• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

National/state/local political and budget debt, is it democratically legal?

Is it legal for govmnts to take on debt on bahalf of taxpayers without approval?

  • No, its illegal and absurd.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • No, in a real democracy it should not be possible.

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • No, it should only be possible with popular approval, yet minimised and only in extreme situations.

    Votes: 3 42.9%

  • No, but the west is not democracy.

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • It may be legal under some circumstances

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • It should be legal under some circumstances.

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • It should be like it is

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • I dont know

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • other opinion (specify in post)

    Votes: 1 14.3%
  • Total voters
    7

Maximus Zeebra

MoG
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 14, 2006
Messages
7,588
Reaction score
468
Location
Western Europe
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Countries all over the west, who claim to be democratic, are taking on debt on behalf of the population. The result is that the population end up paying interest rates and costs to the banks and institutions who lent this money to the country.

One of the biggest budget posts in western budgets these days is interest rates on debts.

In a real democracy, is it democratically legal to take on government debt without the approval of the population who is taxed to pay for that debt and the interest on that debt. Especially in light of how elections works today and the fiscal promises politicians give to the population in order to be elected. Should it be illegal for governments to take on debt on behalf of the people without their actual approval?

In a two party system or a coalition mutliparty system should the majority be allowed for force the minority to take on debt with them?

In my opinion it is completely anti-democratic and politically ridiculous that politicians can take on debt to keep election promises. In a democracy this should not be possible. In a democracy, the people who take on the debt should be asked. And in most cases a state should rather build assets than take on liabilities on behalf of the population. Especially in light of the future promises the states have towards the population in for example things like pensions.

Please vote your opinion.
 

What do you plan on doing with the data once you have it?
 
What you should be arguing is whether it is right or wrong. In terms of legality, it is legal if the laws allow for it and in most democratic countries, the laws do.

Personally though, I would support a balanced budget amendment or debt up to the growth of GDP.
 
Last edited:
Why would it be illegal? The voters elected the politicians, and the politicians chose to take on more debt. If the voters don't like it, next election they can elect people who promise to balance the budget. The voters gave their approval when they elected those politicians.
 
megaprogman said:
What you should be arguing is whether it is right or wrong. In terms of legality, it is legal if the laws allow for it and in most democratic countries, the laws do.
Click to expand...

Do they, or is that only because there is a lack of law in this area?

Even so, you avoided answering the question. Which, reformulated is. In a democratic society, is it really democratically legal for a government to take on debt on behalf of their people without their approval?



megaprogman said:
Personally though, I would support a balanced budget amendment or debt up to the growth of GDP.
Click to expand...

Why does rich western nations take on debt?

Why should a nation be allowed to take on debt on behalf of the people, to make unbalanced budgets?
 

The problem is that both parties in the US have kept taking on debt. This means, the populace have no option, no choice. So no, they cannot elect a party who is not going to take on any debt, because no such thing exist.


And in the age of circus elections where politicians pay of voters for their votes, more debt is sure to be taken on.
 
Maximus Zeebra said:
The problem is that both parties in the US have kept taking on debt. This means, the populace have no option, no choice. So no, they cannot elect a party who is not going to take on any debt, because no such thing exist.
Click to expand...

The reason both parties support taking on more debt is because that's what the voters have wanted, up until now. It's not an immutable fact of nature that both parties nominate candidates that want more debt; those candidates had to win a primary election. The voters absolutely do have a choice. If the voters are adamantly opposed to debt increases, they can vote for a person in the primary election to represent their party who promises to balance the budget.

Maximus Zeebra said:
And in the age of circus elections where politicians pay of voters for their votes, more debt is sure to be taken on.
Click to expand...

I've never heard of anything more than isolated incidents of vote-buying in any modern democracy, not anything systemic. Maybe it frequently happens in Nigeria, but not here.
 
Last edited:
I noted that you have several different types of blatant "No's" and really only at best a couple of "partial" yes answers with no outright "yes".

Is it legal? Yes, it's legal.

Do you like it? I'd guess based on your post and the poll options you gave the answer is a resounding "No".

If your going to cultivate data then please make your post attempt to be unbiased. Simply state the question and give potential answers.
 
I certainly see both sides.

I believe people have the responsibility to know whether or not their national budget can afford such promises and the people ought to be able to conclude if a debt is necessary to fund these promised which they will have to pay eventually. So by electing the politician who promises, they are in essence voting on the debt itself.

The problem is that ALL of the people have to pay for the majority's vote... and as the case is, that majority in the US aren't the ones paying the majority of that debt back.

So have the people voted on it? Yes. Should they be allowed to? No. Our country's current state (of 1/2 the income earners not paying taxes, but still voting) is the inevitable result of such a governmental system.
 
Last edited:
Kandahar said:
The reason both parties support taking on more debt is because that's what the voters have wanted
Click to expand...

Really? Says which referendum, says which national poll? Or is it just your opinion that even though the population has never been heard they want the politicians to take on more debt.

I fail to see where the population ever asked the politicians to take on loans on their behalf.


Kandahar said:
I've never heard of anything more than isolated incidents of vote-buying in any modern democracy, not anything systemic. Maybe it frequently happens in Nigeria, but not here.
Click to expand...

Are you really so blind and naive? The whole US election is about money. Its a systemic problem. First the president to be buys a place into the presidential race, then he buys of the population with the best tax cuts that the nation cannot afford.

