The Morality of Spending Your Children's Money

[Wiseacre]

Didn't get a response to this post from another thread, so I'll try again.


Let me ask the lib/dems a question: is it moral to spend your children's money on yourself? Isn't that what you're doing, increasing gov't spending and the debt/deficits for programs that help people today at the expense of our kids tomorrow? Used to be we sacrificed for our kids, now we expect them to sacrifice for us, how moral is that? Used to be we wanted to leave them a better world, now we want a better world for ourselves with no consideration for the world they will have to live in and deal with.

How moral is it to spend money you don't have, even with the best of intentions? It's not like the repubs haven't done it too, but not like the dems have, not that much. Everyone talks about class warfare, but not a lot of mentioned about generational warfare. Democrats talk all the time about raising taxes on the rich as though we can pay for all the social welfare programs with the extra revenue. But only a fool believes that receiving an extra $80 billion a year will make up for a $1.5 trillion deficit. And only a fool would take the chance of retarding economic growth and job creation at a time like this by raising taxes on those who would invest the most in new businesses. Now that's immoral.

 

[G.T.]

I don't think that it's a fair question, for several reasons:

#1. The debt has been run up by Republicans and Democrats, so to direct it at one side or the other is disengenuous.

#2. The premise is that we're using our kids money to benefit ourselves. First: many of the Entitlement and Safety net programs actually are benefitting the kids themselves so - faulty/unfair premise. Second: There are thousands upon thousands of ways the tax-money is used - Hundreds of Congressman and Millions of Voters. Nobody can really be blamed for each specific instance where funds are spent from borrowing and will be paid with future tax dollars. A single person / a single group should not have to answer to that because it's flat-out unrealistic.

 

[Truthseeker420]

Didn't get a response to this post from another thread, so I'll try again.


Let me ask the lib/dems a question: is it moral to spend your children's money on yourself? Isn't that what you're doing, increasing gov't spending and the debt/deficits for programs that help people today at the expense of our kids tomorrow? Used to be we sacrificed for our kids, now we expect them to sacrifice for us, how moral is that? Used to be we wanted to leave them a better world, now we want a better world for ourselves with no consideration for the world they will have to live in and deal with.

How moral is it to spend money you don't have, even with the best of intentions? It's not like the repubs haven't done it too, but not like the dems have, not that much. Everyone talks about class warfare, but not a lot of mentioned about generational warfare. Democrats talk all the time about raising taxes on the rich as though we can pay for all the social welfare programs with the extra revenue. But only a fool believes that receiving an extra $80 billion a year will make up for a $1.5 trillion deficit. And only a fool would take the chance of retarding economic growth and job creation at a time like this by raising taxes on those who would invest the most in new businesses. Now that's immoral.

Ask the Republicans and their wealth distribution from middle class to the wealthy.

 

[Wiseacre]

I don't think that it's a fair question, for several reasons:

#1. The debt has been run up by Republicans and Democrats, so to direct it at one side or the other is disengenuous.

#2. The premise is that we're using our kids money to benefit ourselves. First: many of the Entitlement and Safety net programs actually are benefitting the kids themselves so - faulty/unfair premise. Second: There are thousands upon thousands of ways the tax-money is used - Hundreds of Congressman and Millions of Voters. Nobody can really be blamed for each specific instance where funds are spent from borrowing and will be paid with future tax dollars. A single person / a single group should not have to answer to that because it's flat-out unrealistic.

I did say that repubs were guilty of this too. But I do think the dems are forever trying to spend a lot more money on social programs than the repubs do, so if you want to dispute that then have at it.

I noticed that you dodged the central issue, which is the immorality of increasing the debt/deficits for current spending. Sure, some of it goes to today's kids, but most does not. So tell me, it is moral to help today's children at the expnse of tomorrow's?

 

[G.T.]

I don't think that it's a fair question, for several reasons:

#1. The debt has been run up by Republicans and Democrats, so to direct it at one side or the other is disengenuous.

