Why do americans hate government spending?

[Dovahkiin]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

Nobody "hates" spending, that's like saying we hate government.

We just don't like the irresponsible manner in which either are carried out. Saying we hate government or hate spending is the liberal narrative that basically says it's all or nothing. If you're not all in on everything at any level, then you hate everything at any level.

It isn't the most intelligent response.

We just don't like the irresponsible manner in which either are carried out.

Explain what's irresponsible. The only real issue is we're not spending enough.

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

This is the stupid shit I get tired of. You don't even know why you believe it's "irresponsible."

Sure I do.... but if you think we're not spending enough, you'll never get it. Why should I, or anyone for that matter, waste our time? You think we got to $20,000,000,000,000 in debt and $120,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities by under-spending?

You're either being silly or are really not that bright. That's like having $20,000 in credit card debt and saying "i just haven't borrowed enough".

Imagine having a printing press in your basement and debt denominated in what comes off that press.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies...and then they use the regulatory bureaucracy to force us to accept a social agenda that violates our values.

Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies.

Government deficit spending add new financial assets to the private sector.

Not really. On a net worth basis, the debt more than cancels out the assets.

Government bonds are a liability for the government, A CURRENCY ISSUER, and an asset for the holder, usually someone in the private sector. My post is correct.

And worthless if the net assets of the issuer are insufficient to redeem the bonds. You really need an econ course or something.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Nobody "hates" spending, that's like saying we hate government.

We just don't like the irresponsible manner in which either are carried out. Saying we hate government or hate spending is the liberal narrative that basically says it's all or nothing. If you're not all in on everything at any level, then you hate everything at any level.

It isn't the most intelligent response.

We just don't like the irresponsible manner in which either are carried out.

Explain what's irresponsible. The only real issue is we're not spending enough.

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

This is the stupid shit I get tired of. You don't even know why you believe it's "irresponsible."

Sure I do.... but if you think we're not spending enough, you'll never get it. Why should I, or anyone for that matter, waste our time? You think we got to $20,000,000,000,000 in debt and $120,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities by under-spending?

You're either being silly or are really not that bright. That's like having $20,000 in credit card debt and saying "i just haven't borrowed enough".

Imagine having a printing press in your basement and debt denominated in what comes off that press.

Good grief.

 

[Dovahkiin]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies...and then they use the regulatory bureaucracy to force us to accept a social agenda that violates our values.

Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies.

Government deficit spending add new financial assets to the private sector.

Not really. On a net worth basis, the debt more than cancels out the assets.

Government bonds are a liability for the government, A CURRENCY ISSUER, and an asset for the holder, usually someone in the private sector. My post is correct.

And worthless if the net assets of the issuer are insufficient to redeem the bonds. You really need an econ course or something.

The government is a currency issuer. Any debt denominated in its currency can be paid off with keystrokes. The government doesn't really need more assets then liabilities.

 

[Dovahkiin]

Explain what's irresponsible. The only real issue is we're not spending enough.

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

This is the stupid shit I get tired of. You don't even know why you believe it's "irresponsible."

Sure I do.... but if you think we're not spending enough, you'll never get it. Why should I, or anyone for that matter, waste our time? You think we got to $20,000,000,000,000 in debt and $120,000,000,000,000 in unfunded liabilities by under-spending?

You're either being silly or are really not that bright. That's like having $20,000 in credit card debt and saying "i just haven't borrowed enough".

Imagine having a printing press in your basement and debt denominated in what comes off that press.

Good grief.

I know, reality is hard to deal with.
Look at Japan. Their problem comes from deflation/the private sector saving to much/a shrinking labor force. Nothing to do with their bonds.

 

[TNHarley]

Maybe the OP can explain how spending almost 800K thousand dollars to see if we can train a lion to run on a treadmill is good for the people.
When he cant find a rational answer, that will be the answer to the OP question.

 

[boedicca]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies...and then they use the regulatory bureaucracy to force us to accept a social agenda that violates our values.

Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies.

Government deficit spending add new financial assets to the private sector.

Not really. On a net worth basis, the debt more than cancels out the assets.

Government bonds are a liability for the government, A CURRENCY ISSUER, and an asset for the holder, usually someone in the private sector. My post is correct.

B'loney. Government bonds are debt to which the Taxpaying Bondholder is a party. On an individual basis, one might feel that one is net ahead, but considering that the official government debt is $60K, and that the total Federal Liability per taxpayer is $853K, piling on more debt just makes citizen insolvency greater (accept for multi-millionaires and billionaires). Most U.S. citizens do not have a net worth over $853K to offset the obligations the government has forced them into.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[boedicca]

Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies...and then they use the regulatory bureaucracy to force us to accept a social agenda that violates our values.

Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies.

Government deficit spending add new financial assets to the private sector.

Not really. On a net worth basis, the debt more than cancels out the assets.

Government bonds are a liability for the government, A CURRENCY ISSUER, and an asset for the holder, usually someone in the private sector. My post is correct.

And worthless if the net assets of the issuer are insufficient to redeem the bonds. You really need an econ course or something.

The government is a currency issuer. Any debt denominated in its currency can be paid off with keystrokes. The government doesn't really need more assets then liabilities.

Then why doesn't the Fed just print $20T and pay off the debt?

 

[BluesLegend]

Why do Americans hate government spending?

Because is MY money they are spending, we should fire half of those government dole incompetents.

 

[Iceweasel]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

You don't understand anything about how or why government spends money. Much of it is waste, fraud, abuse of power by deal making, spending against people's interests, funding social wet dreams over infrastructure, military and police (which are the primary reasons government exists) and on and on.

It's a bizarre question, how can one live long enough to learn how to type on a computer, register on a forum and ask a question so out of touch with reality?

I understand why a government spends money. For the public purpose. Ok.. all government spending ends up as income for someone in the private/foreign sector, even if it's considered "wasteful." Assume the government deficit spends 1 billion on building a test site in the middle of the desert. Some would call this wasteful. Ok, so people are employed to build this and paid the dollars, and the businesses that provide the real resources are also paid dollars, which they use to pay their employees. This all boosts demand. Now, should this happen? No, of course not, but in an economy with depressed demand, plenty of real resources, and unemployed people, what's the real harm? And the "wasteful spending" is only a small amount of overall government spending.

Wasteful spending is a huge part of government spending and no, it doesn't all benefit the private sector.

When there's plenty of real resources, and when businesses are just waiting for people to start producing sales, what is the harm?

Huh?

 

[007]

Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies...and then they use the regulatory bureaucracy to force us to accept a social agenda that violates our values.

Because most government spending is used to transfer money from those who earned it to government cronies.

Government deficit spending add new financial assets to the private sector.

Not really. On a net worth basis, the debt more than cancels out the assets.

Government bonds are a liability for the government, A CURRENCY ISSUER, and an asset for the holder, usually someone in the private sector. My post is correct.

And worthless if the net assets of the issuer are insufficient to redeem the bonds. You really need an econ course or something.

The government is a currency issuer. Any debt denominated in its currency can be paid off with keystrokes. The government doesn't really need more assets then liabilities.

If that's true, then why are we paying billions of dollars in interest, DAILY?

 

[Iceweasel]

This is why liberals should NEVER have the power of the purse.

 

[westwall]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

My main issue is it is incredibly wasteful. The money gets hijacked by special interests and is diverted away from the projects where it is needed and funneled into the pockets of the friends and supporters of the politician promoting it. So basically graft and corruption are the main problems with it.

 

[Mac1958]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

There are knee-jerkers on both ends of this argument, but reasonable people are more inclined to understand that it's a matter of equilibrium and efficiency.
.

