Government Responsibility

[Minor Axis]

Is it responsible or irresponsible for the U.S. Government as it has done over the last 8 years to spend lavishly but not raise taxes to pay for it and instead borrow heavily from other countries?

As a general rule, should government programs be paid for with taxes? If a war starts and costs billions of dollars, if tax revenues won't cover it, shouldn't taxes be raised to pay for it? Are those who advocate no new taxes being realistic when those same people are demanding the government do more, like prosecute a war?

If there is a lesson to be taken from this crisis, it's a simple and old rule of economics: there is no free lunch. If you want something, you have to pay for it. Debt is not a bad thing. Used responsibly, it is at the heart of modern capitalism. But hiding mountains of debt in complex instruments is a way to disguise costs, an invitation to irresponsible behavior.

If you want to read one of the most concise descriptions of how the U.S. got where we are today check the link- Newsweek: There IS A Silver Lining by Fareed Zakaria.

Choice Excerpts:

In the short term, all the solutions to the current crisis require that governments take on more debts and larger obligations. This is inevitable and necessary. But that doesn't mean we should, as some noted economists advocate, stimulate the economy with more tax cuts. That would be only one more way to keep the party going artificially—like asking a drunk to go to AA next year, but in the meantime to have even more whisky. A far better stimulus would be to announce and expedite major infrastructure and energy projects, which are investments, not consumption, and therefore have a much different effect on the country's fiscal fortunes. (They are not listed separately in the federal budget, but that's just bad accounting.)

Two decades of easy money and innovative financial products meant that virtually anyone could borrow any amount of money for any purpose. If we wanted a bigger house, a better TV or a faster car, and we didn't actually have the money to pay for it, no problem. We put it on a credit card, took out a massive mortgage and financed our fantasies. As the fantasies grew, so did household debt, from $680 billion in 1974 to $14 trillion today. The total has doubled in just the past seven years. The average household owns 13 credit cards, and 40 percent of them carry a balance, up from 6 percent in 1970.

Every city, every county and every state has wanted to preserve its many and proliferating operations and yet not raise taxes. How to square this circle? By borrowing, using ever more elaborate financial instruments. Revenue bonds were backed up by the prospect of future income from taxes or lotteries. "A growing trend is to securitize future federal funding for highways, housing and other items," says Chris Edwards of the Cato Institute. The effect on the projects, he points out, is to make them more expensive, since they incur interest payments. Because they "insulate the taxpayer from the cost"—all that needs to be paid now is the interest—they also tend to produce cost overruns.

The whole country has been complicit in a great fraud. As economist Jeffrey Sachs points out, "We've wanted lots of government, but we haven't wanted to pay for it." So we've borrowed our way out of the problem. In 1990, the national debt stood at $3 trillion. (That sounds high, but keep reading.) By 2000, it had almost doubled, to $5.75 trillion. It is currently $10.2 trillion. The number moved into 11 digits last month, which meant that the National Debt Clock in New York City ran out of space to display the figures. Its owners plan to get a new clock next year.

 

[dt3]

I'd rather see them cut spending then raise taxes :dunno And don't tell me there isn't plenty of places to cut spending.

 

[Alien Allen]

I'd rather see them cut spending then raise taxes :dunno And don't tell me there isn't plenty of places to cut spending.

:homo:


this raise taxes mantra is bullshit.

i would agree to a war tax but any other tax is nonsense. the problem is not lack of taxes. every year the govt gets more and more. revenue to the best of my knowledge never dropped from the prior year.

every damn person in this country has suffered that is in the private sector. yet the govt never suffers. we need an across the board 10% cut in all programs. no exceptions. then decriminalize drugs and legalize pot. make pot available like booze with a sizable tax. the amount of money saved buy no longer going after drug dealers will be massive and the incoming tax revenue even more so.

 

[Minor Axis]

Then our law makers need to have a serious discussion with concurrence of the people just what services we want our government to provide. There are people who scream "lower taxes" and don't realize, or think that it will mean a cut in services. Of course you may not realize it and it may not happen immediately when the government is borrowing or printing money to pay for everything so you the taxpayer won't suffer any immediate pain. But it's an artificial situation doomed to failure.

