Not Logged In Log In   Sign Up   Points Leaders
Follow Us    12:35 AM

Message Forum - Read Message

Category: US politics > Topics Add to favorite topics   Post new topicPost New Topic
Author Topic: What makes YOU stop spending? Back to Topics
YDraigGoch

Champion Author
Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 8:48:22 PM

Most of us all have a point that says STOP SPENDING.

Certain social pressures keep us from going “over the cliff” in our personal finances.. The bill collectors, the harassing phone calls, the public shame of getting yourself into financial trouble. All of this is enough to curtail our more outrageous spending habits. Of course, there are some people who have never developed the responsibility to handle their own financial affairs. They will crash, no matter what.

But most of us do show restraint. We may not do so gleefully, but we do so out of fear of damaging ourselves and our families.

No one would take a job that pays less simply to stop their excessive spending. That would be a dumb thing to do. But for some reason, there is a segment of our population that thinks it is a good idea. The “starve the beast” crowd. The ones that believe cutting taxes will magically cut spending.

The hard reality is that if you want to cut spending, make it hurt. Make people pay as they go. No credit card. No deficits allowed (after the debt is paid down). Collect as much tax as it takes to pay for the stuff we buy. When spending on (pick any subject) gets too high, people will want less. They simply will not pay any more for that welfare, that defense spending, that foreign aid.

We see it in gas prices. When the price gets much over $4.00, we start buying less. When housing gets too expensive, we buy smaller houses. You see a TV you want, but you can’t see spending $1400 for a TV. So you don’t. You would love a big $50,000 SUV, but for now, the old mini van will have to do.

Tax cuts are just a way for the upper 1% to fool us into borrowing money to finance big government spending. Which they make billions off. And they don’t even have to pay the tax share that we do in order to get that wealth. But if we had to pay as we go, then that fat cats would not be able to convince us to buy stuff we don’t really need.

Everyone loves a bargain. As long as we are paying $75 for $100 worth of government, we are NOT going to stop.

Now, How about this nice TV? Normally $5000, but just for you $4799.
REPLIES (newest first) Post a Reply
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 4:06:55 PM

As many of you have pointed out, you also look for the best deal when you shop. Some of you may have lived in an area where a grocery store was the only one for miles. You may have griped about the "higher prices", or simply driven a long distance to cut costs.

Our government spends more money than necessary because there are certain entities that have us over a barrel.

Unions: They cause inflated wages that trickle down through the entire economy. I'm sorry, but some guy who spends his life screwing light bulbs into the butt end of a chevy should NOT make as much as the guy that designed the electrical system. Not to mention the life long "retirement" benefits that the engineer has to save for himself.

No bid contracts: Like the grocery store, if there is no competition, there is no mandate to hold down costs. This is one of the ways the 1% make a lot of money.

"Cost overruns": Bid what you want. The government has a blank check, so just keep adding on to the price. Sort of like flying these days. Add ons for luggage, carry ons, food, water. They even tried to charge for rest rooms. This too is a method for a few people to make money.

Stuff we don't need: Congress wants to keep their constituents working, no matter what. So they build planes the military does not need, tanks the army does not want, and just about everything you can think of. The U.S, Military is the largest employer in the world. The cost per job is also the highest in the world, even higher than NASA.

So between the mandates of the ultra wealthy, and the demands for jobs, we spend an awful lot of money for nothing. We are spending because we do not know what else to do.

Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,841
Points:458,225
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 3:51:42 PM

Oh. To answer the OP question. I don't spend. Not as a habit. EVERY expenditure is thought of as a departure from the norm. If I decide to spend on something it is considered a one-shot deal. And if I have recently had too many one-shot deals then that's it. No more until the coffers are refilled.

Everything I buy is for the long run. I look for the best deal based on cost vs longevity.

