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

[sandorski]

Pay Go is the best idea in decades. You want Spending on something, Cut Spending or Raise Taxes to pay for it. Can't find the Money, don't get the Spending. You'd have to make exceptions for Emergency Spending, but any long term Program would have to abide by that principle.

Same for Tax Cuts, they should only be given if it does not affect the Governments ability to Pay it's Expenses. If there's no Budget Surplus, Tax Cuts must be matched with Spending Cuts.

If that was the practice, soon Tax Payers would understand how their Wants affect their Taxes and/or other Government Services. Instead what you got is a fantasy World where certain people get what they Want without any sacrifice or downside, so they just keep asking for more. Can you blame them?

 

[matt0611]

Pay Go is the best idea in decades. You want Spending on something, Cut Spending or Raise Taxes to pay for it. Can't find the Money, don't get the Spending. You'd have to make exceptions for Emergency Spending, but any long term Program would have to abide by that principle.

Same for Tax Cuts, they should only be given if it does not affect the Governments ability to Pay it's Expenses. If there's no Budget Surplus, Tax Cuts must be matched with Spending Cuts.

If that was the practice, soon Tax Payers would understand how their Wants affect their Taxes and/or other Government Services. Instead what you got is a fantasy World where certain people get what they Want without any sacrifice or downside, so they just keep asking for more. Can you blame them?

Its a great idea, they always find ways around it or make exceptions for it though. Or it doesn't last etc

I think we in the US really need a balanced budget amendment, maybe set the emergency threshold for like 3/4 of congress or something.

 

[sandorski]

Its a great idea, they always find ways around it or make exceptions for it though. Or it doesn't last etc

I think we in the US really need a balanced budget amendment, maybe set the emergency threshold for like 3/4 of congress or something.

3/4 Threshholds merely gives power to the Minority. It's a very bad idea, California is the proof.

 

[theeedude]

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.

Actually the problem is that Republicans want to run deficits during good times and surpluses during difficult times, completely opposite of common sense, but popular with the voters.

 

[boomerang]

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.

This talking point you've echoed is a popular one right now. Getting concessions from the unions in Wisconsin is necessary to help get the budget under control. The unions have agreed to that. But concessions without constraints on the bargaining process just means the problems will return.

As a former union member for 30 years, I can tell you exactly how the union is selling the concessions to their members. The members are being told that they will win back what they are giving up in the next contract negotiations. Concessions are only a temporary solution without constraints.

An all powerful union is detrimental to your job over the long haul. It's evident in Wisconsin and it was evident in the thousands and thousands of auto worker jobs lost in the state in which I live. Your union given enough time, will price your labor higher than the market will bear. Your union, as the sole provider of labor to an employer (essentially the agreement reached between the union and the employer) will eventually price your labor at a higher cost than is reasonable and customary. It's the downside of unions. In order for the union to survive and prosper they feel they must continually and regularly produce. They do that in part by getting their members increases in pay and benefits. It's a vicious cycle that can only end one way.

So, from time to time, the system must be reset.

Where the governor went too far is the requirement for what is essentially recertification on a yearly basis. I see his point and I've stated my thoughts in that regard in another thread. He got the concessions, but he absolutely needs to get restraints to help keep the problem from resurfacing. The recertification is a battle he should have left to fight another day. I think he'll wise up. It may have been the bargaining chip, the out, he built into his plan to begin with.

 

[sandorski]

This talking point you've echoed is a popular one right now. Getting concessions from the unions in Wisconsin is necessary to help get the budget under control. The unions have agreed to that. But concessions without constraints on the bargaining process just means the problems will return.

.

Wi current fiscal issue has nothing to do with Collective Bargaining and/or Unions. It's the Economy and dramatically lowered Revenues as a result of it.

 

[matt0611]

3/4 Threshholds merely gives power to the Minority. It's a very bad idea, California is the proof.

Yes but isn't that because to raise taxes need a super majority but to spend only a majority?

I would definitely be opposed to that.
But I guess I'd want some way to borrow money in case there is some real national emergency to override it.

 

[matt0611]

Actually the problem is that Republicans want to run deficits during good times and surpluses during difficult times, completely opposite of common sense, but popular with the voters.

Republicans want to run deficits at all times. Evidenced by their recent budget proposal.

 

[bfdd]

Are you able to do it in your personal life?

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

And? The reason we elect these people is because they're supposed to be able to handle it. If they can't, then they shouldn't run and should stay as far the fuck away from our government as possible.

 

[BoberFett]

the left wants to cut corp welfare

The left has absolutely no problem with corporate welfare, as long as it's going to the "correct" corporations.

Anyone else see that Chris Dodd is set to become the next head of the MPAA?

The Democrats are every bit pro-corporation as the Republicans.

 

[Craig234]

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

Except you are not telling the truth.

The Wisconson Republican attack has nothing to do with spending.

It's all about trying to get more corrupt power for themselves by attacking the funding for Democrats, so they can transfer even more wealth from everyone else to the rich.

