Lets focus on economics and a balanced budget

[Brain357]

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

And who decides "need"? The government? You?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You set an wealth number and if it goes below they can collect. You think Gates will need SS? It is a tiny sum to many of our wealthy.

Then Gates shouldn't have to pay into SS.

How many people do you cheat out of retirement with your plan? Many will die before collecting, people who could have retired. These rich people will retire regardless.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Who is going to stop paying? And is that an option? If I stop paying it cheats someone who paid in full and I would get nothing.

I have bad news for you. The payroll tax is not very popular. Social Security benefits are. At any point, voters can elect a Congress that says payroll taxes are X whether it is up or down. If that change causes benefit cuts, no one is getting cheated. Every dollar is contributed on the basis that the worker is helping provide for retirees on a fixed schedule of benefit in exchange they get the promise that a future generation may do the same. If that future generation does not, no one is cheated. See Flemming V Nestor.

Those are the terms.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

So how much debt is too much?

Depends. When we no longer have fiscal space...it is too much.

Currently, we do not have too much debt.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

................................................................Total U S Debt................................................................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32(Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993)
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Why didn't you include the $7 trillion added during the Obama administration, troll?

 

[g5000]

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

And who decides "need"? The government? You?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You set an wealth number and if it goes below they can collect. You think Gates will need SS? It is a tiny sum to many of our wealthy.

Then Gates shouldn't have to pay into SS.

How many people do you cheat out of retirement with your plan?

How many were cheated when the eligibility age was 65 and the average life expectancy was 60?

Like I said, only 5.4% of the US population was over 65 at the time SS was enacted.

In 1965, it was 9%.

Today, that figure is 14%.

This is an obviously unsustainable trend with a screamingly obvious solution.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

So how much debt is too much?

Depends. When we no longer have fiscal space...it is too much.

Currently, we do not have too much debt.

Then you should be to quantify an estimated figure. $25 trillion? $30 trillion?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

And who decides "need"? The government? You?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You set an wealth number and if it goes below they can collect. You think Gates will need SS? It is a tiny sum to many of our wealthy.

Then Gates shouldn't have to pay into SS.

How many people do you cheat out of retirement with your plan? Many will die before collecting, people who could have retired. These rich people will retire regardless.

How about you pay for your retirement and I pay for mine?

Or are you too incompetent to take care of yourself? Is that the problem? You need someone else to do it for you?

 

[Campbell]

I am in favor of immediately raising the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70.

We are living DECADES longer than our ancestors. It is common sense we should be working a few years longer.

Doubt I will live that long. I say the very rich collect benefits if their wealth goes down. As long as they are very wealthy they don't need it. But it is there for them if their wealth goes down.

So you want to rob from the rich. Make them pay into a system from which they will not be allowed to draw out.

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

And who decides "need"? The government? You?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You think you can just take because you think they don't NEED it?!?!

That's as evil as it gets.

paying for wars and bail outs with other peoples money then telling them the system is broke is pretty damn evil IMO ..

The Republicans have never seen a war they didn't like. They are good at cutting taxes, spending trillions of borrowed dollars on wars so that pricks like Cheney can make millions from his holdings. That's exactly what Cheney did when we invaded Iraq.......cleared $25,000,000 from his holdings in Halliburton. Meanwhile 4500 young Americans paid his bill with their lives.

We never had a reason to invade Iraq! The Bush administration told a documented 935 bold faced lies in order to convince people that we should take out Hussein, the Bush family's enemy.

 

[LoneLaugher]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

So how much debt is too much?

Depends. When we no longer have fiscal space...it is too much.

Currently, we do not have too much debt.

Then you should be to quantify an estimated figure. $25 trillion? $30 trillion?

Nope. I shouldn't be able to quantify it.

Read this.

http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/06/public-debt

 

[g5000]

Currently, we do not have too much debt.

Utter bullshit.

U.S. government debt now stands at 103% of GDP. If private debt is included, the ratio climbs to about 370% of GDP. Scholarly studies indicate that real per capita GDP growth should slow by about one-quarter to one-third from the long-run trend when the total debt-to-GDP ratio rises into the range between 250% and 275%. Since surpassing this level in the late 1990s, real per capita GDP has grown just 1% per annum, much less than the 1.9% pace from 1790 to 1999.

These results indicate that the relationship between debt and economic growth is non-linear, or progressively negative, as debt advances to higher levels, a pattern confirmed by academic research (Chart 2). The latest information further supports this relationship. The current expansion began in 2009, and since then real per capita GDP growth has been 1.3%, less than half the 2.7% average growth in all expansions from 1790 to 1999.

http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2015Q3NP.pdf

 

[LoneLaugher]

Currently, we do not have too much debt.

Utter bullshit.

