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

[northeast]

jazzspaz, the question seems designed to move the discussion forward.

 

[Dr. Jones]

Okay. Thanks spazz .. thanks for opening my eyes that I've been being trolled all this time. At least I feel better knowing people aren't as stupid as they pretend to be.

 

[northeast]

anyway, as fuzzy as the responses are, it appears that the right here does not really want to have the government stop spending money it doesn't have after all. They don't know what would happen, but the consensus is, it would be bad.

 

[northeast]

Okay. Thanks spazz .. thanks for opening my eyes that I've been being trolled all this time. At least I feel better knowing people aren't as stupid as they pretend to be.

you weren't being trolled, you were being given an opportunity to explain your position in a respectful constructive manner.
you have failed.

 

[Dr. Jones]

anyway, as fuzzy as the responses are, it appears that the right here does not really want to have the government stop spending money it doesn't have after all. They don't know what would happen, but the consensus is, it would be bad.

I don't know about consensus .. but I want the massive waste to stop. Then, once we know where we REALLY are, re-evaluate tax rates, if need be,

 

[Dr. Jones]

you weren't being trolled, you were being given an opportunity to explain your position in a respectful manner.
you have failed.

Read the thread, you complete tool. I explained myself very well.

 

[northeast]

well, your comrades appear to think that your recommendation would be disastrous. No details more than this have been given, so there is not much to work with, but I don't see any support from anyone else for this course of action.

 

[northeast]

Read the thread, you complete tool. I explained myself very well.

You explained that you will not answer the question.

 

[Scat]

so you ARE in favor of the government spending money it doesn't have, exactly the opposite of what you recommended in the other thread. "simple" you said.

You are dead to me.

 

[Scat]

well, your comrades appear to think that your recommendation would be disastrous. No details have been given, that is all we know.

Only if the spending were cut all at once. Phased out over time through smart fiscal planning and close adherence to a budget is the way to go.

Don't you have a govt teat to suckle?

 

[Dr. Jones]

Here. Every post of mine in this thread. Show me avoidance.

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.

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.

I answered. I said it's dumb to ask the question but ignore the gross over-spending. I'm suggesting getting a hold of those things first, then address the rest.
Personally, I think it's a question that is merely cute.

I have a very good friend that invented thermoplastic (part of a team that did, that is) and he started a company that lines the highways of America with thermoplastic .. replacing paint. The plastic is more expensive but lasts 5x longer than paint. His company exploded. However, within a couple years of doing several interstates/highways, he got more orders for the same roadways .. and he knew they didn't need it for another 4 to 5 years, at least. He asked the reason and was told that the state or agencies will lose funding if they fall short of their alloted budget for improvements. They said, "just do it anyway." We're talking tens of millions of dollars ... for nothing, at all.

That is not a conservative/liberal thing, btw. Both are equally guilty. I'm talking about, we the people, demanding a much better government. There HAS to be a way of stopping all the nonsense.

This is my stance, I simply lack the intestinal fortitude to argue tax rates and such while ignoring the bigger problem.

I didn't go to college. Did I misunderstand another post? Haha, sobriety is making me senile.

This. And the question, to which a surprising number have clung to, is poorly couched and one I cannot take seriously .. for reasons I've stated above.

 

[northeast]

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.

PKM, This was the OP.
Good day to you sir!

 

[Dr. Jones]

well, your comrades appear to think that your recommendation would be disastrous. No details more than this have been given, so there is not much to work with, but I don't see any support from anyone else for this course of action.

Your posts are so dumb and lack such incredible reading comprehension that I am seriously beginning to wonder whether you're a) retarded (and I should stop arguing with you) or b) a genius and a damn good troll.

I'm betting on A.

 

[northeast]

no, Franklin said the **** would hit the fan.
Scat said it'd be a disaster.

 

[Dr. Jones]

PKM, This was the OP.
Good day to you sir!

Let me try one more time. Answer this question.

Does it make sense to answer one part of a two part question when no one wants to ackowledge the second part? I want to address waste before answering the question of how much money is to be spent. That's not avoiding a question, it's seeking a more responsible, thorough answer.

 

[northeast]

You all are welcome to refer to the OP, and make a serious attempt to address it, but right now, if this is a college essay , you are all looking at a "D" to "F" range, depending on the curve.

 

[northeast]

Yes, PKM, I know that you don't want to answer the question, that is what I said, Mr reading comprehension.

 

[Dr. Jones]

You all are welcome to refer to the OP, and make a serious attempt to address it, but right now, if this is a college essay , you are all looking at a "D" to "F" range, depending on the curve.

Yep, you're a retard.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You all are welcome to refer to the OP, and make a serious attempt to address it, but right now, if this is a college essay , you are all looking at a "D" to "F" range, depending on the curve.

Holy crap, if you are the teacher and grading my papers I am getting out of the class ASAP.
And a curve... that is still an enormously stupid way to grade. It's not based on material learned and/or retained, it's based on how stupid or smart the other people around you are in the class.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

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.

If, on the small chance you actually want to understand what you are not understanding from the don't spend more than you have stance, I will give you a small taste and see if I want to pursue it.

We must, as a government, stop spending more than we have to spend. It is a disastrous idea to year after year continue to spend more than we have and expect to be able to pay it back. If we do not stop this policy now we will eventually go down like the Titanic as a country. If we make an attempt to stop it now it will hurt, but we can salvage something. Doing things right takes self control, time, and patience to get to where we want to be... but we are so far in the hole right now that it will be enormously difficult to correct the past mistakes that have been made.

The results of stopping the financial bleeding will hurt, yes... but it will hurt ten times more if we continue driving 120 miles an hour towards the wall of the grand canyon. We need to hit the brakes hard and find a way up the wall. It will take time, patience, guts, and determination... but anything done right and good generally takes those things.

This government is addicted to spending, and no matter how many good causes you justify the spending with, the fact is we just don't have it, period. Anybody that is addicted to something will go through some hard times to make it past the "wall" but it will be worth it.

Let's see the responses to this... and I am not promising to continue on with any of my thoughts on this.