Is it moral to spend money you don't have?

[task0778]

As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt? Might be some higher moral imperatives that come into play, such as national security or a natural catastrophe that must be addressed. I'm talking about emergencies here, rather than usual expenditures. I think it is highly immoral to create a huge national debt and pass it on to future generations to pay interest on, let alone the principal. And yet here we are, spending more money than we've got without a thought about the consequences.

Tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed about it. I grew up being taught to live within your means and don't spend more than you've got; make do or find ways to earn more money but you don't spend future earnings that you ain't got yet. I see no reason why the gov't should be any different, cuz sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we won't be the ones to have to deal with it. Don't know when the crap will hit the fan, but it is inevitable IMHO.

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt? Might be some higher moral imperatives that come into play, such as national security or a natural catastrophe that must be addressed. I'm talking about emergencies here, rather than usual expenditures. I think it is highly immoral to create a huge national debt and pass it on to future generations to pay interest on, let alone the principal. And yet here we are, spending more money than we've got without a thought about the consequences.

Tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed about it. I grew up being taught to live within your means and don't spend more than you've got; make do or find ways to earn more money but you don't spend future earnings that you ain't got yet. I see no reason why the gov't should be any different, cuz sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we won't be the ones to have to deal with it. Don't know when the crap will hit the fan, but it is inevitable IMHO.

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.

If you are a private citizen and spend more money than you are supposed to, you eventually have to declare bankruptcy or end up in jail. The thieves of Washington DC have been able to con stupid liberals(redundant statement), year after year and keep kicking the proverbial (Debt) can down the road. One day, your children or grandchildren are going to suffer for all the debt the establishment liberals have put on US.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[Pogo]

Is it moral to spend money you don't have?

Meh --- I don't know if it's a "moral" question but it's certainly a risk since you're betting on yourself to be able to pay it back. I agree with the OP's tenet to live within one's means. So I've never been interested in getting a credit card.

 

[Pogo]

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.

Whelp --- I see that lasted all the way to Post Two....

If you are a private citizen and spend more money than you are supposed to, you eventually have to declare bankruptcy or end up in jail. The thieves of Washington DC have been able to con stupid liberals(redundant statement), year after year and keep kicking the proverbial (Debt) can down the road. One day, your children or grandchildren are going to suffer for all the debt the establishment liberals have put on US.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Is it moral to spend money you don't have?

Meh --- I don't know if it's a "moral" question but it's certainly a risk since you're betting on yourself to be able to pay it back. I agree with the OP's tenet to live within one's means. So I've never been interested in getting a credit card.

I have 3 credit cards, each one pays me back for use. I also, only buy things with the credit cards that I would normally buy with cash. At the end of the month I pay off the cards and carry no interest charges. After 1 year, if I spend $10,000 I get $200 back. The rich get richer, by figuring out ways to make extra money. The poor get poorer because they don't use their brains to find ways to make extra money, so become victims to liberalism. Liberalism is all about Equality, where everyone is equally poor and equally miserable, that is called FAIRNESS...

 

[Pogo]

Is it moral to spend money you don't have?

Meh --- I don't know if it's a "moral" question but it's certainly a risk since you're betting on yourself to be able to pay it back. I agree with the OP's tenet to live within one's means. So I've never been interested in getting a credit card.

I have 3 credit cards, each one pays me back for use. I also, only buy things with the credit cards that I would normally buy with cash. At the end of the month I pay off the cards and carry no interest charges. After 1 year, if I spend $10,000 I get $200 back. The rich get richer, buy figuring out ways to make extra money. The poor get poorer because they don't use their brains to find ways to make extra money, so become victims to liberalism. Liberalism is all about Equality, where everyone is equally poor and equally miserable, that is called FAIRNESS...

Nope. Liberalism is all about vesting government in the consent of the governed, rather than an élite. Has nothing to do with economics directly.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Is it moral to spend money you don't have?

Meh --- I don't know if it's a "moral" question but it's certainly a risk since you're betting on yourself to be able to pay it back. I agree with the OP's tenet to live within one's means. So I've never been interested in getting a credit card.

One can live within his own means and still use a credit card.

I have a card that pays me 2% of everything I charge and pay off. I use that card for everything and I pay the balance in full every month so I never pay any interest. I also have a card in the business's name that does the same thing and I get a check at the end of the year for 2% of what I charged and paid off every month from both my personal and business expenses.

