Why do democrats think that the purpose of government is to go into debt?

[Redfish]

point counter point on a similar thread.

Why do you on the left think that the government should continually spend more than it takes in and then borrow the shortfall from countries that view us an enemies?

where does the borrowing and debt end? Is 17 trillion enough? Should the country be 30 trillion in debt?

BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Because costs never matter when it comes to social justice and good intentions..............

 

[Clementine]

I have never in my life heard anyone say the government should make a profit, as per the other thread. I also don't think their job is to spend us into bankruptcy.

Government's main role is to make fair laws and regulations and oversee them. They have gone far past that and it's clear that their interference hasn't improved things over the years. They spend too much and then look for more ways to tax us. All the while, they have the nerve to lay guilt trips on us if we oppose their hair-brained ideas.

 

[Freemason9]

point counter point on a similar thread.

Why do you on the left think that the government should continually spend more than it takes in and then borrow the shortfall from countries that view us an enemies?

where does the borrowing and debt end? Is 17 trillion enough? Should the country be 30 trillion in debt?

BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.

Try not be quite so ignorant regarding our monetary system. I understand that 95% of Americans know nothing about the federal reserve system, but at least most of them don't blog about it.

Follow me here:

(1) As the American workforce continues to add to the nation's cumulative wealth through their productive work,
(2) it is necessary to increase the money supply to match the pace of asset growth. Because if this didn't happen,
(3) there would be rampant deflation. That is a bad thing.
(4) The ONLY way this federal reserve system increases the money supply is through debt creation.
(5) ERGO, the federal debt. Since the money supply contracted by trillions of dollars subsequent to the economic collapse of 2007,
(6) we have to issue a lot of "debt" to restore the money supply.
(7) It is not "debt" at all in the sense that it needs to be repaid. On the contrary, repayment of the "debt" would create a recessionary environment (ala 2000-2001).
(8) It is obviously a mistake for the government to even refer to money supply actions as "debt" issuance, since most Americans can only equate debt to consumer debt,
(9) which is entirely different.

Hope that helps!

 

[Freemason9]

I have never in my life heard anyone say the government should make a profit, as per the other thread. I also don't think their job is to spend us into bankruptcy.

Government's main role is to make fair laws and regulations and oversee them. They have gone far past that and it's clear that their interference hasn't improved things over the years. They spend too much and then look for more ways to tax us. All the while, they have the nerve to lay guilt trips on us if we oppose their hair-brained ideas.

NO, the government will not "go bankrupt." Again, the federal debt cannot be equated in any way to consumer debt--which is obviously what you are thinking of.

 

[t_polkow]

point counter point on a similar thread.

Why do you on the left think that the government should continually spend more than it takes in and then borrow the shortfall from countries that view us an enemies?

where does the borrowing and debt end? Is 17 trillion enough? Should the country be 30 trillion in debt?

BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.

Dick Cheney "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter. We won the mid-term elections, this is our due". to Paul O'Neill, then Treasury Secretary

"on December 6, 2002, the Bush Administration fired its top two economic advisers: Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill and White House economic adviser Lawrence Lindsey due to the continuing lagging economy (when Bush took office, unemployment was 4.2%. In Dec of 2002... more than a year after 9/11... the rate jumped from 5.7% to 6.0% in one month). In November of 2002, when O'Neill, a "deficit hawk", tried to warn Vice President Dick Cheney that growing budget deficits... expected to top $500 billion that fiscal year alone... posed a threat to the economy. Cheney cut him off, saying, "You know, Paul, Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

Ten Years Ago Today: Bush Fires Economic Team. Cheney says, 'Deficits Don't Matter.' | Crooks and Liars

 

[KevinWestern]

point counter point on a similar thread.

Why do you on the left think that the government should continually spend more than it takes in and then borrow the shortfall from countries that view us an enemies?

where does the borrowing and debt end? Is 17 trillion enough? Should the country be 30 trillion in debt?

BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.

Just want to note that it's not just the Democrats who spend into oblivion - the Republicans do this pretty successfully as well. Not sure if you remember, but George W. Bush helped perpetuate a $4 trillion dollar war with a country that never attacked us all while drastically reducing the gov't's revenue stream through massive tax cuts. Imagine what our debt situation would look like today without the tax cuts, or without the war.

Personally, as long as our Congresspeople and Presidents are sponsored by gigantic corporations and special interests, we will always see the gov't spending more than it takes in.

Gov't spending (especially in the Defense and Healthcare sectors) is simply a vehicle for some gigantic corporate profits (ie remember that the money goes somewhere).

Both the 'right' and the left are guilty.


.

 

[JimH52]

So how many times do I have to post the Cheney quote that "Deficits do not matter." IN 2001 NO LESS!

What is the difference now? Oh year, a Black Democrat is in office. GOTCHA!

