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

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Gee....you're quite the lil' historian!

June 28, 1999

Clinton: Pay Debt By 2015​

MAY 1, 2003

Lil' Dumbya BLOWS IT!!!!​

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

I'm 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.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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?

If the Federal Government or a State Government put money away for a 'rainy' day such planning - and that's what a budget is - would be rational, but not practical and political suicide.

Hell, most won't even fund the what needs to be done because the pols put keeping their job as job number one; ideologues and demagogues like Grover Norquist and Rand Paul have handcuffed legislatures on all levels of government by telling the voters there is a free lunch. And some actually believe them.

State governments have had surpluses and it has not been political suicide. A national government is a different sort of entity when it comes to economics and the power of the purse. Departments and agencies need to funded, but why a surplus in individual agencies? National governments have borrowed since day one and America still achieved greatness. What would having a surplus add?

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?

Dante says 'yes' because of what the primary purpose and role of a national government is and has been

Wry says 'No'. The issue is not moral or immoral, per se. What the government might do with the surplus is when the issue of morality would become an issue. Budgets are plans, they are not and cannot be fixed because all costs cannot be foreseen. That is why a Balanced Budget Act so many support is impractical and dangerous.

The best way to control spending is for a Constitutional Amendment allowing the POTUS the line-item veto. Yes, it could be used to punish members of the H. of Reps. and members of the Senate but at a political cost to a sitting President. Of course fiscally responsible members of the Congress would not be bothered if pork to their district were cut - if and only if a real fiscal conservative actually existed.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

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

Andrew Jackson was the last President to "sit on a surplus". When we've paid down our debt and have extra money lying around, you let us know.

Not if you're gonna tell the GOP!!!!

​

September 27, 2000

Another Record Budget $urplu$​

"In June, the administration predicted the surplus would be $211 billion, and would increase by as much as $1 trillion over the next 10 years. Clinton also announced the federal government paid down the national debt by $223 billion this year, and by more than $360 billion since 1998, the largest debt reduction in U.S. history."

 

[Flopper]

It would be immoral for a government to continue to tax at a rate that creates a surplus. If the need is not there, then lower the taxes.

However, as long as a government, any government, owes money, there will never be a surplus.

Isn't that the whole point of the Democrat philosophy? We keep debt high so we can continue to take money and power.

Same game that has been played throughout history. Its just our turn to implode.

From a budgeting standpoint, you should end the year with neither a surplus nor a deficit. However, government budgets are not like individual or business budgets. In hard times, we expect government to overspend when the private sector pulls back. When the economy is expanding at a rapid rate, and government revenue is increasing, government spending should be decreasing to produce surpluses and that is what's not happening. At least in theory, this is how it should work.

However, today almost all major economies are deeply into deficit financing because economic decisions in government are political decisions unlike individual or business decisions. It is a waste of energy to debate whether this is this good or bad. It's simple a fact of life. Business is self serving. Government serves the people and will overspend.

 

[Crackerjaxon]

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?

It's immoral to have a solvent government?


I've come to the conclusion you are an ill-informed leftist shit-stirrer who has been brain damaged by public education.

I can see no other reason for your posts.

 

[Flopper]

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?

If the Federal Government or a State Government put money away for a 'rainy' day such planning - and that's what a budget is - would be rational, but not practical and political suicide.

Hell, most won't even fund the what needs to be done because the pols put keeping their job as job number one; ideologues and demagogues like Grover Norquist and Rand Paul have handcuffed legislatures on all levels of government by telling the voters there is a free lunch. And some actually believe them.

State governments have had surpluses and it has not been political suicide. A national government is a different sort of entity when it comes to economics and the power of the purse. Departments and agencies need to funded, but why a surplus in individual agencies? National governments have borrowed since day one and America still achieved greatness. What would having a surplus add?

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?

Dante says 'yes' because of what the primary purpose and role of a national government is and has been

States don't normally runs deficits because it's unconstitutional in many states plus states can't create money like the federal government to cover shortfalls.

 

[eflatminor]

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

Andrew Jackson was the last President to "sit on a surplus". When we've paid down our debt and have extra money lying around, you let us know.


How about to avoid bankruptcy?

How about to avoid bankruptcy? Hey, were have I heard that before?

Free people making voluntary choices would address the need in more cost effective and productive manner than any central planners ever could. But don't let that get in the way of more deficit spending...


You pay off the $16+ trillion we owe and we'll talk about any surplus. But if you want to play games, how about this: When we actually have a surplus, how about taxing people less?

I know, the horror!

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

Theft is burdening those yet to be born with the debt of our largess. It's shameful.

If Jackson was the last, who was the first?

Jackson was the only president to not pass on debt to the next generation.

Bankruptcy? Your 'free people' comment is woefully clueless about human behavior and American history.

Right, cuz there's just NO WAY America could default on it's debts, see hyperinflation and/or fail, no way.

I'm sure nanny staters in Rome felt the same...

Theft? Americans have historically had children in order to take care of the farm and themselves in old age.

Right, and they did so without stealing from other families. Hey, there's a thought!

