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

[Mursilis]

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.

Totally not true. Any candidate who tells the truth ("The gov't can't keep spending as it has done in the past") will never get elected. We elect the ones who lie the best. Voters don't want to face the truth.

 

[Mursilis]

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.

For most Americans, that's not true anymore. In the credit card society, the norm is now 'spend today, pay tomorrow!'. Most people are terrible at managing their own money.

 

[Anarchist420]

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*.

Not true at all. Only a handful of Presidents took in more than they spent. Washington and Adams 2 (1789-1801) took in way more than they spent. Only Jefferson, Adams 6, Jackson, Tyler, Grant, Harding, and Coolidge and maybe Zachary Taylor brought in more than they spent.

The vast majority of Presidents increased the Federal Debt.

 

[Atreus21]

For most Americans, that's not true anymore. In the credit card society, the norm is now 'spend today, pay tomorrow!'. Most people are terrible at managing their own money.

Well right, exactly. In my view, a credit card doesn't represent your own money. It's money that someone else lent to you, so you spend it frivolously.

Money you earn from a job, you spend much more judiciously.

 

[wuliheron]

The American people sold their government to the highest bidder long ago, and now spend most of their time complaining because the multinational corporations and special interest groups keep running us into debt. If it isn't social programs that provide cheap labor for companies its trillion dollar wars in third world countries. After selling their government, the voters decided to go into debt themselves and now their government merely reflects the average american lifestyle. When the banks went belly up, the government bailed out the ones who contributed the most campaign funding to congress. They paid this back with a year or two, and now we're back to square one.

If Americans don't like it all they have to do is stop voting for politicians who go horribly into debt to all these corporations and special interest groups, but I don't see any real interest in doing that. All the noise about the debt is largely just people haggling over what to go into debt for and how much debt to acquire.

 

[sandorski]

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.

There's a point at which doing that just becomes stupid.

 

[WhipperSnapper]

No comments for Post #40?

 

[her209]

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.

Both sides are for shrinking government. Just different aspects of it.

 

[matt0611]

Both sides are for shrinking government. Just different aspects of it.

Which would be fine, except they both want to also increase different aspects of government as well.

 

[rudeguy]

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

as it has always been. Or are you recommending Communism?

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

the government refuses to tax wealthiest Americans? Well maybe we should define these wealthy people that you are talking about, then look at their tax rates. Then we can comment on this, otherwise you are just making stuff up

• ...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)...

so it is Communism you would prefer?

• ...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...

so you think the government is forcing companies to ship jobs overseas but they are also importing immigrants to work jobs, all to drive down the average wage?

• ...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...

huh? Lower wages are creating unemployment?

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

there is no growing need for these services. There is a growing unwillingness for people to pay their own way. These people are going to have the tit yanked from them at some point, much like you can't keep nursing a kid into his teens...

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

so you are saying the people on welfare are the whole problem. OK buddy...if you say so.


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.

I normally don't reply to idiocy but you begged.

 

[IceBergSLiM]

I normally don't reply to idiocy but you begged.

your trolling with those responses. Thats not what he was saying at all. re-read.

 

[Axon]

Clearly we need IBM's Watson to become President. Only a cold-blooded, purely objective machine can take us out of this economic free fall and restore us to sanity.

I wish I was entirely kidding, but I am not.

This may also lead to a terminator/matrix apocalypse scenario. I'm okay with that.

 

[rudeguy]

Clearly we need IBM's Watson to become President. Only a cold-blooded, purely objective machine can take us out of this economic free fall and restore us to sanity.

I wish I was entirely kidding, but I am not.

This may also lead to a terminator/matrix apocalypse scenario. I'm okay with that.

I'm not a big doomsday kind of guy but it is kind of scary to think about. With all the unrest going on, what if it spread to China? What would happen if the Chinese government collapsed?

 

[WhipperSnapper]

I normally don't reply to idiocy but you begged.

That's OK. If I read more of your posts, I'm sure I'd regard you as the moron.

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

as it has always been. Or are you recommending Communism?

No. I am an advocate of a mixed economy with some elements of socialism and some elements of capitalism. I'm a libertarian in terms of issues involving personal freedom (legalization of drugs, prostitution, unrestricted abortion, freedom from religion, etc.).

I think people should receive proper compensation for their contributions to the act of wealth production. It defies reason and logic to say that a very small percentage of the population contributed the human effort responsible for the majority of the nation's wealth. I think business owners, executives, and successful investors often receive too much compensation and that work-a-day folks often receive too little.

