Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

[AmyNation]

Because taxes are supposed to be used to fund our goverment. It's not their job or function to have a rainy day fund.

...but it is their policy to pay for damages caused by EXPECTED happenings. We know the expenses are coming down the pike...why not establish a fund and save for it?....maybe cap the balance in it at a reasonable sum and spend the rest on bums, pimps and hos.

What are we expecting that the government should save for?

 

[Obamanation]

What would the gov't be saving for? Are you serious?

How about having funds to start new programs? You lefties really believe that the gov't should have an idea - go into debt to pay for it, and then raise taxes to pay off the debt?

Wouldn't it be much smarter to look at your available funds and institute programs based on the funds you have available to work with?

I mean, I really don't even get the notion that defecit spending is better than surplus spending.

 

[AmyNation]

What would the gov't be saving for? Are you serious?

How about having funds to start new programs? You lefties really believe that the gov't should have an idea - go into debt to pay for it, and then raise taxes to pay off the debt?

Wouldn't it be much smarter to look at your available funds and institute programs based on the funds you have available to work with?

I mean, I really don't even get the notion that defecit spending is better than surplus spending.

You do know there is a diffrence in "basing programs on available funds" and running a surplus, right?

The goverment is supposed to tax us enough to pay for the running of the nation, not tax us extra and pocket the money, "just in case"

 

[Obamanation]

What would the gov't be saving for? Are you serious?

How about having funds to start new programs? You lefties really believe that the gov't should have an idea - go into debt to pay for it, and then raise taxes to pay off the debt?

Wouldn't it be much smarter to look at your available funds and institute programs based on the funds you have available to work with?

I mean, I really don't even get the notion that defecit spending is better than surplus spending.

You do know there is a diffrence in "basing programs on available funds" and running a surplus, right?

The goverment is supposed to tax us enough to pay for the running of the nation, not tax us extra and pocket the money, "just in case"

Well, no matter how you want to cut the semantics, the gov't should not spend money it doesn't have....

 

[Flopper]

The government can't really 'sit' on a surplus. We have 16 trillion in debt. When a surplus occurs,

one would assume it's used pay back the principal on treasury bonds that mature, instead of refinancing that amount. That would be how the debt would get paid down.

Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

What would a national government be saving for? I heard Wingnut Senator Rand Paul (R) Kentucky say people need to learn to save money and so should the government.

If a national government saw a need, I suppose a Rand Paul national government would say "We'd like to help you but we need to save." You'd ask "Why?" and I am sure they have some weird circular reasoning.

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address, would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?


If a national government started saving would that be considered theft savings?

----

a surplus would be what the government saved, so it would not be used to pay down anything.

can you answer the question(s)?

Take a look at the 10 nations with lowest debt as percent of GDP. Which ones would you leave the US to live in?

Aruba
Bangladesh
Cuba
Syria
Papua New Guinea
Gibraltar
Wallis and Futuna
Libya
North Korea
Brunei Darussalam

List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gadawg73]

What he meant was ways to save $$$ as in being a more prudent steward of how we spend the money government spends now.
Average price of one of those scooters which we should not be buying seniors to begin with is over a thousand dollars less than what Medicare pays for each one on average.
Where my mother lives 90% of the folks have one, taxpayers paid for them and they are rarely if ever used.

 

[AmyNation]

What would the gov't be saving for? Are you serious?

How about having funds to start new programs? You lefties really believe that the gov't should have an idea - go into debt to pay for it, and then raise taxes to pay off the debt?

Wouldn't it be much smarter to look at your available funds and institute programs based on the funds you have available to work with?

I mean, I really don't even get the notion that defecit spending is better than surplus spending.

You do know there is a diffrence in "basing programs on available funds" and running a surplus, right?

The goverment is supposed to tax us enough to pay for the running of the nation, not tax us extra and pocket the money, "just in case"

Well, no matter how you want to cut the semantics, the gov't should not spend money it doesn't have....

It's not semantics. There is a huge difference in purposefully overtaxing Americans , and budgeting funds properly.

The government should not overspend to the extent it has. However it also shouldn't be profiting off of American taxpayers.

 

[blackhawk]

Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

What would a national government be saving for? I heard Wingnut Senator Rand Paul (R) Kentucky say people need to learn to save money and so should the government.

If a national government saw a need, I suppose a Rand Paul national government would say "We'd like to help you but we need to save." You'd ask "Why?" and I am sure they have some weird circular reasoning.

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address, would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?


If a national government started saving would that be considered theft savings?

So why did you I suspect and most of the left ***** about Bush spending the Clinton surplus if you truly feel saving it is nuts?

 

[Gadawg73]

The government can't really 'sit' on a surplus. We have 16 trillion in debt. When a surplus occurs,

one would assume it's used pay back the principal on treasury bonds that mature, instead of refinancing that amount. That would be how the debt would get paid down.

Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

What would a national government be saving for? I heard Wingnut Senator Rand Paul (R) Kentucky say people need to learn to save money and so should the government.