U.S. government debt now stands at 103% of GDP. If private debt is included, the ratio climbs to about 370% of GDP. Scholarly studies indicate that real per capita GDP growth should slow by about one-quarter to one-third from the long-run trend when the total debt-to-GDP ratio rises into the range between 250% and 275%. Since surpassing this level in the late 1990s, real per capita GDP has grown just 1% per annum, much less than the 1.9% pace from 1790 to 1999.

These results indicate that the relationship between debt and economic growth is non-linear, or progressively negative, as debt advances to higher levels, a pattern confirmed by academic research (Chart 2). The latest information further supports this relationship. The current expansion began in 2009, and since then real per capita GDP growth has been 1.3%, less than half the 2.7% average growth in all expansions from 1790 to 1999.

http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2015Q3NP.pdf

Go ahead. Tell us all how the illuminati are rigging the system and it's all gonna crash.

We are still the world's best investment. Growth is the number one concern.

 

[Siete]

................................................................Total U S Debt................................................................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32(Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993)
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

Why didn't you include the $7 trillion added during the Obama administration, troll?

I'd say because a large chunk of the $$ came from the Bush administration.

 

[g5000]

Without cutting a single dime of spending, if we simply raised the SS and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and banned all tax expenditures, we would have a nearly $900 billion annual surplus.

Imagine that!

We could cut taxes AND pay down the debt with that. And we would no longer have the insane system where two entities earning identical incomes pay wildly different amounts of tax.

 

[g5000]

Currently, we do not have too much debt.

Utter bullshit.

U.S. government debt now stands at 103% of GDP. If private debt is included, the ratio climbs to about 370% of GDP. Scholarly studies indicate that real per capita GDP growth should slow by about one-quarter to one-third from the long-run trend when the total debt-to-GDP ratio rises into the range between 250% and 275%. Since surpassing this level in the late 1990s, real per capita GDP has grown just 1% per annum, much less than the 1.9% pace from 1790 to 1999.

These results indicate that the relationship between debt and economic growth is non-linear, or progressively negative, as debt advances to higher levels, a pattern confirmed by academic research (Chart 2). The latest information further supports this relationship. The current expansion began in 2009, and since then real per capita GDP growth has been 1.3%, less than half the 2.7% average growth in all expansions from 1790 to 1999.

http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2015Q3NP.pdf

Go ahead. Tell us all how the illuminati are rigging the system and it's all gonna crash.

We are still the world's best investment. Growth is the number one concern.

Did you even read my post? Obviously not.

Our public-private debt is choking growth!

 

[LoneLaugher]

Currently, we do not have too much debt.

Utter bullshit.

U.S. government debt now stands at 103% of GDP. If private debt is included, the ratio climbs to about 370% of GDP. Scholarly studies indicate that real per capita GDP growth should slow by about one-quarter to one-third from the long-run trend when the total debt-to-GDP ratio rises into the range between 250% and 275%. Since surpassing this level in the late 1990s, real per capita GDP has grown just 1% per annum, much less than the 1.9% pace from 1790 to 1999.

These results indicate that the relationship between debt and economic growth is non-linear, or progressively negative, as debt advances to higher levels, a pattern confirmed by academic research (Chart 2). The latest information further supports this relationship. The current expansion began in 2009, and since then real per capita GDP growth has been 1.3%, less than half the 2.7% average growth in all expansions from 1790 to 1999.

http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2015Q3NP.pdf

Go ahead. Tell us all how the illuminati are rigging the system and it's all gonna crash.

We are still the world's best investment. Growth is the number one concern.

Did you even read my post? Obviously not.

Our public-private debt is choking growth!

We've been here before. We don't agree. You incorrectly think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea and you want to raise the retirement age. Not good.

Argue with someone else unless you are willing to admit when you are wrong.

 

[g5000]

Currently, we do not have too much debt.

Utter bullshit.

U.S. government debt now stands at 103% of GDP. If private debt is included, the ratio climbs to about 370% of GDP. Scholarly studies indicate that real per capita GDP growth should slow by about one-quarter to one-third from the long-run trend when the total debt-to-GDP ratio rises into the range between 250% and 275%. Since surpassing this level in the late 1990s, real per capita GDP has grown just 1% per annum, much less than the 1.9% pace from 1790 to 1999.

These results indicate that the relationship between debt and economic growth is non-linear, or progressively negative, as debt advances to higher levels, a pattern confirmed by academic research (Chart 2). The latest information further supports this relationship. The current expansion began in 2009, and since then real per capita GDP growth has been 1.3%, less than half the 2.7% average growth in all expansions from 1790 to 1999.

http://www.hoisingtonmgt.com/pdf/HIM2015Q3NP.pdf

Go ahead. Tell us all how the illuminati are rigging the system and it's all gonna crash.

We are still the world's best investment. Growth is the number one concern.

Did you even read my post? Obviously not.

Our public-private debt is choking growth!

