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

[OnePercenter]

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 principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong. Religion adopted and uses it to control their ignorant flock. ie; believing that faith over reason is moral.

 

[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

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....

It all does have everything with New(Radical) Liberalism, not Classical Liberalism that the country was founded on. There is an insidious plan of the left to get this country fundamentally transformed into a Communist State, with education, Media, and liberal parents indoctrinating young minds to think Commies are okay. Those 'NORMAL" US citizens know that Communism ends up killing millions of people, and FORCING everyone to live in poverty and misery. That is the LIBERAL ideology. FAIRNESS..
Radical liberalism is dividing America

It is radical liberalism dividing America. A radical liberal shot up the Congressional baseball practice.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
Cloward–Piven strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

Classical liberalism((Conservatism)
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

 

[Mudda]

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.

Nobody would be able to buy a house if you had to save up all the money first.

Numbskull.

 

[IsaacNewton]

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.

Moral? Almost every single home bought in the US is spending more money than one has. In fact it's usually more money than most people would have if they saved every penny for 20 years. Is that immoral?

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

Credit is modern day slavery

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

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.

My brothers good friend was 34 when he bought his first house. He is a nurse and makes big bucks and had no credit history. Paid by cash for everything until wanting a home

The bank denied him a loan.

One would think he could have simply obtained some type of loan at a high interest rate since his had no credit history, then immediately pay it off.

Nope

He needed to show a 'pattern' of making payments all the while paying excessively high interest rate

What a deal

-Geaux

 

[task0778]

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.

My brothers good friend was 34 when he bought his first house. He is a nurse and makes big bucks and had no credit history. Paid by cash for everything until wanting a home

The bank denied him a loan.

One would think he could have simply obtained some type of loan at a high interest rate since his had no credit history, then immediately pay it off.

Nope

He needed to show a 'pattern' of making payments all the while paying excessively high interest rate

What a deal

-Geaux

Some people have a credit card and avoid those excessively high interest rates by creating a pattern of paying the balance off every month. And that is not slavery.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

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.

Pogo Not sure I understand what you said. We also have a debit and use it instead of writing checks. We do specify that it be run as a credit card because it's safer for us. Using it that way is more expensive for the business.

I really agree about banks. What a scam - giving them your money for their use and their profit amounts to an interest-free loan. And as if that's not bad enough, we then pay them a fee to dole out our own money to us. Banks are almost as lucrative a scam as religion/churches.


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[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.

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

... just raise the debt limit.

These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so.

easy to blame both parties when the republicans are overwhelmingly responsible for the national debt, as an example their dislike of the Affordable Care Act that pays for itself.

it will be very interesting how they will avoid raising the debt limit by blaming democrats while being on the limb with a saw ... cut away.

 

[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....

It all does have everything with New(Radical) Liberalism, not Classical Liberalism that the country was founded on. There is an insidious plan of the left to get this country fundamentally transformed into a Communist State, with education, Media, and liberal parents indoctrinating young minds to think Commies are okay. Those 'NORMAL" US citizens know that Communism ends up killing millions of people, and FORCING everyone to live in poverty and misery. That is the LIBERAL ideology. FAIRNESS..
Radical liberalism is dividing America

It is radical liberalism dividing America. A radical liberal shot up the Congressional baseball practice.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
Cloward–Piven strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

Classical liberalism((Conservatism)
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Pfft. There's no such thing as your "radical Liberalism". Radical Liberalism is exactly what wrote the Constitution. (Radical - "to the root"). This is just another perversion of an already-existing term to try to demonize it, and it started in the 1940s. It was bullshit then and it's still bullshit now.

You can't use a term to mean its own opposite. If some dynamic, like a government overreach, does not fit the definition of Liberalim ---- then quit calling it Liberalism against its will. Not rocket surgery. Do you say "turn right" when you mean "turn left"?

 

[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.

Nobody would be able to buy a house if you had to save up all the money first.

Numbskull.

First of all, I was talking about the gov't as opposed to an individual. Second, most people would understand that buying a house or a car is a little bit different than blowing your budget every month on shit you don't need. So you budget in the payments for the house and/or car and make sure you can still make ends meet. In so doing, in the minds of many you are not really spending more money than you've got. And finally, name calling does nothing to bolster your argument and actually makes you look like an immature asshole. So cut the crap and make your point or shut the fuck up.

 

[Mikeoxenormous]

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....

It all does have everything with New(Radical) Liberalism, not Classical Liberalism that the country was founded on. There is an insidious plan of the left to get this country fundamentally transformed into a Communist State, with education, Media, and liberal parents indoctrinating young minds to think Commies are okay. Those 'NORMAL" US citizens know that Communism ends up killing millions of people, and FORCING everyone to live in poverty and misery. That is the LIBERAL ideology. FAIRNESS..
Radical liberalism is dividing America

It is radical liberalism dividing America. A radical liberal shot up the Congressional baseball practice.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
Cloward–Piven strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

Classical liberalism((Conservatism)
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Pfft. There's no such thing as your "radical Liberalism". Radical Liberalism is exactly what wrote the Constitution. (Radical - "to the root"). This is just another perversion of an already-existing term to try to demonize it, and it started in the 1940s. It was bullshit then and it's still bullshit now.

