Why can't government live within our means?

S

snaptafar

New member
Count Rangula
By Cal Thomas
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/10/count_rangula.html

excerpt
Raise your hand if you believe we are not turning enough of our income over to government. Raise your other hand if you think government is too small and spends too little.

Tax revenues are at a record high and the deficit is shrinking under the Bush tax cuts. Since the policy is working -- even in the middle of new spending by the former Republican majority and current Democratic majority -- why does government require more of our money? Why can't they live within our means? Why do we allow government to get away with the fiction that everything it does is right and noble and true and if we resist paying for it, we are unholy and uncaring?
Click to expand...

I'll gladly CONSIDER paying more once I'm convinced of two things. There's a legitimate (non-entitlement) need and the pols have done all they can to reign in fraud, waste, and abuse.
 
A

Another User Name

New member
There's a legitimate (non-entitlement) need and the pols have done all they can to reign in fraud, waste, and abuse.
Click to expand...

What do the polish have to do with anything? :D

Seriously, I agree. The tax cuts have worked and have made the govt income swell. I don't know how many times tax cuts have to increase the govt intake for the Dems to realize that tax cuts gives the govt more money. It causes the economy to grow.

Of course they don't care, they just want to tax more and control people more.
 
P

publius42

New member
And why are Polish people considered royalty in the land of waste, fraud and abuse? I figured anyone sleazy enough could reign in such a place, you wouldn't necessarily have to be Polish.

(Sorry to pile on with the silliness, but I see it too often. You rein in a horse. You reign in your kingdom.)
 
4

44 AMP

Staff
Simple answer....

The people we hire (elect), and the people they hire (bureaucrats) know that it isn't their money. Beyond fraud and waste, it is the simple fact that the money doesn't come directly out of their pockets (in any meaningful way). I suppose it is human nature (or at least the nature of the majority of people) not to care for what they don't have a direct stake in.

Just look at any fleet or rental vehicle. Almost without exception they are beat and abused, because the people driving them don't own or pay for them. Car rental companies spend money to keep their cars in nice shape, because it is necessary for their business, but other types of rental and company fleet vehicles are often trashed and abused (at least where it won't show), because the drivers don't care. It is no skin off their noses, nor money from their pocket.

Elected officials very often have only one overidding ambition. To get re-elected. Everything else is subordinate to that. The real reason they keep any of their promises is that they believe it will help get them re-elected.

There is an old quote that says that any democracy will last as long as it takes the people to find out that they can vote themselves money from the public trough. If we are not yet at that point, we are fast approaching it.

Right not the politicians (Dems, particularly at this time) are proposing tremendous social entitlement programs. Promises are flying through the air that, if carried out would turn US society into a very close copy of Europe. And in Europe, the average tax rate is uch higher than it is here. 60% and more. Some places closer to 80%. The govts there give quite a lot to their people for "free", but the downside is that "free" comes from tax money, and while "free", what the people get is not the quality they could have, if the govt didn't run it. Socialised medicine looks good from the outside, because the upfront cost to the consumer is nil. BUT, the hidden costs are tremendous. Next time anyone says we ought to have Govt run medicine in this country, just ask them,"Oh, you mean like the VA hospitals?, the govt. runs them."

Politicians spend out money like it was free, because to them, it is. Unfortunately, the only threat we can bring to bear to promote responsibility is the threat of not re-electing them. Term limits has some benefits, but again, the drawbacks are huge. If the politicians know they are not able to be re-elected, they have no reason to listen to us.

Too bad there isn't a simple (and effective) method to hold these people accountable for their "job performance" short of not re-electing them.
 
G

GoSlash27

New member
For starters, we're trying to treat the world like it's our empire and we simply can't afford it.
The Republicans have drifted from fiscal conservatism to borrow-and-spend.
The nature of American politics is "bringing home the bacon".
Every primary cycle turns into some lame "lesser of two evils" argument.
Our money has no intrinsic value.
The entire system is corrupt.

Take your pick.
:mad:
 
D

DesertDawg

New member
Along this topic, there was a recent research group that looked into "pork" spending. I don't recall the exact amount of BILLIONS of dollars involved, but Congressman John Murtha was found to be the #1 culprit in getting "pork" to his state (Pa). To be fair, the #2 and #3 culprits were Republican Congresscritters.

As was already mentioned, it's not THEIR money, and if they spread around enough of OUR money in THEIR states, through "pork" appropriations, THEY get votes!
 
S

sw_florida

Moderator
When you spend other people's money, funny things start to happen.

And, politicians are voted in because they offered the voters so many new 'free' services. Those 'free' services are paid for by taxes, and so the taxes keep rising.

Politicians are experts at starting up huge turkey projects that suck money and produce very little.

You, the people, elect all these nutty politicians. Be angry with your selves. After all, the politicians can't help it. They are stupid by definition.
 
F

FirstFreedom

Moderator
Taxes are TOO HIGH at the federal level. TOO friggin high. WAY too friggin high. Taxes should be at a fraction of the level they currently are, at the federal level. The fedgov should be roughly 1/5 to 1/4 its current size (revenue & budget). Oddly enough, I believe state taxes are too low, and mostly because the federal taxes are too high.

