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

[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.

...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?

asaratis?



asaratis?

 

[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.

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.

Like I said --- semantics... I don't care if you call it savings, surplus, petty cash, or lost and found ---- I would LOVE to see the US gov't spend less than it takes in! then ultimately LOWER TAXES on the rich, the poor, and EVERYONE in between!

 

[OKTexas]

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"

Why? Is it really irresponsible to balance the budget, pay off the debt and set a little aside for the next big one in CA or the next Katrina?

 

[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.

Like I said --- semantics... I don't care if you call it savings, surplus, petty cash, or lost and found ---- I would LOVE to see the US gov't spend less than it takes in! then ultimately LOWER TAXES on the rich, the poor, and EVERYONE in between!

In a perfect world so would we all.

next

 

[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.

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"

Why? Is it really irresponsible to balance the budget, pay off the debt and set a little aside for the next big one in CA or the next Katrina?

Don't we have a FEMA budget for that? OR do we underfund agencies out of concern for savings only to end up borrowing for more?

Conservatives seek simple and easy solutions

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" - HLM

 

[Flopper]

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!

I have spent a few days in both and really enjoyed it but I sure wouldn't want to move there.

 

[OKTexas]

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"

Why? Is it really irresponsible to balance the budget, pay off the debt and set a little aside for the next big one in CA or the next Katrina?

Don't we have a FEMA budget for that? OR do we underfund agencies out of concern for savings only to end up borrowing for more?

Conservatives seek simple and easy solutions

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" - HLM

How about answering my question since you decided to insert yourself.

 

[Darkwind]

It would be immoral for a government to continue to tax at a rate that creates a surplus. If the need is not there, then lower the taxes.

However, as long as a government, any government, owes money, there will never be a surplus.

Isn't that the whole point of the Democrat philosophy? We keep debt high so we can continue to take money and power.

Same game that has been played throughout history. Its just our turn to implode.

 

[AmyNation]

...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.

Those are all things we can budget for.

 

[OriginalShroom]

1 - The Government should not be running a debit at $16 Trillion. At this point we simply can not pay it off and maintain the standard of living we have in this country.

2 - Under the fantasy that we would ever run a true surplus again, would it be moral? IMHO, Up to a point, yes. Not only moral, but it would be immoral not to. While I, and others, have never been able to find the authority in the Constitution, Congress has decided that it has the power to allocate tax dollars to people in need. If the Congress is going to do it, they need to have the money to do it with.

I would rather have it set that Congress can not run any debts, therefore, if they want to have an "emergency" fund (Hurricane Sandy as an example), then they need to have the money set aside for it. Once that money is gone, they are done.

 

[NYcarbineer]

It would be immoral for a government to continue to tax at a rate that creates a surplus. If the need is not there, then lower the taxes.

However, as long as a government, any government, owes money, there will never be a surplus.

Isn't that the whole point of the Democrat philosophy? We keep debt high so we can continue to take money and power.

Same game that has been played throughout history. Its just our turn to implode.

Bush justified his tax cut in 2001 on the grounds that we had a surplus. Instead of paying down the debt,

he chose to bring back deficits and increase the debt.

Stop pretending this is a Democratic problem.

 

[AmyNation]

We will never, no should we, totally pay off the national debt. Too much debt is a serious issue, however having some debt is good and part of a robust economy.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Immoral? No.

Advised? YOU BET!!!!!


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4mZPuTOkmiA]Hurricane Sandy's Aftermath - New Jersey NYC Devastated - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[eflatminor]

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

Andrew Jackson was the last President to "sit on a surplus". When we've paid down our debt and have extra money lying around, you let us know.

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.

How about to avoid bankruptcy?

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.

How about to avoid bankruptcy? Hey, were have I heard that before?

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address

Free people making voluntary choices would address the need in more cost effective and productive manner than any central planners ever could. But don't let that get in the way of more deficit spending...

would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?

You pay off the $16+ trillion we owe and we'll talk about any surplus. But if you want to play games, how about this: When we actually have a surplus, how about taxing people less?

I know, the horror!

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

Theft is burdening those yet to be born with the debt of our largess. It's shameful.

 

[Dante]

Why? Is it really irresponsible to balance the budget, pay off the debt and set a little aside for the next big one in CA or the next Katrina?

