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

[paulitician]

Why do you think it's still 2007?

Oh, so now massive Debt & poverty is suddenly good and Patriotic. Gee, what a convenient change of heart. You Bots do crack me up.

Coward, I asked you a question.

Why do you think it's still 2007?

Nice flip-flop there Obamabot. You should be ashamed of yourself for defending this massive spending & Debt. Your Dear Leader has destroyed many future generations. He actually had it right originally. It is Un-Patriotic to support massive Debt spending.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

I'm assuming you read the article and just didn't understand the questions to ask. In the article, the author writes "Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. " Again, over how long?

Reread it. Today. Here, you might have a vision impairment.

TODAY


Please try not to be so ******* stupid.

 

[paulitician]

I'm assuming you read the article and just didn't understand the questions to ask. In the article, the author writes "Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. " Again, over how long?

Reread it. Today. Here, you might have a vision impairment.

TODAY


Please try not to be so ******* stupid.

Willful ignorance. Don't worry, when a Republican gets back in the White House, he'll immediately get back to claiming it's Un-Patriotic to support massive Debt spending. Just a typical Obamabot. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[The T]

Coward, I asked you a question.

Why do you think it's still 2007?

And the poster answered. Just NOT the way YOU expected.

No. He's hiding, like he always does. Like a cowardly *****.

No he isn't. He's been quite clear. YOU have eyes, but yet cannot see for your blind hatred son.

Wake up.

 

[DontBeStupid]

I'm assuming you read the article and just didn't understand the questions to ask. In the article, the author writes "Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. " Again, over how long?

Reread it. Today. Here, you might have a vision impairment.

TODAY


Please try not to be so ******* stupid.

HAHAHAHA!!! You guys think we need $22T TODAY in order to cover payments TODAY!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's precious.

 

[paulitician]

I'm assuming you read the article and just didn't understand the questions to ask. In the article, the author writes "Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. " Again, over how long?

Reread it. Today. Here, you might have a vision impairment.

TODAY


Please try not to be so ******* stupid.

HAHAHAHA!!! You guys think we need $22T TODAY in order to cover payments TODAY!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's precious.

You're very Un-Patriotic. Shame on you.

 

[The T]

I'm assuming you read the article and just didn't understand the questions to ask. In the article, the author writes "Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. " Again, over how long?

Reread it. Today. Here, you might have a vision impairment.

TODAY


Please try not to be so ******* stupid.

HAHAHAHA!!! You guys think we need $22T TODAY in order to cover payments TODAY!!!

HAHAHAHAHA!!!

That's precious.

Looked at the budget lately? Debt? Unfunded debt/Obligations juxtaposed with bad unemployment figures? Anemic GDP?

Son? Seek help. Obama needs to go. The current crop in Congress need to be given pink slips too. Government and spending is out of control. YOU can't bring yourself to admit it.

Grow up.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

He's just extremely fuckign stupid. Apparently the idea of solvency now involves borrowing money endlessly.

The program is broken right now. Payments are made by borrowing money from other govts in the form of selling monetized debt on the confidence in US govt. adn economy.

As of TODAY, the unfunded liabilities of all social programs is at 120 trillion. By this time next year, assuming we havent defaulted by then, it could be 150 trillion or more.

 

[The T]

He's just extremely fuckign stupid. Apparently the idea of solvency now involves borrowing money endlessly.

The program is broken right now. Payments are made by borrowing money from other govts in the form of selling monetized debt on the confidence in US govt. adn economy.

As of TODAY, the unfunded liabilities of all social programs is at 120 trillion. By this time next year, assuming we havent defaulted by then, it could be 150 trillion or more.

Or if the EU hasn't collapsed...they GO? WE are in the line of dominoes.

 

[DontBeStupid]

He's just extremely fuckign stupid. Apparently the idea of solvency now involves borrowing money endlessly.

The program is broken right now. Payments are made by borrowing money from other govts in the form of selling monetized debt on the confidence in US govt. adn economy.

As of TODAY, the unfunded liabilities of all social programs is at 120 trillion. By this time next year, assuming we havent defaulted by then, it could be 150 trillion or more.

HAHA! I love that you think we need $120T this year to cover our liabilities for this year.

Just ... awesome.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

That's not how it works, fella.

If "that's not how it works" - why do you apply it to the federal government and not your own pocketbook?