 

[BadBoy@TheWheel]

Everybody could use to cut spending.

There is an unfortunate variable in that equation though, there are orgs. that drive the cost of goods and services up, essentially force a companies hand at the bottom line for the cost of production.

Don't get me started.

 

[dt3]

Then our law makers need to have a serious discussion with concurrence of the people just what services we want our government to provide. There are people who scream "lower taxes" and don't realize, or think that it will mean a cut in services. Of course you may not realize it and it may not happen immediately when the government is borrowing or printing money to pay for everything so you the taxpayer won't suffer any immediate pain. But it's an artificial situation doomed to failure.

They wouldn't need to cut services. If they simply went through and eliminated all the waste in government spending, there'd be a surplus tomorrow. :nod:

 

[Alien Allen]

They wouldn't need to cut services. If they simply went through and eliminated all the waste in government spending, there'd be a surplus tomorrow. :nod:

true but that has been uttered for ages and the govt has shown little ability to eliminate waste. and when they do they just shift the savings onto another program where it is wasted.

only thing that will work is an across the board freeze or minimal cut. no exceptions.

never happen though

 

[Fox Mulder]

There would be a surplus if we eliminated gov't unions.

 

[Minor Axis]

There would be a surplus if we eliminated gov't unions.

Those unions, the little people getting a fair shake just bugs the hell out of you.

 

[Alien Allen]

nothing wrong with unions if they represented their members. trouble is they are more interesting in getting the upper hand with management. tell me what good is it to get obscene wages and benefits like the UAW got from the big 3 back 30 years ago? sure it was grand for the line worker at the time. but it destroyed job security in the long run. and created the health care system monster due to mandating insurance coverage. until that time health insurance like we have now a days was not common. and health services were not out of hand

 

[Minor Axis]

nothing wrong with unions if they represented their members. trouble is they are more interesting in getting the upper hand with management. tell me what good is it to get obscene wages and benefits like the UAW got from the big 3 back 30 years ago? sure it was grand for the line worker at the time. but it destroyed job security in the long run. and created the health care system monster due to mandating insurance coverage. until that time health insurance like we have now a days was not common. and health services were not out of hand

Your singling out unions as causing the health care crisis in this country? (sigh...) Unions can and will go overboard, just like those greedy bastards at the top who demand enrichment and would send every job in this country overseas if they could..

Every good paying job that leaves this country means there is one less person with excess money to spend in the economy. Middle class buying power makes us happy and keeps the economy running.

 

[Alien Allen]

Your singling out unions as causing the health care crisis in this country? (sigh...) Unions can and will go overboard, just like those greedy bastards at the top who demand enrichment and would send every job in this country overseas if they could..

Every good paying job that leaves this country means there is one less person with excess money to spend in the economy. Middle class buying power makes us happy and keeps the economy running.

I know it sounds crazy. :nod:

And you want cradle to grave protection of citizens so we will never agree. but here is my explanation

a good friend years ago said the worst thing to ever happen was the advent of health insurance.

I think he was right. Not the concept but what it morphed into. I don't think until the unions demanded better that there was anything other than catastrophic. My parents always paid for doctor visits and medicine.

The UAW demanded not only the worker be insured but the family. Why is it the employer should be insuring the family?? Then catastrophic coverage was not adequate. They wanted basically complete health care with very minimal copays on medicine.

That is all fine and dandy but like a house of cards health care has become a monster. It never would have if people had stuck to catastrophic care. Office visits would be half the price. Medicine would not be as expensive because we would not stand for having to take the designer drugs. How many times have you been asked by a dr if you have insurance when they prescribe a drug? They did that because they want to give you something very expensive. Even though there is an alternative many times that is far cheaper. When you have something given to you with no interest in what it cost you could care less. You pay no attention. Well now that the squeeze is on and employees have to contribute more and more the light is on the subject.

One reason I blame unions IN PART is that at least in my area they set the standard. When the UAW got concessions my employees expected the same. Even though my work is totally unrelated and not comparable. I am sure this happened with tons of other small businesses

I don't expect you to agree or understand. You are younger and used to the system we have. and you demand more.