If a national government saw a need, I suppose a Rand Paul national government would say "We'd like to help you but we need to save." You'd ask "Why?" and I am sure they have some weird circular reasoning.

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address, would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?


If a national government started saving would that be considered theft savings?

----

a surplus would be what the government saved, so it would not be used to pay down anything.

can you answer the question(s)?

Take a look at the 10 nations with lowest debt as percent of GDP. Which ones would you leave the US to live in?

Aruba
Bangladesh
Cuba
Syria
Papua New Guinea
Gibraltar
Wallis and Futuna
Libya
North Korea
Brunei Darussalam

List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I love Aruba but the cost of living is high there and Gibraltar is great but you need to bring enough peanuts to feed the monkeys there!

 

[Gadawg73]

You do know there is a diffrence in "basing programs on available funds" and running a surplus, right?

The goverment is supposed to tax us enough to pay for the running of the nation, not tax us extra and pocket the money, "just in case"

Well, no matter how you want to cut the semantics, the gov't should not spend money it doesn't have....

It's not semantics. There is a huge difference in purposefully overtaxing Americans , and budgeting funds properly.

The government should not overspend to the extent it has. However it also shouldn't be profiting off of American taxpayers.

Government never profits off of the taxpayers even with a surplus.

 

[Mr Natural]

A surplus should be returned to the people.

Just like Bush did with the Clinton era surplus.

 

[Obamanation]

You do know there is a diffrence in "basing programs on available funds" and running a surplus, right?

The goverment is supposed to tax us enough to pay for the running of the nation, not tax us extra and pocket the money, "just in case"

Well, no matter how you want to cut the semantics, the gov't should not spend money it doesn't have....

It's not semantics. There is a huge difference in purposefully overtaxing Americans , and budgeting funds properly.

The government should not overspend to the extent it has. However it also shouldn't be profiting off of American taxpayers.

Well, in case you have been under a rock, out gov't has been "purposefully overtaxing" us for a very long time!

...and it obviously IS semantics.

...and if the gov't COULD profit off of our taxes --- they could tax us even less...

 

[Politico]

A surplus? They can't even break even.

 

[Gadawg73]

A surplus should be returned to the people.

Just like Bush did with the Clinton era surplus.

There was never a cash surplus under Clinton.
And if there was it needs to be used to pay down the debt.

 

[Obamanation]

A surplus? They can't even break even.

...and the reason they can't break even is that these moron leftists think it's GOOD to operate in debt/defecits. As if it would be immoral to spend less....

 

[asaratis]

Because taxes are supposed to be used to fund our goverment. It's not their job or function to have a rainy day fund.

...but it is their policy to pay for damages caused by EXPECTED happenings. We know the expenses are coming down the pike...why not establish a fund and save for it?....maybe cap the balance in it at a reasonable sum and spend the rest on bums, pimps and hos.

What are we expecting that the government should save for?

To rebuild infrastructure and housing, to supply food and clothing to the hungry and naked after natural catastrophes...rather than piss off money supporting bums that will be crying for help again after all their free gucci shoes and stone-washed designer jeans are washed away in a flood.

 

[Dante]

Because taxes are supposed to be used to fund our goverment. It's not their job or function to have a rainy day fund.

So why do some leaders and lots of people save the government should save like people should?

Governments do not function like any other entities and what are they created to do?

I've never seen anyone suggest the government should run a surplus. When the government is in debt, its natural to have calls for more frugality and savings where ever we can find it.

Rand Paul today (and others before) have said people and local and state governments should save like people do. I agree. A rainy day fund. But...

Rand Paul has been going around saying, and his followers have been regurgitating the notion that the national government should do the same.

I am interested in why some people think a national government should act like another entity, be it a person, a family, a local/state government or even a company.

Then there are those who call taxation itself immoral even as some of them support some taxation. How could they support people who advocate saving tax revenue?


And would a national government having a savings account be immoral?

 

[Dante]

It's hard to argue with someone who uses the image of a right wing political analyst to promote a left wing agenda but that seems to be the Alinsky agenda of the left these days.

Try speaking slowly and listening to what you are saying

 

[Dante]

Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

What would a national government be saving for? I heard Wingnut Senator Rand Paul (R) Kentucky say people need to learn to save money and so should the government.

If a national government saw a need, I suppose a Rand Paul national government would say "We'd like to help you but we need to save." You'd ask "Why?" and I am sure they have some weird circular reasoning.

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address, would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?


If a national government started saving would that be considered theft savings?

Since we don't have a national government I guess we'll never know.

The USA is not a national government?

 

[Dante]

What would the gov't be saving for? Are you serious?

How about having funds to start new programs? You lefties really believe that the gov't should have an idea - go into debt to pay for it, and then raise taxes to pay off the debt?

Wouldn't it be much smarter to look at your available funds and institute programs based on the funds you have available to work with?

I mean, I really don't even get the notion that defecit spending is better than surplus spending.

How was the American Revolution and the American Civil War paid for? Surplus spending would not be savings. Savings. Rand Paul keeps saying the national government should save. Savings is an extra outside of a budget.