So you have enough current assets to cover all of your future expenses. Congratulations on your successful retirement, but like I said, for most of us, that's not the case.

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.

The fact that the government borrows to meet its outlays doesn't mean we change accounting practices altogether and consider the future liabilities of the government to be current liabilities.

You don't change accounting practices at all. The government has their own set of accounting practices in the first place. Most businesses must consider liabilities that are unfunded on their balance sheets. The government does not. It takes the road that it can simply expire any number of items it can not pay for, even if by social contract it is sold as an obligation. For instance, social security. SS does not and never has had its own fund. It is a general tax on the sheet. If they can not pay it, they simply will not pay it. And they will still collect the taxation for the "service".

You're trying to doublethink me, fella. It's not going to work. The government currently has 120 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in social programs. This is not an accounting practice change. it is true accounting. Someone else in here posted that we would need to come up with 24 trillion dollars right now in order to save these programs from an inevitable mathematical default. I read that we would need to raise GDP 24% right now and maintain it in order for the government to cover these unfunded liabilities based on real accounting practices.

You're idiotic analysis (or rather, the analysis you copied off of some other moron), is predicated on the assumption that future tax revenues will be zero.
Its meaningless to include future payments the government must make in your analysis while excluding future payments it will receive.
Not exactly an accurate assumption.

 

[paulitician]

He's just extremely fuckign stupid. Apparently the idea of solvency now involves borrowing money endlessly.

The program is broken right now. Payments are made by borrowing money from other govts in the form of selling monetized debt on the confidence in US govt. adn economy.

As of TODAY, the unfunded liabilities of all social programs is at 120 trillion. By this time next year, assuming we havent defaulted by then, it could be 150 trillion or more.

HAHA! I love that you think we need $120T this year to cover our liabilities for this year.

Just ... awesome.

We'll see how you feel about massive Debt spending when a Republican gets back in the White House. I have a hunch your opinion on this issue will change drastically. Just a hunch though.

 

[DontBeStupid]

If "that's not how it works" - why do you apply it to the federal government and not your own pocketbook?


So you have enough current assets to cover all of your future expenses. Congratulations on your successful retirement, but like I said, for most of us, that's not the case.



The fact that the government borrows to meet its outlays doesn't mean we change accounting practices altogether and consider the future liabilities of the government to be current liabilities.

You don't change accounting practices at all. The government has their own set of accounting practices in the first place. Most businesses must consider liabilities that are unfunded on their balance sheets. The government does not. It takes the road that it can simply expire any number of items it can not pay for, even if by social contract it is sold as an obligation. For instance, social security. SS does not and never has had its own fund. It is a general tax on the sheet. If they can not pay it, they simply will not pay it. And they will still collect the taxation for the "service".

You're trying to doublethink me, fella. It's not going to work. The government currently has 120 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in social programs. This is not an accounting practice change. it is true accounting. Someone else in here posted that we would need to come up with 24 trillion dollars right now in order to save these programs from an inevitable mathematical default. I read that we would need to raise GDP 24% right now and maintain it in order for the government to cover these unfunded liabilities based on real accounting practices.

You're idiotic analysis (or rather, the analysis you copied off of some other moron), is predicated on the assumption that future tax revenues will be zero.
Its meaningless to include future payments the government must make in your analysis while excluding future payments it will receive.
Not exactly an accurate assumption.

I don't think they know what they're copying and pasting. The fact that they think we must have the money today to cover something that will happen 50 years from is just comical.

 

[Staidhup]

Facing reality is the first step toward sobriety. As for the golden goose, that sucker was shot and boiled in the pot years ago. If the government had to abide by GAAP it would have been bankrupt years ago.

 

[The T]

If "that's not how it works" - why do you apply it to the federal government and not your own pocketbook?


So you have enough current assets to cover all of your future expenses. Congratulations on your successful retirement, but like I said, for most of us, that's not the case.



The fact that the government borrows to meet its outlays doesn't mean we change accounting practices altogether and consider the future liabilities of the government to be current liabilities.

You don't change accounting practices at all. The government has their own set of accounting practices in the first place. Most businesses must consider liabilities that are unfunded on their balance sheets. The government does not. It takes the road that it can simply expire any number of items it can not pay for, even if by social contract it is sold as an obligation. For instance, social security. SS does not and never has had its own fund. It is a general tax on the sheet. If they can not pay it, they simply will not pay it. And they will still collect the taxation for the "service".

