N.J. Democratic senator proposes bringing back 'millionaires tax'
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
i'm just pointing out the fact that you're saying it's fine that the politicians are taking every penny they can get because someone's going to spend it anyways, yet at the same time you're saying they need to stop spending money they don't have.
i think this position is completely consistent. reducing spending isnt going to happen voluntarily while money is sitting there for the taking. reducing spending is only going to happen when money isnt available either because it just isnt there or because someone forcefully reduces the available money.
you realize every politician has lobbyists, non-profits, businesses, government agencies, etc. etc. etc. all begging them to spend money on something. a politician is just someone that sells his services to get people money from the taxpayer bank. that is their job. they are going to do their job as long as there is the ability of them to spend from the taxpayer bank.
Last edited by CaptainNJ; 03-02-2011 at 07:55 AM..
i think this position is completely consistent. reducing spending isnt going to happen voluntarily while money is sitting there for the taking. reducing spending is only going to happen when money isnt available either because it just isnt there or because someone forcefully reduces the available money.
you realize every politician has lobbyists, non-profits, businesses, government agencies, etc. etc. etc. all begging them to spend money on something. a politician is just someone that sells his services to get people money from the taxpayer bank. that is their job. they are going to do their job as long as there is the ability of them to spend from the taxpayer bank.
you're missing a key point though. the reason why we have deficits and debts is not because politicians are spending money that's sitting there. they are spending money, period. taking more money off the table does not reduce spending. it may, but it may not. reducing spending reduces spending.
the money that was spent on the iraq war....was never there. it was borrowed. the money spent on the bailout....never there...borrowed. money spent on lots of stuff in our country right now, regardless of whether it's something you or i think should be spent, has been borrowed. the money isn't there already, so taking money away DOES NOT REDUCE spending.
only one thing reduces spending....not spending.
so, how do you force someone to reduce spending (other than supposedly not giving them the money to spend)? i'm pretty sure we have a national debt that is pretty clear proof that taking the money off the table does not result in reduction of spending.
you're missing a key point though. the reason why we have deficits and debts is not because politicians are spending money that's sitting there. they are spending money, period. taking more money off the table does not reduce spending. it may, but it may not. reducing spending reduces spending.
to a politician, there is no difference between debt money and non-debt money, its all money that they can use.
obama proposed a $3.7 trillion budget. if the budget was $3 trillion, do you think spending wont be cut? you just make available less money to spend. not every agency can raise debt or deficit spend.
to a politician, there is no difference between debt money and non-debt money, its all money that they can use.
obama proposed a $3.7 trillion budget. if the budget was $3 trillion, do you think spending wont be cut? you just make available less money to spend. not every agency can raise debt or deficit spend.
ok. i guess i'll just stop asking politicians to stop spending, since that doesn't reduce spending. i'm just amazed that you don't see this. a $3 trillion budget is less spending. it's not less money available to spend...maybe you're just using the words differently than I am. i'm talking about balancing a budget. if spending = $3 trillion, then revenue should = $3 trillion. if you want to decrease spending, you decrease the spending amount, not the revenue amount.
ok. i guess i'll just stop asking politicians to stop spending, since that doesn't reduce spending. i'm just amazed that you don't see this. a $3 trillion budget is less spending. it's not less money available to spend...maybe you're just using the words differently than I am. i'm talking about balancing a budget. if spending = $3 trillion, then revenue should = $3 trillion. if you want to decrease spending, you decrease the spending amount, not the revenue amount.
im just using that as an example of how to reduce spending. id rather see the budget be $2.5 trillion (or whatever expected revenue is). but if you make it $3 trillion then less spending will happen than if its $3.7 trillion. its not about asking politicians to reduce spending, its about making the pot of money that they can spend smaller.
im just using that as an example of how to reduce spending. id rather see the budget be $2.5 trillion (or whatever expected revenue is). but if you make it $3 trillion then less spending will happen than if its $3.7 trillion. its not about asking politicians to reduce spending, its about making the pot of money that they can spend smaller.
then i think it's symantics. reducing spending is reducing spending. if a politician pledges to reduce spending, but then takes money just because it's "there" in the federal budget...they're not following through on their pledge.
basically...spending money simply because it's in the budget and not considering whether it's smart to spend that money...and using that as an excuse because "someone will spend it" doesn't fly in my book. sure, reduce the budget, but if people keep coming to the federal government saying "i need xyz" then the fed decides if they should satisfy that "need". don't ask for it, and the fed doesn't have to make that decision.
i'll pick on beohner...the pentagon is saying we don't need xyz...but beohner, who is infinitely wiser as to what the pentagon needs, is saying that they need it. his reason is because of the jobs in his district, whether he admits that or not, i don't know. but when you have people telling you that you don't need this money spent, but then you go spend it anyways because it benefits your district...then you're not truly for reduced spending in my view.
basically...spending money simply because it's in the budget and not considering whether it's smart to spend that money...and using that as an excuse because "someone will spend it" doesn't fly in my book.
almost all government spending is waste. so just reduce the pot.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