You can't use a term to mean its own opposite. If some dynamic, like a government overreach, does not fit the definition of Liberalim ---- then quit calling it Liberalism against its will. Not rocket surgery.

Classical Liberalism(Conservatism)


Radical Liberalism

 

[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.

My brothers good friend was 34 when he bought his first house. He is a nurse and makes big bucks and had no credit history. Paid by cash for everything until wanting a home

The bank denied him a loan.

One would think he could have simply obtained some type of loan at a high interest rate since his had no credit history, then immediately pay it off.

Nope

He needed to show a 'pattern' of making payments all the while paying excessively high interest rate

What a deal

-Geaux

Zackly. "We'll give you money if you can prove you don't need it" and "we'll give you money if you can show you're so irresponsible that you'll willingly dance for usury" are a couple of manifestations of that same logic that sends me to the exit door. Won't play that game.

 

[task0778]

These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so.

easy to blame both parties when the republicans are overwhelmingly responsible for the national debt, as an example their dislike of the Affordable Care Act that pays for itself.

I don't think the ACA pays for itself, all it really did was swell the numbers on Medicaid and put more people on subsidies. And to say the Repubs are overwhelmingly repsonsible for the national debt is totally ridiculous.

it will be very interesting how they will avoid raising the debt limit by blaming democrats while being on the limb with a saw ... cut away.

I don't think either political party has the moral high ground here.

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.

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

... just raise the debt limit.

You think that is an honest answer?

 

[Pogo]

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....

It all does have everything with New(Radical) Liberalism, not Classical Liberalism that the country was founded on. There is an insidious plan of the left to get this country fundamentally transformed into a Communist State, with education, Media, and liberal parents indoctrinating young minds to think Commies are okay. Those 'NORMAL" US citizens know that Communism ends up killing millions of people, and FORCING everyone to live in poverty and misery. That is the LIBERAL ideology. FAIRNESS..
Radical liberalism is dividing America

It is radical liberalism dividing America. A radical liberal shot up the Congressional baseball practice.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
Cloward–Piven strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

Classical liberalism((Conservatism)
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Pfft. There's no such thing as your "radical Liberalism". Radical Liberalism is exactly what wrote the Constitution. (Radical - "to the root"). This is just another perversion of an already-existing term to try to demonize it, and it started in the 1940s. It was bullshit then and it's still bullshit now.

You can't use a term to mean its own opposite. If some dynamic, like a government overreach, does not fit the definition of Liberalim ---- then quit calling it Liberalism against its will. Not rocket surgery.

Classical Liberalism(Conservatism)


Radical Liberalism

You just proved my point about perverting a term into its own opposite. NONE of that shit has anything to do with Liberalism. Here's what does:

​

Picture a football game and you're sitting on the 50 yard line. One team tries to move the ball to the left, the other tries to move it to the right. Which one is the Liberal?

Answer - the referee. The ref makes no tackles, throws no passes, scores no points. He just makes sure the ball stays in bounds and the rules are followed. What the two teams do with the ball is up to them.

You're also way off topic.

 

[task0778]

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.

My brothers good friend was 34 when he bought his first house. He is a nurse and makes big bucks and had no credit history. Paid by cash for everything until wanting a home

The bank denied him a loan.

One would think he could have simply obtained some type of loan at a high interest rate since his had no credit history, then immediately pay it off.

Nope

He needed to show a 'pattern' of making payments all the while paying excessively high interest rate

What a deal

-Geaux

Zackly. "We'll give you money if you can prove you don't need it" and "we'll give you money if you can show you're so irresponsible that you'll willingly dance for usury" are a couple of manifestations of that same logic that sends me to the exit door. Won't play that game.

Totally wrong, credit is mostly about "we'll give you money if you can show you have the means to pay it back AND have shown the responsibility to do so in the past". Yeah, they'll ask what you're going to use the money for, which gives them an idea of your credit worthiness. Chances are they'll say no if your answer is you wanna got to Vegas.

 

[task0778]

Wrong, liberalism is a mental disorder.
Moonbattery: Psychiatrist Confirms: Liberalism Is a Mental Disorder Which is why we have such a bloated welfare system.

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....

It all does have everything with New(Radical) Liberalism, not Classical Liberalism that the country was founded on. There is an insidious plan of the left to get this country fundamentally transformed into a Communist State, with education, Media, and liberal parents indoctrinating young minds to think Commies are okay. Those 'NORMAL" US citizens know that Communism ends up killing millions of people, and FORCING everyone to live in poverty and misery. That is the LIBERAL ideology. FAIRNESS..
Radical liberalism is dividing America

It is radical liberalism dividing America. A radical liberal shot up the Congressional baseball practice.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
Cloward–Piven strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

Classical liberalism((Conservatism)
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Pfft. There's no such thing as your "radical Liberalism". Radical Liberalism is exactly what wrote the Constitution. (Radical - "to the root"). This is just another perversion of an already-existing term to try to demonize it, and it started in the 1940s. It was bullshit then and it's still bullshit now.