You know the corruption of the election process in the US.
 
They take on debt for varying reasons.. The republicans take on debt to lower taxs or not to raise them, the democrats take on debt to give stuff away...the bottom line combines the two...they take on debt to make themselves look good to thier constituencies to get re elected and last but not least its not their money so they dont give a chit
 

If that isn't what the voters wanted, then they wouldn't vote for candidates who supported that platform. It's that simple. Democracies may not always do what is immediately popular, but in the long term democracies will respond to the basic desires of the voters. If a balanced budget was a major issue for most voters, one or both of the parties would have adopted it as their platform a long time ago.
 
fredmertz said:
I believe people have the responsibility to know whether or not their national budget can afford such promises and the people ought to be able to conclude if a debt is necessary to fund these promised which they will have to pay eventually.
Click to expand...

Really? So even if the debt is 50% of national GDP, or 7 trillion dollar for the US or 1.5 trillion Euro for Germany, is it still okay because it is affordable? In the US that is interest rates of several hundred billions a year, that the population pays to banks and financial institutions, just because it is affordable to have the debt. It is affordable for me to have debt as well, but its not clever, its much better not to have debt, and just because you can pay it does not mean its affordable.

fredmertz said:
So by electing the politician who promises, they are in essence voting on the debt itself.
Click to expand...

That is such a lie. You know it as well as me, politicians will say anything to get elected. George W Bush took on the biggest amount of debt in US history and ran the biggest budget deficit, where in his program did it say that he would do that?
Obama said Bush had run up big debt and deficit, that it was wrong and that change was needed. Where in his program did it say that Obama would take on an even bigger debt and deficit than Bush, and bring everything debt and deficits to new historical highs?

fredmertz said:
The problem is that ALL of the people have to pay for the majority's vote... and as the case is, that majority in the US aren't the ones paying the majority of that debt back.
Click to expand...

And this my friend is the problem with party politics. You have no say on the politics itself, you have no influence on what will happen policy wise. You just get to majority vote on one of two parties and the presidential liars and hope things will change in your direction. Much like playing the lottery.

fredmertz said:
So have the people voted on it? Yes.
Click to expand...

Lie lie lie. The people has never voted on any policies. They get a choice of two pretty similar set of policies and then can vote on the parties. In the end it will not matter which party they vote for since most policies will happen no matter what they vote.

When will you realise that democracy is the biggest scam in history.
 

Yes yes yes. And that is the problem! Finally one that sees it.
 

Ok. My answer to that is this...
http://www.debatepolitics.com/polls...debt-democratically-legal.html#post1059422008
 

Please allow me to clarify. I was NOT saying that I believe the debt is affordable. I do NOT think it's affordable. But what I did say was that I do think it is the voters' responsibility to RESEARCH political promises purely because they are all lies. Before I vote, I determine what is possible within what I believe is reasonable (which is ZERO debt, btw). And so the majority disagrees with me, hence our current condition, but I believe they DID vote for it. I personally haven't voted for a major party candidate, EVER.
 
I agree with that, except, how are regular voters suppose to keep up with the issues and political cases if they never received any political or economically relevant education. In addition how can they do that taken into consideration that politics have become all about hiding the reality and never informing the public about anything important?
 
The legal concept of debt is something that only exists through the state, so the idea that it does not have the authority to incur debt makes no sense. It is also logistically impossible, since the operation of payrolls, the acquisition of materiel, and the discharge of services requires an ongoing balance of accounts that is sometimes positive and sometimes negative. Sometimes the state owes money to a person, organization, or foreign entity, and sometimes it is owed money. This debt is not something that physically exists independent of the authority of the state, but is 100% a product of it. The debt exists only insofar as the state credibly promises to pay it, or has the power to collect it when it is a negative debt (i.e., a credit). To claim that debt is illegal is to say that government is illegal, and that is pure anarchist nonsense.
 
So, its okay for the state to "pay for today with tomorrow"?

And it is okay for them to incur interest rate costs on the taxpayers to the banks and financial institutions, basically transferring wealth from workers to banks and financial institutions?
 

Depends what they're borrowing money for, and when.
 
Kandahar said:
Depends what they're borrowing money for, and when.
Click to expand...

What if you are taking on the debt to afford policies that will get you elected?

What if you are taking on debts to afford government spendings you cannot afford because it is easier to loan money than to cut budgets to affordable levels?

What if you are spending the money on waging wars?

What if you are spending the money to build up your militry?

What if you are spending the money on a social system that you cannot afford instead of making it affordable?

What if you are spending that money on giving the money to the same banks and financial institutions who are giving those loans to bail them out?

In what scenarios is it okay to take on deficits and huge debts?
In what scenarios is it not okay?

In my opinion, non of these scenarios would qualify for a legal overspending of money, taking on debt and transfering wealth from taxpayers to banks by method of interest rates.
 

That would be a bad idea in all of these cases.

Maximus Zeebra said:
What if you are spending the money on a social system that you cannot afford instead of making it affordable?
Click to expand...

Depends on which social system, why you can't afford it, and what the economic and/or human benefits of the spending are.

Maximus Zeebra said:
What if you are spending that money on giving the money to the same banks and financial institutions who are giving those loans to bail them out?
Click to expand...

Yes, this is a good idea. An imploded financial system would devastate the global economy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…