#2. The premise is that we're using our kids money to benefit ourselves. First: many of the Entitlement and Safety net programs actually are benefitting the kids themselves so - faulty/unfair premise. Second: There are thousands upon thousands of ways the tax-money is used - Hundreds of Congressman and Millions of Voters. Nobody can really be blamed for each specific instance where funds are spent from borrowing and will be paid with future tax dollars. A single person / a single group should not have to answer to that because it's flat-out unrealistic.

I did say that repubs were guilty of this too. But I do think the dems are forever trying to spend a lot more money on social programs than the repubs do, so if you want to dispute that then have at it.

I noticed that you dodged the central issue, which is the immorality of increasing the debt/deficits for current spending. Sure, some of it goes to today's kids, but most does not. So tell me, it is moral to help today's children at the expnse of tomorrow's?

I still reject the premise so there's no dodge, it's a complete rejection.

In effect - Government spending is supposed to be "for the People," which includes the Children and so playing that "card" is disengenuous, like I said. What part of Government spending doesn't in-effect benefit the children - at least in its intent, is what I'd ask. Seriously.

Running the Government is not the same as running your household.

 

[Wiseacre]

So you've got no problem pushing all this debt onto future generations? 15 trillion, moving towards 25 trillion in another 10 years, and you see nothing immoral about it? They'll have to pay the interest on that debt, and take care of the aging boomers to boot?

 

[strollingbones]

baby boomers have voted themselves more entitlements than any other generation

totally immoral

 

[strollingbones]

So you've got no problem pushing all this debt onto future generations? 15 trillion, moving towards 25 trillion in another 10 years, and you see nothing immoral about it? They'll have to pay the interest on that debt, and take care of the aging boomers to boot?

o those little fuckers arent gonna pay ss......just ask them.....they will be setting people on ice floes

 

[Dr.Drock]

This would've been a better OP:

Didn't get a response to this post from another thread, so I'll try again.


Let me ask the necon/lib/dems/reps a question: is it moral to spend your children's money on yourself? Isn't that what you're doing, increasing gov't spending and the debt/deficits for programs that help people today at the expense of our kids tomorrow? Used to be we sacrificed for our kids, now we expect them to sacrifice for us, how moral is that? Used to be we wanted to leave them a better world, now we want a better world for ourselves with no consideration for the world they will have to live in and deal with.

How moral is it to spend money you don't have, even with the best of intentions? It's not like the repubs haven't done it too, but not like the dems have, not that much. Everyone talks about class warfare, but not a lot of mentioned about generational warfare. Democrats talk all the time about raising taxes on the rich as though we can pay for all the social welfare programs with the extra revenue. But only a fool believes that receiving an extra $80 billion a year will make up for a $1.5 trillion deficit. And only a fool would take the chance of retarding economic growth and job creation at a time like this by raising taxes on those who would invest the most in new businesses. Now that's immoral.

 

[ABikerSailor]

I'm more worried about them being able to survive on this planet more than I'm worried about the debt.

Money can always be made, but we've only got 1 Earth.

 

[Wiseacre]

This would've been a better OP:

Didn't get a response to this post from another thread, so I'll try again.


Let me ask the necon/lib/dems/reps a question: is it moral to spend your children's money on yourself? Isn't that what you're doing, increasing gov't spending and the debt/deficits for programs that help people today at the expense of our kids tomorrow? Used to be we sacrificed for our kids, now we expect them to sacrifice for us, how moral is that? Used to be we wanted to leave them a better world, now we want a better world for ourselves with no consideration for the world they will have to live in and deal with.

How moral is it to spend money you don't have, even with the best of intentions? It's not like the repubs haven't done it too, but not like the dems have, not that much. Everyone talks about class warfare, but not a lot of mentioned about generational warfare. Democrats talk all the time about raising taxes on the rich as though we can pay for all the social welfare programs with the extra revenue. But only a fool believes that receiving an extra $80 billion a year will make up for a $1.5 trillion deficit. And only a fool would take the chance of retarding economic growth and job creation at a time like this by raising taxes on those who would invest the most in new businesses. Now that's immoral.