What's amazing is that, contrary to what free market dogmatists might believe, many socialists would actually agree that people should be rewarded for their work. The big differences between capitalists and socialists in these regards are over what constitutes work and a contribution to production.

A capitalist might look at a wealthy banker and say that he deserves his hundreds of millions of dollars. In contrast, a socialist might look at him and say, "he sits on his ass all day and while whatever contributions he made to the efficiency of the market might be valuable, a great many people could have done it for far far less compensation and his contributions weren't that amazingly brilliant."

• ...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)...

so it is Communism you would prefer?

Why are laissez-faire Capitalism and outright Communism the only options? How would you characterize the successful German economy? Is it possible for some aspects of the economy to be socialist (public schools, roads) and for others to be capitalist (widget production)?

You called me a moron, but you almost come off as being a moron yourself by failing to contemplate that possibility.

• ...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...

so you think the government is forcing companies to ship jobs overseas but they are also importing immigrants to work jobs, all to drive down the average wage?

Not exactly. I think the U.S. government allowed companies to ship jobs overseas for the purpose of producing goods and services for domestic consumption and that businesses took advantage of global labor arbitrage. So, businesses did it on their own with the permission of the U.S. government.

The U.S. government allows over a million immigrants a year to enter legally and has also allowed tens of millions of illegal immigrants to enter and remain. It encourages them to come by offering free health care, in-state college tuition, and birthright citizenship (anchor babies).

I do think that our politicians know what they are doing, so, Yes, the purpose of these policies is to drive down wages and destroy the American middle class for the benefit of the Rich. Our politicians are, in essence, allowing businesses to effectuate a wealth transfer from the middle and lower classes to the wealthy. Foreign outsourcing and mass immigration (global labor arbitrage) drive down wages and will ultimately average out the U.S. standard of living with that of the third world, resulting in a small percentage of the people being very wealthy and with the rest earning third world 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...

huh? Lower wages are creating unemployment?

You don't have very good reading comprehension, do you? (Or were you just half asleep?) The "greater unemployment" is part of what the lower classes experience resulting from the global labor arbitrage that was mentioned in the previous bullet point.

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

there is no growing need for these services. There is a growing unwillingness for people to pay their own way. These people are going to have the tit yanked from them at some point, much like you can't keep nursing a kid into his teens...

Haven't you paid attention to the news reports about how there are 5 or 6 unemployed people for every job opening? Even if these people can find jobs they will likely be poverty-wage jobs in which case even though they are working (working poor) they are likely to still need governmetn assistance.

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

so you are saying the people on welfare are the whole problem. OK buddy...if you say so.

Uh, no. I'm saying that our Government's and the Wealthy's war against the American middle class and lower classes is the problem.

 

[rudeguy]

That's OK. If I read more of your posts, I'm sure I'd regard you as the moron.




[/B]No. I am an advocate of a mixed economy with some elements of socialism and some elements of capitalism. I'm a libertarian in terms of issues involving personal freedom (legalization of drugs, prostitution, unrestricted abortion, freedom from religion, etc.).

I think people should receive proper compensation for their contributions to the act of wealth production. It defies reason and logic to say that a very small percentage of the population contributed the human effort responsible for the majority of the nation's wealth. I think business owners, executives, and successful investors often receive too much compensation and that work-a-day folks often receive too little.

What's amazing is that, contrary to what free market dogmatists might believe, many socialists would actually agree that people should be rewarded for their work. The big differences between capitalists and socialists in these regards are over what constitutes work and a contribution to production.

A capitalist might look at a wealthy banker and say that he deserves his hundreds of millions of dollars. In contrast, a socialist might look at him and say, "he sits on his ass all day and while whatever contributions he made to the efficiency of the market might be valuable, a great many people could have done it for far far less compensation and his contributions weren't that amazingly brilliant."



Why are laissez-faire Capitalism and outright Communism the only options? How would you characterize the successful German economy? Is it possible for some aspects of the economy to be socialist (public schools, roads) and for others to be capitalist (widget production)?

You called me a moron, but you almost come off as being a moron yourself by failing to contemplate that possibility.



Not exactly. I think the U.S. government allowed companies to ship jobs overseas for the purpose of producing goods and services for domestic consumption and that businesses took advantage of global labor arbitrage. So, businesses did it on their own with the permission of the U.S. government.

The U.S. government allows over a million immigrants a year to enter legally and has also allowed tens of millions of illegal immigrants to enter and remain. It encourages them to come by offering free health care, in-state college tuition, and birthright citizenship (anchor babies).