Don't we have a FEMA budget for that? OR do we underfund agencies out of concern for savings only to end up borrowing for more?

Conservatives seek simple and easy solutions

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" - HLM

How about answering my question since you decided to insert yourself.

It would irresponsible for a national government to sit on money for a rainy day. National governments do not function in the same way other entities do.

It is a matter of opinion whether a balanced budget and no debt is a good thing or not, for a national government.

National governments have the power of the purse. How was the American Revolution funded? The American Civil War? WWI? WWII? Maybe we should have the national government save for the next war?

Conservatives have no credibility on this issue. During the Presidency of GW Bush, what unfunded things did fiscal conservatives vote for?

 

[Dante]

It would be immoral for a government to continue to tax at a rate that creates a surplus. If the need is not there, then lower the taxes.

However, as long as a government, any government, owes money, there will never be a surplus.

Isn't that the whole point of the Democrat philosophy? We keep debt high so we can continue to take money and power.

Same game that has been played throughout history. Its just our turn to implode.

What debt have Republicans left us with?

 

[Dante]

1 - The Government should not be running a debit at $16 Trillion. At this point we simply can not pay it off and maintain the standard of living we have in this country.

2 - Under the fantasy that we would ever run a true surplus again, would it be moral? IMHO, Up to a point, yes. Not only moral, but it would be immoral not to. While I, and others, have never been able to find the authority in the Constitution, Congress has decided that it has the power to allocate tax dollars to people in need. If the Congress is going to do it, they need to have the money to do it with.

I would rather have it set that Congress can not run any debts, therefore, if they want to have an "emergency" fund (Hurricane Sandy as an example), then they need to have the money set aside for it. Once that money is gone, they are done.

1. What standard of living? The one we had in 2007/2008 as the economy was run off the road and into a ditch?

Try discussing things in context. Of course the deficit is high but we are managing it and our standard of living is still better than most of the world.

2. We do not need a surplus for Congress to enact legislation that costs dollars.

3. What about a war or another national emergency. You last statement shows an ignorance of how governments operate as to stun a rational mind.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

If the Federal Government or a State Government put money away for a 'rainy' day such planning - and that's what a budget is - would be rational, but not practical and political suicide.

Hell, most won't even fund the what needs to be done because the pols put keeping their job as job number one; ideologues and demagogues like Grover Norquist and Rand Paul have handcuffed legislatures on all levels of government by telling the voters there is a free lunch. And some actually believe them.

 

[Dante]

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

Andrew Jackson was the last President to "sit on a surplus". When we've paid down our debt and have extra money lying around, you let us know.

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.

How about to avoid bankruptcy?

How about to avoid bankruptcy? Hey, were have I heard that before?

Free people making voluntary choices would address the need in more cost effective and productive manner than any central planners ever could. But don't let that get in the way of more deficit spending...

would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?

You pay off the $16+ trillion we owe and we'll talk about any surplus. But if you want to play games, how about this: When we actually have a surplus, how about taxing people less?

I know, the horror!

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

Theft is burdening those yet to be born with the debt of our largess. It's shameful.

If Jackson was the last, who was the first?

Bankruptcy? Your 'free people' comment is woefully clueless about human behavior and American history.

Theft? Americans have historically had children in order to take care of the farm and themselves in old age. This country has a longer history of demanding more from the unborn than pampering them with trust funds and no debt.

When did we become a nation of whining misfits expecting nothing from people we bring into our world? Read history.

 

[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?

If the Federal Government or a State Government put money away for a 'rainy' day such planning - and that's what a budget is - would be rational, but not practical and political suicide.

Hell, most won't even fund the what needs to be done because the pols put keeping their job as job number one; ideologues and demagogues like Grover Norquist and Rand Paul have handcuffed legislatures on all levels of government by telling the voters there is a free lunch. And some actually believe them.

State governments have had surpluses and it has not been political suicide. A national government is a different sort of entity when it comes to economics and the power of the purse. Departments and agencies need to funded, but why a surplus in individual agencies? National governments have borrowed since day one and America still achieved greatness. What would having a surplus add?

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?

Dante says 'yes' because of what the primary purpose and role of a national government is and has been