Dick Cheney offers the GOP familiar advice on spending - Washington Post

 

[ScienceRocks]

Why are they cutting science programs(Nasa)
Why are they allowing our inferstructure to fail?
Why is America falling behind?

Where is all this money going that should be going to the above? The rich? The banks? Sending it to god knows where???

 

[TakeAStepBack]

point counter point on a similar thread.

Why do you on the left think that the government should continually spend more than it takes in and then borrow the shortfall from countries that view us an enemies?

where does the borrowing and debt end? Is 17 trillion enough? Should the country be 30 trillion in debt?

BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.

Try not be quite so ignorant regarding our monetary system. I understand that 95% of Americans know nothing about the federal reserve system, but at least most of them don't blog about it.

Follow me here:

(1) As the American workforce continues to add to the nation's cumulative wealth through their productive work,
(2) it is necessary to increase the money supply to match the pace of asset growth. Because if this didn't happen,
(3) there would be rampant deflation. That is a bad thing.
(4) The ONLY way this federal reserve system increases the money supply is through debt creation.
(5) ERGO, the federal debt. Since the money supply contracted by trillions of dollars subsequent to the economic collapse of 2007,
(6) we have to issue a lot of "debt" to restore the money supply.
(7) It is not "debt" at all in the sense that it needs to be repaid. On the contrary, repayment of the "debt" would create a recessionary environment (ala 2000-2001).
(8) It is obviously a mistake for the government to even refer to money supply actions as "debt" issuance, since most Americans can only equate debt to consumer debt,
(9) which is entirely different.

Hope that helps!

Wow. That;'s a really lazy version of how it actually works. "federal debt" is the same as public debt. Which is the same as consumer debt. Debt is debt, fella.

 

[Mr Natural]

Why do democrats think that the purpose of government is to go into debt?


You'll have to ask St Reagan that question.

 

[Brain357]

I would like to state that I don't agree with spending more than you bring in. But I disagree it is a liberal problem. Debt as a percent of GDP went down till Reagan. Then it went up till Clinton balanced the budget. Then Bush spent like a drunk sailer and it continues now. Clinton has been the most fiscally responsible president of my lifetime.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Go look up counter point then realize the fail in you

 

[Freemason9]

point counter point on a similar thread.

Why do you on the left think that the government should continually spend more than it takes in and then borrow the shortfall from countries that view us an enemies?

where does the borrowing and debt end? Is 17 trillion enough? Should the country be 30 trillion in debt?

BTW, if you took every penny from the evil rich it would not come close to paying off our national debt.

Try not be quite so ignorant regarding our monetary system. I understand that 95% of Americans know nothing about the federal reserve system, but at least most of them don't blog about it.

Follow me here:

(1) As the American workforce continues to add to the nation's cumulative wealth through their productive work,
(2) it is necessary to increase the money supply to match the pace of asset growth. Because if this didn't happen,
(3) there would be rampant deflation. That is a bad thing.
(4) The ONLY way this federal reserve system increases the money supply is through debt creation.
(5) ERGO, the federal debt. Since the money supply contracted by trillions of dollars subsequent to the economic collapse of 2007,
(6) we have to issue a lot of "debt" to restore the money supply.
(7) It is not "debt" at all in the sense that it needs to be repaid. On the contrary, repayment of the "debt" would create a recessionary environment (ala 2000-2001).
(8) It is obviously a mistake for the government to even refer to money supply actions as "debt" issuance, since most Americans can only equate debt to consumer debt,
(9) which is entirely different.

Hope that helps!

Wow. That;'s a really lazy version of how it actually works. "federal debt" is the same as public debt. Which is the same as consumer debt. Debt is debt, fella.

You are utterly and completely wrong, but thanks for illustrating this misconception so well. You dotted the "i" and crossed the "t."

 

[BlindBoo]

Why do pseudo-conservative project what they do best onto the Democrats?

 

[Kevin_Kennedy]

Who was the last Republican to cut spending? How many Republican budgets that actually cut spending were actually taken seriously recently?

 

[JWBooth]

Democrats?

In what way could the GOPers be described as role models on the subject?
Unless one is a seriously deluded partisan hack, neither collective group of big spending parties is remotely praiseworthy.

 

[ScienceRocks]

Democrats?

In what way could the GOPers be described as role models on the subject?
Unless one is a seriously deluded partisan hack, neither collective group of big spending parties is remotely praiseworthy.

True,

Big spender and really big spender. What gets me is both are gutting our science edge. You can't make this shit up as they increase spending. wtf.

 

[Freemason9]

Guess what, though? When you decrease federal spending, the economy subsequently goes into recession.

How do we get out of recessions?

We increase federal spending. EVERY DAMNED TIME.

It works!!

 

[ScienceRocks]

At least spend it on improving our country with infrastructure and science...No more bail-outs.