Why do governments get into debt?

Which is why I said:

Government expenditures under my system would be under $1 Trillion a year.

 

It's easy to lose weight. You simply eat less, and workout more. Easy, meaning the steps are simple. The problem is that people are simply not willing to do those steps. People simply refuse to do what needs done. But everyone knows what needs to be done to lose weight.

As far as it being politically easy, well of course not. And it never will be. There will always be religion and politics and refusal to accept the truth. That goes without saying, and will never change. Welcome to the human experience. Why do you think many of the civilizations of old, all tried to have universal religions? It was to establish a universal perspective among the people, to then achieve consensus. As long as freedom of religion, and thus of perspective, remains a fundamental value of American life, there will never be a consensus. The only way to have a consensus, is to have people subjugate their personal opinion, to an authority higher than themselves. That's not going to happen in a pluralistic society.

As far as outsourcing is concerned, I have a different perspective on that than you. Which eludes to my prior point.

You ask the question, how many jobs have been lost to outsourcing. I ask, how many jobs were saved by outsourcing?

See, I've worked most of my life in manufacturing. I'm in Manufacturing right now. Our company used to make the entire product in house, here in the US. But the product was too expensive, and our customers were slowly dwindling. The solution was to outsource the building of the main computer board of our product, which is now built in China. Because we did that, we were able to create a cheaper product, that our customers are willing to buy.

Dozens of sales, engineer, manager jobs, as well as a dozen manufacturing jobs (of which I am one), are all saved, and only exist today because of outsourcing. If we didn't out source, none of us would be employed, and the company would be closed.

Now I agree it would have been better to keep all those jobs in the US. But the solution isn't to try and stop outsourcing. That would only destroy more jobs, and harm US domestic manufacturing. If you eliminated outsourcing today, our company would close before the end of the year.

Instead, the solution is to make business more profitable in the US. Cut taxes. Cut regulations. Make it cheaper, and easier to do business in the US.

The solution is to make ourselves more competitive, not try and make others less competitive.

And as a final note in passing.... I'm not trying to stimulate another $1-2 Trillion in stolen money. I want to CUT government theft, not increase it. And trying to 'stimulate the economy' and trying to 'get another $1-2 trillion in taxes' are mutually exclusive goals. Taking money from the economy harms the economy. Stimulating the economy, requires people have more of their own money. You can't do both.

 

Your system won't work in reality so why go there?

The US has over 300 million population now and a $1 trillion federal budget would only be about $3250 per person per year...even a very trim federal government cannot be this small and provide essential services...

 

People do what 'they' believe works for 'them' no matter how others feel about their actions. While you might believe another person has an eating disorder the other person is okay with their choices...it's all relative. It's not about 'will'...it's about obtaining information, analyzing information, and using that information wisely...which again is relative.

I don't begrudge people's access to politics and religion and special interests, etc. but I do critique them on their failure to find consensus. An example you can relate is at your business that Mother Board costs too much, so management appoints a group comprised of management, engineering, procurement, manufacturing, quality, etc. and gives them a week to find a workable and sustainable solution. Now I'm betting 99.999% of the time those groups find workable solutions...which is consensus! Now how can these very diverse groups within business find consensus yet Americans are incapable of this? The reason is the leader of the group will not allow any bull(*)(*)(*)(*), no politics, no egos, no self-serving behavior; they focus 100% on the problem and find a solution. Now, those workers who try to evoke bull(*)(*)(*)(*), politics, egos, etc. are detrimental to the company...they should be terminated. IMO we have lost the capability in society to function in this fashion and find consensus on our very very critical issues.

I fully understand that outsourcing is a business tool and I never implied it was a bad tool?? My position is if you want millions more middle class jobs then Americans need to produce stuff, which means they must compete in the global marketplace. If we are incapable or refuse to do this, then we should accept further losses of jobs to outsourcing and find other things to do.

I agree 100% that US business and workers need to figure out how to manufacture more efficiently but I suggest it will take much more than cutting taxes and regulations. Again, if we are unwilling to do all the things necessary to compete in the global marketplace, then fine, but we must find something else to do for millions of middle class workers or accept the status quo.

Obama and others seem to believe if we allow enough time to pass that we can consume ourselves back into prosperity...to this I say bull(*)(*)(*)(*)! People will simply adjust to having less, adjust to the pressures of living pay check to pay check or no check to no check. The US needs, immediately needs, another $1-$2 trillion in GDP...this means domestic and foreign consumption of US products, and IMO with emphasis on increasing exports...

