Ten Inconvenient Truths About The National Debt: It's Worse Than You Think...

[DontBeStupid]

an unfunded liability is one that HAS NO ASSET OF EQUAL OR GREATER VALUE AS COVERAGE.

You're definitely running an impressive game of this.

An impressive game or depth of yaksqueeze.

DBS is dishing it out...and HE doesn't understand it.

When you get a minute, add up what GDP will be for the next 30 years (asset). Then subtract what we have to pay out in social programs (liabilities).

When you see it's not negative, you can send me a private message apologizing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

1.) The amount by which the public debt — the portion of the national debt not borrowed by the U.S. government from funds it administers — has increased since President Obama took office is unprecedented, not politics as usual: more than $4.75 trillion (more than 75%), according to the Treasury Department. If the president’s second-term budget is implemented, he will end up (according to the Congressional Budget Office) increasing the public debt by $8.9 trillion. That exceeds the public debt incurred by all previous presidents combined — by more than $2.6 trillion.

2.) Large as the public debt is, it doesn’t include amounts the government has promised to pay but lacks the funds to pay. For example, the Social Security and Medicare trustees have estimated that we need more than $63 trillion right now to make promised payments for Social Security and Medicare benefits not covered by current Social Security and Medicare taxes.

3.) The government can’t keep incurring debt without consequence. High debt slows economic growth (meaning fewer jobs and less income), according to one study by Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff and a second study by Manmohan Kumar and Jaejoon Woo (refuting the claim that it is slow growth that causes higher public debt and not vice versa).

4.) It’s not like the government is skimping on spending. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has estimated that this year the federal government will spend 24.3 cents out of every dollar of the value of all final goods we produce and services we provide (add state and local expenditures and that figure increases to 44.2 cents).

5.) Interest payments on the debt are skyrocketing. The CBO has estimated that the president’s proposals will more than triple interest on the public debt from $237 billion in 2013 to $743 billion in 2022 (more than the Department of Defense is spending on military programs and more than seven times what the Department of Education is spending). That money will enrich other countries (the Treasury Department estimates that almost half of the debt is held by foreign investors).

6.) There aren’t enough rich people to balance the budget on their backs. Ending President Bush’s income and estate tax cuts for the “rich” (defined as individuals with taxable income exceeding $200,000 and couples with taxable income exceeding $250,000) would (according to the OMB) reduce the 2013 deficit by less than 5% ($46.6 billion)...

Read more: Ten inconvenient truths about the national debt | The Daily Caller

I stopped reading at #2. sorry but that's just retarded accounting.

They are called unfunded liabilities.

They're called unfunded FUTURE liabilities. Have you saved up enough money to pay for all the food, clothing, medicine, and shelter you'll need the rest of your life? No? Then according to your absurd accounting practices, you're currently massively in debt. You should spend less time here and more time working so you can pay for this massive unfunded liability.

Here is the national debt clock for you to review.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Thanks George.

 

[candycorn]

Well, one thing is for sure, cutting taxes won't translate into more income for the government. Seems to me we need to raise taxes and cut spending at the same time.

The truth is we don't need postal delivery on Saturday. We don't need to be funding NPR. We don't need new subs and fighter planes when what we had 2 generations ago are STILL superior to anything other countries can field. Future spending needs to be limited to a percentage of GDP. Every 10 years we need to start from zero; Pass individual bills for every expenditure over a certain amount.

Just some of many things that need to be done.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well, one thing is for sure, cutting taxes won't translate into more income for the government. Seems to me we need to raise taxes and cut spending at the same time.

The truth is we don't need postal delivery on Saturday. We don't need to be funding NPR. We don't need new subs and fighter planes when what we had 2 generations ago are STILL superior to anything other countries can field.

The Post Office was a self-sustaining entity until Congress decided to saddle it with billions of dollars in fake debt.

Future spending needs to be limited to a percentage of GDP. Every 10 years we need to start from zero; Pass individual bills for every expenditure over a certain amount.

Just some of many things that need to be done.