In case you haven't noticed, it is the lib/dems who fight tooth and nail against spending cuts, while the repubs want to balance the budget. Some never wanted to raise the debt ceiling at all. while others like me thought it would be better to do it gradually. Yo be sure, the repubs are also guilty of spending money without paying somewhere else; but these days it is the dems who refuse to cut spending in any significant way.

 

[Dr.Drock]

This would've been a better OP:

Didn't get a response to this post from another thread, so I'll try again.


Let me ask the necon/lib/dems/reps a question: is it moral to spend your children's money on yourself? Isn't that what you're doing, increasing gov't spending and the debt/deficits for programs that help people today at the expense of our kids tomorrow? Used to be we sacrificed for our kids, now we expect them to sacrifice for us, how moral is that? Used to be we wanted to leave them a better world, now we want a better world for ourselves with no consideration for the world they will have to live in and deal with.

How moral is it to spend money you don't have, even with the best of intentions? It's not like the repubs haven't done it too, but not like the dems have, not that much. Everyone talks about class warfare, but not a lot of mentioned about generational warfare. Democrats talk all the time about raising taxes on the rich as though we can pay for all the social welfare programs with the extra revenue. But only a fool believes that receiving an extra $80 billion a year will make up for a $1.5 trillion deficit. And only a fool would take the chance of retarding economic growth and job creation at a time like this by raising taxes on those who would invest the most in new businesses. Now that's immoral.

In case you haven't noticed, it is the lib/dems who fight tooth and nail against spending cuts, while the repubs want to balance the budget. Some never wanted to raise the debt ceiling at all. while others like me thought it would be better to do it gradually. Yo be sure, the repubs are also guilty of spending money without paying somewhere else; but these days it is the dems who refuse to cut spending in any significant way.

Were you born after 2007?

I would advise you take a look at the spending and the budgets from 2001-2007 when republicans had full control.

Repubs have no desire to cut spending anywhere or balance any budget, their only motivation to vote against democrat big spending/unbalanced budgets is so they can be in control and pass their own big spending/unbalanced budgets.

Solely about power, same with the democrats, that's it.

 

[Wiseacre]

The repubs did not have full control during that time period by any stretch, and did I not mention that they were also guilty of overspending? Budgets passed, with or without spending for the wars, were done with at least some democrat support. I might add that 115 democrats voted for the Iraq war when we first went itn.

To suggest the repubs have no interest lately in cutting spending is to ignore reality. Surely you know there were many who did not want to raise the debt ceiling. Same as the democrats? You must be out of your mind.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The repubs did not have full control during that time period by any stretch, and did I not mention that they were also guilty of overspending? Budgets passed, with or without spending for the wars, were done with at least some democrat support. I might add that 115 democrats voted for the Iraq war when we first went itn.

To suggest the repubs have no interest lately in cutting spending is to ignore reality. Surely you know there were many who did not want to raise the debt ceiling. Same as the democrats? You must be out of your mind.

Lol that's adorable.

See I have budgets and history on my side, you have, ummm, rhetoric and talking points.

If you can provide proof of republicans acting fiscally conservatively when they have power in the federal gov't, I'd be delighted to see it.

Republicans have interest in going against democrats, democrats have interest in going against republicans, solely to gain power. That's why Bush's spending budgets made Clinton look like a conservative icon.

 

[Wiseacre]

The repubs did not have full control during that time period by any stretch, and did I not mention that they were also guilty of overspending? Budgets passed, with or without spending for the wars, were done with at least some democrat support. I might add that 115 democrats voted for the Iraq war when we first went itn.

To suggest the repubs have no interest lately in cutting spending is to ignore reality. Surely you know there were many who did not want to raise the debt ceiling. Same as the democrats? You must be out of your mind.

