Why do governments get into debt?

Obviously, I would not. When I stated "And repay those who they were bought by, resulting in their election win.", I was referring to those who proactively contribute to political campaigns, like labor unions, George Soros, etc. NOT those who reactively contribute in hopes of lessening the harm that government will impose upon them.

And I don't have to read anything as that is simply an example of how some contributions are acquired reactively, as I explained above.

I agree, but it's quite difficult to convince those who benefit from the extortion, and get something free, paid for by a diminishing number of taxpayers. That's how democracy works, destructively, when applied to a large and diverse population. Centralized government is the one expanding bubble which threatens us most.

 

Well honestly, your version of Venezuelan history, does not match what I have read, which does not mean you are wrong. You could be right. Nevertheless, the history of Venezuela that I read, says that the real "free-market capitalist" era of Venezuela was between 1900 and 1970. It was exactly during that vast time frame that the standard of living in Venezuela rose to the envy of the rest of Latin America, and they *were* the 3rd largest oil producer in the world.

Now as far as I have been able to find, there is no evidence that Venezuela was under huge debt during this time.

This leads me to believe that you mean the debt during the 90s, just before Chavez was elected. That however, was not a free-market capitalist system. The electric, gas, and oil companies were all nationalized in the 1970s.

So the question still remains "where did the money go?". Because here's the problem.... it went to socialists. This is typical cycle that happens. Socialists demand the profits from large corporations, and they get them. But socialism inherently squanders everything, and when the people discover they are broke again, instead of saying "socialism didn't work", they say "we need even more of what ruined us, more socialism please", and you end up with Hugo Chavez.

Chavez didn't replace a free-market capitalist system. It replaced a socialist system with an even more socialist system.

And because of that, Venezuela is no longer the 3rd largest oil producers, or the 4th largest oil producer... it's not the 11th largest, if it hasn't fallen more.

As to the farms, and food production.... again, the problem is socialism.

One of the primary policies of Chavez included land reform, where land was confiscated from successful productive farmers, and distributed to the poor. The problem is the poor, had neither the means, nor the equipment, much less the knowledge to know how to farm the land. Naturally production of food fell like a rock.

Additionally, price controls on food, supposedly to help the poor, resulted in farms no longer producing low cost foods. Many farms sold their produce to other countries. Others stopped growing foods that were under the price controls, in favor of those more expensive, and not controlled. Still other farms quit producing food altogether, and move operations out of the country.

The BBC did a documentary on this very thing, and a reporter asked a farmer that refused to be named, why he wasn't producing. He said that the cost of paying farm hands to run the farm, was higher than how much he could sell the food under the Chavez price controls. So.... he didn't.

The fact that socialists can't grasp these simple facts of economics, is exactly why they have to 'invent' this mythical evil capitalists system that they replaced.

Lastly, about the poor being helped by oil profits.

It's just not true. First there were many programs for the poor before Chavez showed up. But to this day, they are far worse off now, than ever before in the past. The poor have almost no health care, because the quality Venezuelan doctors have left the country. This is why Chavez was trading oil to Cuba in exchange for their doctors. But those doctors are much lower quality, and many have defected, leaving the poor without doctors again.

Further, while the government 'says' they are feeding the poor, and their government papers suggest this, the reality is that there is no food. Shelves are empty.

Moreover, with nation wide power outages, and nationwide shortages of paper, and other basic products, whatever tiny benefit the poor may be getting, is greatly overshadowed by the lack of jobs, and general ruination of the country. The crime rate had tripled, and the wealthy are packing up their jobs and leaving.

The poor have less opportunity to get a job than ever before in the last 100 years.

This is just not a victory for Venezuela. The country is crumbling. People are leaving. Standards of living are declining. The housing shortage in Venezuela is now so great that roughly 2 million people, in a country of only 28 million, now have no place to live. Roughly a million people have left Venezuela since Chavez gained power in 1999. That's almost 4% of the population that's left.

If this is your idea of Worker's Paradice, then you have a rosy view of what Hell on Earth, is like.

And lastly.... Capitalists didn't ruin the socialists economy. Socialists ruined the socialist economy, because socialism ALWAYS fails.

 

People like Govt programs and low taxes, and elect politicians who pander to them.

