).
The Bush notion that you can lower taxes while repaying debt is already shown to be nonsensical. What you lot advocate is letting the wealthy pay less tax and then paying interest to the wealthy on their unproductive and inactive savings. Who gets screwed in that? Everyone outside the top 10% is the answer, but primarily the dying middle class.
"The Debt Ceiling"
05 Aug '14 00:27
Back to Top