The car is paid for. Its got well over 200K miles on it. I'm hoping it will go beyond 300K. The money for its replacement has already been saved and is sitting in the bank for whenever it is needed. The current car will get driven into the ground. I pay the auto insurance in full up front for a year if they let me. (avoid the six month policies - more chances for them to raise the rate) I don't have a big screen TV because the old CRT still works. And no cable. What a waste. I don't have a smart phone because the old flip phone still works. When I got a cell phone I cancelled the land line. I buy pants at the thrift store for $7. Got some nice shirts there too. Credit card is paid in full every month. 0 interest. It's like that. Get ahead and stay that way. The only time-payment I make is the mortgage.

The more appropriate question would be "What makes me START spending?" And the answer would be it has to be needed, (or, if discretionary, then within an allowable amount) affordable and a good value.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,841
Points:458,225
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 3:36:05 PM

"The ones that believe cutting taxes will magically cut spending."

--I think we have seen very clearly that what it actually does is creates larger government debt.

Just one time I'd like to hear a politician say:

"We must go to war with X. But let's make sure we don't fool ourselves. This is going to cost us; so everyone will have to agree to another $2000 of taxes per family. Now who is with me?"

Might as well ask for a peace movement.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 12:30:43 PM

gocatgo: ""Join the ranks of the unemployed" and thanks to people like you it's okay because you have excused the deadbeat job creators. As I have sad before, America first all others go to the end of the line."

I think you're missing a very important point. The jobs that you thing the "deadbeat job creators" have taken overseas are unsupportable here. They are created "over there" for valid reasons; they are closer the customer, they are cheaper or they are tax advantaged. If they were "created" here, they would soon be out of work because the company they work for could not be competitive in a global economy. Your dream that if only the "deadbeat job creators" would create their jobs here we would have plenty of jobs is a huge fallacy.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,343
Points:3,220,055
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 7, 2012 12:17:15 PM

Turb, "companies that send jobs overseas usually do it for a reason". You are much to quick to forgive the deadbeat job creator than I am. I'm not to worried about Japan, Germany or any other nation's economy. It is long past time for America to take care of it's own economy. "Join the ranks of the unemployed" and thanks to people like you it's okay because you have excused the deadbeat job creators. As I have sad before, America first all others go to the end of the line.

ydraig, LBJ had a pair, Lol. "If Bush had told America they would have to pay for the Iraq war", Amen.

Mark, "nearly every week we lose jobs". I asked the last contractor I was going to hire if he was using illegal aliens. He did not submit a bid and he did not return my calls.

Ac-, "tax the rich at 100%" so let's not do anything and I think we know where that will take us. "Tax the bejesus" = 39% as opposed to doing nothing. If we ask the wealthy to pay more taxes we should also cut programs and entitlements. And lastly let's not forget to stop or cut our subsidies to our friends and enemies defenses overseas.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 8:04:31 PM

>>>A better question: How do I get my wife to stop spending?<<<

>>> Bartering has stopped a lot of spending. <<<

Oh wait, I thought he just misspelled battering.

Oh, I'm gonna get in trouble for THIS one.

Sorry :o)
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 3:54:55 PM

>>>A better question: How do I get my wife to stop spending?<<<

Cash, a check or two, and no plastic. That way, the mindset of "I know I can't be out of money, I still have checks left, syndrome" is debunked.
Profile Pic
SE3.5
Champion Author Indianapolis

Posts:24,700
Points:3,854,790
Joined:May 2004
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 3:29:44 PM

What makes me stop spending? My budget. If I take in $50,000, I make it a point to spend only $49,000. I wish the government would do the same.
Profile Pic
AC-302
Champion Author Los Angeles

Posts:31,643
Points:3,507,120
Joined:Aug 2004
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 2:31:50 PM

Even if you taxed "the rich" at a rate of 100%, you wouldn't even come close to balancing the budget. Knowing this, when I see Democrats in particular wanting to tax the bejesus out of the rich, it makes me think it's a "wealth envy" thing. We already have a "progressive" tax system, whereby those who make more pay higher percentages. I think the Republican idea of cutting loopholes and deductions has merit. Whey won't the Dems use that as a starting point for talks? Don't raise the rates, remove loopholes or limit deductions. That seems to me to be a fairer way of increasing revenue without necessarily "increasing taxes". You're simply getting folks with high incomes and high deductions to pay more.