This country has a longer history of demanding more from the unborn than pampering them with trust funds and no debt.

Demanding more, sure. Confiscating, no.

Government is pampering someone with a trust fund? Really?

When did we become a nation of whining misfits expecting nothing from people we bring into our world?

When did we become a nation of whining recipients expecting confiscation from other people's children? Answer, with the progressive era.

Read history

Indeed. But you'll have to look past whatever left wing blog that forms your emotionally based, ill informed opinions.

 

[Rct_Tsoul]

No it would not be immoral to save money behind the peoples back, governments know best, especially the United States Government.
Now I know North Korea is our enemy, but I can say that they do indeed know how to manage there finances.

 

[nodoginnafight]

No it would not be immoral to save money behind the peoples back, governments know best, especially the United States Government.
Now I know North Korea is our enemy, but I can say that they do indeed know how to manage there finances.

Yeah, they're awesome:
The Present and Future Prospects of the North Korean Economy

 

[OriginalShroom]

1 - The Government should not be running a debit at $16 Trillion. At this point we simply can not pay it off and maintain the standard of living we have in this country.

2 - Under the fantasy that we would ever run a true surplus again, would it be moral? IMHO, Up to a point, yes. Not only moral, but it would be immoral not to. While I, and others, have never been able to find the authority in the Constitution, Congress has decided that it has the power to allocate tax dollars to people in need. If the Congress is going to do it, they need to have the money to do it with.

I would rather have it set that Congress can not run any debts, therefore, if they want to have an "emergency" fund (Hurricane Sandy as an example), then they need to have the money set aside for it. Once that money is gone, they are done.

1. What standard of living? The one we had in 2007/2008 as the economy was run off the road and into a ditch?

Try discussing things in context. Of course the deficit is high but we are managing it and our standard of living is still better than most of the world.

2. We do not need a surplus for Congress to enact legislation that costs dollars.

3. What about a war or another national emergency. You last statement shows an ignorance of how governments operate as to stun a rational mind.

Are you even capable of looking past "Left vs Right, Liberal vs Conservative, Democrat vs Republican"?

I don't think you are, but I am asking anyway.


I did not say that any of my points were the way things were, but how I would like to see them.

Federal Governments should behave that way, in a fiscally responsible manner. Thanks to too many people who were greedy, from all political beliefs, that is not the way it is.

 

[OKTexas]

Don't we have a FEMA budget for that? OR do we underfund agencies out of concern for savings only to end up borrowing for more?

Conservatives seek simple and easy solutions

"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong" - HLM

How about answering my question since you decided to insert yourself.

It would irresponsible for a national government to sit on money for a rainy day. National governments do not function in the same way other entities do.

It is a matter of opinion whether a balanced budget and no debt is a good thing or not, for a national government.

National governments have the power of the purse. How was the American Revolution funded? The American Civil War? WWI? WWII? Maybe we should have the national government save for the next war?

Conservatives have no credibility on this issue. During the Presidency of GW Bush, what unfunded things did fiscal conservatives vote for?

Did I say for the next war, I said for the next disaster we know will be coming and will be worse each time because of growing populations densities. And the only reason governments don't function the same way other entities do is they refuse to do so. There is no logical reason they couldn't. Also if you have the misguided opinion that fiscal conservatives supported everything Bush did then you need to educate yourself a bit more. I got to be on a first name basis with many of my congressional staffers during the Bush admin.

 

[healthmyths]

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.

States run surpluses!
Alaska, which has stashed away $16 billion in reserves, the most of any state,

At the same time, Texas has a $8.8 billion surplus and more than $8 billion in its rainy day fund, b

Even with the Medicaid and education deficits, however, the turnaround in Texas is breathtaking.
Two years ago, lawmakers entered their session with a $27 billion deficit over two years.
Lawmakers cut some $5.3 billion in schools and tapped more than $3.2 billion from the rainy day fund to help balance the budget.
A booming energy sector and a boost in sales tax receipts are behind the reversal of fortunes there.

With a $500 million budget surplus and $2 billion in reserves, Indiana Governor-elect Mike Pence has pledged to give back some of that money when he takes office next week by cutting personal income taxes.

Just a few that have found "rainy day" funds useful when they have surpluses... SOMETHING THE FEDs could learn how to do!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

whatever. please, excuse for having the audacity to imagine you might be able to hold your end up in simple conversation


my apologies

 

[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?

It's immoral to have a solvent government?
I've come to the conclusion you are an ill-informed leftist shit-stirrer who has been brain damaged by public education.
I can see no other reason for your posts.

The USA is solvent. No one questions that. It is why government bonds

Look up solvency...no better, you appear to be struggling here. Allow me to do it for you: the ability to meet maturing obligations as they come due.

United States Government Bonds - Bloomberg

-------------------------------

Solvency
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is about financial solvency. For the policy debate term, see Solvency (policy debate).

