2025 Deficit comes in at 1.97 Trillion. This Is Way Out of Hand

Most people did not live to 60 when Social Security was enacted. Social Security was intended for those who beat the odds. There were no exceptions made for manual laborers, and manual labor was far more difficult back then.

There are allowances for early retirement in the Social Security act, starting at age 62.

Only 5.4% of the population was over the age of 65 in 1935.

By 1965, when Medicaid was enacted, that figure was 9%.

Today, it's 16%.

This is blazenly clear a trend which cannot be sustained.

We must raise the age to 70.

.
70? When it was put in place the retirement age was above the expected life span of American. That would make the age about 80 now.

Is that what you want?
 
3 years of surplus? Why did the debt go up every year?
Different people calculate it differently.

But your question is a good one and never been sufficiently answered to my satisfaction.

This is part of the equation which I am attempting to learn more about. This was written in 2008:

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the “Social Security surplus” makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

 
Oh really? Are you all for raising the payout? If not you are just increasing the income tax rate.
The system is at a deficit. Raising taxes brings it closer to be being in balance.

It's a tax increase anyway you look at it.

Raising the payout would not meet the goal, but would only further transfer wealth and not fix the problem.

Do you think beneficiaries should take a cut in 6 or 7 years ?
 
Different people calculate it differently.

But your question is a good one and never been sufficiently answered to my satisfaction.

This is part of the equation which I am attempting to learn more about. This was written in 2008:

Clinton’s large budget surpluses also owe much to the Social Security tax on payrolls. Social Security taxes now bring in more than the cost of current benefits, and the “Social Security surplus” makes the total deficit or surplus figures look better than they would if Social Security wasn’t counted. But even if we remove Social Security from the equation, there was a surplus of $1.9 billion in fiscal 1999 and $86.4 billion in fiscal 2000. So any way you count it, the federal budget was balanced and the deficit was erased, if only for a while.

Your source is a joke.

HTH
 
We need a new law to require a balanced budget, so that tariff revenue can start paying off the debt.
I like the idea.

But it's going to hurt someone.

Let's get going because the longer we wait, the more it's going to hurt.

I say we freeze Soros assets, take them, and put them in the S.S. lock box. We should put him in the box too. :badgrin::badgrin:
 
Your source is a joke.

HTH
How so?

I've seen the same thing from several other sources through the years.

The CBO took what was happening at the time and projected that if Bush had stayed the course, we'd have paid off the outstanding debt (5 trillion) by the middle of his second term.

He flushed all that down the toilet with his pee-pee wagging wars.
 
It's nothing more than a leftist mouthpiece.

If you aren't already aware of that I can't help you.
Recall this was almost 20 years ago (the article).

I agree they've become less reliable.

But, as I said in my previous post.....this isn't the only place I've seen this.
 
Recall this was almost 20 years ago (the article).

I agree they've become less reliable.

But, as I said in my previous post.....this isn't the only place I've seen this.
Dimtard lies spread fast on the innerwebs. The sooner you learn that, the better off you will be.
 
Some funny notions here.
Funniest is Congress doesn't get paid during a lock down.
Who do you think would have to pass that for it to take effect?
Right now you'd get exactly one vote from the 535 members of the House and Senate and he's the most maligned man in the Congress. Massie.
Second funniest is a law requiring a balanced budget.
Who do you think would have to pass that for it to take effect?
Right now you'd get exactly one vote from the 535 members of the House and Senate and he's the most maligned man in the Congress. Massie.
 
Dimtard lies spread fast on the innerwebs. The sooner you learn that, the better off you will be.
They are not an isolated source.

The CBO backs them up.

IMO: Bush was the worst think in the world.

If you've seen my posts....I trust NO ONE. I generally try to triple check things that are important to me.
 
They are not an isolated source.

The CBO backs them up.

IMO: Bush was the worst think in the world.

If you've seen my posts....I trust NO ONE. I generally try to triple check things that are important to me.
Link us up to the last time CBO guesses were correct.
 
15th post
First...pay off what?

Not the 37 trillion dollar debt.

Please explain.

Second...can you share the projections on which that is based.
You have the national debt confused with the annual deficit. Its under 2 trillion. Tariffs are bringing in1 trillion a year
 
Some funny notions here.
Funniest is Congress doesn't get paid during a lock down.
Who do you think would have to pass that for it to take effect?
Right now you'd get exactly one vote from the 535 members of the House and Senate and he's the most maligned man in the Congress. Massie.
Second funniest is a law requiring a balanced budget.
Who do you think would have to pass that for it to take effect?
Right now you'd get exactly one vote from the 535 members of the House and Senate and he's the most maligned man in the Congress. Massie.

You might get 2-3.

Massie for sure

Rand Paul would probably vote for both.

You might get a few others since they would know it wouldnt pass. Politicians do that all the time. Vote for or against something they know will go the other way so they can say put the blame for it on someone else.
 
Back
Top Bottom