Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

What would a national government be saving for? I heard Wingnut Senator Rand Paul (R) Kentucky say people need to learn to save money and so should the government.

If a national government saw a need, I suppose a Rand Paul national government would say "We'd like to help you but we need to save." You'd ask "Why?" and I am sure they have some weird circular reasoning.

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address, would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?


If a national government started saving would that be considered theft savings?

 

[regent]

America had a surplus once in its history, and it ended up causing a recession.

 

[whitehall]

What surplus? You mean used 1950 gas masks and geiger counters?

 

[Avatar4321]

So now it's immoral to save money... that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Im so glad to know that the moral thing to do is go out and spend money we don't have on things we don't need. I mean it may totally screw my life over if i did that in my personal finances, but atleast Dante will think im moral.

 

[NYcarbineer]

The government can't really 'sit' on a surplus. We have 16 trillion in debt. When a surplus occurs,

one would assume it's used pay back the principal on treasury bonds that mature, instead of refinancing that amount. That would be how the debt would get paid down.

 

[AmyNation]

Immoral? No.

However the government doesn't and shouldn't run with the idea of surplus. If they have( which we all know they dont) a surplus, then its time to lower tax rates.

 

[asaratis]

What surplus? You mean used 1950 gas masks and geiger counters?

I think he meant the "surplus" under Clinton's reign...the surplus that never existed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

America had a surplus once in its history, and it ended up causing a recession.

Why would a national government sit on a surplus?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So now it's immoral to save money... that's the dumbest thing I've ever heard.

Im so glad to know that the moral thing to do is go out and spend money we don't have on things we don't need. I mean it may totally screw my life over if i did that in my personal finances, but at least Dante will think im moral.

Please try not to troll.

--------

Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

What would a national government be saving for? I heard Wingnut Senator Rand Paul (R) Kentucky say people need to learn to save money and so should the government.

If a national government saw a need, I suppose a Rand Paul national government would say "We'd like to help you but we need to save." You'd ask "Why?" and I am sure they have some weird circular reasoning.

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address, would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?


If a national government started saving would that be considered theft savings?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The government can't really 'sit' on a surplus. We have 16 trillion in debt. When a surplus occurs,

one would assume it's used pay back the principal on treasury bonds that mature, instead of refinancing that amount. That would be how the debt would get paid down.

Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

What would a national government be saving for? I heard Wingnut Senator Rand Paul (R) Kentucky say people need to learn to save money and so should the government.

If a national government saw a need, I suppose a Rand Paul national government would say "We'd like to help you but we need to save." You'd ask "Why?" and I am sure they have some weird circular reasoning.

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address, would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?


If a national government started saving would that be considered theft savings?

----

a surplus would be what the government saved, so it would not be used to pay down anything.

can you answer the question(s)?

 

[asaratis]

Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

What would a national government be saving for? I heard Wingnut Senator Rand Paul (R) Kentucky say people need to learn to save money and so should the government.

If a national government saw a need, I suppose a Rand Paul national government would say "We'd like to help you but we need to save." You'd ask "Why?" and I am sure they have some weird circular reasoning.

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address, would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?


If a national government started saving would that be considered theft savings?

Of course not! How else could the Queen of England become the richest woman on earth? How could the royal families of the oil spigots live in such splendor such as theirs...were it not for government savings being held in their bank accounts?


Jokes aside, this is a good topic to discuss. Should we adjust our spending to match our income or should we save for catastrophes like Katrina, Nemo and the coming natural events that devastate communities from time to time?

I think the liberals and the moochers would say that we should spend all that we can...spread the wealth...and keep it flowing freely to those that do not work....while conservatives would say that we should provide only what government assistance is necessary to survive...and that would NOT include luxuries such as wide screen TVs in prisons and citizen cell phones for all pimps and hos.

Of course, you may have a different opinion.

 

[regent]

America had a surplus once in its history, and it ended up causing a recession.

Why would a national government sit on a surplus?

Well the government didn't sit on the surplus, the government paid off the debt and distributed some to the states.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Immoral? No.

However the government doesn't and shouldn't run with the idea of surplus. If they have( which we all know they dont) a surplus, then its time to lower tax rates.

Why shouldn't a national government sit on a surplus? That is what savings would be...an account you sit on.

If you are going to argue what tax revenue should be used to pay for like lowering taxes (sounds strange) does morality play a role?

 

[AmyNation]

Because taxes are supposed to be used to fund our goverment. It's not their job or function to have a rainy day fund.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

What would a national government be saving for? I heard Wingnut Senator Rand Paul (R) Kentucky say people need to learn to save money and so should the government.

If a national government saw a need, I suppose a Rand Paul national government would say "We'd like to help you but we need to save." You'd ask "Why?" and I am sure they have some weird circular reasoning.

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address, would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?


If a national government started saving would that be considered theft savings?

Of course not! How else could the Queen of England become the richest woman on earth? How could the royal families of the oil spigots live in such splendor such as theirs...were it not for government savings being held in their bank accounts?


Jokes aside, this is a good topic to discuss. Should we adjust our spending to match our income or should we save for catastrophes like Katrina, Nemo and the coming natural events that devastate communities from time to time?

I think the liberals and the moochers would say that we should spend all that we can...spread the wealth...and keep it flowing freely to those that do not work....while conservatives would say that we should provide only what government assistance is necessary to survive...and that would NOT include luxuries such as wide screen TVs in prisons and citizen cell phones for all pimps and hos.

Of course, you may have a different opinion.

Why would a national government need to save for a catastrophe? Don't national governments function differently that other entities? Isn't that part of their purpose?

How was the American Revolution paid for? The American Civil War? Federal agencies have budgets to deal with disasters.

So why a surplus to save and for what?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Because taxes are supposed to be used to fund our goverment. It's not their job or function to have a rainy day fund.

So why do some leaders and lots of people save the government should save like people should?

Governments do not function like any other entities and what are they created to do?

 

[AmyNation]

Because taxes are supposed to be used to fund our goverment. It's not their job or function to have a rainy day fund.

So why do some leaders and lots of people save the government should save like people should?

Governments do not function like any other entities and what are they created to do?

I've never seen anyone suggest the government should run a surplus. When the government is in debt, its natural to have calls for more frugality and savings where ever we can find it.

 

[whitehall]

It's hard to argue with someone who uses the image of a right wing political analyst to promote a left wing agenda but that seems to be the Alinsky agenda of the left these days.

 

[OKTexas]

Would it be immoral for a national government to sit on a surplus?

What would a national government be saving for? I heard Wingnut Senator Rand Paul (R) Kentucky say people need to learn to save money and so should the government.

If a national government saw a need, I suppose a Rand Paul national government would say "We'd like to help you but we need to save." You'd ask "Why?" and I am sure they have some weird circular reasoning.

So what do you think? If there were a need the government could address, would it be immoral for a national government to say "No" and sit on a surplus?


If a national government started saving would that be considered theft savings?

Since we don't have a national government I guess we'll never know.

 

[asaratis]

Because taxes are supposed to be used to fund our goverment. It's not their job or function to have a rainy day fund.

...but it is their policy to pay for damages caused by EXPECTED happenings. We know the expenses are coming down the pike...why not establish a fund and save for it?....maybe cap the balance in it at a reasonable sum and spend the rest on bums, pimps and hos.