 

Dude I don't give a crap. You can cite whatever example you want, that doesn't mean that every single infrastructure project is valuable or economically beneficial. I posted several specific examples of infrastructure projects, that clearly and undeniably did not provide a benefit of any kind. None. Nothing of what you have said changes, or even contests that truth.

You are proving your own signature correct with each post.

Now if you want to discuss a specific infrastructure project fine. Every supporter of rail, has always made the claim that it will save money over freeways. Yet to date, there is not one single example anywhere that I know of, that has actually resulted in this. I've read about rails service in the UK, in Europe, in Japan and so on. The way in which rail supporters claim rail is cheaper than roads, is by adding in estimated external cost, none of which are directly provable, except in theory.

From a purely budget tax-dollars cost perspective, Rails is horrendously more expensive, by a factor of about 15. California is as far as I can tell, particularly horrible. The entire Caltrans and CTC budget, is $15 Billion dollars. That's for the entire state. and not all of that $15 Billion is going to road maintenance. That's also got money for trains and rail cars for the existing rail service, and money for metro buses. Then there are things which are going to be paid for whether you have rail service or not. Synchronized lights, fitting bridges and over passes. So out of the entire budget, only about $10 Billion is going to roads, in either repairs, maintenance, and the rest going to expanding roads.

So $10 Billion for roads across the entire state. Compared to the amount of money currently being used on California's high speed rail, which is.... $10 Billion. So lets review... $10 Billion for 46.8 thousand miles of interstate, plus millions of miles of other roads.... or $10 Billion for 800 miles of high speed rail.

And you think this is 'saving money' in your world? Just how many people are in your world? And how many know basic math? Just curious.

I don't know what you are talking about. We have public schooling. The future is here, and our schools suck. Private schools routinely do better than public schools. And of course the private schools are accountable to the public. If they don't educate, parents are not willing to pay money to take there kids there. Private schools that don't educate, have no customers, and thus cease to exist.

And further, private ventures are routinely less fraught with fraud than public sector by far. If a private venture is consumed by fraud, it fails, the people who did it lose their money, and the problem is extinguished.

If the public sector is consumed by fraud it continues for ages, because the tax money never runs out. Politicians don't want to discover the fraud, because then they are accused of mismanagement. Medicare has had, and still has, tens of billions in fraud for decades.

 

Yeah. Look around the world, at countries with conflicts and wars with others around it. There is only one reason we don't have that here. Our military. You are here after millions of people died to gain security and safety for our nation, and like a spoiled brat child, crying that all of that does nothing for you. Grow up.

Yes, a healthy population is more productive, and has a stronger economy, and more wealth. All true. But Obama care does nothing to make people more healthy. In fact, if you know that society will pay all your health care bills, then you have even less motivation to make the sacrifice to live a healthy life style.

In Oregon they at one point had a lottery for Medicaid. Not everyone would get it. People at a university decided to study the people who got the medicaid, verses those who didn't. The result was absolutely no difference whatsoever. The only minor result was that people who got medicaid reported they started smoking cigarettes more than those who didn't. HOWEVER**..... The differences was so small as to be inside the margin of error, meaning it could have just been random chance.

Although the higher rate of smoking was too small to be conclusive of anything, I think part of that could be that private insurance will charge you more, if you smoke. Medicaid would not. The people who got Medicaid, and knew that tax payers were on the hook for the bill, and knew that Medicaid wouldn't cost more if they smoked. Those who didn't get Medicaid had to get private insurance, and knew smoking would drive up their premiums.

Regardless, even if the smoking angle was luck, the fact is there was no increase in health between those who get Medicaid, and those who didn't. The claim Obama-Care will make you healthy is a joke. It's not true.

But you not getting shot by soldiers of another country, like Georgia in 2008, likely does improve your health.

 

The Federal government was never supposed to provide essential services, except a national military, and a justice system. Both of which could easily be funded with the tax system I suggest.

State governments are who under our constitution, are supposed to pick up essential services. This way, when a state makes a horrible bad policy that harms their economy, it doesn't wipe out the entire country. Only that state suffers.