 

[easyt65]

WHY? I'll give you an example:

OBAMA'S FAILED STIMULUS BILL
- Nearly $1 trillion price tag

- Over 7,000 pieces of Liberal-benefitting DNC-ONLY PORK

- Funded a study of why Argentian homosexual males have a better sex life than heterosexual male Americans

- Provided interest-free tax payer-funded 'loans' to millionaire Liberal politicians' husbands (Feinstein) so they could bailout their bankrupting business...Feinstein's husband never paid the Amwrican people back

- Millions went to non-existent 'shovel-ready' jobs, jobs Obama was forced to admit did not exist, which he declared he did not know

- Failed to keep unemployment below 8% as promised...it rose to 10.1%

- Failed to create the jobs promised

- Did not address the electrical grid, failed to address the failing infrastructure

- In the end Obama's / failed liberal nearly $1 trillion dollar spending spree cost tax payers OVER $742,000 PER JOB Obama CLAIMED he had created / saved.

Here's another:

Obama stole millions fromtax payers to ensure big-time Obama donors did not lose any of their hundreds of millions they invested in Solyndra and 12 other failed 'Green Energy' companies. Obama had no problem sacrificing tax payer money for the benefit of his donors.

Tax payers have enough of a hard time making ends meet without being forced to supplement milionaire liberal donor investment gambling losses. When's the last time liberals used millionaire's money to bail out middle class stick market losses? Doesn't happen. Obama / liberals are Robin Hood in reverse, stealing from the poor and giving to the rich...

The liberal belief that Americans are stupid and that THEY know how to spend other people's / tax payers' money more effectively and efficiently than the tax payers can is both a proven fallacy and a sickness.

 

[Two Thumbs]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

It's not spending that we have issue with, it's the debt.

we have over $19 Trillion in debt. That devalues the dollar and makes it harder for people to advance themselves.

add in who we borrow from and we can't really push certain countries to stop being bad actors.

and a lot of the spending is just bribes for votes or complete waste.

Devalues the dollar?
DollarIndexSpot Exchange rate

That in no way counters what I said.

American Dollar, Dollar Collapse, Dollar Devaluation- Education

The U.S. started to gradually move away from the Gold Standard with the adoption of the Bretton Woods system after World War II. With Bretton Woods, the world’s currencies were pegged to the dollar, which in turn was pegged to Gold at a rate of $35 per ounce. This was done to provide confidence to the world that the dollar was secure. Countries were required to maintain exchange rates within plus or minus 1% of parity with Gold by buying or selling currency in foreign exchange markets. Thus began the long, strange trip that has seen the U.S. Dollar become the most sought after currency among businessman and commoners alike.


When compared to hard money backed by gold or silver, this debt-based approach has the advantage of making the currency elastic, giving the government a means of expanding or contracting the money supply in response to changing economic conditions. The disadvantage of this approach is inflation. The money supply must be continually expanded in order to finance interest payments on the debt by which it is issued. This devalues the currency, causing inflation.

 

[Two Thumbs]

We don't hate government spending we hate government overspending which leads to among other things 19 trillion dollars of debt.

19 trillion in net financial assets? Needs to be more!

wow

shockingly stewpud

How much do you pay the person that reminds you to chew your food?

Notice how you don't have an argument. Why don't you kindly explain to me what the national debt actually is.

Debt, money owned, a bill that ever increases and is never paid b/c if people like you actually had to pay for what you want you'd understand economics and stop being a socialist.


but seriously, how much does that person get paid?

 

[thereisnospoon]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

if you have to ask this question then you are not paying attention.

 

[Muhammed]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

Americans don't hate all government spending, we hate wasteful government spending.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Some do, most don't. The problem is the retards think government should be a business instead of a service.

No shit heads think government exists to solve all their little problems. That government exists to "help people"....That it is the job of government to enforce this alleged liberal social contract.
That government exists to reapportion goods, services and earnings to satisfy the hand wringing left wing.
You people view taxation as a means to punish those who make you uncomfortable. You people think government exists to enforce your view of "fairness"....