 

Well I honestly don't see a problem with the latter. For example, I can't find an example where a politician who ran as anti-union, was given money by the Unions, and became pro-union. I just don't see that happening.

Even when Enron showed up at the GWB white house, and asked for help, Bush turned them down, even though they gave thousands to his campaign. I'm not seeing the quid pro quo.

When Obama gave GM to the Unions, that wasn't surprising, nor did I think he was "bought off by special interest". Obama always supported the Unions. He was simply doing, as he had always believed.

What I have a problem with, is where the government intentionally passes regulations or taxes, and then individual politicians, directly contact companies and organizations, to sell exemptions.

Politicians are the ones instigating lobbying efforts, intentionally, in order to milk the system. If we didn't have bad politicians in office, we wouldn't have this problem. I know this because there are in fact politicians in high office, that refuse to play this game.

The reason your comment set me off, is because saying statements like "repay those who they were bought by" shifts the focus away from the politicians, and onto the mythical evil corporations, which is exactly what the politicians want. They were not bought.... they actively solicited funds.

The jury at the trial of Al Capone was bought. Capone sent his people, offered large sums of money, and threats, and the jury sold out. That's not what is happening. The jury (government) is actively contacting (Corp America) virtually anyone, and asking for money or they will pass judgement. The crime is not bribery, it's extortion.

Which of course is why government was not supposed to be a democracy. We were never even supposed to elect Senators by popular vote.

Tell me, how much money would Senators require, if they were voted in by State Legislator, as it was intended?

Well of course they wouldn't need any money. Most campaigns are simply based on name recognition. You have to spend millions of dollars, just to get everyone to know your name, more than the other guy(s).

As long as the Senate is elected by popular vote, they will need massive campaign funding. As long as they need massive campaign funding, they will find a way to get that funding.

No amount of rules in the world, will change this. No laws can be passed to change it, other than to eliminate the popular vote, which isn't going to happen.

The only hope we have is that by some luck, or magic, the general public elects politicians that won't game the system. History suggests that isn't going to happen.

 

Nor did I infer that.

Of course not, that would be quite brazen.

You might even say that unions and the democrat party are one and the same.

That may well occur, but does not exclude politicians from being contacted by companies and organizations to purchase what they would like to have included in the laws and/or regulations being passed.

Regardless of WHO is the source, the lobbyists or the politicians, ridding government of politicians who seek to sell to or can be bought by special interests should be our focus.

It shouldn't shift focus away from the politician who by the fact that they can be bought should indicate to the voter that they can not trust that politician to represent them. Can you provide proof that no politican can be bought? I'm certain politicians do actively solicit funds, why else would they participate in fund raising dinners and speeches to special interests? But I'm just as certain that there are those who actively seek out politicians with a large contribution for something they want.

The crime may be extortion in some cases and bribery in others.

That, the 17th amendment, is something I fully agree with and on numerous occassions have brought up, along with the 16th amendment and the Federal reserve act as the primary source that has led us to the problems we contend with today.

And much of the campaign funding comes from outside the State, or from the respective national political party.

I think repealing the 16th and the 17th amendments would be a great help, and some attention directed at the Federal reserve.

It's one thing when a majority of voters see that they can vote to acquire something from others who vote, by taxing the rich more for example, but by deficit budgeting and currency devaluation even the rich see that they too can acquire something since the debt is simply being accrued to be passed on to those yet born.

 

Standard of living rose until 1970, yes it did but by the time Chavez was elected in 1998 85% of the people lived in poverty.

Between 1970 and 1998 Venezuela racked up huge debt.

Perhaps, but it was right wing US friendly governments that borrowed on the nations oil wealth into bankruptcy that devastated the middle class from the 1970s until Chavez was elected.

It went to wall street and Miami where the kleptocrats borrowed against the nations oil wealth and pocketed the money to buy their condos.

Then why are so many of the Venezuela elite so upset with him?

More oil has been discovered in huge quantities is why Venezuela has fallen down the ranks of oil producers.

The land distribution scheme took only lands that had been abandoned by their owners. Before Chavez was elected Venezuela imported 85% of its food and almost almost all of the viable farm land was held in vast estates that left them fallow because free trade agreements with the US and others made it impossible for Venezuela's farmers to compete.