Limiting spending to a % of GDP is absurd. First off, we would all be subjects of the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich if we had done so in the 40's. Second off - when the GDP contracts the government should spend more - when the GDP expands the government should spend less and pay off debt.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I stopped reading at #2. sorry but that's just retarded accounting.

They are called unfunded liabilities.

They're called unfunded FUTURE liabilities. Have you saved up enough money to pay for all the food, clothing, medicine, and shelter you'll need the rest of your life? No? Then according to your absurd accounting practices, you're currently massively in debt. You should spend less time here and more time working so you can pay for this massive unfunded liability.

Here is the national debt clock for you to review.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Thanks George.

I have an income (the asset) that covers my future expenditures (the liabilities). That isnt the case with government. They've overspent to the tune of 1.3 trillion annually and growing. The programs they designed and the people in those programs have no asset valued at equal or greater value to the liability that is wrapping them in to govt. made programs. Now you LOLberals want to take more of my money so that govt. can over spend even more and then claim shortfall on revenue. I realize the LOLberals do not grasp this concept.

Still, hilarious to watch the squirming.

 

[candycorn]

Well, one thing is for sure, cutting taxes won't translate into more income for the government. Seems to me we need to raise taxes and cut spending at the same time.

The truth is we don't need postal delivery on Saturday. We don't need to be funding NPR. We don't need new subs and fighter planes when what we had 2 generations ago are STILL superior to anything other countries can field.

The Post Office was a self-sustaining entity until Congress decided to saddle it with billions of dollars in fake debt.

Okay...but we still don't need mail delivery on Saturday. Nobody does.

Future spending needs to be limited to a percentage of GDP. Every 10 years we need to start from zero; Pass individual bills for every expenditure over a certain amount.

Just some of many things that need to be done.

Limiting spending to a % of GDP is absurd. First off, we would all be subjects of the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich if we had done so in the 40's. Second off - when the GDP contracts the government should spend more - when the GDP expands the government should spend less and pay off debt.

Extraordinary circumstances can be taken into consideration. If we would get rid of the WPA and the times of war would be more clearly defined--a declaration of war ratified by Congress--then mechanisms could be put into place that would prevent such foolish examples.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

Well, one thing is for sure, cutting taxes won't translate into more income for the government. Seems to me we need to raise taxes and cut spending at the same time.

The truth is we don't need postal delivery on Saturday. We don't need to be funding NPR. We don't need new subs and fighter planes when what we had 2 generations ago are STILL superior to anything other countries can field.

The Post Office was a self-sustaining entity until Congress decided to saddle it with billions of dollars in fake debt.

Okay...but we still don't need mail delivery on Saturday. Nobody does.

You speak for everyone?

Future spending needs to be limited to a percentage of GDP. Every 10 years we need to start from zero; Pass individual bills for every expenditure over a certain amount.

Just some of many things that need to be done.

Limiting spending to a % of GDP is absurd. First off, we would all be subjects of the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich if we had done so in the 40's. Second off - when the GDP contracts the government should spend more - when the GDP expands the government should spend less and pay off debt.

Extraordinary circumstances can be taken into consideration. If we would get rid of the WPA and the times of war would be more clearly defined--a declaration of war ratified by Congress--then mechanisms could be put into place that would prevent such foolish examples.

"extraordinary circumstances" would be the norm then. Just like how Congress funded the Iraq war with annual "emergency spending" measures - as if they didn't realize we were at war when they passed the general budget.

 

[DontBeStupid]

They are called unfunded liabilities.

They're called unfunded FUTURE liabilities. Have you saved up enough money to pay for all the food, clothing, medicine, and shelter you'll need the rest of your life? No? Then according to your absurd accounting practices, you're currently massively in debt. You should spend less time here and more time working so you can pay for this massive unfunded liability.

Here is the national debt clock for you to review.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Thanks George.

I have an income (the asset) that covers my future expenditures (the liabilities). That isnt the case with government. They've overspent to the tune of 1.3 trillion annually and growing. The programs they designed and the people in those programs have no asset valued at equal or greater value to the liability that is wrapping them in to govt. made programs. Now you LOLberals want to take more of my money so that govt. can over spend even more and then claim shortfall on revenue. I realize the LOLberals do not grasp this concept.