Lol that's adorable.

See I have budgets and history on my side, you have, ummm, rhetoric and talking points.

If you can provide proof of republicans acting fiscally conservatively when they have power in the federal gov't, I'd be delighted to see it.

Republicans have interest in going against democrats, democrats have interest in going against republicans, solely to gain power. That's why Bush's spending budgets made Clinton look like a conservative icon.

First of all, it was you that started the personal crap, asking me if I was born after 2007. You wanna get snarky, we'll get snarky.

Perhaps you recall the Gingrich led republican Congress during the last 6 the Clinton years. Yes, I was born before then too, and the budget spending that they did, not Clinton, resulted in the most fiscally responsible period of time since Andrew Jackson. How's that for budgets and history? And how long has it been since the democrat led Senate has passed a budget?

BTW, why don't you answer the basic question of the thread: do you think it's moral to spend money we ain't got, and increase the debt onto future generations?

 

[MikeK]

[...]

Democrats talk all the time about raising taxes on the rich as though we can pay for all the social welfare programs with the extra revenue. But only a fool believes that receiving an extra $80 billion a year will make up for a $1.5 trillion deficit. And only a fool would take the chance of retarding economic growth and job creation at a time like this by raising taxes on those who would invest the most in new businesses. Now that's immoral.

You've been effectively duped by the device in right-wing propaganda which correctly posits that raising taxes on the One Percent won't fix the deficit. That's true. But the hidden gimmick is your ready acceptance that if such a tax increase won't fix the problem in one year it's a bad idea.

The obvious reality is raising taxes on the rich will, over time, resolve our economic problems by simply reversing the situation that, more than any other single factor, helped to create the problems. The major cause of our economic problems is plainly obvious in the following chronology:

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

Presently as low as 15%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

 

[Wiseacre]

[...]

Democrats talk all the time about raising taxes on the rich as though we can pay for all the social welfare programs with the extra revenue. But only a fool believes that receiving an extra $80 billion a year will make up for a $1.5 trillion deficit. And only a fool would take the chance of retarding economic growth and job creation at a time like this by raising taxes on those who would invest the most in new businesses. Now that's immoral.

You've been effectively duped by the device in right-wing propaganda which correctly posits that raising taxes on the One Percent won't fix the deficit. That's true. But the hidden gimmick is your ready acceptance that if such a tax increase won't fix the problem in one year it's a bad idea.

The obvious reality is raising taxes on the rich will, over time, resolve our economic problems by simply reversing the situation that, more than any other single factor, helped to create the problems. The major cause of our economic problems is plainly obvious in the following chronology:

The income tax rate of upper income levels:

1950 - 91%

1980 - 70%

1985 - 50%

1987 - 38%

2004 - 35%

Presently as low as 15%

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/f...y-june2010.pdf

You didn't answer the question in the OP.

 

[Dr.Drock]

The repubs did not have full control during that time period by any stretch, and did I not mention that they were also guilty of overspending? Budgets passed, with or without spending for the wars, were done with at least some democrat support. I might add that 115 democrats voted for the Iraq war when we first went itn.

To suggest the repubs have no interest lately in cutting spending is to ignore reality. Surely you know there were many who did not want to raise the debt ceiling. Same as the democrats? You must be out of your mind.

Lol that's adorable.

See I have budgets and history on my side, you have, ummm, rhetoric and talking points.

If you can provide proof of republicans acting fiscally conservatively when they have power in the federal gov't, I'd be delighted to see it.

Republicans have interest in going against democrats, democrats have interest in going against republicans, solely to gain power. That's why Bush's spending budgets made Clinton look like a conservative icon.

First of all, it was you that started the personal crap, asking me if I was born after 2007. You wanna get snarky, we'll get snarky.

Perhaps you recall the Gingrich led republican Congress during the last 6 the Clinton years. Yes, I was born before then too, and the budget spending that they did, not Clinton, resulted in the most fiscally responsible period of time since Andrew Jackson. How's that for budgets and history? And how long has it been since the democrat led Senate has passed a budget?