It was not socialism, but capitalism that created all the problems for Venezuela's agricultural sector.

Most large farmer owners had abandoned the land long before Chavez took office because the high value of the currency due to the oil and the free trade agreements made it impossible for them to grow food at competitive prices.

Lastly, about the poor being helped by oil profits.

It's just not true. First there were many programs for the poor before Chavez showed up. But to this day, they are far worse off now, than ever before in the past. The poor have almost no health care, because the quality Venezuelan doctors have left the country. This is why Chavez was trading oil to Cuba in exchange for their doctors. But those doctors are much lower quality, and many have defected, leaving the poor without doctors again.[/QUOTE]

Poor people in Venezuela have far more access to health care and food and education than ever before.

Considering the concerted efforts of the right, who still control much of the commercial distribution system, to sabotage the economy by creating artificial shortages and creating panics over basic commodities like toilet paper, it is a credit to the government that it has not gone after these jerks.

That is actually an improvement since before Chavez there were 2 million people with no place to live and the population has grown considerably.

Finding yourself in Hell is relative to where you come from. For all the Cubanos in Miami Castro's Cuba was Hell but for the other 95% of the people who lived in abject poverty before the revolution it was a big step up from Hell. Nobody starved to death anymore, everyone learned to read and write, everyone got medical care. The economy was always on the precipice of disaster but never abandoned that, never abandoned the people.

Egregious as you may consider those socialistic prerogatives as gross impositions on free market capitalism, it is something that the people who lived it would defend with their lives. There are many in Venezuela who feel the same.

Socialism is the bastard stepchild of capitalism, the unwanted progeny that always shows up when capitalism gets itself into one of its regular disasters, like the unwanted nephew who bails out the drunk uncle. Without the namby bamby socialists to protect it capitalism would have been long ago put away forever through the violent revolution of the dispossessed.

 

I beg to differ. Your implication is that Bush turned them down only because it would be brazen? Did you miss the fact the Enron went to Clinton for help in pushing a Indonesia project, and Clinton did it? Did you miss the China Gate scandal, where Clinton got money from John Huang and Charlie Trie, in order to get approval to sell high end defense technology to Chinese military front companies? Did you miss Marc Rich, whose wife donated $1 Million to the DNC, $100,000 to Hilliary Clinton's Senate run, and an additionally $450,000 to the Clinton Presidential library... and then shockingly... just shockingly, Bill Clinton signed a pardon of Marc Rich?

This stuff, all of what I said, does happen. Now I honestly believe that Clinton sought out donations for favors. We know about the Lincoln Bedroom motel stays, that Clinton practically advertised.

It has to do with the person you elect. You elect a scum bag, you end up with favors being sold to the highest bidder.

And of course, the public loved the Clintons. They elected Bill twice, and almost elected Hilliary to president, despite all of this brazen selling of government favors.

This is why I again say that no amount of campaign reform, nor any regulations or laws you pass, will ever fix this. The key with the Clinton's is, they violated every campaign and money law there was to break, and yet as long as the public supported them, they got away with everything. The only solution is to remove the public vote, which I just don't see happening.

Sometimes. I think there are many Democrats that are not pro-union. But the ratio is undeniably few.

Well I've personally sent messages to politicians about what laws I want passed. Further, I've given money to lobbying groups who are pushing for laws and regulations (de-regulations) I want passed.

But most of the time, most companies are not interest in wasting millions on millions, trying to lobby government. Of course we only hear about the few that do, but the fact is, it's very very few.

Most of the time, it's because politicians solicit it. If you go read the history of the Microsoft lawsuit, that was a classic example. The Clinton administration actively solicited companies to contact them. Netscape did, and thus started the grand fraud of Microsofts non-monopoly.

Well again... if you actively are trying to sell your car..... and I buy the car.... does that mean "I bought you"? No, you were trying to sell the car to begin with.

Politicians actively trying to sell government favors, is not them "being bought". The company can't force a politician to sell anything. The companies are actively being pushed into ponying up money. Again, Al Gore was not the one being called. Al Gore was the one calling.

I wish. I just don't see the public ever being able to grasp that. Certainly the politicians themselves would not be in favor of losing out. Unfortunately a good number of politicians, the only reason they are in office, is specifically because they can sway the masses with empty speech, which would never work if state legislators were appointing them.

