The debt is a problem, but not as big of a problem as high govt expenditures.

[Anarchist420]

That is why the govt shouldnt have all of the powers that it does. Deficits aren't as bad when there is limited tax revenue and no statist monetary bureaucracy because then less will be spent.

For example, Robert F. McDonnell has been spending an insane amount of money in va, but there was a surplus because he increased taxes a little bit and existing tax rates brought in more than expected. I bet romney would like to do something similar at the national level.

Your thoughts?

 

[feralkid]

 

[Smoblikat]

That looks delicious.

How exactly do you think we accumulate debt? Ill give you three guesses and the first two dont count. GOVT EXPENSES, they are one in the same, both caused by the other.

 

[Anarchist420]

How exactly do you think we accumulate debt? Ill give you three guesses and the first two dont count. GOVT EXPENSES, they are one in the same, both caused by the other.

no, there were low expenses under the articles of confederation and some debt because there was no central power to tax. There was high expenses under Federalist rule with high taxes and a lot of debt. Jefferson paid off a portion of the debt because he cut spending while reducing revenues.

Clinton spent a lot, but the budget was almost balanced because of high taxes. So even though the debt was not a big problem under Clinton, spending was still a big problem while he was president.

 

[Incorruptible]

The government must stop spending too much money but idiots want to increase spending, Ron Paul would make real cuts to spending

 

[MovingTarget]

Ah, more "starve the beast" political cowardice and gamesmanship instead of leadership and statesmanship. Nothing to see here.

Hey! I was gonna eat that! :awe:

 

[Incorruptible]

no, there were low expenses under the articles of confederation and some debt because there was no central power to tax. There was high expenses under Federalist rule with high taxes and a lot of debt. Jefferson paid off a portion of the debt because he cut spending while reducing revenues.

Clinton spent a lot, but the budget was almost balanced because of high taxes. So even though the debt was not a big problem under Clinton, spending was still a big problem while he was president.

Well said. Its the spending which is destroying this country and the spending must be cut, neither party will cut spending they will only increase it

 

[Smoblikat]

Thats why we need Ron Paul.

 

[Incorruptible]

Thats why we need Ron Paul.

Agreed. Ron Paul would fix our problems but there are too many idiots in this country

 

[Rainsford]

Well said. Its the spending which is destroying this country and the spending must be cut, neither party will cut spending they will only increase it

Could you explain how spending, all by itself, is actually a problem? I can certainly understand the argument that debt is an issue worth discussing, but it's hard to see why spending, regardless of revenue, is an issue.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Don't ask those types of questions! They require real answers instead of slogans!

 

[MovingTarget]

Could you explain how spending, all by itself, is actually a problem? I can certainly understand the argument that debt is an issue worth discussing, but it's hard to see why spending, regardless of revenue, is an issue.

"Spending" is too nebulous of a term to use. It's easy to rail against spending without going into specifics. Much of what our government spends on is highly beneficial. Some isn't. But until you try to identify which is which, the argument about spending is meaningless.

 

[Rainsford]

"Spending" is too nebulous of a term to use. It's easy to rail against spending without going into specifics. Much of what our government spends on is highly beneficial. Some isn't. But until you try to identify which is which, the argument about spending is meaningless.

Well there's that, too. The way I think about it is how silly would it sound if another political group was arguing for generic INCREASES in spending? Not increased spending on any particular programs, just increasing spending for the sake of increasing spending. Why shouldn't we treat the opposite argument as any less silly?

 

[MovingTarget]

Well there's that, too. The way I think about it is how silly would it sound if another political group was arguing for generic INCREASES in spending? Not increased spending on any particular programs, just increasing spending for the sake of increasing spending. Why shouldn't we treat the opposite argument as any less silly?

You are right, and we should've been called on it long ago. However, those arguing for spending increases typically are more forthcoming on specifics.

 

[Fern]

Well there's that, too. The way I think about it is how silly would it sound if another political group was arguing for generic INCREASES in spending? Not increased spending on any particular programs, just increasing spending for the sake of increasing spending. Why shouldn't we treat the opposite argument as any less silly?

Because we have $16 Trillion in debt and deficits as far as the eyes can see and credit rating agencies concerned about our GDP;Debt ratio which is rapidly getting worse.

Yes, we need to cut for the sake of cutting, even those things that some consider useful.

To spend merely for the sake of spending implies that surpluses or savings are bad, which they aren't.

To cut simply for the sake of cutting implies that excessive debt is bad, and it is.

The two are not the same.

Fern

 

[Anarchist420]

Could you explain how spending, all by itself, is actually a problem? I can certainly understand the argument that debt is an issue worth discussing, but it's hard to see why spending, regardless of revenue, is an issue.

because government needs to spend to be powerful. By spending, it is distorting the market.

"Spending" is too nebulous of a term to use. It's easy to rail against spending without going into specifics. Much of what our government spends on is highly beneficial. Some isn't. But until you try to identify which is which, the argument about spending is meaningless.

no it's not because all spending is bad... the military is harmful to everyone who is not a contractor, we don't need roads from the govt, and we don't need welfare from the govt. Defense could be provided for by a free market, as could roads and welfare.