The Union has agreed to make all the cuts the governor wants - he said no.

I'm surprised he didn't just make his demands to cut crazy so they'd have to say no and he could like that it's the money.

 

[matt0611]

...
Anyone else see that Chris Dodd is set to become the next head of the MPAA?

...

D: :thumbsdown:

 

[WHAMPOM]

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

To provide mandated services and no rainy day fund.

 

[WHAMPOM]

The state of Wisconsin HAD a rainy day fund, their former Republican Governor (twelve years? in office)never put money in it? a required $65 million a year in case of a recession! Have I got that right?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

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

• When a small fraction of the populace owns the majority of the nation's wealth and brings in the majority of the income...

• ...and the government refuses to tax them...

• ...and moronic Americans become free market dogmatists and believe in capitalism unquestionably as though it were a religion even though the policies they unwittingly advocate work to their detriment (Joe the Moronic Plumber who supposedly didn't even have a plumber's license)...

• ...and as a result of this free market mentality the government allows millions of jobs to be sent overseas, imports hundreds of thousands of foreign workers on H-1B and L-1 visas to displace college-educated Americans and drive down wages, and encourages tens of millions of impoverished immigrants to come to the U.S. to displace working poor Americans and drive down their wages...

• ...and when as a result the lower and middle classes experience decreasing wages and benefits (so that the wealthy people can make even more money) and greater unemployment and thus cannot provide as much tax revenue...

• ...and then have an increased need for government social welfare services (unemployment compensation, Medicaid, welfare, etc.).

• ...it can be difficult to balance the state and federal budgets.

You really don't need to be a rocket scientist to understand this. Of course, if you're a Republican or Tea Bagger moron you might have great difficulty.

 

[Lithium381]

It's because people are entitled. And you owe them. The fairest way to distribute your hard earned dollars is through a middle-man named Uncle Sam. He takes his cut, and then divies out the payment to those who are entitled to it by having 6 children and waiting for handouts.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

He takes his cut, and then divies out the payment to those who are entitled to it by having 6 children and waiting for handouts.

Know what's ironic? Many of the Republican and Tea Bagger morons who complain about having to support other people's 6 kids oppose abortion!!! They oppose things like Planned Parenthood and government funded abortion when those things actually save the government money. For every unwanted or unplanned child that is not born or aborted the government saves money over 18 years on education costs, health care costs, welfare costs, and sometimes criminal justice costs.

But because the Republicans and Tea Baggers believe in a magic God-being and because they want to force their religious mystic faith and insanity on other people through the big government getting into people's lives and bedrooms, they oppose these money saving policies.

You might say they "love the fetus and hate the child".

Perhaps they support big religious government and "big religion".

 

[Mursilis]

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*.

More Craig lies. Deficit spending on an annual basis began in modern times in 1970, well before Reagan. It got worse under Reagan, but it did not start under him.

 

[Mursilis]

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

Pretty much this. Your same stupid neighbors who couldn't figure out they couldn't afford, over the long term, a $500K house on a $50K income like to vote for candidates similarly detached from fiscal reality. Democracy's fatal flaw - the average voter will happily sacrifice the long-term for the short-term. Is it any wonder that most every mature major demoracy is spending itself into oblivion?

 

[dmcowen674]

why is it so hard for the government to not spend more than they take in?
It doesn't sound that complicated. Why can't it be done?

Greed is a powerful drug, just look at the rich Republicans posts on here for example.

 

[Genx87]

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*.

You are in complete denial.

 

[her209]

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.

Same with taxes. When times are good and government is running a surplus, politicians say taxes are too high (see surplus) and should be cut. When the bust is here and tax revenue is below what was forecasted... we can't raise taxes in these times... in fact, lets cut them!

 

[Elbryn]

because when things are good, it's easy to get enough politicians together to vote to spend money on something. when times are bad and haircutting is required, it's much harder to get people to vote together especially when each one of them is fighting to have the money taken away from someone else's geographical area or sphere or power.

 

[PokerGuy]

Same with taxes. When times are good and government is running a surplus, politicians say taxes are too high (see surplus) and should be cut. When the bust is here and tax revenue is below what was forecasted... we can't raise taxes in these times... in fact, lets cut them!

That's the way it should be. We should continuously and always attempt to reduce the amount of taxes and the size of government. Not indiscriminately of course, but the nature of the beast is for the government to grow and eventually for taxes to go up to support that growth. We need to always fight to keep both from happening.

 

[Atreus21]

And? The reason we elect these people is because they're supposed to be able to handle it. If they can't, then they shouldn't run and should stay as far the fuck away from our government as possible.

Fair enough. But they don't. And we elect them anyway.

You can't argue with Milton Friedman's analysis of how people spend money, though. Your own money, you are very careful with. Other people's money, you spend it like it doesn't really matter.

It's no surprise that personal spending habits magnify themselves onto larger organizations of people like government.