So without the power of the mass of public, pushing for this to happen, I sadly don't think it will. And to that end, I don't think the public will ever see the value of themselves not having a direct say in who is representing their state at the Federal level.

Well Democracies have always killed themselves. As for deficit spending, I grasp that you wish to go back to a commodity backed currency, but that is simply never going to happen. Whatever you back the currency with, requires that it be directly convertible. Unfortunately, with direct conversion, you automatically setup a self destructive system, where other countries will covert our currency, while we can not covert theirs.

Imagine if we tried to create a gold backed USD, and China started converting the trillions of USD it has into gold? In a matter of months, the amount of Gold reserves the US held, would start depleting. As required by a gold standard the supply of US dollars in the economy would shrink in relation to the deletion of the gold. This would cause rampant deflation of the currency, and economic havoc would follow.

It's simply not sustainable.

 

When the Fed buys bonds in the inter-bank market it doesn't lower the overnight rate it increases it because the Fed is draining reserves from the system. Without intervention the overnight rate would fall to zero. This how Japan achieved its zero rate.
The overnight rate is set by the Fed.

The Federal government doesn't tax to fund spending. It doesn't need your money, it is the monopoly issuer of the currency who spends by issuing money directly into the economy.
For a Currency User, income (debt, etc) MUST precede spending.
But for a Currency Issuer it is spending that MUST precede taxation or borrowing.
Debt issuance, too, does not fund Federal spending. Instead, debt issuance is used primarily for the purposes of interest rate maintenance. To achieve the overnight rate targeted by the Central Bank it must intervene in the interbank market by buying & selling government bonds. It buys bonds, adding reserves, to lower the overnight rate & sells bonds, draining reserves, to increase the overnight rate.
Lacking intervention the overnight rate will fall to zero.

1st - The government sets by fiat the interest rate, if any, on all debt it issues.
2nd The US, as all monetarily sovereign nations that issues their own, floating, currency, that denominates all their debts in their currency & impose taxation payable only in this currency, can NEVER involuntarily "go broke", it is always able to make payment.

 

Is there a purpose to arguing over this when neither you nor I know for certain why Bush turned them down, and it WOULD have been quite brazen had he NOT turned them down, but that does NOT imply it to be the ONLY reason or A reason at all, but simply how some might have perceived Bush had he NOT turned them down.
Differ if you wish, but PLEASE don't beg.

Yes?

True, and if those 'scum bags' happen to produce results that benefit a majority as a result of, or even unrelated to the favors being sold to the highest bidders, they are likely to be re-elected. Recognize as fact that voters too, are being bought.

That doesn't seem to speak very highly of the voters, does it? It would appear to provide credence to "There are some who work for a living and others who vote for a living.", doesn't it?

If the public vote was removed, how would our government positions be filled? Or are you promoting anarchy?

Sounds like you are referring to voters in the first sentence, and politicians in the second. The Democrat party, in my opinion, is pro-union, pro-socialism, pro-collectism, anti-Constitution. And for that matter the Republican party is/has become quite the same.

What use is it to support lobby groups if, as you claim, only politicians initiate contact to sell something?

Oh, then there are some who do? How about GE?

Not ALL the time? Microsoft doen't interest me, I worked with unix all my life, and have never paid Microsoft a cent for any of their poorly coded software. They would be a monopoly IF there were no other choices available, but they monopolize only those who purchase their OS.

That has nothing to do with this conversation, that falls under free market trade.

How about if you were a car rental service, and a politician suggested he would vote to pass a new regulation which would give your business an edge over all your competition for a sizeable campaign contribution?

Those who initiate contact with politicians seeking their assistance in passing or creating legislation or regulations which favor their interests, with a large campaign contribution as a result, would be an example of a politician "being bought", and while the politician cannot be forced to sell his/her support, he/she CAN by their own free will accept being bought. Most everyone has a price, and probably most true of those who enter politics.

