Why do americans hate government spending?

[Stephanie]

the op didn't seriously want to understand this. they just wanted to argue and call others stupid.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

 

[bripat9643]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

They see it as irresponsibility. However, what the rightwing is too dumb to understand is that huge tax cuts for the wealthy are just as irresponsible. Both policies skyrocket the deficit.

Responsible spending is modest and is coupled with tax hikes to pay for it.

Spending is what skyrockets the deficit. Politicians and douche bags like pretend that spending is a given. They treat spending like it's a glacier, impossible to stop.

 

[dblack]

the op didn't seriously want to understand this. they just wanted to argue and call others stupid.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

If that disqualified threads we'd have very few left.

 

[Disir]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

Yep. It's a question of where the money is going and accountability. Property taxes are high in some areas because they have to cover the cost of those that don't pay property taxes..........like hospitals and the justification for their "charity". Meanwhile the public can't afford health care. Can't locate the fraud found in real estate/charter school but can figure out ways to slash public schools and libraries funding.

There is a SEVERE shortage of services for the American public yet people are paying taxes. There is absolutely NO reason that we should have an unprecedented amount of homeless. There is NO reason that there are no long term facilities for the mentally ill.

 

[easyt65]

If an Employee has an 18% approval / satisfactory job rating, doesn't listen, is constantly costing you money because of their incompetence / fraud / waste / abuse, and they constantly gave themselves raises (as is possible in this scenario), you would FIRE their ass, not sit around defending them to anyone who will listen ir anyone who points out how bad of an employee they are.

 

[Dovahkiin]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

They see it as irresponsibility. However, what the rightwing is too dumb to understand is that huge tax cuts for the wealthy are just as irresponsible. Both policies skyrocket the deficit.

Responsible spending is modest and is coupled with tax hikes to pay for it.

Bullshit, the govt could take 100% of the incomes of the top 10% and we would still have a deficit and the national debt would continue to grow.

Spending is the problem, not revenue.

It needs to continue to grow.

 

[Norman]

Even this metric has the problem that the low spender nations are generally war zones where government has collapsed. Thus the economy is not in the shitter because of low spending, but because of societal collapse.

Pretty surely, the optimal level of government spending is thus, zero. No theft is better than any amount of legitimized theft and coercion indeed.

 

[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.

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

Nonsense. Government bonds are a net financial asset of the private/foreign sector and are held by many americans. You need to understand money creation to understand why taxpayers aren't really in trouble because of bonds.

Most U.S. citizens do not have a net worth over $853K to offset the obligations the government has forced them into.

Stupid bullshit. Government can credit any account.

I've provided the data that proves otherwise, so if you don't comprehend it, then too bad for you.

I'd suggest that you Financial Report of the United States, which uses GAAP-like accounting principles, but I doubt you'd understand that either. But for others who care to learn:

Current Report: Financial Report of the United States: Publications & Guidance: Financial Management Service

 

[Redfish]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

They see it as irresponsibility. However, what the rightwing is too dumb to understand is that huge tax cuts for the wealthy are just as irresponsible. Both policies skyrocket the deficit.

Responsible spending is modest and is coupled with tax hikes to pay for it.

Bullshit, the govt could take 100% of the incomes of the top 10% and we would still have a deficit and the national debt would continue to grow.

Spending is the problem, not revenue.

It needs to continue to grow.

If a joke---funny. if you are serious------you are an idiot.

 

[dblack]

It's the same question that frames so many of our discussions here: What is the purpose of government? Is it to spend our money wisely? Or to protect our freedom to spend our money the way we want?

 

[Redfish]

It's the same question that frames so many of our discussions here: What is the purpose of government? Is it to spend our money wisely? Or to protect our freedom to spend our money the way we want?

the latter, clearly

 

[Norman]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

They see it as irresponsibility. However, what the rightwing is too dumb to understand is that huge tax cuts for the wealthy are just as irresponsible. Both policies skyrocket the deficit.

Responsible spending is modest and is coupled with tax hikes to pay for it.

Bullshit, the govt could take 100% of the incomes of the top 10% and we would still have a deficit and the national debt would continue to grow.

Spending is the problem, not revenue.

It needs to continue to grow.

Only when government takes 100 % of your money, and has full control of your life, will you hero, Marx be proud:

With this rate that will be sooner rather than later. We of course know what has happened to the economy as result...

 

[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"....

You do not understand that government is a service, not a business. The far right wing and libertarian principles of government are garbage. Tuff to be you.

As a service, government has become a gargantuan welfare system for those employed by government to take full advantage. Meanwhile we get stuck paying for garbage no one but those with their hand stuck out.
The methods by which government is operated are proven abject failure. It is time to force government to operate within its means.
Those that fight this concept do so because they have ulterior motives. In other words, something in it for them. For their own selfish and greedy reasons.

 

[thereisnospoon]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

Because we value diversity. We believe individuals, spending their own money in accordance with their own unique values, is preferable to making decisions globally.

I don't agree. I think regionally we make the mistake of putting all of our eggs in one basket.
For example. Detroit relied too heavily on the auto mfg industry. Once the business model changed and the the major auto mfgrs began to be effected by competition, had to find ways to cuyt costs. Michigan suddenly became a place to leave.....Cities such as Dearborn, Flint and Detroit say huge losses in employment, tax ratables and general decay.
Charlotte, NC....Almost saw a collapse in the late 2000's when this banking heavy city was hit hard by the housing bubble burst.
Houston. Was in a terrible recession in the late 80's due to it's reliance on oil production.
Today, the most prosperous metro areas are those that have no main industry or business type. But those are not many

Eh?

Confused?

 

[my2¢]

Some threads just call out to be trolled.

 

[dblack]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

Because we value diversity. We believe individuals, spending their own money in accordance with their own unique values, is preferable to making decisions globally.

I don't agree. I think regionally we make the mistake of putting all of our eggs in one basket.
For example. Detroit relied too heavily on the auto mfg industry. Once the business model changed and the the major auto mfgrs began to be effected by competition, had to find ways to cuyt costs. Michigan suddenly became a place to leave.....Cities such as Dearborn, Flint and Detroit say huge losses in employment, tax ratables and general decay.
Charlotte, NC....Almost saw a collapse in the late 2000's when this banking heavy city was hit hard by the housing bubble burst.
Houston. Was in a terrible recession in the late 80's due to it's reliance on oil production.
Today, the most prosperous metro areas are those that have no main industry or business type. But those are not many

Eh?

Confused?

Yeah. I'm not really sure what you're getting at, or what it has to do with the post you were responding to. Or maybe I just wasn't clear.

I was talking about the choice between spending our money ourselves, as individuals, or giving it to government to spend on our behalf.

 

[Centinel]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

Government spending on what? I think that matters.

 

[Dovahkiin]

I seriously want to understand this. Any ideas?

Government spending on what? I think that matters.

Welfare, the military, foreign aid.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

And if they don't get their way, they threaten to withhold federal funding.

Bribery and extortion.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Everyone loves gov spending ..... On the things they like !

Which IS the problem.