I think nobody in their right minds feels that cutting taxes by itself it going to "starve the beast", as our dragon man puts it. Obviously we need cuts. Where should those cuts come from? Well, social programs is a good first step. Entitlements may also have to be cut or limited, particularly for those with alternative high means (should millionaires living off of trust fund money necessarily get SSI? Yeah, I know they paid into it, but to keep the system solvent, those rich may not even feel their $2k/ month check being stopped. Then again, are there enough rich to make a difference?) I think we're definitely going to have to freeze SSI for quite awhile. But again, we don't have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem. And yes, obviously some DoD spending is going to have to get cut, and the remainder prioritized. We must get a handle on our national debt and deficit.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,769
Points:47,100
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 2:02:57 PM

<i>Obama and the Democrats have unintentionally ballooned the underground economy in the past 4 years -- estimated at over $1T annually.</i>

I'm surprised it's that low.

We can't hire many of our former subs and helpers as they want to work for cash, partial cash and/or without plans, permits, inspections, receipts, guarantees, insurance etc.

Nearly every week we lose quite a few bid jobs to cash contractors, tradesmen, handymen, side jobbers etc.

I don't blame customers for wanting to save hundreds, or thousands on a job.

Much of our unskilled/low skilled population can't find full time jobs, or 2 or 3 part-time jobs, so they have to work in the underground economy. Child care, cleaning jobs and private duty home care by CNAs/HHAs/PCAs are big underground economy industries locally.

Profile Pic
worryfree
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:27,514
Points:2,486,900
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 1:59:32 PM

A better question: How do I get my wife to stop spending?
Profile Pic
airfresh
Champion Author Massachusetts

Posts:17,842
Points:1,017,895
Joined:Aug 2007
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 1:30:56 PM

Take what you earn today and imagine that 10 years from now you're making double what you earn today and there was very little inflation.

Now imagine that your debt has risen exponentially over that time and you find yourself in much higher debt then you were 10 years earlier.

Would your problem be ....not enough income.... or too much spending?

Now imagine your govt revenues doubled over a 10 year period then doubled again over the next 15 year period and it found itself about to fall off a fiscal cliff. Oh wait you don't have to imagine it. It's about to become a reality.

To understand where the problem lies...In the last 5 days our national debt rose almost the exact amount of the proposed tax increases on all those rich b@$t@rd$ some hate so much. Yep that'll help.

From the beginning it has been a spending problem. Any deal struck in Congress that includes new spending will change nothing.

Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,824
Points:141,170
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 1:29:04 PM

"Bartering has stopped a lot of spending. Many goods and services change hands without manufacturing, distribution, sales, taxes etc."

Obama and the Democrats have unintentionally ballooned the underground economy in the past 4 years -- estimated at over $1T annually.

It doesn't matter if Obama taxes the rich at 91% -- the revenues will likely go down, not up. Ask the UK how their last tax the rich scheme worked -- new 50% tax, revenues were cut in half year-over-year.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,769
Points:47,100
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 12:54:21 PM

Speaking of televisions and electronics in general, technology increases so rapidly that buyers are getting larger, better, higher performing and more feature rich electronics for less money, especially when you buy them online, or on sale/closeout.

The real expense of many electronics - televisions, desktops, laptops, netbooks, tablets, cell phones etc is subscription costs - cable, satellite, premium channels, pay per view, movies, broadband, VOIP, talk/text/data plans.

Some electronics have become so cheap that they're effectively sold at low margins, or even at a loss, then the money is made on subscription costs.

Many poor and low income households pi$$ away much of their little disposable income on televisions, rent-to-own electronics, laptops, tablets, cell phones, cable, broadband, pre-paid talk/text/data plans.

Many poor and low income buyers don't purchase renters insurance, extended warranties and/or accidental damage coverage, so they pay again and again when their electronics are stolen, damaged or fail out of warranty.
Profile Pic
SemiSteve
Champion Author Tampa

Posts:19,841
Points:458,225
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 11:16:02 AM

"Instead, we should have raised taxes to pay for the stuff we thought we needed."