History seems to have changed since I was schooled, 60 years ago. Of course back then parents and the local community were much more involved than the Federal government in our school system. The ability of the Federal government to tax individuals directly provides the Federal government with immense powers over the States who must abide by rules set in Washington in order to receive some, or more often more money back than was taken from their State. We have gone from being the United States of America to becoming the Unitary State of America gradually, beginning in 1913 under Wilson. Effectively, and for all practical purposes, the 10th amendment has been eliminated.

As long as government can continue to provide something for nothing to an adequate number of voters through increasing debt, change will unlikely occur.

As will our own, eventually. I only would like to see means based budgeting. People need to learn that their own individual lives are their own responsibility, NOT governments, and our currency is backed ONLY by the production of our nation as a whole.

There's little to be gained dealing with anything other than the reality of what we must deal with. Our fiat currency which exists is but a small fraction of the debts we owe, not to mention the unfunded liabilities that grow even larger as each year passes. As more currency is printed, borrowed and loaned in multiples of that which exists, we are creating a situation in which devaluation of our currency at some point in the future hyperinflation may become inevitable. Of course the Fed today tries very hard to keep that from occurring in our/their lifetime, 2%-3% being an acceptable target each year. Keeping change from occurring rapidly, and only within what is determined to be acceptable gradually allows bad things to occur without much notice, and as long as a large number are kept believing that they are benefitting, which they truly are, little can be done as they will rise up in great numbers if anything is attempted. Most everyone lives with little regard for the economic future of those yet born.

Agreed.

 

Right, and 1970s was when the energy companies were nationalized. And I would wager a few more companies were nationalized during that time too.

So lets see. Prior to socialization, standards of living rose, and debt was low. After socializing large sections of the economy, poverty went up, and debt went up.

Socialism = fail. Capitalism = win.

What am I missing?

Being friendly to the US, doesn't mean they were capitalists. There have been many US friendly, pro-socialist countries in the past. I don't care if they were US friendly or not. What matter is what economic system did they push. If it's socialist based (incrementally or entirely), then it will fail. And it will fail no matter what the US government does, or how favorable they are to the US government.

How true that is, I don't know. But regardless, these "kleptocrats" would not have been able to use oil wealth, if it had not been socialized. In a free-market capitalist system, they wouldn't have that ability.

See, you can't look at a problem caused by socialism, and proclaim the solution is more socialism.

Further, I think you are drastically under estimating how much of this still happens to this day. In the BBC documentary, they also included upper and middle class people buying homes in Miami. One realtor company heard the phrase "Plan B" from Venezuelans wanting a backup plan when Chavez ruined the country, that they actually opened a company "Plan B International Realty" to cater to these people.

DUR?!?!

Really? You can't figure this out on your own? Let's see... why would upper, and middle class Venezuelans be upset?.... what are the possible reasons....

Well.... let just say that everything listed here happened to you.... there's no coffee.... no toilet paper.... no cheese.... no electricity.... no new automobiles.... no rice... as in regular eat it for dinner rice.... you have your business confiscated and nationalized.... you have your land confiscate and nationalized..... You have triple the murder rate, and crime, burglary, and vandalism is rampant....

Now why oh why.... would anyone be upset about that?

First, more oil has been discovered in Venezuela as well, but they have not produced anything, because the company profits have been confiscated by the government. Without profits to build up capital to invest in new wells, there are no new wells.

Second, by nationalizing foriegn company investments, no foreign companies will invest in new Venezuelan oil fields either.

Third, without being able to capitalize on existing known oil fields (because of the first two points), then no one has bothered to invest in searching for other oil fields.

Forth, without capital to invest in upgrading and maintaining the oil fields that are productive today, they are declining in productivity.

Well, that's a common claim by socialist government, and yet I have never found any justification for that claim. Again, the BBC said very specifically that land that had been productive, was confiscated and given to people who were not productive, and directly interviewed some of both.

If you can supply credible evidence of your claim, I will gladly take a look at it.

Thus far, an unsupported claim.

That doesn't make sense, because those same farmers are selling produce out of the country. One of the big huge complaints of Chavez, was that the large farms are shipping rice and beans and other things, to Columbia.

If international trade made making a profit impossible, how can they be making a profit selling to Columbia? Columbia has more trade with the US, than Venezuela does. Surely if imported food from the US kept prices too low to make it unprofitable selling in their own country, would not Columbia import from the US, than from Venezuela, because the US price was cheaper?