With that background, Hillary has promised to raise taxes to pay for her healthcare plan. She calls it a rollback to the prior level, which means a repeal of the Bush tax cut, which is in fact a tax increase over current levels.

To my knowledge, none of the Republicans POTUS candidates are even campaigning on a tax cut, which I find absurd - that should be plank #1 in their campaign.
 
G

grymster2007

New member
Between SS, Medicare and other government programs and various tax benefits, the number of voters receiving some sort of taxpayer dollars that put them ahead of where they would otherwise be, outnumber those who don’t. As long as the politicians promise to continue and maybe increase the handouts, those people will vote for them. We are teaching a huge and growing population that the government will take care of them. Dependency on government, rather than one’s self is not what the founders of this country envisioned and for good reason. When people get what they need and apparently for free, it stifles entrepreneurial spirit, work ethic, creativity and self-worth. The very premises this country was founded on. I don’t know when or how it will end, but it can't go on forever.
 
X

xd9fan

New member
Because we ask for things from Govt that no Govt should ever be doing, while ignoring the free market.

We dont really trust ourselves with liberty.

basically.
 
J

JWT

New member
Politicians want to continue to get re-elected year after year after year. To do so they make promises that cost money and insert 'earmarks' into every possible spending bill to 'buy' the votes of their constituents. It matters not to them that the money isn't available - just print more and raise taxes.

Senators and Representative never saw a dollar they didn't want to spend. It's not their money, and it gets them re-elected so they can spent more money.
 
V

vito

New member
While tax cuts have always stimulated the economy, the elimination of virtually all taxes on low income individuals have taken away any incentive on the part of these people to control the tax rates. To someone who pays little or no taxes, it is enticing to offer them more "free" government benefits by raising taxes on the small part of the population that actually pays taxes. We have done a disservice to the poor by taking away their personal stake in seeing overall taxes go down. If we had a flat tax, or a national sales tax, with no exemptions or deductions, everyone, rich or poor would have an interest in reducing taxes. But right now a small percentage of the population pays the bulk of the income tax, and the larger part of the population reaps the government benefits paid for by these taxes. This allows politiicans like Hilary Clinton to promise more and more government programs to the masses that will be paid for by other people. Not a good prescription for a healthy economy or a prosperous nation.
 
S

stephpd

New member
deficits

Deficits are going down? What world do you live in?

From George Washington to Jimmy Carter the deficit was almost non-existent. Reagan changed that with deficit spending to where we now owe the Federal Reserve Bank almost 10 Trillion dollars. The interest on the debt is almost 500 billion dollars a year. That's 500 billion of our dollars spent on nothing!

We don't own the Federal Reserve. They stole our reserve, gold, back in the late twenties or early thirties. Came around to everybodies house , took their gold and gave them gold certificates. Don't see them in circulation anymore. Now the money handed out by this bank isn't worth the paper it's written on. Several years ago it was valued at 28 cents on the dollar. Probably worth much less now. Certainly worth less than the Canadian dollar. We have to borrow from the Chinese to finance the current wars we are in.

So how can you say that deficits are going down?:confused:
 
L

Limeyfellow

New member
+1 stephpd

Even Reagon saw the screwup he caused by his taxcuts and had started to reverse them.

I seem to remember quite a healthy budget surplus to the next lot of tax cuts. You can't just cut them and borrow all the money to pay for it.
 
Y

Yellowfin

New member
Three things that happened that really made it become what it is:

1. We went off the gold standard.
2. Payroll/income tax withheld instead of paid directly by the citizens.
3. John Maynard Keynes sold the government on the idea that it had the right, and, which is worse, the responsibility to be a major player and the controller of the economy.

For #1, basically we abandoned the idea that there is only so much money in existence, which limited the amount the government could spend because they knew that they couldn't just invent money out of thin air, that it had to be backed by something. #2 ended the idea that taxes are OUR money, the PEOPLE'S money first, NOT the government's. The government had to ASK US FIRST, but now the idea is that it isn't our money because it's taken from us no matter what. #3 explains itself.

We've gotta fix those 3 problems first.
 
S

SIGSHR

New member
Regarding the National debt and deficit spending, I recall the political cartoon that shows FDR and all his advisor-drawn with his face-with expressions of glee, the caption is "We owe it ourselves!" The old attitude was that as long as the debt was internally held by U.S. citizens and investors the money was being reinvested back in the US economy and not
exported (I do not know if the income recieved from T-Bills and Treasury
Bonds is tax exempt). To the modern complaint that too much of the National
Debt is now held by foreigners, especially foreign governments, I quote the
words of John Maynard Keynes:
"If you owe your banker 1000 pounds you're at his mercy. If you owe him
1,000,000 pounds he's at yours."
And why worry about the Deficit? What was it Ross Perot said-"We could solve the deficit without breaking a sweat!" Yes, I know-just print the money
needed.
I also recall one of my professors in my MBA program saying in 1983 that the
total of state and municipal debt the held was about twice the national debt
at that time, but because it was so widely held and so diffused it was not seen as a problem.
Something to think about: How much of your state budget goes for debt service?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top