why is it so hard for the government to not spend more than they take in?

[rudeguy]

It doesn't sound that complicated. Why can't it be done?

 

[wirednuts]

because irresponsible voters keep voting in assholes to run this country.

 

[Atreus21]

Are you able to do it in your personal life?

It's very easy to borrow money. And very easy to spend it.

 

[piasabird]

They are buying votes. It is called bribing your constituants.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Because everyone has their pet wants, but no one has pet gives.

 

[her209]

Because the surplus revenue during good times gets used to cut taxes or fund a program that doesn't go away when times aren't so good.

 

[Craig234]

It doesn't sound that complicated. Why can't it be done?

It can. It largely did so from 1790-1980, with exceptions like WWII. So let's remember that this inability is a modern phenonema started under Reagan - and that the people it benefits might surprise you, but let's just say that his pro-wealthy agenda wasn't at odds with his growth of the debt, and that in this period the wealthy - only - have *skyrocketed*.

 

[sao123]

because everyone wants something... and no one wants to pay.

 

[Svnla]

Over promising with all the unsustainable goodies to the voting public = getting votes = in power?

We all want all the goodies but we also feel ..."Don't tax you, don't tax me, tax the man behinds the tree"

 

[Craig234]

Since Reagan the public debt has skyrocketed. Know what's grown a lot more?

Private debt.

 

[shortylickens]

If you tell people you are gonna make a program to help them they will love you. If you tell people you want money from them they hate you.
As a rule bills that provide things generally do not have stipulations or enough stipulations to pay for them fully. They usually involve a lot of fancy re-budgeting and then most of the government suffers until they can get more money. Blame the American people. They love "free" handouts but they have no clue that money actually has to come from some place. Which means they have to pay taxes. Which means they have to go to a job and provide a product or service of value.
And that directly violates their policy of getting free handouts.

And this is not a Democrat vs. Republican issue either, cuz both parties have been known to do it. As a whole our society is getting lazier and more self-entitled & spoiled. We want big houses, big cars, lots of gadgets, government provided everything, and we dont wanna fucking work for any of it.
And the funny thing is that was perfectly fine when we had Mexican slaves to do all our shit work for us. But now they have the gall to ask for fair wages and use of government services as well, and that shit costs money. HOW FUCKING DARE THEY!?!
Also, in case any one was wondering: Concerning the huge influx of illegals in America, I first blame the lazy rich whites who were too cheap to pay minimum wage for their gardeners. Next I blame the spoiled middle and lower class white & black Americans who were too lazy and spoiled to work less glorious jobs.

Its the fault of us, the people. We never wanna pay more for all the shit we use, whether its public or private. We want someone else to not only do the work for us, but also somebody to work to make money to pay taxes to get the fucking work done. And the fucking government is actually dumb enough to try and accommodate us! Mostly because congressmen love keeping their jobs as opposed to doing their jobs.

It would all be so hilarious if I were a European looking in from the outside.

 

[matt0611]

It can. It largely did so from 1790-1980, with exceptions like WWII. So let's remember that this inability is a modern phenonema started under Reagan - and that the people it benefits might surprise you, but let's just say that his pro-wealthy agenda wasn't at odds with his growth of the debt, and that in this period the wealthy - only - have *skyrocketed*.

I agree that a lot of the spending does not actually help the poor, actually a lot of the things they spend on in DC hurts the poor.

Then why are democrats always opposed to spending cuts?
Why are they always opposed to shrinking the size, influence, and scope of government?

 

[BurnItDwn]

It's because they've been playing kick the can for the last 30+ years

Every year the state fvcks over the long term in order to benefit the short term.

 

[soundforbjt]

I agree that a lot of the spending does not actually help the poor, actually a lot of the things they spend on in DC hurts the poor.

Then why are democrats always opposed to spending cuts?
Why are they always opposed to shrinking the size, influence, and scope of government?

The dems just wants different cuts than the right.
The right wants to cut social programs, the left wants to cut corp welfare and defense.

The right wants to shrink govt. by reducing regulations and protections.
The left opposes this because the corps & Wall Street cannot be trusted to do the right thing.

 

[boomerang]

Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.