IMO if a credit co will give me 5 or 6 grand a year for simply using their cards I'm a fool not to use those cards

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

Is it moral to spend money you don't have?

Meh --- I don't know if it's a "moral" question but it's certainly a risk since you're betting on yourself to be able to pay it back. I agree with the OP's tenet to live within one's means. So I've never been interested in getting a credit card.

I have 3 credit cards, each one pays me back for use. I also, only buy things with the credit cards that I would normally buy with cash. At the end of the month I pay off the cards and carry no interest charges. After 1 year, if I spend $10,000 I get $200 back. The rich get richer, buy figuring out ways to make extra money. The poor get poorer because they don't use their brains to find ways to make extra money, so become victims to liberalism. Liberalism is all about Equality, where everyone is equally poor and equally miserable, that is called FAIRNESS...

Nope. Liberalism is all about vesting government in the consent of the governed, rather than an élite. Has nothing to do with economics directly.

Wrong, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Moonbattery: Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.

Which is why we have such a bloated welfare system.

War on poverty cost
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?article_id=25288

 

[Pogo]

Is it moral to spend money you don't have?

Meh --- I don't know if it's a "moral" question but it's certainly a risk since you're betting on yourself to be able to pay it back. I agree with the OP's tenet to live within one's means. So I've never been interested in getting a credit card.

I have 3 credit cards, each one pays me back for use. I also, only buy things with the credit cards that I would normally buy with cash. At the end of the month I pay off the cards and carry no interest charges. After 1 year, if I spend $10,000 I get $200 back. The rich get richer, buy figuring out ways to make extra money. The poor get poorer because they don't use their brains to find ways to make extra money, so become victims to liberalism. Liberalism is all about Equality, where everyone is equally poor and equally miserable, that is called FAIRNESS...

Nope. Liberalism is all about vesting government in the consent of the governed, rather than an élite. Has nothing to do with economics directly.

Wrong, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Moonbattery: Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder

Based on strikingly irrational beliefs and emotions, modern liberals relentlessly undermine the most important principles on which our freedoms were founded. Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave.

Which is why we have such a bloated welfare system.

War on poverty cost
The War on Poverty has cost $22 trillion -- three times more than what the government has spent on all wars in American history. Federal and state governments spend $1 trillion in taxpayer dollars on America's 80 means-tested welfare programs annually.
The War on Poverty Has Cost $22 Trillion - NCPA
ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?article_id=25288

None of that has anything to do with Liberalism. Liberalism is a philosophy. As such it has nothing to do with "emotions". Has everything to do with the principles on which our freedoms were founded --- which IS Liberalism.

You're way off topic. But then, that's where you started, so....

 

[Pogo]

Is it moral to spend money you don't have?

Meh --- I don't know if it's a "moral" question but it's certainly a risk since you're betting on yourself to be able to pay it back. I agree with the OP's tenet to live within one's means. So I've never been interested in getting a credit card.

One can live within his own means and still use a credit card.

I have a card that pays me 2% of everything I charge and pay off. I use that card for everything and I pay the balance in full every month so I never pay any interest. I also have a card in the business's name that does the same thing and I get a check at the end of the year for 2% of what I charged and paid off every month from both my personal and business expenses.

IMO if a credit co will give me 5 or 6 grand a year for simply using their cards I'm a fool not to use those cards

If you're paying it off before it adds up ---- then you're not living outside your own means either.

I looked into getting a credit card a couple of times actually. I was told I couldn't get one because I didn't already have one. "OK" I said, "if that's the what passes for logic on your planet, I'm outta here". Never looked back. Fuggit.

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt? Might be some higher moral imperatives that come into play, such as national security or a natural catastrophe that must be addressed. I'm talking about emergencies here, rather than usual expenditures. I think it is highly immoral to create a huge national debt and pass it on to future generations to pay interest on, let alone the principal. And yet here we are, spending more money than we've got without a thought about the consequences.

Tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed about it. I grew up being taught to live within your means and don't spend more than you've got; make do or find ways to earn more money but you don't spend future earnings that you ain't got yet. I see no reason why the gov't should be any different, cuz sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we won't be the ones to have to deal with it. Don't know when the crap will hit the fan, but it is inevitable IMHO.

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.

Not sure I have a problem with debt if there is a plan to pay it off in a reasonable time frame.
A mortgage for example.