MiddletownMarty: "Like two wars and Medicare Part D, for instance. "

--WELL SAID!!!

Completely agree.

I detest these 'sanitized wars'. Where is the media? Why do we never see pictures of the civilians and children killed by drones? Lotta people making big bux from drones. What insanity. We are in the process of creating the next enemies.
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,769
Points:47,100
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 5, 2012 11:09:02 AM

Bartering has stopped a lot of spending. Many goods and services change hands without manufacturing, distribution, sales, taxes etc.

Many people have stopped spending since they have no place to store the stuff they already own.

As we transition to more of a renter vs homeowner culture, many people have had to cut back on purchases of many goods, plus sell off, or give away stuff they already own.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 8:14:14 PM

YDG: "President Johnson put a 10% surtax in place..."

You forgot "the rest of the story".

From his 1968 signing statement.

"FOUR AND A HALF years ago--just a few months after becoming President--I signed the biggest tax cut in the Nation's history. Then, the economy was dragging. Five and a half percent of the labor force was out of work. We were underachievers--falling almost $30 billion short of our productive capacity.

We had to put our foot on the accelerator then. The income tax reduction and the later excise tax cuts brought new vigor and health to America's economy. They helped us to roll up an unparalleled and impressive record: 88 months of sustained prosperity.

This has meant higher paychecks to the worker and higher profits to the businessman. The unemployment rate has dropped all the way down to 3-5 percent, the lowest in 15 years. Never before have so many of our citizens shared in so much of the Nation's prosperity."

Yep, tax cuts to stimulate the economy. And it worked!

"The unemployment rate has dropped all the way down to 3-5 percent, the lowest in 15 years. Never before have so many of our citizens shared in so much of the Nation's prosperity."

He waited until the economy had fully recovered and unemployment was at historic lows before increasing taxes.

"This bill deals with expenditures as well as taxes. It requires the President to reduce Federal expenditures by $6 billion from the January budget for the fiscal 1969."

I guess it was a "balanced approach".

Based on this signing statement, LBJ would have *never* done what Obama is trying to do. Apparently, LBJ knew a little more about economics than our current President.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,703
Points:328,205
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 7:42:28 PM

"Instead, we should have raised taxes to pay for the stuff we thought we needed."

Like two wars and Medicare Part D, for instance.
Profile Pic
YDraigGoch
Champion Author Illinois

Posts:7,346
Points:86,435
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 7:36:50 PM

Actually, pharmaceuticals and medical devices are the most overpriced items around. I worked in that field, and made quite a salary.

But back to the subject at hand. Cutting taxes and borrowing was the biggest mistake we ever made. Instead, we should have raised taxes to pay for the stuff we thought we needed. If we had done that, the spending would have been curtailed in the 80s.

Want a good example?

President Johnson put a 10% surtax in place to pay for the Vietnam war. When Congress balked, he twisted their arm with the following ploy. He got the leaders together for a lunch, and told them "I am going to ask the American people for this increase. I am going to tell them that I, for one, will NOT send their sons over there to fight and die, then make them come home and pay for that war. What are YOU going to tell them?"

The surtax helped turn a lot of conservatives against the war. Along with the hard left who opposed the war, the right stopped supporting it too.

It all boils down to the same thing: How much do you REALLY want that government program? What are YOU willing to pay for it?

If Bush had actually told America that they would have to PAY for the Iraq war, it would never have happened. Not in a hundred years, despite the insistence of John McCain :o)
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,703
Points:328,205
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 7:14:17 PM

"Are you a congressman? ROFL!"