 

[soundforbjt]

^^^And this.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Once a program gets started it's usually forever. Doesn't work? We'll add another program. It adds up.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

It's about special interests. A few people benefit a lot from a spending program, and everyone else gets hurt a little from taxes or the deficit. The few people who care a lot are able to influence the process a lot more than everyone else because they have more to gain or lose. Using the teacher situation in WI as an example its a lot easier to get the teachers to come out and protest for their cause then it is to get everyone else who opposes them.

 

[boomerang]

Not the perfect thread for this but I don't think it warrants a new one. Some will enjoy reading this and others will continue to be in denial.


[URL="http://blog.robertringer.com/2011/02/22/the-new-baseline-strategy/"]The “New-Baseline” Strategy

An excerpt.

Socialism destroys capital resources. And when the money runs out, a nation ends up with angry, spoiled adults — such as those protesting in Wisconsin — who have been happy recipients of years of artificial prosperity. Panicked and enraged, they boldly demand that their neighbors continue to support them in the lifestyle to which they have become accustomed. They have no interest whatsoever in hearing about economic reality.​

To the progressive, of course, the solution is simple: Tax the rich! But, as every idiot knows, taxing the rich is a dead end. Even if you imposed a 100 percent tax on everyone making over $1 million a year, it wouldn’t make a dent in the problem — and, in fact, it would make things worse because it would eliminate the motivation of producers to work.​

[/URL]

 

[Rainsford]

Not the perfect thread for this but I don't think it warrants a new one. Some will enjoy reading this and others will continue to be in denial.


[URL="http://blog.robertringer.com/2011/02/22/the-new-baseline-strategy/"]The “New-Baseline” Strategy[/URL]

I disagree with the idea that the problem is due to a faceless government and small groups acting against the wishes of the "average American". This mythical person not only deserves no blame, but their "will" would result in a totally perfect government if only that will was followed.

It's silly because there really isn't any evidence that the "average American" is all that wise in financial or other matters. When it comes to government spending in particular, politicians get a lot of the blame, but the voters are no picnic either. Everyone wants to cut things they personally don't like, while keeping all the spending they DO like. Of course since EVERYONE is trying to do that, spending inevitably keeps going up. Which seems only appropriate, because the average American is terrible at managing their personal finances as well.

 

[Darwin333]

Because giving people, companies and other entities some "free" gets them reelected and they don't have to pay it back.

 

[Rainsford]

It's about special interests. A few people benefit a lot from a spending program, and everyone else gets hurt a little from taxes or the deficit. The few people who care a lot are able to influence the process a lot more than everyone else because they have more to gain or lose. Using the teacher situation in WI as an example its a lot easier to get the teachers to come out and protest for their cause then it is to get everyone else who opposes them.

Spending problems may involve special interests, but it seems to me like a big part of the problem is the debate about groups like the teachers union has far more to do with ideology than actual spending. So Republicans and Democrats argue about unions vs tax cuts for rich people, funding the NEA vs funding an Army NASCAR team. Not only do these arguments totally polarize the debate, they also frequently miss grounds for compromise because both sides are too busy trying to "win" the ideological argument than actually cutting spending.

The WI teachers union is a perfect example. The Republicans want to cut benefits to curb spending, and they also want to remove most of the power of the union. Rather than trying to get Democrats on board with reasonable spending cuts, they take a path guaranteed to get widespread opposition from liberals. And WHY? Because Republicans don't like unions, and while the budget is important, it's not as important as beating a group you don't like.

 

[theeedude]

It's not hard during good times, unless you are a supply side Republican, but during these times, it would result in a prolonged depression to have both public and private sectors pull back simultaneously. You want government spending that is countercyclical, not cyclical with broader economy.

 

[matt0611]

It's not hard during good times, unless you are a supply side Republican, but during these times, it would result in a prolonged depression to have both public and private sectors pull back simultaneously. You want government spending that is countercyclical, not cyclical with broader economy.

I think the problem is that when times are good people go "ahh who gives a shit? we don't need to cut anything, everything is going well isn't it?" and then when times are bad people go "ahhh no we can't cut now we need this spending more than ever!".

There's never a good time to cut.

 

[OutHouse]

for your answer just look at the near riot that is happening in WI with government trying to curb spending.