 

stupid logic...it's only because there are military forces that there are conflicts, Costa Rica banned it's military and how many wars has it been since that happened in 1948? none...imagine that a country with no military has not invaded or been invaded/threatened by it's neighbours...military forces from their initial conception were for aggression not defense, a net drain on the economy...a military job is nothing more than permanent welfare job...

which is proven absolutely false by the many countries that have healthcare and have healthier lifestyles than obese americans...your hypothetical pov falls flat in the face of the actual facts...

 

Oh please.... You are comparing Costa Rica, with the USA. And they may have banned the official 'military', but they have a military.



See this? This is the Ministry of Public Security's Public Force for Costa Rica.

They are heavily armored, and armed. They are equipped with P90s, M-16s, M4 Carbines, MP5s, Uzis, M60 Heavy Machine guns, plus Colt M203 Grenade launchers. These are the same exact weapons our forces carry, and the same armor, and even the same Humvees.

Oh but they don't have a military. Whatever.....

And by the way, there are many countries that have not been in wars for ages. Mexico hasn't been in an international conflict since WW2, and I can't even figure out what they did. Before WW2, they had not been involved in an international conflict since the revolution.

Yet they have had a well armed, well funded military since 1921.

So I disagree with that false conclusion. And on top of that, I also think you fail to grasp that the reason other countries do not attack each other, is because of us. It's because they know that the US will stop them, that they don't attack Costa Rica. Remember, before Saddam attacked Kuwait, they basically had little to no military. A few Soviet style tanks. No real attack aircraft. Some armored personnel carriers. And roughly 16,000 men. Comparatively, the Ohio National Guard has 12,000 men.

Iraq over ran Kuwait in two days. Just two days. But here's the kicker. Saddam's ambassador to the US, asked what the US position would be if Iraq invaded Kuwait. Our ambassador said that we would stay out of it. Iraq didn't attack until after we said that. I would even suggest that had we said, we would attack them, that they would never have invaded.

Similarly, when Hugo Chavez in Venezuela moved his military to the boarder with Columbia, we sent some troops to our bases in Columbia. After we did this, Chavez pulled his forces back.

So I submit to you that the reason Costa Rica has not had any problems, and why many countries have few external problems, is because of us. Our military, and our ability to smack people down, is what keeps them in line. The moment we cease to exist militarily, the world will be a much more dangerous place, unless the EU steps up, which it's possible they might.

But it's certainly not yet. When Obama tried to pull out of Libya, the coalition aiding Libya fell to pieces. No one knew what to do without our leadership.

 

The US Constitution says otherwise unless you consider things like international trade, interstate commerce, the monetary system, uniform weights and measures, the postal system, copyrights and patents as unessential services.
Many historians and economists point to these few Constitutional imperatives as the keys that brought so much success to the US. Every nation had judiciaries and armies, armies of conscripts and mercenaries and a judiciary obliged to interpret arbitrary laws passed by rulers unbounded by long established constitutions.

For 150 years the US had almost no army except in crises, but a continuous Federal judiciary that upheld the rule of Constitutional law within its remit, which included commerce and intellectual property. People from all over the world came to the US and still do because it has long been the one sure place where no one can just take what you make for yourself in business. This is because in much of the rest of the world government's do not have a Constitutional remit to regulate commerce and intellectual property so laws in these areas are without Constitutional foundation, often arbitrary.

States are not supposed to do anything except establish a state constitution that creates some sort of governing body that relieves the federal government of direct control. They can do as they please within their boundaries as long as they abide by the federal Constitution and all the laws, statutes and regulations established under it, which is something every state agrees to upon accession. Many states still do not provide essential services beyond what they are required to in order to receive federal largess.

 

Well my understanding was merely that if two states had a disagreement, that the Federal Government had authority to step in. Not that they were supposed to declare everything in our economy "interstate commerce", and regulate everything in the country.

As for trade, and treaties with other countries, yes that's a given. But usually the government doesn't "fund" trade, it merely signs agreements, and if anything collects tariffs from them.

As to copyrights, patents, uniform weights and measures, I would file all of those under "justice" which as I said before, is a duty of the government. Violating rights, including copyrights, patents, and defrauding people with false weights and measures, is a matter of justice in my book.

Lastly, the post office, was created as a governmental and military purposes. It was instituted for the necessity of getting news, laws, intelligence gathering, and military orders, across the country. Without the postal service, news of a hostile force attacking a city somewhere would never make it to the government, who would not be able to send information to the military, who would not be able to send marching orders to the troops.