BTW, why don't you answer the basic question of the thread: do you think it's moral to spend money we ain't got, and increase the debt onto future generations?

He led a Congress with Clinton that racked up more debt and spending to pass off on future generations, which I agree with you is immoral. However, like most partisans, it seems that to you it's only immoral when the other team is doing it. So hard for me to think that your premise is based on principle, rather than party.
But pretending it's a one side issue, or that one side is far more guilty of it than the other, goes against facts and history.

 

[Wiseacre]

Lol that's adorable.

See I have budgets and history on my side, you have, ummm, rhetoric and talking points.

If you can provide proof of republicans acting fiscally conservatively when they have power in the federal gov't, I'd be delighted to see it.

Republicans have interest in going against democrats, democrats have interest in going against republicans, solely to gain power. That's why Bush's spending budgets made Clinton look like a conservative icon.

First of all, it was you that started the personal crap, asking me if I was born after 2007. You wanna get snarky, we'll get snarky.

Perhaps you recall the Gingrich led republican Congress during the last 6 the Clinton years. Yes, I was born before then too, and the budget spending that they did, not Clinton, resulted in the most fiscally responsible period of time since Andrew Jackson. How's that for budgets and history? And how long has it been since the democrat led Senate has passed a budget?

BTW, why don't you answer the basic question of the thread: do you think it's moral to spend money we ain't got, and increase the debt onto future generations?

He led a Congress with Clinton that racked up more debt and spending to pass off on future generations, which I agree with you is immoral. However, like most partisans, it seems that to you it's only immoral when the other team is doing it. So hard for me to think that your premise is based on principle, rather than party.
But pretending it's a one side issue, or that one side is far more guilty of it than the other, goes against facts and history.

Actually, my premise IS based on principle, I did say that the repubs were also guilty. I was very much upset with Bush43 for the spending he did, and thought it was disgraceful. However, I also think that Obama and the dems have taken it to a new level, at least double what Bush did. You say that goes against the facts, but the amount of gov't spending and increase in the nat'l debt seems to agree with my position. Obama is going to raise the debt in 4 years by about as much as Bush did in 8. And I don't hear any democrats calling for changes to the entitlement programs, which is where the big money is. In fact, they're fighting it tooth and nail, even though those programs are not sustainable as they are now.

 

[Dr.Drock]

First of all, it was you that started the personal crap, asking me if I was born after 2007. You wanna get snarky, we'll get snarky.

Perhaps you recall the Gingrich led republican Congress during the last 6 the Clinton years. Yes, I was born before then too, and the budget spending that they did, not Clinton, resulted in the most fiscally responsible period of time since Andrew Jackson. How's that for budgets and history? And how long has it been since the democrat led Senate has passed a budget?

BTW, why don't you answer the basic question of the thread: do you think it's moral to spend money we ain't got, and increase the debt onto future generations?

He led a Congress with Clinton that racked up more debt and spending to pass off on future generations, which I agree with you is immoral. However, like most partisans, it seems that to you it's only immoral when the other team is doing it. So hard for me to think that your premise is based on principle, rather than party.
But pretending it's a one side issue, or that one side is far more guilty of it than the other, goes against facts and history.

Actually, my premise IS based on principle, I did say that the repubs were also guilty. I was very much upset with Bush43 for the spending he did, and thought it was disgraceful. However, I also think that Obama and the dems have taken it to a new level, at least double what Bush did. You say that goes against the facts, but the amount of gov't spending and increase in the nat'l debt seems to agree with my position. Obama is going to raise the debt in 4 years by about as much as Bush did in 8. And I don't hear any democrats calling for changes to the entitlement programs, which is where the big money is. In fact, they're fighting it tooth and nail, even though those programs are not sustainable as they are now.

Bush wildly outspent Clinton, Obama wildly outspent Bush.


Both are equally wrong, one isn't worse than the other.