Still, hilarious to watch the squirming.

Your example is flawed. Imagine instead, you went to your employer and said you were taking in too much money and you wanted to take in less. He agreed, but you didn't change your spending habits. Now suddenly, you feel you have "unfunded liabilities", but you do, only because you are choosing to by taking in less money.

Our Government could bring in revenue up to and almost equal to our GDP, but it chooses not to. It chooses not to, because to do so would be a really bad idea! But, they could. That's why you need to count GDP as an asset, and not just some arbitrary percentage of it, like you are doing.

 

[paulitician]

Massive Debt is "Un-Patriotic." Just ask the Dear Leader...Or was it just another Teleprompter malfunction?


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1kuTG19Cu_Q]Obama says adding $4 trillion to debt is unpatriotic. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

They are called unfunded liabilities.

They're called unfunded FUTURE liabilities. Have you saved up enough money to pay for all the food, clothing, medicine, and shelter you'll need the rest of your life? No? Then according to your absurd accounting practices, you're currently massively in debt. You should spend less time here and more time working so you can pay for this massive unfunded liability.

Here is the national debt clock for you to review.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

Thanks George.

I have an income (the asset) that covers my future expenditures (the liabilities).

Wow. So you have enough money in the bank right now to cover all your expenses for the rest of your life. I guess you're retired. For the most of rest of us that's not the case.

 

[miami_thomas]

SS is pulling in less surplus...Under Bush and under Clinton, they had huge SS and Medicare surplus funds that were used....(borrowed) to lower the supposed deficits.....

We have more boomers retiring and less of them working and have smaller Social security surplus to borrow from to lower the deficit now and future presidents will have no SS surplus to hide their deficits at all....because the day of the big SS surplus funds is over... thus more borrowing from creditors like China, Saudi Arabia, Japan etc....

That is not true borrowing from the SS is counted as debt. The argument that the smaller labor force is the reason for fewer workers is just plain dumb. If the jobs for the retired were still there, the jobs could be filled by someone else. The more borrowing from foreign countries I agree with that is the reason we have to more and more look outside to borrow money. As far as the debt being larger that quoted because of SSN and Medicare has less to do with past borrowing and more to do with the fact the federal government does not have to save money to pay for those like states and companies do since they are not budgeted since they are not guaranteed. So in a way you are correct that the deficit has been bigger than shown for all presidents but that also includes Obama’s deficit. If we were to change the law to force federal government to budget like state and local government has to, the deficit would be huge.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

They're called unfunded FUTURE liabilities. Have you saved up enough money to pay for all the food, clothing, medicine, and shelter you'll need the rest of your life? No? Then according to your absurd accounting practices, you're currently massively in debt. You should spend less time here and more time working so you can pay for this massive unfunded liability.




Thanks George.

I have an income (the asset) that covers my future expenditures (the liabilities).

Wow. So you have enough money in the bank right now to cover all your expenses for the rest of your life. I guess you're retired. For the most of rest of us that's not the case.

That's not how it works, fella. My revenue vs. my outlays is in the black, bud. I have an intake that far exceeds my outlays. Therefore any future projections on expenditures is covered by the assets I currently hold. In fact, I have a surplus, better known as, or perhaps in this day in age less understood, SAVINGS.

Does the federal government have to borrow money cuurently just to meet outlays? Yes. Therefore they have exceeded their revenue to outlays ratio in the red and are now facing massive unfunded liabilities. Something to the tune of 120 trillion dollars and growing.

 

[miami_thomas]

I see Pauli is once again copying and pasting. Such fun.

1) When Bush was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. When Reagan was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. If Romney is elected, he will set a new record for increasing the debt. In short, using non-inflation adjusted numbers to talk about "records" means absolutely nothing.

Here we go with they did it. And as far as blaming Bush for 2009. Bush did not sign a budget for 2009 since the senate did not pass one. How can you blame Bush for 2009 when he was not in office and did not sign a budget for that year?