No. I work.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,652
Points:2,397,885
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 6:42:04 PM

Marty states: <<<I stop spending when my needs are met.>>>

Are you a congressman? ROFL!
***********
Marty also states: <<<A broken clock is right twice a day.>>>

A broken clock is also useless and takes up space that can be used for something useful.
*************
Fly states: <<<your giving sailors a bad name.>>>

You're right, I apologize to all sailors that I demeaned by comparing them to useless senators and representatives.
Profile Pic
btc1
Champion Author Lexington

Posts:23,456
Points:896,975
Joined:Aug 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 5:52:31 PM

YDraig, you do know that television and appliances are probably the MOST over priced items ever! By the time you buy one at those large mega outlets you are paying most likely 15 peoples' income that day! The deep discounts on older stock are evidence of that. I bought a $1200 47" HD-3D at Walmart on clearance a week after I saw it go on clearance for $798. I got it for $699.00 after the week wait! Almost half! And the warranties are expensive dressings for the store to discount the actual product!
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,703
Points:328,205
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 5:16:26 PM

A broken clock is right twice a day.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,705
Points:1,342,775
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 4:44:03 PM

Sometimes, Turbo makes a lot of sense...
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 4:40:20 PM

RNorm: "But I read today that part of the GOP's counterproposal contained language that would affect current retirees...which would be problematic."

I believe that they are proposing a different way to calculate cost-of-living adjustments. There is room to negotiate there, I believe. But, an argument could be made that the COLA for SS has been generous in the past.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 4:30:25 PM

gocatgo: "Turb, "dead beat job creator" an employer that hires illegals or a company sending jobs overseas enjoying the Bush tax cut."

I can agree to to some extent. But, the company that hires illegals may not be reporting income either; so they may not actually be "enjoying the Bush tax cuts". Companies that send jobs overseas usually do it for a reason; to be closer to their customers, to avoid burdensome taxes, to obtain cheaper labor, etc., all of which affect their competitiveness in a global economy. If they don't do that, they perish. It is better that they survive and pay some US taxes, right?

gocatgo: "For starters the subsidized defense of Germany, Japan, S Korea and the rest of the nations with US military bases around the world. If America has a military installation in a foreign nation we are subsidizing that nation's defense and economy."

I don't know about S. Korea, but neither Germany nor Japan have robust economies right now. I thought that was your criteria. We are subsidizing their defense and to some degree their economies, but we are also fulfilling our responsibility to existing Treaties. In addition, those foreign outposts serve as a forward guard for our own soil. I do agree that we should minimize our presence there to whatever extent it is possible and still maintain our obligations and self interest.

gocatgo: "Our service people get few if any benefits for serving overseas from a host nation."

For the time being, they have a job. If we bring them home, they more than likely will join the ranks of the unemployed.
Profile Pic
KansasGunman
Champion Author Kansas

Posts:22,106
Points:2,117,980
Joined:Oct 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 4:01:43 PM

Well, marty Stuart has at least one take on it.
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,343
Points:3,220,055
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:54:21 PM

Turb, "dead beat job creator" an employer that hires illegals or a company sending jobs overseas enjoying the Bush tax cut. I am not a job creator but my taxes go to support those on welfare. For starters the subsidized defense of Germany, Japan, S Korea and the rest of the nations with US military bases around the world. If America has a military installation in a foreign nation we are subsidizing that nation's defense and economy. Our service people get few if any benefits for serving overseas from a host nation.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,705
Points:1,342,775
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:47:52 PM

"That's why any changes that are made has to leave everything alone for people who are retired or have retirement on the horizon (i.e., exactly what Paul Ryan proposed)."


But I read today that part of the GOP's counterproposal contained language that would affect current retirees...which would be problematic.

I didn't want to take the topic off point, so I'll do some research on that and post it in a more appropriate topic.


Back to the subject at hand, Gocat has made a good point about living within one's means and not using more credit than he can afford. I'm in the process of getting to that now. My car is paid off and my wife's car will be in about 8-9 months. They're both relatively new, and still under warranty, so there is no need for us to go out and buy a new car just because we can. That is how people find themselves in serious trouble; i.e., trying to keep up with the Joneses while putting the debt to income ration way out of balance...
Profile Pic
owt
Champion Author Tennessee

Posts:10,326
Points:1,592,070
Joined:Aug 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:47:26 PM

no money
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:34:25 PM

RNorm: "I've worked all my life, so I AM entitled to what was promised to me as my taxes were being taken out all those working years..."