You're trying to doublethink me, fella. It's not going to work. The government currently has 120 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in social programs. This is not an accounting practice change. it is true accounting. Someone else in here posted that we would need to come up with 24 trillion dollars right now in order to save these programs from an inevitable mathematical default. I read that we would need to raise GDP 24% right now and maintain it in order for the government to cover these unfunded liabilities based on real accounting practices.

You're idiotic analysis (or rather, the analysis you copied off of some other moron), is predicated on the assumption that future tax revenues will be zero.
Its meaningless to include future payments the government must make in your analysis while excluding future payments it will receive.
Not exactly an accurate assumption.

Say it a little louder...maybe in RED>? It won't make it more meaningful by any streatch.

IDIOT.

 

[8537]

Can someone please explain the mechanism by which they believe the government could "save" 24T...or 120T...or whatever the number? What's the actual mechanism of savings? What asset or debt are they purchasing with this money in order to redeem later?

 

[DontBeStupid]

He's just extremely fuckign stupid. Apparently the idea of solvency now involves borrowing money endlessly.

The program is broken right now. Payments are made by borrowing money from other govts in the form of selling monetized debt on the confidence in US govt. adn economy.

As of TODAY, the unfunded liabilities of all social programs is at 120 trillion. By this time next year, assuming we havent defaulted by then, it could be 150 trillion or more.

HAHA! I love that you think we need $120T this year to cover our liabilities for this year.

Just ... awesome.

We'll see how you feel about massive Debt spending when a Republican gets back in the White House. I have a hunch your opinion on this issue will change drastically. Just a hunch though.

It's nice to see you admitting that a Republican President will be a massive debt spender.

 

[paulitician]

HAHA! I love that you think we need $120T this year to cover our liabilities for this year.

Just ... awesome.

We'll see how you feel about massive Debt spending when a Republican gets back in the White House. I have a hunch your opinion on this issue will change drastically. Just a hunch though.

It's nice to see you admitting that a Republican President will be a massive debt spender.

Bush/Obama/Romney? Only the foolhearted believe there's a difference.

 

[paulitician]

The one guy calls the other guy "Un-Patriotic" for massive Debt spending, then turns around and does the very same thing. Ah, what a country. A Nation of Dupes for sure.

 

[miami_thomas]

If "that's not how it works" - why do you apply it to the federal government and not your own pocketbook?


So you have enough current assets to cover all of your future expenses. Congratulations on your successful retirement, but like I said, for most of us, that's not the case.



The fact that the government borrows to meet its outlays doesn't mean we change accounting practices altogether and consider the future liabilities of the government to be current liabilities.

You don't change accounting practices at all. The government has their own set of accounting practices in the first place. Most businesses must consider liabilities that are unfunded on their balance sheets. The government does not. It takes the road that it can simply expire any number of items it can not pay for, even if by social contract it is sold as an obligation. For instance, social security. SS does not and never has had its own fund. It is a general tax on the sheet. If they can not pay it, they simply will not pay it. And they will still collect the taxation for the "service".

You're trying to doublethink me, fella. It's not going to work. The government currently has 120 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in social programs. This is not an accounting practice change. it is true accounting. Someone else in here posted that we would need to come up with 24 trillion dollars right now in order to save these programs from an inevitable mathematical default. I read that we would need to raise GDP 24% right now and maintain it in order for the government to cover these unfunded liabilities based on real accounting practices.

You're idiotic analysis (or rather, the analysis you copied off of some other moron), is predicated on the assumption that future tax revenues will be zero.
Its meaningless to include future payments the government must make in your analysis while excluding future payments it will receive.[/SIZE]
Not exactly an accurate assumption.

No it is not. All companies and even state and local government have to calculate how much money they will need in the future to cover future bills. That is what the article is saying. It is saying that if we were budgeting in a way that says Social Security and Medicare will certainly be provided we would have to have 22.2 trillion dollars in the bank gaining interest. Since it is not a guarantee to future generations we don't have to budget the money to cover Social Security or Medicare.

I will poste again that we don't have the money to pay for Social Security or Medicare for the future. Disability benefits will be all gone by 2016 according to the CBO. Medicare will be out of money by 2024 and SSN will be out of money by 2035.