So I consider the original intent of the post service to be military in nature. The First Postmaster General of the US, was Samuel Osgood, who was a led a company of men into Battle of Lexington and Concord, he was promoted to Major and then Colonel. And a number of people who followed him were also military people.

All that said, the Post Office no longer serves that purpose, and should be sold off and privatized.

 

That is a really interesting take on the Postal Service considering that the founders were so militarily minded that they left having a federal army out of the Constitution.

The post office was created because of the clamour by commercial interests to have a way to deliver their correspondence in a way that guaranteed its privacy. The postal service also established the first public highways in the form of post roads and contracts to maintain them. The establishment of an inland public road system by the post office led directly to a great increase in settlement and trade in the lands away from the coasts and navigable rivers, where almost all settlement and trade had been confined beforehand.

The Postal Service was established not for military or political but for commercial purposes. Military officers of that period were mostly leading businessmen of their community, very few if any had any military training upon receiving their commissions and federal appointments were considered sinecures for political services so the idea that just because some military veterans were appointed to serve as postmaster generals the postal service must have been established for some military purpose exhibits an ignorance of US history that can be nothing but deliberate.

By your logic all the taverns in the US were also military in purpose because veterans were allowed, by law, to operate one. Or that the entire government apparatus was military in purpose because so many veterans were appointed judges, Marshals, postmasters and customs officers.

 

Huh? Prior to the constitution, we had the articles of confederation. The problem with the confederation was that the Federal Government was so weak, it couldn't create a national military. As a result, when one state was attacked, other states refused to send forces, but instead kept them in their own state to protect themselves. Of course this weakened the Confederation as a whole, making it difficult to oppose a foreign army.

The entire purpose of replacing the articles of confederation, with the constitution, was specifically to allow for a Federal Military. If not for having a military, the constitution would never have been written. At least that's what I have read for over a decade. If you know better, please show me.

Well that's not what I've read.

Joseph M. Adelman, "'A Constitutional Conveyance of Intelligence, Public and Private': The Post Office, the Business of Printing, and the American Revolution," Enterprise & Society (2010) 11#4 pp 709-752.

You disagree. Fine. I'm going with this guy who has researched it, over a random guy on the internet. We agree to disagree. Moving on.

 

You should read the Federalist Papers and some of the other writings of the founders. Your understanding of the impetus to change the government from a confederation to a republic is not supported by their views. Since they were the ones who wrote both the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution their views hold far greater weight than yours.

Adelman's assertion is ridiculous. A casual perusal of the British archives of the National Post would create that impression though, ignorant as it is to the pattern of commerce in the colonies, which was mostly north south by then, not east west.

Before the revolution most correspondence travelled by private arrangement, and rarely, if ever by land. The US was a coastal nation. Inter-coastal trade was quite extensive as was correspondence. However, there was a huge problem in sending correspondence by private carriers because there was no way to guarantee privacy or delivery. Sending a letter by ship was a fraught proposition, the ship could wreck, be delayed for weeks by contrary weather, attacked by pirates, become impounded or otherwise delayed by the exercise of authority by the military or other government agents acting on dubious pretexts. Nevertheless, it was far more advantageous to send correspondence by this method than any other.

It was quite common in those days to send multiple copies of coded letters by a variety of carriers in the hope that one might be received. It was also quite common for traders to send their correspondence in cipher to prevent both venal government agents and their commercial competitors from gaining intelligence by intercepting their letters. There was no expectation of privacy in correspondence in those days, even correspondence by couriers, who were often bribed, waylaid, or otherwise influenced to divulge the contents of what they carried.




You disagree. Fine. I'm going with this guy who has researched it, over a random guy on the internet. We agree to disagree. Moving on.[/QUOTE]

 

Alexander Hamilton to James Duane, 3 Sept. 1780

So let's recap. Alexander Hamilton clearly defines three specific reasons the articles of confederation were a failure.
1. All the states had the option to ignore Congress, and they did.
2. All the states lacked confidence in Congress, which makes perfect sense based on the other two reasons.
3. Inability to compel a Military.

Alexander Hamilton continues...

Again military. And in fact, the other problem not directly mentioned here, was the ability to raise money. Of course the whole reason they needed to raise money was...... for the military. So Washington had been going to the states directly to get food and money for the army, which is what Alexander Hamilton is complaining about here.