But to just rack up unmanageable debt like our government has is insane.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt? Might be some higher moral imperatives that come into play, such as national security or a natural catastrophe that must be addressed. I'm talking about emergencies here, rather than usual expenditures. I think it is highly immoral to create a huge national debt and pass it on to future generations to pay interest on, let alone the principal. And yet here we are, spending more money than we've got without a thought about the consequences.

Tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed about it. I grew up being taught to live within your means and don't spend more than you've got; make do or find ways to earn more money but you don't spend future earnings that you ain't got yet. I see no reason why the gov't should be any different, cuz sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we won't be the ones to have to deal with it. Don't know when the crap will hit the fan, but it is inevitable IMHO.

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.

16years?

Saint Ronnie made the US a debtor nation.

Bill Clinton left a surplus that GeoW burned through and then made no effort to pay for anything and instead, left an enormous debt for Obama to be blamed for.

The cheeto has said he loves debt and said he wouldn't hesitate to increase US debt. Incredibly, he said he would just make a "deal" for what? Lower payments? Lower interest? Who is dumb enough to believe that?

Personally, I'm fanatical about never carrying consumer debt.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Is it moral to spend money you don't have?

Meh --- I don't know if it's a "moral" question but it's certainly a risk since you're betting on yourself to be able to pay it back. I agree with the OP's tenet to live within one's means. So I've never been interested in getting a credit card.

One can live within his own means and still use a credit card.

I have a card that pays me 2% of everything I charge and pay off. I use that card for everything and I pay the balance in full every month so I never pay any interest. I also have a card in the business's name that does the same thing and I get a check at the end of the year for 2% of what I charged and paid off every month from both my personal and business expenses.

IMO if a credit co will give me 5 or 6 grand a year for simply using their cards I'm a fool not to use those cards

If you're paying it off before it adds up ---- then you're not living outside your own means either.

I looked into getting a credit card a couple of times actually. I was told I couldn't get one because I didn't already have one. "OK" I said, "if that's the what passes for logic on your planet, I'm outta here". Never looked back. Fuggit.

Actually, we do the same. We have several credit cards but use only only one. It's the Chase Amazon Visa, we use it for everything and pay the entire balance every month. Points add up on Amazon and since we buy a lot there anyway, why not?

If you ever decide you want a credit card, you can get one of those pre-paid cards. You "load"'it, use the card, "re-load" and use.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Luddly Neddite]

As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt? Might be some higher moral imperatives that come into play, such as national security or a natural catastrophe that must be addressed. I'm talking about emergencies here, rather than usual expenditures. I think it is highly immoral to create a huge national debt and pass it on to future generations to pay interest on, let alone the principal. And yet here we are, spending more money than we've got without a thought about the consequences.

Tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed about it. I grew up being taught to live within your means and don't spend more than you've got; make do or find ways to earn more money but you don't spend future earnings that you ain't got yet. I see no reason why the gov't should be any different, cuz sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we won't be the ones to have to deal with it. Don't know when the crap will hit the fan, but it is inevitable IMHO.

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.

Not sure I have a problem with debt if there is a plan to pay it off in a reasonable time frame.
A mortgage for example.

But to just rack up unmanageable debt like our government has is insane.

Big difference between consumer debt and real debt.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Jimmy_Chitwood]

As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt? Might be some higher moral imperatives that come into play, such as national security or a natural catastrophe that must be addressed. I'm talking about emergencies here, rather than usual expenditures. I think it is highly immoral to create a huge national debt and pass it on to future generations to pay interest on, let alone the principal. And yet here we are, spending more money than we've got without a thought about the consequences.

Tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed about it. I grew up being taught to live within your means and don't spend more than you've got; make do or find ways to earn more money but you don't spend future earnings that you ain't got yet. I see no reason why the gov't should be any different, cuz sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we won't be the ones to have to deal with it. Don't know when the crap will hit the fan, but it is inevitable IMHO.

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.

Not sure I have a problem with debt if there is a plan to pay it off in a reasonable time frame.
A mortgage for example.

But to just rack up unmanageable debt like our government has is insane.

Big difference between consumer debt and real debt.




Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

Agreed.

What is your opinion on the national debt and deficit?

 

[westwall]

As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt? Might be some higher moral imperatives that come into play, such as national security or a natural catastrophe that must be addressed. I'm talking about emergencies here, rather than usual expenditures. I think it is highly immoral to create a huge national debt and pass it on to future generations to pay interest on, let alone the principal. And yet here we are, spending more money than we've got without a thought about the consequences.

Tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed about it. I grew up being taught to live within your means and don't spend more than you've got; make do or find ways to earn more money but you don't spend future earnings that you ain't got yet. I see no reason why the gov't should be any different, cuz sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we won't be the ones to have to deal with it. Don't know when the crap will hit the fan, but it is inevitable IMHO.

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.

Morality is a religious concept, so no, spending money you don't isn't a morality issue, but it is stupid.

 

[Pogo]

If you ever decide you want a credit card, you can get one of those pre-paid cards. You "load"'it, use the card, "re-load" and use.

That's how my debit cards work, which I have had, for decades.

I'm also reminded that as part of the experiment I accepted the bank's offer to start a "secured" card, where you also put up X amount of money but have the monthly payoff procedure thingy. The idea is you build up a credit rating by keeping up with it. I did keep it up but saw no credit rating benefit as far as I remember. Apparently a spotless record of utility bill payments doesn't serve the purpose either.

That card was a pain in the ass and I closed it. Had enough of jumping through hoops for the banks' amusement. Come to think of it the only reason I really wanted a CC at all was that in an earlier time you had to have one to rent a car, and I flew to different places a lot. That's no longer true (to rent a car) so it ceased to be an issue and I haven't thought about it since.

 

[BreezeWood]

As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt? Might be some higher moral imperatives that come into play, such as national security or a natural catastrophe that must be addressed. I'm talking about emergencies here, rather than usual expenditures. I think it is highly immoral to create a huge national debt and pass it on to future generations to pay interest on, let alone the principal. And yet here we are, spending more money than we've got without a thought about the consequences.

Tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed about it. I grew up being taught to live within your means and don't spend more than you've got; make do or find ways to earn more money but you don't spend future earnings that you ain't got yet. I see no reason why the gov't should be any different, cuz sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we won't be the ones to have to deal with it. Don't know when the crap will hit the fan, but it is inevitable IMHO.

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.

.

As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt?

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question.

how much is being spent and how much is coming in is purely subjective - ethics of the composition may have little impact for the resultant outcome, gov't spending belongs in the political forum.

 

[OnePercenter]

Is it moral to spend money you don't have?

Meh --- I don't know if it's a "moral" question but it's certainly a risk since you're betting on yourself to be able to pay it back. I agree with the OP's tenet to live within one's means. So I've never been interested in getting a credit card.

I have 3 credit cards, each one pays me back for use. I also, only buy things with the credit cards that I would normally buy with cash. At the end of the month I pay off the cards and carry no interest charges. After 1 year, if I spend $10,000 I get $200 back. The rich get richer, by figuring out ways to make extra money. The poor get poorer because they don't use their brains to find ways to make extra money, so become victims to liberalism. Liberalism is all about Equality, where everyone is equally poor and equally miserable, that is called FAIRNESS...

How much do you spend on service fees for those cash-back cards?

 

[task0778]

As a gov't, isn't it immoral to spend more money than the revenue coming in, i.e., incur debt? Might be some higher moral imperatives that come into play, such as national security or a natural catastrophe that must be addressed. I'm talking about emergencies here, rather than usual expenditures. I think it is highly immoral to create a huge national debt and pass it on to future generations to pay interest on, let alone the principal. And yet here we are, spending more money than we've got without a thought about the consequences.

Tell you the truth, I'm embarrassed about it. I grew up being taught to live within your means and don't spend more than you've got; make do or find ways to earn more money but you don't spend future earnings that you ain't got yet. I see no reason why the gov't should be any different, cuz sooner or later there will be a reckoning and we won't be the ones to have to deal with it. Don't know when the crap will hit the fan, but it is inevitable IMHO.

I put this here in this forum on Ethics cuz it's basically an ethics question. I suspect a certain amount of politics will get injected though, if the thread gets any traction. These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so. Hopefully we don't get into another finger-pointing exercise over who is worse.

Morality is a religious concept, so no, spending money you don't isn't a morality issue, but it is stupid.

Morality is not necessarily a religious concept, everyone has their own concept of morality whether they are religious or not. To me it's a morality issue because someone else is going to have a shoulder the burden we have created and are adding to. In a way it's kinda close to stealing, which IMHO also makes it an ethical issue, which is why this thread is in this forum rather than the Politics Forum.