Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.
What would the gov't be saving for? Are you serious?
How about having funds to start new programs? You lefties really believe that the gov't should have an idea - go into debt to pay for it, and then raise taxes to pay off the debt?
Wouldn't it be much smarter to look at your available funds and institute programs based on the funds you have available to work with?
I mean, I really don't even get the notion that defecit spending is better than surplus spending.
What would the gov't be saving for? Are you serious?
How about having funds to start new programs? You lefties really believe that the gov't should have an idea - go into debt to pay for it, and then raise taxes to pay off the debt?
Wouldn't it be much smarter to look at your available funds and institute programs based on the funds you have available to work with?
I mean, I really don't even get the notion that defecit spending is better than surplus spending.
You do know there is a diffrence in "basing programs on available funds" and running a surplus, right?
The goverment is supposed to tax us enough to pay for the running of the nation, not tax us extra and pocket the money, "just in case"
Take a look at the 10 nations with lowest debt as percent of GDP. Which ones would you leave the US to live in?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)?
What would the gov't be saving for? Are you serious?
How about having funds to start new programs? You lefties really believe that the gov't should have an idea - go into debt to pay for it, and then raise taxes to pay off the debt?
Wouldn't it be much smarter to look at your available funds and institute programs based on the funds you have available to work with?
I mean, I really don't even get the notion that defecit spending is better than surplus spending.
You do know there is a diffrence in "basing programs on available funds" and running a surplus, right?
The goverment is supposed to tax us enough to pay for the running of the nation, not tax us extra and pocket the money, "just in case"
Well, no matter how you want to cut the semantics, the gov't should not spend money it doesn't have....
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?
Take a look at the 10 nations with lowest debt as percent of GDP. Which ones would you leave the US to live in?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)?
Aruba
Bangladesh
Cuba
Syria
Papua New Guinea
Gibraltar
Wallis and Futuna
Libya
North Korea
Brunei Darussalam
List of countries by public debt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You do know there is a diffrence in "basing programs on available funds" and running a surplus, right?
The goverment is supposed to tax us enough to pay for the running of the nation, not tax us extra and pocket the money, "just in case"
Well, no matter how you want to cut the semantics, the gov't should not spend money it doesn't have....
It's not semantics. There is a huge difference in purposefully overtaxing Americans , and budgeting funds properly.
The government should not overspend to the extent it has. However it also shouldn't be profiting off of American taxpayers.
You do know there is a diffrence in "basing programs on available funds" and running a surplus, right?
The goverment is supposed to tax us enough to pay for the running of the nation, not tax us extra and pocket the money, "just in case"
Well, no matter how you want to cut the semantics, the gov't should not spend money it doesn't have....
It's not semantics. There is a huge difference in purposefully overtaxing Americans , and budgeting funds properly.
The government should not overspend to the extent it has. However it also shouldn't be profiting off of American taxpayers.
A surplus should be returned to the people.
Just like Bush did with the Clinton era surplus.
A surplus? They can't even break even.
To rebuild infrastructure and housing, to supply food and clothing to the hungry and naked after natural catastrophes...rather than piss off money supporting bums that will be crying for help again after all their free gucci shoes and stone-washed designer jeans are washed away in a flood.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.
What are we expecting that the government should save for?
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.
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.
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.
What would the gov't be saving for? Are you serious?
How about having funds to start new programs? You lefties really believe that the gov't should have an idea - go into debt to pay for it, and then raise taxes to pay off the debt?
Wouldn't it be much smarter to look at your available funds and institute programs based on the funds you have available to work with?
I mean, I really don't even get the notion that defecit spending is better than surplus spending.