And I can post for you similar statements by Henry Knox, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington and James Madison, all decrying the ability to fund a military. Both in ability to get money, and ability to enforce a military.

So just as before, if you have evidence, show us. Otherwise, I'm going with Hamilton and the many others that wrote about this, over you.

Right, which again, is just some random guy on the internet saying a bunch of stuff, verses someone who researched it. Not saying you are wrong........ but.... swap places with me a moment.... If I was saying what you are, and well known historian who specializes in early American Media, Communications and Politics, who has a History degree from Harvard, an Masters and Ph.D from Johns Hopkins University, and fellowships from the National Endowment for the Humanities, was writing what he wrote......

Who would you believe? Andelusion Forum Poster Extraordinaire..... or Ph.D Alderman History Professor who researches this specific topic as his life's work? I know how hard that choice would be. Andelusion is very very convincing.... but..... I think Alderman has the advantage.... if only a little.

You disagree. Fine. I'm going with this guy who has researched it, over a random guy on the internet. We agree to disagree. Moving on.

 

only two reasons
both born of insanity
1. greed
2. purchase power by buying votes

 

>>> nice summary. and makes perfect sense aligned with REALITY.

the love of money, power, and prestige in THE ROOT of all evil. ... including war and poverty.

 

Why do governments get into debt?

Capitalism always goes into slump on a regular basis, and has doe ever since it began in the Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth Century. Left to itself, the system will destroy all the surplus production, starve masses of people and sink back decades. Capitalist governments can borrow or tax where no-one would trust the disgraced thieves who run business, and can therefore inject money into saving their bacon. What is it with the extremists that they bite the hand that feeds them?

 

And repay those who they were bought by, resulting in their election win.

 

What form of government is it that CANNOT tax and borrow?

 

No, the usual reason modern governments go into debt is that under the debt money system in use in all advanced countries, if firms and households don't want to take on additional debt, the government has to do it or there will be a deflationary collapse. That is the basic reason the US government and some others have been borrowing so heavily since 2008.

 

What government type, is not capable of taxing, or borrowing?

Socialist governments borrow, and socialist governments tax.

Now it is generally true that socialist governments typically do not borrow as much as capitalist governments.

But the reason is for that has to do with a basic fact of Socialized economies. SOCIALISM SUCKS.

Look at Venezuela. Bolivarian Revolution and "Socialism of the 21st century", has resulted in economic chaos. No one is going to lend money to Venezuela's government, because their economy sucks like crap, and they know the government won't pay them back.

This is why Venezuela has resorted to trading and bartering oil, in exchange for such luxury items as "rice" and "toilet paper", because socialism.... AS IT ALWAYS IS..... is crap.

Capitalist based economies that produce tons of wealth, often (read always), have more money, and thus it's safer to lend money to governments of those countries, than crap socialist wasteland countries.

 

Yeah, look at Venezuela, 4th largest oil producer in the world, run for decades by a capitalist leaning government that left the country in huge debt and massive poverty when it was voted out in the first democratic election ever held. Where did all that oil money go? Why does Venezuela, with the most fertile land on the planet and plenty of it, have to import 80% of it food? Why, after decades of vast oil money flowing into the country was the government in debt and 85% of its people living in abject poverty before Chavez was elected?

At least now the oil money is being used to help the poor people of Venezuela instead of the real estate agents in Miami. At least now Venezuela gets investment money from China and doctors from Cuba for its bartered oil rather than the nothing it got before from the previous capitalist governments. Needless to say the capitalists are upset that their kleptomania has been stopped and are doing everything they can to undermine the nation, generating false panics that lead to hording and shortages of basic commodities. Most of the bureaucracy was entrenched before the present government gained power and have been deliberately tossing monkey wrenches into the works ever since.

It is easy enough to torpedo the economy of any nation that does not toe the capitalist line and moves to the left. The real question is what would happen if one of these nations was not subject to unreasonable conditions simply because it moved to the left, if it was treated normally, like every other nation?
That is a question that has yet to be answered?

 

When the Mafia shows up at your door, and demands protection money, if you pay them, would you consider that "I bought the mafia"?

Go read how this works. Al Gore was not GETTING calls by corporations. He was calling them. Companies are being threatened, and they have to pay off the government, just to avoid favorable legislation being given to a competitor.

It's the politicians that are causing this entire thing. If you people would stop voting for politicians that extort money, then it wouldn't happen.