I do think that our politicians know what they are doing, so, Yes, the purpose of these policies is to drive down wages and destroy the American middle class for the benefit of the Rich. Our politicians are, in essence, allowing businesses to effectuate a wealth transfer from the middle and lower classes to the wealthy. Foreign outsourcing and mass immigration (global labor arbitrage) drive down wages and will ultimately average out the U.S. standard of living with that of the third world, resulting in a small percentage of the people being very wealthy and with the rest earning third world wages.



You don't have very good reading comprehension, do you? (Or were you just half asleep?) The "greater unemployment" is part of what the lower classes experience resulting from the global labor arbitrage that was mentioned in the previous bullet point.



Haven't you paid attention to the news reports about how there are 5 or 6 unemployed people for every job opening? Even if these people can find jobs they will likely be poverty-wage jobs in which case even though they are working (working poor) they are likely to still need governmetn assistance.



Uh, no. I'm saying that our Government's and the Wealthy's war against the American middle class and lower classes is the problem.

And I'm saying that our government is waging a war on the wealthy, hiding behind the veil of waging a war on the side of the poor all while those individuals get richer.

My point is that we are all equal. Whether rich, poor, middle class or legalimmigrant. We are all also free. The government's job is not to regulate the private sector or to decide who gets what.

But back on point. Why not spend less than the they take in? How many trillions of dollars will the federal government take in this year? It can't be that hard to spend less than that.

 

[Acanthus]

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

Because the amount you take in fluctuates greatly when business is poorly regulated and you get enormous speculative bubbles and busts.

It is also basic psychology. It is harder to eliminate wanted programs than to establish programs to eliminate problems.

On top of that, you have additional economic problems like inflation, debt, and changes in the different tiers of governmental funding that can exacerbate any of the other basic problems with keeping a perfectly balanced budget.

 

[rudeguy]

Because the amount you take in fluctuates greatly when business is poorly regulated and you get enormous speculative bubbles and busts.

It is also basic psychology. It is harder to eliminate wanted programs than to establish programs to eliminate problems.

On top of that, you have additional economic problems like inflation, debt, and changes in the different tiers of governmental funding that can exacerbate any of the other basic problems with keeping a perfectly balanced budget.

So why not only spend what we have? What would be wrong with quarterly budgets?


Again...I don't have any of the answers. I just have a lot of questions.

 

[Acanthus]

So why not only spend what we have? What would be wrong with quarterly budgets?


Again...I don't have any of the answers. I just have a lot of questions.

Because it would cause radical swings in the quality of government programs.

For example, when Blagojevich was indicted in IL, all of the money appropriated to school systems and other agencies was frozen to be audited.

In the "spend only what we have" world, we would have had to close all of the schools in Illinois for 9 months.

 

[Dissipate]

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

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-democracies-will-always-go-bankrupt.html

Read it. Understand it.

 

[sportage]

Financial control is not in the American nature.
Got a credit card? Is it maxed out? Seen the new iPhone? Think you must have one regardless? Is the answer to all the questions YES? Point made...
Just keep that thought and amplify it to a state level.

 

[Triumph]

In response to the OP: A country gets the government it deserves. The American people don't know how to live within their means, therefore the gub'ment doesn't know how to do it, either. If we were a frugal population we'd have a frugal government. The government reflects its people.

 

[Gigantopithecus]

The answer to the OP's question is in my opinion quite simple: because Joe the Plumber puts a "Proud to be a Union laborer" bumper sticker that was made in China on his Japanese truck that burns Saudi oil on his way to buy a made in Korea TV so he can watch news stories about Charlie Sheen's hookers and blow habits.

 

[Dissipate]

In response to the OP: A country gets the government it deserves. The American people don't know how to live within their means, therefore the gub'ment doesn't know how to do it, either. If we were a frugal population we'd have a frugal government. The government reflects its people.

Wrong. See my link above. Even people frugal in their personal life can and often will vote for expensive government programs.

 

[Zebo]

http://gonzalolira.blogspot.com/2011/01/why-democracies-will-always-go-bankrupt.html

Read it. Understand it.

Cliffs: everyone wants something but none want to pay for it.

 

[jackace]

The answer to the OP's question is in my opinion quite simple: because Joe the Plumber puts a "Proud to be a Union laborer" bumper sticker that was made in China on his Japanese truck that burns Saudi oil on his way to buy a made in Korea TV so he can watch news stories about Charlie Sheen's hookers and blow habits.

LOL!!

Great post