Solvency, in finance or business, is the degree to which the current assets of an individual or entity exceed the current liabilities of that individual or entity.[1] Solvency can also be described as the ability of a corporation to meet its long-term fixed expenses and to accomplish long-term expansion and growth.[2] This is best measured using the net liquid balance (NLB) formula. In this formula solvency is calculated by adding cash and cash equivalents to short-term investments, then subtracting notes payable.[3]

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

1 - The Government should not be running a debit at $16 Trillion. At this point we simply can not pay it off and maintain the standard of living we have in this country.

2 - Under the fantasy that we would ever run a true surplus again, would it be moral? IMHO, Up to a point, yes. Not only moral, but it would be immoral not to. While I, and others, have never been able to find the authority in the Constitution, Congress has decided that it has the power to allocate tax dollars to people in need. If the Congress is going to do it, they need to have the money to do it with.

I would rather have it set that Congress can not run any debts, therefore, if they want to have an "emergency" fund (Hurricane Sandy as an example), then they need to have the money set aside for it. Once that money is gone, they are done.

1. What standard of living? The one we had in 2007/2008 as the economy was run off the road and into a ditch?

Try discussing things in context. Of course the deficit is high but we are managing it and our standard of living is still better than most of the world.

2. We do not need a surplus for Congress to enact legislation that costs dollars.

3. What about a war or another national emergency. You last statement shows an ignorance of how governments operate as to stun a rational mind.

Are you even capable of looking past "Left vs Right, Liberal vs Conservative, Democrat vs Republican"?

I don't think you are, but I am asking anyway.

I did not say that any of my points were the way things were, but how I would like to see them.

Federal Governments should behave that way, in a fiscally responsible manner. Thanks to too many people who were greedy, from all political beliefs, that is not the way it is.

In the real world? No. It's the way budget battles have a-l-w-a-y-s been fought. In a theoretical way? Yes, but I'm not into circle jerks or mutual, intellectual masturbation.

There is absolutely no way in hell America could stay competitive in the world running on a pay as you go basis.

talk about insanity

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

How about answering my question since you decided to insert yourself.

It would irresponsible for a national government to sit on money for a rainy day. National governments do not function in the same way other entities do.

It is a matter of opinion whether a balanced budget and no debt is a good thing or not, for a national government.

National governments have the power of the purse. How was the American Revolution funded? The American Civil War? WWI? WWII? Maybe we should have the national government save for the next war?

Conservatives have no credibility on this issue. During the Presidency of GW Bush, what unfunded things did fiscal conservatives vote for?

Did I say for the next war, I said for the next disaster we know will be coming and will be worse each time because of growing populations densities. And the only reason governments don't function the same way other entities do is they refuse to do so. There is no logical reason they couldn't. Also if you have the misguided opinion that fiscal conservatives supported everything Bush did then you need to educate yourself a bit more. I got to be on a first name basis with many of my congressional staffers during the Bush admin.

You don't consider war to be a disaster?

National governments, especially federal republics like ours, are not and never were set up to function like other entities .. like businesses or even like state governments. Thought you would know that, being so smaht and from Texus.

Your congressional staffers? wtf r u? If you had congressional staffers you'd have to know their names as they'd be working for you.

The US House vote on No Child Left Behind: Which fiscal conservatives from Texas voted no?

The US House vote on Medicare Part-D: Which fiscal conservatives from Texas voted no?

Republican Deficit Hypocrisy
Bruce Bartlett, 11.20.09, 12:01 AM EST
Remember the Medicare drug benefit?

The vote was kept open for almost three hours while the House Republican leadership brought massive pressure to bear on the handful of principled Republicans who had the nerve to put country ahead of party. The leadership even froze the C-SPAN cameras so that no one outside the House chamber could see what was going on.

Among those congressmen strenuously pressed to change their vote was Nick Smith, R-Mich., who later charged that several members of Congress attempted to virtually bribe him, by promising to ensure that his son got his seat when he retired if he voted for the drug bill. One of those members, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, was later admonished by the House Ethics Committee for going over the line in his efforts regarding Smith.

Eventually, the arm-twisting got three Republicans to switch their votes from nay to yea: Ernest Istook of Oklahoma, Butch Otter of Idaho and Trent Franks of Arizona. Three Democrats also switched from nay to yea and two Republicans switched from yea to nay, for a final vote of 220 to 215. In the end, only 25 Republicans voted against the budget-busting drug bill. (All but 16 Democrats voted no.)

Daily Kos: GOP pretends past debt ceiling no votes equal current hostage-taking

 

[eflatminor]

...

whatever. please, excuse for having the audacity to imagine you might be able to hold your end up in simple conversation


my apologies

I understand. If the truth doesn't fit your agenda, ignore the facts. Works every time...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...

whatever. please, excuse for having the audacity to imagine you might be able to hold your end up in simple conversation


my apologies

I understand. If the truth doesn't fit your agenda, ignore the facts. Works every time...

your post was inane as is this one I'm not replying to.

good bye

 

[eflatminor]

whatever. please, excuse for having the audacity to imagine you might be able to hold your end up in simple conversation


my apologies

I understand. If the truth doesn't fit your agenda, ignore the facts. Works every time...

your post was inane as is this one I'm not replying to.

good bye

Yea, thanks for proving my point.