2) $63T over how long? That's not for one year, 5 years or even 10 years. Dropping large numbers with no time frame is dishonest to the conversation. I've seen that number reported as how much we need over 75 years! Very different from what you're presenting.

Actually we would need to put 24 trillion dollars in the bank today. That is a fact.

3) High debt CAN slow economic growth. If interest rates are high and investors are putting money into savings bonds and not into private companies that is bad. This is called "crowding out". This is not happening right now as interest rates are at historic lows and will be for a couple more years at least.

But businesses, good ones anyways, plan on the future and they now bad things are coming.

4) 24.3 cents, or in other words, 24.3% of GDP. Funny how you now use a measure that is adjusted for inflation and applicable over varying time periods. Why didn't you do that before? Regardless, 24.3%, while higher than our historic average, is not radically high. Reagan had a high of 23.5% and an average of 22%. The first Bush also had an average around 22%.

Actually under Ragan they were at 22% in 1981 and 23% 1982 and 1983. Then they dropped to 22% in 1984 and then to 21% in 1987. Then with Bush it was 18% in 2001 19% in 2002 and 2004. 20% in 2003, 2005, 2006 and 2007. Then 21% in 2008. Under Obama it was 25% in 2009. Then 24% every other year since. I’m sorry 4% when we are talking about trillions is huge.

5) Again, no adjustment for inflation. Why are you jumping back and forth? That's just dishonest. Current interest payments are 1.58% of GDP. In 2022 they would be 3.68%. Higher? Yes. Skyrocketing? No. And, while half go to foreign countries, several of those are our allies: Japan, the UK, Canada; and where does the other half go? Back to U.S. citizens.

Are you saying the expenditures and interest are affected by inflation but GDP is not? Also so you know the only time we have spent more as percent of GDP was during World War I and World War II. Actually we have beaten World War I since that was only 24% of GDP for one year.

6) Absolutely no one is suggesting we balance the budget on the wealthy alone. No one. I assume you only ever talk about this because you don't want to talk about how we could actually balance the budget by taxing business profits. In 2011, U.S. corporations set a new record for profits, some $6.6T. This is after all payroll is met, all expenses paid and all dividends paid. If we raised income taxes on just those businesses by 22.7 percentage points, we would completely eliminate our budget deficit. And that cost could not be passed on to customers, because it is a tax on money after expenses.

That is of course assuming that those corporations do not bail on the US and move to say Canada. With liberals everything is fixed. Look they have this much money we can tax it and we have this much every year. They tried that in Britain and they raised taxes to 50%. But revenue fell it did not rise. Nothing is fixed everything is fluid. You can’t just tax whatever you want to tax.

 

[miami_thomas]

I see Pauli is once again copying and pasting. Such fun.

1) When Bush was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. When Reagan was in office, he set a then record for increasing the debt. If Romney is elected, he will set a new record for increasing the debt. In short, using non-inflation adjusted numbers to talk about "records" means absolutely nothing.

2) $63T over how long? That's not for one year, 5 years or even 10 years. Dropping large numbers with no time frame is dishonest to the conversation. I've seen that number reported as how much we need over 75 years! Very different from what you're presenting.

3) High debt CAN slow economic growth. If interest rates are high and investors are putting money into savings bonds and not into private companies, that is bad. This is called "crowding out". This is not happening right now as interest rates are at historic lows and will be for a couple more years at least.

4) 24.3 cents, or in other words, 24.3% of GDP. Funny how you now use a measure that is adjusted for inflation and applicable over varying time periods. Why didn't you do that before? Regardless, 24.3%, while higher than our historic average, is not radically high. Reagan had a high of 23.5% and an average of 22%. The first Bush also had an average around 22%.

5) Again, no adjustment for inflation. Why are you jumping back and forth? That's just dishonest. Current interest payments are 1.58% of GDP. In 2022 they would be 3.68%. Higher? Yes. Skyrocketing? No. And, while half go to foreign countries, several of those are our allies: Japan, the UK, Canada; and where does the other half go? Back to U.S. citizens.

