Fiscal responsibility: suppose the govt "doesn't spend money it doesn't have."

[NAOS]

I posted this question in the Mitt Romney taxes thread and the fiscally responsible crowd went silent. Since this isn't exactly about Mitt and his taxes, I thought it deserved it own thread.

The question is basic: suppose the government "doesn't spend money it doesn't have" (which is what many have been calling for in their parsimonious fix-all solutions), what would you suppose would be the 3 major consequences to society if this were true? (Robust answers may want to include a theory about what "money" is.... but I leave that to you).

EDIT TO ADD: Since "unemployment" is also a big topic these days, perhaps you can focus your answer on what this would do to employment numbers?

Obviously this thread addresses the right-leaning crowd, so I'd appreciate it if the rest of everybody else would give them the space to answer.

 

[Stoked]

Well I think what we would want to happena dn what would happen will be vastly different.

I honestly believe that getting rid of waste and responsibly using the money we do have and we would not really have to cut anything essential such as border protection and unemployment.

 

[margodydek]

I live paycheck to paycheck for a reason. I'm way too stupid to answer this.

 

[Former Member]

I posted this question in the Mitt Romney taxes thread and the fiscally responsible crowd went silent. Since this isn't exactly about Mitt and his taxes, I thought it deserved it own thread.

The question is basic: suppose the government "doesn't spend money it doesn't have" (which is what many have been calling for in their parsimonious fix-all solutions), what would you suppose would be the 3 major consequences to society if this were true? (Robust answers may want to include a theory about what "money" is.... but I leave that to you).

Obviously this thread addresses the right-leaning crowd, so I'd appreciate it if the rest of everybody else would give them the space to answer.

I want to tackle this, however...

1) I don't have much time this week
2) It would be difficult to condense for a message board
3) I'm not sure if I would fulfill the pre-requisite of a "right-leaning crowd"

However, the philosophical question that you allude to is extremely interesting.

 

[Siro]

How many right wingers on these forums are even equipped to answer that question in a meaningful way? I can think of one person, Scat. Anyone else? :/

 

[TheSilencer1313]

Obviously if the gov never spent money it didn't have, there's a definite possibility the budget could once again be balanced.

Although even when the gov says that a budget is balanced, it never really is.
Spending money they don't have will never stop the Fed from printing it, and transferring the funds to bankers off-shore accounts.
Not to mention that doesn't stop all central banks from around the world from trading derivatives like they do.

The paper upon paper that scientifically creates financial bubbles, and in retrospect bursts them upon the elites order.

 

[NAOS]

I want to tackle this, however...

1) I don't have much time this week
2) It would be difficult to condense for a message board
3) I'm not sure if I would fulfill the pre-requisite of a "right-leaning crowd"

However, the philosophical question that you allude to is extremely interesting.

How many right wingers on these forums are even equipped to answer that question in a meaningful way? I can think of one person, Scat. Anyone else? :/

I wonder why they're all abuzz about this topic then?

 

[Stoked]

How many right wingers on these forums are even equipped to answer that question in a meaningful way? I can think of one person, Scat. Anyone else? :/

Who do you consider "right wingers"? I honestly think it depends on the issue.

 

[Siro]

Who do you consider "right wingers"? I honestly think it depends on the issue.

I mean those who identify as such from an economic stand point, since the question is addressed to them. Libertarian types for example.

 

[franklin]

The question is basic: suppose the government "doesn't spend money it doesn't have" (which is what many have been calling for in their parsimonious fix-all solutions), what would you suppose would be the 3 major consequences to society if this were true? (Robust answers may want to include a theory about what "money" is.... but I leave that to you).

A huge problem with MMT is the political risk of realizing we really can print all we want as long as there are controls to reign it back in (taxes). It's pretty hard to pop the teet out of industry's mouths once inserted.

 

[jimmy eat jazz]

I posted this question in the Mitt Romney taxes thread and the fiscally responsible crowd went silent. Since this isn't exactly about Mitt and his taxes, I thought it deserved it own thread.

The question is basic: suppose the government "doesn't spend money it doesn't have" (which is what many have been calling for in their parsimonious fix-all solutions), what would you suppose would be the 3 major consequences to society if this were true? (Robust answers may want to include a theory about what "money" is.... but I leave that to you).

EDIT TO ADD: Since "unemployment" is also a big topic these days, perhaps you can focus your answer on what this would do to employment numbers?

Obviously this thread addresses the right-leaning crowd, so I'd appreciate it if the rest of everybody else would give them the space to answer.

Not to hijack your thread, but I also wonder what those on the right who favored not raising the debt ceiling last summer would think the consequences would be of defaulting on our debt. I imagine that there is a significant overlap between the hard core deficit hawks and those who opposed raising the debt ceiling.

As a bonus, keep in mind that all of these issues have complications not faced by any other country in the world given that the US$ is essentially a world currency, is the world's #1 reserve currency, and is the medium of exchange in the world petroleum markets.

 

[Dr. Jones]

What this thread is not addressing is the over-spending and/or needless spending. I am not opposed to taxes, duh, but I am opposed to discussing how much needs to be charged void of addressing the spending problem.

I am not for the stoppage of helping those in need, I am for a better system that assures we're spending tax dollars wisely.

Maybe I take the OP in the wrong context, but I feel it's too cute to say, "what if we just fold our arms and don't pay for things?" The issue, for me, is more about taking a much better business-like approach to taxation/spending.

 

[TroutBum]

Thank Gordon I'm on the left side and don't have to answer this, because it would probably make your brain implode. Yes, you.

 

[Dr. Jones]

How is that so many people here are lefties? Oh yeah .. college kids.

Btw, I do not consider myself a right-winger .. but I do expect the President to run the country like a business and not a 4 year re-election campaign.

 

[larryselbows]

How about we stop the increase in spending year to year and just get to leveling off our deficit before we start talking about surpluses.

 

[Dr. Jones]

How about we stop the increase in spending year to year and just get to leveling off our deficit before we start talking about surpluses.

Who was pitching surpluses? I must have missed it.

 

[larryselbows]

Who was pitching surpluses? I must have missed it.

Ur mom.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Ur mom.

And DAMN, does she have the surplus.

 

[larryselbows]

And DAMN, does she have the surplus.

lulzer. But yeah you're right I shouldn't have said surplus, rather, 0 deficit which I figured to be improbable so I went with surplus.

 

[The Thriller]

Interesting. Not one serious/solid response yet.

I find this interesting since repubs/conservs/right winers/anti-obamaites have been demanding the things that the OP actually questions.

If you have no idea what the possible consequences might be then why the hell do you complain so much? Why the hell are you demanding these things be done if you have no idea what the consequences might be?

This actually reminds me of the book The Ugly American. Americans become so obsessed over what they're against that they forget the big picture and what they were for.

Has this happened to the right wing? Have they ultimately, become so obsessed with being anti-Democrat/Obama that they've lost sight in what they're actually for?
I remember how in the 90s, Republicans were actually for a lot of the things that Democrats are for (like Obamacare, Indiv Mandate, etc). Yet, now that they're hell bent on being anti-Obama, now all of sudden they're against plans, policies, and programs that they either created or once supported just a few years ago.

Interesting.

I think ultimately it's far easier to shout CUT CUT CUT while ignoring the possible consequences of cutting. Cutting defense means putting soldiers, contractors, and those working in factories out of work (until they can find work in some other capacity). Cutting social programs has consequences. Cutting educators has consequences. Even cutting subsidies and tax cuts have consequences.