We've been here before. We don't agree. You incorrectly think a balanced budget amendment is a good idea and you want to raise the retirement age. Not good.

Argue with someone else unless you are willing to admit when you are wrong.

I have never said I am in favor of a balanced budget amendment. You are hallucinating I am someone else.

I provided the evidence our private-public debt is choking growth. It can't be helped you are being a willfully blind monkey about it.

The retirement age needs to be raised. It's plain common sense. It can't be helped you have none of that, either.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Without cutting a single dime of spending, if we simply raised the SS and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and banned all tax expenditures, we would have a nearly $900 billion annual surplus.

Imagine that!

We could cut taxes AND pay down the debt with that. And we would no longer have the insane system where two entities earning identical incomes pay wildly different amounts of tax.

You won't get that, though, because politicians derive power from a complex tax code.

 

[g5000]

Without cutting a single dime of spending, if we simply raised the SS and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and banned all tax expenditures, we would have a nearly $900 billion annual surplus.

Imagine that!

We could cut taxes AND pay down the debt with that. And we would no longer have the insane system where two entities earning identical incomes pay wildly different amounts of tax.

You won't get that, though, because politicians derive power from a complex tax code.

Yes. If you take away a politician's ability to put carve outs in the tax code, you take away the incentive for a special interest to give him campaign cash for doing so.

This is how our Congress is able to maintain a 98% re-election rate in the House and a 90% rate in the Senate.

American Politboro.

That's why I often point out that if we ban tax expenditures, you have instant campaign finance reform that would actually work.

 

[Brain357]

No it will be available to them if they end up in a position of needing it.

And who decides "need"? The government? You?

BWA-HA-HA-HA!

You set an wealth number and if it goes below they can collect. You think Gates will need SS? It is a tiny sum to many of our wealthy.

Then Gates shouldn't have to pay into SS.

How many people do you cheat out of retirement with your plan?

How many were cheated when the eligibility age was 65 and the average life expectancy was 60?

Like I said, only 5.4% of the US population was over 65 at the time SS was enacted.

In 1965, it was 9%.

Today, that figure is 14%.

This is an obviously unsustainable trend with a screamingly obvious solution.

How many live to 70 now?

I much prefer my solution. It remains a safety net for the very rich.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

we can talk about cutting food stamps or eliminating the department of education or cutting farm subsidies or foreign aid but those are such small pieces of the pie. Everything has to be on the table

Raise taxes on the wealthy. Bill Clinton took over a Reagan disaster after Reagan slashed tax rates to 50 year lows and continued to spend like a drunk sailor. When you cut the income your spending needs to match DUUUUUUHHH!!


The Republicans never have seen a tax cut for corporations and the rich they didn't like but never have quit spending for their pet projects and war machine.

These figures came from the bureau of the debt....they're easily verified:


................................................................Total U S Debt................................................................

09/30/2009 $11,909,829,003,511.75(80% Of All Debt Across 232 Years Borrowed By Reagan And Bushes)

09/30/2008 $10,024,724,896,912.49(Times Square Debt Clock Modified To Accommodate Tens of Trillions)

09/30/2007 $9,007,653,372,262.48
09/30/2006 $8,506,973,899,215.23
09/30/2005 $7,932,709,661,723.50
09/30/2004 $7,379,052,696,330.32

09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62(Second Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2002 $6,228,235,965,597.16

09/30/2001 $5,807,463,412,200.06(First Bush Tax Cuts Enacted Using Reconciliation)

09/30/2000 $5,674,178,209,886.86(Administration And Congress Arguing About How To Use Surplus)

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

09/30/1998 $5,526,193,008,897.62
09/30/1997 $5,413,146,011,397.34
09/30/1996 $5,224,810,939,135.73
09/29/1995 $4,973,982,900,709.39
09/30/1994 $4,692,749,910,013.32(Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1993)
09/30/1993 $4,411,488,883,139.38 ( Debt Quadrupled By Reagan/Bush41)
09/30/1992 $4,064,620,655,521.66
09/30/1991 $3,665,303,351,697.03
09/28/1990 $3,233,313,451,777.25
09/29/1989 $2,857,430,960,187.32
09/30/1988 $2,602,337,712,041.16
09/30/1987 $2,350,276,890,953.00
09/30/1986 $2,125,302,616,658.42
09/30/1985 $1,823,103,000,000.00
09/30/1984 $1,572,266,000,000.00
09/30/1983 $1,377,210,000,000.00

09/30/1982 $1,142,034,000,000.00(Total Debt Passes $1 Trillion)((Reagan Slashed Tax Rates To Pre Depression Levels)

09/30/1981 $997,855,000,000.00

09/30/1999 $5,656,270,901,615.43(First Surplus Generated...On Track To Pay Off Debt By 2012)

If only we could have kept the Internet Bubble going for another 13 years, eh?