I agree with you. That's why any changes that are made has to leave everything alone for people who are retired or have retirement on the horizon (i.e., exactly what Paul Ryan proposed). The problem for an entitlement like Social Security is the $22T in future unfunded liability that cannot be covered by the current payroll tax and retirement age, and future working population. That means that without significant changes to the program, you and I may be OK, but our children and grandchildren will not be covered.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,705
Points:1,342,775
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:12:57 PM

"So why does Washington insist on continuing the spending like drunk sailors? I don't get it."


Because they're not held accountable for what they do.

The primary reason medicare and social security have problems is because of the raids on the trust fund by BOTH sides and never putting that money bank.

Also, we need to stop the demonization of entitlements. I've worked all my life, so I AM entitled to what was promised to me as my taxes were being taken out all those working years...
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,816
Points:1,599,480
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:06:18 PM

EZ - your giving sailors a bad name. Sailors will only spend what they brought off the ship. When they run out of their own money they stop spending. Our government doesnt seem to understand this rather simple idea.
Profile Pic
MiddletownMarty
Champion Author Connecticut

Posts:22,703
Points:328,205
Joined:Jul 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 3:03:17 PM

"What makes YOU stop spending?"

I stop spending when my needs are met.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 2:24:42 PM

EZExit: " So why does Washington insist on continuing the spending like drunk sailors?"

Because they can. We can't (legally) print money. They control the debt ceiling. They also have liberal pundits with faux credibility, like Paul Krugman who tell them they aren't spending enough! There is no restraint whatsoever.
Profile Pic
EZExit
Champion Author Phoenix

Posts:16,652
Points:2,397,885
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 2:14:44 PM

Norm states: <<<"What makes YOU stop spending?"

When my budgeted disposable cash is spent.
Plain and simple.>>>

I couldn't agree more, it would also appears that conservatives and liberals alike think along the same lines. So why does Washington insist on continuing the spending like drunk sailors? I don't get it.
Profile Pic
RNorm
Champion Author San Bernardino

Posts:53,705
Points:1,342,775
Joined:Mar 2005
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 2:06:09 PM

"What makes YOU stop spending?"


When my budgeted disposable cash is spent.

Plain and simple.
Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 1:59:56 PM

gocatgo: "I would never reward a deadbeat job creator with a tax cut, instead I would increase his tax bill."

Of course you would. But, by definition a "job creator" is *not* a deadbeat. A "deadbeat" would be the out-of-work, but work capable, welfare recipient who owes his very existence to the taxes paid by the "job creator".

gocatgo: "Enemy nations to America do not deserve foreign aid."

Agreed. But, there are so many fine lines these days between friend and foe. There's also the enemy of my enemy is my friend thing going on.

gocatgo: "European and Asian nations with stable economies defenses should not be subsidized by the American tax payers."

To which one or two nations are you referring? Germany? Israel? who?
Profile Pic
gocatgo
Champion Author South Carolina

Posts:19,343
Points:3,220,055
Joined:Apr 2006
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 12:48:40 PM

I have one simple spending rule: I do not spend what I can't pay for with cash or a check. This includes my one and only credit card. When my Visa bill comes it is paid in full. I have not had to pay interest on my Visa card since the mid 1980s. I have not had a car payment since 2002. I paid cash for my last new car in 2008. If I think I am spending too much I know when to say no. I don't reward bad spending habits to myself by spending more, I spend less. I can't remember the last time I spent money on someone that did not like me. Unfortunately our govt does not operate the way I do. I would never reward a deadbeat job creator with a tax cut, instead I would increase his tax bill. Enemy nations to America do not deserve foreign aid. European and Asian nations with stable economies defenses should not be subsidized by the American tax payers.

Call me a hard a$$ but to date I can honestly say, "Life's Been Good To Me So Far" ~ Joe Walsh.

Profile Pic
nstrdnvstr
Champion Author Twin Cities

Posts:41,166
Points:4,669,650
Joined:May 2001
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 11:18:46 AM

Too many exemptions in PAYGO, YDraigGoch!

The problem isn't revenue, it is overspending!

Sure, the democrats are saying that they want to go back to the Clinton level of taxes (which is untrue), but have you heard of them saying that they want to go back to the Clinton level of spending????