You can't use a term to mean its own opposite. If some dynamic, like a government overreach, does not fit the definition of Liberalim ---- then quit calling it Liberalism against its will. Not rocket surgery.

Classical Liberalism(Conservatism)


Radical Liberalism

You just proved my point about perverting a term into its own opposite. NONE of that shit has anything to do with Liberalism. Here's what does:

​

Picture a football game and you're sitting on the 50 yard line. One team tries to move the ball to the left, the other tries to move it to the right. Which one is the Liberal?

Answer - the referee. The ref makes no tackles, throws no passes, scores no points. He just makes sure the ball stays in bounds and the rules are followed. What the two teams do with the ball is up to them.

You're also way off topic.

Yeah, this is way off topic, but let's understand that the Founders were very interested in limiting the power of the federal gov't, hence the Bill of Rights delineates stuff the gov't cannot do to us. AND the proviso that if the power to do something isn't listed in the Constitution then the federal gov't can't do it, or aren't supposed to anyway. None of which is supported by modern liberalism, who wants an all-powerful gov't with damn near total control over every aspect of our lives.

 

[BreezeWood]

These days both parties seem to have lost the imperative to reign in spending over the past 16 years or so.

easy to blame both parties when the republicans are overwhelmingly responsible for the national debt, as an example their dislike of the Affordable Care Act that pays for itself.

I don't think the ACA pays for itself, all it really did was swell the numbers on Medicaid and put more people on subsidies. And to say the Repubs are overwhelmingly repsonsible for the national debt is totally ridiculous.

it will be very interesting how they will avoid raising the debt limit by blaming democrats while being on the limb with a saw ... cut away.

I don't think either political party has the moral high ground here.

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.

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

... just raise the debt limit.

You think that is an honest answer?[/QUOTE]
.
..................................................

I don't think the ACA pays for itself,

think again,


Full List of Obamacare Tax Hikes

oh, I get it, it's not going to the air force .... they certainly do a good job of cost control (paid for) at the pentagon. republican.



... just raise the debt limit.

You think that is an honest answer?

yes, that is the honest answer. not mine.

 

[task0778]

Only an absolute ideologue can possibly think the ACA pays for itself.

To suggest raising the debt limit takes care of the debt problem is irrational. All it does is allow more debt to be accumulated.

 

[Pogo]

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....

It all does have everything with New(Radical) Liberalism, not Classical Liberalism that the country was founded on. There is an insidious plan of the left to get this country fundamentally transformed into a Communist State, with education, Media, and liberal parents indoctrinating young minds to think Commies are okay. Those 'NORMAL" US citizens know that Communism ends up killing millions of people, and FORCING everyone to live in poverty and misery. That is the LIBERAL ideology. FAIRNESS..
Radical liberalism is dividing America

It is radical liberalism dividing America. A radical liberal shot up the Congressional baseball practice.

The Cloward–Piven strategy is a political strategy outlined in 1966 by American sociologists and political activists Richard Cloward and Frances Fox Piven that called for overloading the U.S. public welfare system in order to precipitate a crisis that would lead to a replacement of the welfare system with a national system of "a guaranteed annual income and thus an end to poverty".
Cloward–Piven strategy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloward–Piven_strategy

Classical liberalism((Conservatism)
Classical liberalism is a political ideology and a branch of liberalism which advocates civil liberties and political freedom with representative democracy under the rule of law and emphasizes economic freedom.
Classical liberalism - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism

Pfft. There's no such thing as your "radical Liberalism". Radical Liberalism is exactly what wrote the Constitution. (Radical - "to the root"). This is just another perversion of an already-existing term to try to demonize it, and it started in the 1940s. It was bullshit then and it's still bullshit now.

You can't use a term to mean its own opposite. If some dynamic, like a government overreach, does not fit the definition of Liberalim ---- then quit calling it Liberalism against its will. Not rocket surgery.

Classical Liberalism(Conservatism)


Radical Liberalism

You just proved my point about perverting a term into its own opposite. NONE of that shit has anything to do with Liberalism. Here's what does:

​

Picture a football game and you're sitting on the 50 yard line. One team tries to move the ball to the left, the other tries to move it to the right. Which one is the Liberal?

Answer - the referee. The ref makes no tackles, throws no passes, scores no points. He just makes sure the ball stays in bounds and the rules are followed. What the two teams do with the ball is up to them.

You're also way off topic.

Yeah, this is way off topic, but let's understand that the Founders were very interested in limiting the power of the federal gov't, hence the Bill of Rights delineates stuff the gov't cannot do to us. AND the proviso that if the power to do something isn't listed in the Constitution then the federal gov't can't do it, or aren't supposed to anyway. None of which is supported by modern liberalism, who wants an all-powerful gov't with damn near total control over every aspect of our lives.

Yes, agree with everything up to the last line. "an all-powerful gov't with damn near total control over every aspect of our lives" has NOTHING to do with Liberalism, so stop calling it that, is my point.

That's not "Liberalism" ---- that's "Authoritarianism". And those are opposites. Again, you can't use a single term to mean its own opposite. Call it Authoritarianism, call it statism, call it Big Government but don't call it by the very term that opposes it.