6) Absolutely no one is suggesting we balance the budget on the wealthy alone. No one. I assume you only ever talk about this because you don't want to talk about how we could actually balance the budget by taxing business profits. In 2011, U.S. corporations set a new record for profits, some $6.6T. This is after all payroll is met, all expenses paid and all dividends paid. If we raised income taxes on just those businesses by 22.7 percentage points, we would completely eliminate our budget deficit. And that cost could not be passed on to customers, because it is a tax on money after expenses.

So what's your point?

Your choice of copy and paste is 100% inaccurate and our debt level right now is not an issue.

What? We would need 24 trillion today to get SSN and Medicare caught up. What are you talking about. What world do you live in?

 

[miami_thomas]

Your choice of copy and paste is 100% inaccurate and our debt level right now is not an issue.

Well, that's not a point at all. That's just another one of your Obamabot delusions.

Then perhaps you can explain why it's a pressing concern we pay back the debt now and rob American citizens of a safe, interest bearing investment.

I await your answer.

We can not borrow for ever. Eventually you have to pay back what you borrow. That is just a fact of life. The interest we are going to owe eventually will eat up our entire budget.

 

[8537]

Well, that's not a point at all. That's just another one of your Obamabot delusions.

Then perhaps you can explain why it's a pressing concern we pay back the debt now and rob American citizens of a safe, interest bearing investment.

I await your answer.

We can not borrow for ever.

Why not? That's like saying "We can't lend forever". As long as we run a current account deficit we'll maintain an ability to borrow. Corporations routinely exist for generations while continuing to borrow.

 

[candycorn]

The Post Office was a self-sustaining entity until Congress decided to saddle it with billions of dollars in fake debt.

Okay...but we still don't need mail delivery on Saturday. Nobody does.

You speak for everyone?

Come now.

Limiting spending to a % of GDP is absurd. First off, we would all be subjects of the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich if we had done so in the 40's. Second off - when the GDP contracts the government should spend more - when the GDP expands the government should spend less and pay off debt.

Extraordinary circumstances can be taken into consideration. If we would get rid of the WPA and the times of war would be more clearly defined--a declaration of war ratified by Congress--then mechanisms could be put into place that would prevent such foolish examples.

"extraordinary circumstances" would be the norm then. Just like how Congress funded the Iraq war with annual "emergency spending" measures - as if they didn't realize we were at war when they passed the general budget.

Yeah, thats what we need to fix. You have to "declare war" to trigger the "extraordinary circumstances".

 

[miami_thomas]

Then perhaps you can explain why it's a pressing concern we pay back the debt now and rob American citizens of a safe, interest bearing investment.

I await your answer.

We can not borrow for ever.

Why not? That's like saying "We can't lend forever". As long as we run a current account deficit we'll maintain an ability to borrow. Corporations routinely exist for generations while continuing to borrow.

Because we are not just borrowing the same amount we are borrowing more and more. Eventually the interest will eat up all our income. Already we are paying 454 billion in interest on the debt. That amount is only going to keep growing. Eventaully you have to pay off some debt and the only way to do that is to first balance the budget.

 

[The T]

We can not borrow for ever.

Why not? That's like saying "We can't lend forever". As long as we run a current account deficit we'll maintain an ability to borrow. Corporations routinely exist for generations while continuing to borrow.

Because we are not just borrowing the same amount we are borrowing more and more. Eventually the interest will eat up all our income. Already we are paying 375 billion in interest on the debt. That amount is only going to keep growing. Eventaully you have to pay off some debt and the only way to do that is to first balance the budget.

U.S. National Debt Clock : Real Time

 

[8537]

We can not borrow for ever.

Why not? That's like saying "We can't lend forever". As long as we run a current account deficit we'll maintain an ability to borrow. Corporations routinely exist for generations while continuing to borrow.

Because we are not just borrowing the same amount we are borrowing more and more.

So when you said "we can not borrow for ever" what you really meant was "we can not increase the rate at which we borrow forever"?

OK, that's a completely different statement.