Simply not true. There is no evidence of that whatsoever. That's why even the poor have started turning away from the Socialists today.

Because there is no sabotage. It's just basic economics. If you have price controls, and you can't make a profit, then you sell somewhere else. If you regulations that drive up costs, then you produce somewhere else. Socialism caused all this, as it always has. Food shortages specifically, are nearly universal in every single socialized system in the world. So you try the same thing again, get the same results again, and blame some mythical concerted efforts to sabotage the economy?

No, it's just your failed system, failing again, and socialists looking for a scape goat to blame, as they always always do.

Funny since, everyone on the BBC documentary said it was worse than ever before. I guess those stupid Venezuelans didn't get the official socialists memo that everything was better.

No, it wasn't a step up. The standard of living has dropped in Cuba, not gone up. And no, they are not getting medical care. Not by a long shot. Some patients arive in wheel borrows because there is no ambulance service. Of course in emergency situations, they simply die.

Further, Cubans can't even get Aspirin. They can't get ASPIRIN..... You know, the bottle of 500 pills for $4 at the local CVS? They can't get ANY of them.

And yet all the problems you have listed thus far, are directly caused by socialism, not capitalism.

It is not possible for Socialists to protect capitalism. Capitalism requires that it not be protected. If you "protect" it, then you are disabling the system, and it is no longer capitalism.

 

What do you think Capitalism is & is not?

 

Not so much. It's just a matter of time, education, and priorities.

Most people simply don't have the time, and others don't want to take the time. Only a small fraction of the public has the time, and will take the time to learn. Education is less about getting the information out, and more about people willing to be educated. And most people are not. I remember talking to a girl I knew about welfare, and it's harmful effects, and her eyes rolled back, and she gave these "yeah that's cool" responses. I realized it wasn't that she was pro-welfare or not. It was simply that she didn't care. It wasn't a major issue in her world. She was thinking about her life, and what was going on in her world. She didn't care about these other things.

Again, this is why democracies always fail. It's not the people are actively trying to ruin the system, or something of that effect. It's simply that while every individual may know a lot about any specific topic, they will always be ignorant about most topics that are not priorities to them. Thus as a whole, the voting public will always be ignorant, and vote based on sound bites and slogans.

Well our country was built on that idea. The president, and the senators, were never given public votes. They were always put in place by state legislators, as they should be.

This is what the voters want. Both parties have to pander to the voters. In fact all parties do. This is why people who say we need a third party, are missing the mark in my opinion. A third party would have to pander to the voters as well.

Again, this is why we were never supposed to be a democracy.

Lobbying is the method for getting the sale. If a politicians offers up goods for sale, how do you as a company buy the goods? You lobby.

If you mean that false claim that GE didn't pay taxes, that was a fabrication.

That's my point. Politicians offered government services up for sale. Someone, namely Netscape, purchased a lawsuit against Microsoft, which was obviously, and undeniably false. Nevertheless, that government dragged out the case 3 years, spending millions on millions, until Microsoft was forced to "play the game" as well, and purchases services from politicians too.

And Microsoft, and thousands of other large corporations have gotten the message, and have been a consistent donator to both parties ever since.

Exactly. Same deal. I did not approach politicians to say "hey make this law that benefits me"... what happened was the politicians came up with a law, and then solicited funds based on that law. This is EXACTLY what is happening.

But it isn't normally companies that are initiating contact. It's the politicians.

You mentioned the federal reserve. Who contacted whom? The banks didn't demand a federal reserve system. It was the politicians that wanted it, and contacted a bunch of bankers for advice on how to do it.

Remember the Cheney Energy meeting? It wasn't Energy companies that contacted Cheney, and demanded a meeting, it was Cheney who contacted energy companies, and had the meeting.

As for everyone can be bought... I doubt it. Could be true, but my experience is that it's rare that someone believes X, and this is offered money, and ends up believe the opposite of X. I just don't see that quid pro quo happening very often if at all. If anything, someone that already supports X group, gets money from X group to support what they already support.

I agree, but I do not see how that applied to my post. Completely agree though.

