• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every persons 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!

The Three Types of Government Spending

Cold Highway

Dispenser of Negativity
DP Veteran
Joined
May 30, 2007
Messages
9,596
Reaction score
2,739
Location
Newburgh, New York and World 8: Dark Land
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Libertarian
While there are probably thousands of different services that governments spend money on, they can generally be divided into three broad categories: security, public services, and wealth redistribution. Libertarians[1] argue that the only legitimate government spending is on security. Conservatives generally approve of security and some public services with their rhetoric while engaging in all three types of spending when in public office. Liberals generally endorse all three types of spending with both their rhetoric and their actions while in public office.
Interesting take on how our cluster**** government wastes tax payer money.

Campaign For Liberty — The Three Types of Government Spending   | by Tom Mullen
 

danarhea

Slayer of the DP Newsbot
DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 27, 2005
Messages
43,603
Reaction score
26,254
Location
Houston, TX
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Conservative
I thought the 3 types of government spending were spending with your money, spending with my money, and spending with money that doesn't even exist. :mrgreen:
 

samsmart

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 7, 2009
Messages
10,316
Reaction score
6,470
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
You know, I think it's interesting to note that the author of the article used the writing of the Declaration of Independence, which stated the reasons why the American colonies as the era for libertarians and not the U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation, which had what are right up libertarians' alleys - a weak central government with a meager ability to tax. And it failed.

And was replaced with the Constitution that provided for a more powerful federal government that had the ability to tax, along with increased powers from other spheres.

Personally, I think there is a lot of federal spending that IS a waste. However, there is a lot of it that is good spending. Especially earmarks from Representatives that go to needed public works to benefit their poorer areas.

I'd also like to note that the article mentioned how Social Security grew an excess that the government then spent and replaced with bonds. In my mind, that doesn't necessarily mean there's a flaw with Social Security - rather, it means there should be a federal law passed that Congress can't spend Social Security funds for anything except Social Security expenditures. However, Congress would have to limit itself, and we all know how often that happens, from liberals and conservatives alike.
 

washunut

DP Veteran
Joined
Nov 13, 2009
Messages
11,483
Reaction score
3,294
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
You know, I think it's interesting to note that the author of the article used the writing of the Declaration of Independence, which stated the reasons why the American colonies as the era for libertarians and not the U.S. government under the Articles of Confederation, which had what are right up libertarians' alleys - a weak central government with a meager ability to tax. And it failed.

And was replaced with the Constitution that provided for a more powerful federal government that had the ability to tax, along with increased powers from other spheres.

Personally, I think there is a lot of federal spending that IS a waste. However, there is a lot of it that is good spending. Especially earmarks from Representatives that go to needed public works to benefit their poorer areas.

I'd also like to note that the article mentioned how Social Security grew an excess that the government then spent and replaced with bonds. In my mind, that doesn't necessarily mean there's a flaw with Social Security - rather, it means there should be a federal law passed that Congress can't spend Social Security funds for anything except Social Security expenditures. However, Congress would have to limit itself, and we all know how often that happens, from liberals and conservatives alike.
I think it is fine to be high minded and spend money for a variety of reasons. I do find it repugnant for people to spend a ton of money they don't have and when the credit card bill comes say sorry get it from someone else.

So helping the poor is B.S. if you are not willing to raise taxes, and not just on someone else to pay for it.

On social security, you are correct. The money is in government bonds. So just because social security is currently dipping into THEIR money is not a problem. We do have a long term problem that will be fixed by raising the age of eligibility.
 
Top Bottom