No, you have not!
Profile Pic
MarkJames
Champion Author Albany

Posts:2,769
Points:47,100
Joined:Feb 2008
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 10:29:00 AM

In the past month alone I looked at 9 distressed sale homes. I wasn't interested in any due to the asking price, renovation costs, high property taxes, zoning laws, deed restrictions, risks, carrying costs, uncertain resale market etc.

I bought 2 other homes recently that both needed new roof sheathing and shingles. I got 7 quotes, but they were all so high that I did the work myself.

I have plenty of money to spend, but if sellers want some of it, they'll have to give me good value for my money.

We often can't give our money away as many suppliers and stores don't have the products we need, or the supply is very limited.
Profile Pic
e_jeepin
Champion Author Michigan

Posts:4,824
Points:141,170
Joined:May 2007
Message Posted: Dec 4, 2012 1:01:54 AM

We stop spending when we fear our future.

The Unaffordable Care Act (UCA) is a brand new Medicaid style debt pit. I will be assessed high rates to subsidize it for others to get it free. We can be assured that the original CBO estimates will be wrong. The cost will be immediately double, then double again in less than 5 years.

Then it happens -- "we need to raise taxes to support UCA"

Tough to be optimistic for 2013 since none of us has a clue what Democrats will be charging for this monster.
Profile Pic
fracknsave
Champion Author Grand Rapids

Posts:1,666
Points:58,000
Joined:Mar 2012
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 10:12:26 PM

Just like in obambicare, the dems have one MO, exempt themselves from it and spend away. Once exempted, you are then spending the rich people's money, simple as that. And let's face it, they didn't build that, da gubr'ment allowed them to, and will disallow it just as easily, where are they going to go with it that we can't find them?

[camera pans back in five years later:]
"Where'd they all go?"
Profile Pic
Panama19
Champion Author Louisville

Posts:31,031
Points:3,218,735
Joined:Sep 2005
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 9:59:19 PM


If you listen to the administration and the Dems, there is no problem with spending.

In fact, the Fed is now promising to spend another $85 Billion a month under QE3 in perpetuity until the debt problem goes away.

The question is not what makes ME stop spending (I don't spend money I don't have) - the question is what will make the Dems live in the real world.

Profile Pic
turbosaab
Champion Author Cleveland

Posts:19,018
Points:2,342,150
Joined:Sep 2006
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 9:54:12 PM

YDG: "But for some reason, there is a segment of our population that thinks it is a good idea. The “starve the beast” crowd. The ones that believe cutting taxes will magically cut spending."

I'm not sure what to make out of this. Is there really anyone who believes that? If so, I haven't come across any. Are you making that up, YDG? Yes you are!

YDG: "Tax cuts are just a way for the upper 1% to fool us into borrowing money to finance big government spending. Which they make billions off. And they don’t even have to pay the tax share that we do in order to get that wealth."

I don't know where to start here. Tax cuts are just a way for the upper 1% to fool us? Tax cuts have always led to higher revenues. That's right, the upper 1% pay *more* when their marginal tax rates are lower. So, the government actually borrows *less*! Oooops. Maybe they make money either way......I don't know. And they don't even have to pay the tax share?!? Our current tax system is the most progressive in our history. In 2010, the average tax rate for those making over $1M was 23%. The rate for those making between $250k and 1M was 22%. The rate for those making $100k-$250k was 13%. Between $50k and $100k it was 8%, and between $30k and $50k it was 3%. Everyone below $30k had negative tax rates! (Source)

Your whole premise is just a very long strawman argument.

[Edited by: turbosaab at 12/3/2012 9:57:26 PM EST]
Profile Pic
flyboyUT
Champion Author Utah

Posts:28,816
Points:1,599,480
Joined:Aug 2008
Message Posted: Dec 3, 2012 8:58:06 PM

Oh red lizard - we have or had something called pay as you go in the congress at one time. But the congresscritters figured out how to ignore it along with ignoring everything else that didnt fit their vision of government.
Post a reply Back to Topics