Even if we did away with that, as long as one group believes they can get something for nothing, regardless of if they can, change is not likely to occur. If there is anything that forums like this have proven to me, it's the immense ability of people to rationalize away why what they believe isn't working. The thread on Venezuela is a perfect example. The socialist government has completely ruined the entire country, and yet socialist on this forum, have said that it's really the fault of capitalists intentionally sabotaging the economy.

I'm sure if we did away with borrowing money to fund social programs, the public would simply believe that the system would work, if only evil capitalists wouldn't sabotage the system.

In an age where no one is responsible for anything, I love to see that, but I don't know how you propose to make that a reality.

Well the sad state of the country is that people believe that funding these social programs *is* regarding the economic future of those yet born.

 

The simplest explanation is Capitalism is private and control of the means of production and distribution.

Socialism is government control over the means of production and distribution.

 

I have to give credit to those on the Left, they are very solidified, which is why they are prevailing. Those of us who oppose them seem unable to agree on anything much at all, which results in losing elections.
Good luck with 8 years of Hillary guys. Oh, and if Rand Paul runs for President, as a Republican or a Libertarian, he'll get my vote if I'm still alive, but probably won't win as the Republican Party will probably give their support to the Democrat candidate if he runs as a Republican.

 

The original question asked was "Why do governments get into debt?".

Can we return to the topic?

Can we all at least agree that the answer to 'HOW do governments get into debt?', is by spending more money than it has available to spend?

 

My problem with government debt 'today' is we use it as SOP to fund non-emergency government programs...and we have no plan whatsoever to pay down the debt.

I'm all for using debt wisely...in emergency situations...perhaps dealing with the national economy effects, but even these short term emergency fundings should have a pay-back plan.

When government as it does today uses debt for common government funding, this is reckless, greedy, and self-serving with ZERO regard for passing the debt onto future generations to deal with...

 

We can, but there's nothing more to say. The answer is very simple, and has been repeated many times.

Democracy rewards those who promise the most money from the government, and punishes those who tax more from the people. Result... debt.

 

Voters love the politician who brings home the bacon!!

 

That, I believe, fully answers this threads question, both clearly and concisely.

 

It also points to why it is extremely difficult to create spending changes in government...people are generally greedy and self-serving and will support anything except policy which directly effects them...stop bringing home the bacon and the politician is out of a job. Even worse, as US population increases, and the workforce reduces as a percentage (participation rate), more and more demands are placed on government and IMHO this simply is not sustainable...

 

Distribution occurs in ALL economies.
In almost all of the countries you called "socialist" there is private ownership of the means of production.
Feudal economies also had private ownership of the means of production. Are they Capitalist?

I think a more precise definition is required.

Do you consider the theories & policies advocated by Adam Smith (the so-called father of Capitalism) to be Capitalist?

 

You got it backward.
Government money only comes from the government.

The government has its own money, it doesn't need to collect its money back from you.
You can have money only if the government first creates & issues it.

In a nation, like the US, with trade deficits, the Public Sector''s deficit is the Private Sector's surplus (savings).
For the Private Sector to net save USD the Public Sector must run a deficit larger than the trade deficit.

Public Sector + Private Sector + Foreign Sector = 0

 

There is always enough money.
The state of the Federal budget should NEVER be the aim of policy.
The state of the real economy should be the basis of policy, not numbers on a balance sheet.

Any nation that issues its own floating currency, denominates all its debt in its currency & imposes taxation payable only in its currency, can NEVER involuntarily default or "go broke".
It is ALWAYS able to pay.
The only constraint on Federal spending is its ability to cause inflation.

The US can lower wages down to subsistence & it still won't be able to compete.

70% US worker's income is gone before they even buy goods/services

• 25 to 30% - goes to pay the student loan debt,
• up to 43% - mortgage debt now under government guarantees
• 15% - FICA withholding for Social Security and Medicare, along with other income & sales taxes

High housing costs & debt burden are the cause of the US workers uncompetitiveness, not high wages.
They are the result of a pro-rentier policy.

The other cause is the privatization of infrastructure that raises the cost of doing business.
Public infrastructure lowers the cost of living /doing business by providing roads & other basic utilities for free or at a subsidized rate and in doing so making the economy more competitive.

Lets start with copyrights, patents, corporations, investor's rights agreements (NAFTA,etc), limited liability, business subsidies, etc, etc.