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?

back on topic

 

[Flopper]

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.

It's pretty easy for a nation to balance their budget when the economy is run by a dictator and the people have no voice in how the nation is run.

 

[OKTexas]

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

Still acting like a freaking third grader I see. You deserve no more time. Tell Dainty boy when you see him to screw off.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Yellow Rose of Texas is Chickenshit Yellow? Who knew?

 

[Darkwind]

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.

What debt have Republicans left us with?

So now you change your question. I would consider that moving the goal posts.

What debt have the Democrats left us with?

Does it matter, and is it germane to your OP when you ask about the morality of a government holding a surplus of tax receipts?

No government should burden the people any further than is necessary to cover the costs of governing. The Debt, and how it has been achieved, has been a criminal enterprise. However, since those that ran up the debt over the past 100 years also managed to indemnify themselves from criminal conduct, we find ourselves discussing who is to blame in impotent threads on anonymous internet forums.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

America had a surplus once in its history....

Didn't do any homework at all on that one, did you?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

What debt have Republicans left us with?

[So now you change your question. I would consider that moving the goal posts.

What debt have the Democrats left us with?

Does it matter, and is it germane to your OP when you ask about the morality of a government holding a surplus of tax receipts?

No government should burden the people any further than is necessary to cover the costs of governing. The Debt, and how it has been achieved, has been a criminal enterprise. However, since those that ran up the debt over the past 100 years also managed to indemnify themselves from criminal conduct, we find ourselves discussing who is to blame in impotent threads on anonymous internet forums.

I didn't change the question, I gave a retort to you bringing up Democrats versus Republicans. So you are more than just wrong about what you imagine is a goal post move. It appears you suffer from some sort of projection. Why projection? Because nowhere can anyone find a rational way to explain otherwise.

The rest of your post addresses the costs of governing and that is the devil in the details. It is as subjective as it gets. That is why as far back as the founders and framers we've had debates and fights over what the costs of government is and should be.

Criminal conduct? Please do not stray into whacko conspiracy theories or fringe ideas about government because then you will lose a discussion on this topic

 

[bripat9643]

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

Anyone who believes federal spending makes America competitive is automatically not to be taken seriously. The best conceivable course of action for the federal government would be to fail to get in the way. In other words, ideally it should do nothing.

Borrowing money therefore does nothing to keep America competitive. Government borrowing is nothing more than an anchor chain strung around our economy's neck.

 

[Staidhup]

It is very clear the liberal mainstream must have their panties in a wad. When addressing the issue of the morality of a budgetary surplus one has to define as to if it is projected or realized, then glance over to the projected unfunded liability portion of the balance sheet. The morality question is rather interesting in that is it moral to ignore the reality of a pending liability apocalypse and at the same time claim happy days are here again? Governor Brown and California will soon discover other wise in the not so distant future. Not to worry, congress and the executive branch will insure such surpluses are never realized, as if they would have ever been in the first place.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

Anyone who believes federal spending makes America competitive is automatically not to be taken seriously. The best conceivable course of action for the federal government would be to fail to get in the way. In other words, ideally it should do nothing.

Borrowing money therefore does nothing to keep America competitive. Government borrowing is nothing more than an anchor chain strung around our economy's neck.

Federal government spending is behind the Research and Development of everything that made America great. Every business leader and entrepreneur will tell you they support more federal government spending in r&d.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ignoratio elenchi

It is very clear the liberal mainstream must have their panties in a wad. When addressing the issue of the morality of a budgetary surplus one has to define as to if it is projected or realized, then glance over to the projected unfunded liability portion of the balance sheet. The morality question is rather interesting in that is it moral to ignore the reality of a pending liability apocalypse and at the same time claim happy days are here again?

Governor Brown and California will soon discover other wise in the not so distant future. Not to worry, congress and the executive branch will insure such surpluses are never realized, as if they would have ever been in the first place.

Ignoratio elenchi