The Debt Clock is Overheating. . . .

[Sunshine]

If you survived to age 21 in 1940, you had a 55 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

If you survived to age 21 in 1990, you had a 75 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

It is far past time to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.

They've already done that. I don't reach full retirement age until next year. I retired on Social Security this year because of my health and it was easier than applying for SSD.

 

[g5000]

Could you clarify that with the numbers as you see it or a link please?

Gladly!

1. In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, 5.6 percent of the population was over the age of 65. Life expectancy was 60. So Social Security was for those who lived beyond the mean.

In 1965, when Medicare was enacted, 9 percent of the population was over the age of 65. Average life expectancy was 70.

Today, 13 percent of our populaton is over 65. And life expectancy is 78. We are well on our way toward tripling the percentage of Americans drawing Social Security.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors, it is just plain common sense that we should be working longer.

Working five years longer, and thus paying into the system five years longer, and retiring five years later, and thus drawing from the system five years less, would be huge increases in revenues, and huge decreases in spending.



2. How Large Are Tax Expenditures? A 2012 Update

For fiscal 2012, for example, individual income tax expenditures total $942 billion and corporate ones $151 billion. On a static basis, those provisions thus reduce income tax receipts by almost $1.1 trillion. In addition, some provisions — the refundable credits
—also increase federal outlays. Those outlay effects total another $91 billion in fiscal 2012, primarily from the earned income tax credit and the child credit. The total budget impact of income tax expenditures in 2012 is thus nearly $1.2 trillion.

We are living in a society where people earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of their income in taxes. This is sheer insanity. For every penny of their income someone gets returned to them by an expenditures, someone else has to give up a penny.

This results in higher tax rates. But the American people will tolerate only so much when it comes to increasing taxes. So to pay for all those expenditures, our accomadating politicians who want to be re-elected borrow the money by the trillions.

Everyone who takes advantage of a deduction or credit is contributing to higher tax rates and the national debt. They are being carried on other people's backs.

Good information, but it does not address how your suggestion accomplishes balancing the budget and eliminating a $17 trillion dollar debt. I'm not saying you're wrong about that or that you aren't stating it like it is. I just want some evidence.

You don't understand how a surplus accomplishes a balanced budget?!?!? It's BETTER than a balanced budget.

For the debt, let's start by using only the savings from eliminating tax expenditures.

The federal deficit for 2013 is $750 billion.

$1.2 trillion - $750 billion = $450 billion surplus.

You can knock $450 billion off the federal debt in your first year!

And deficits will drop since non-discretionary spending will drop when the Social Security and Medicare outlays drop due to a higher eligibility age. So the surplus will be much greater than $450 billion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Again with no verification or claim of accuracy, this site gives some interesting numbers.

United States Debt Clock October 2013

The most telling is that our national debt was negligible against our GDP UNTIL entitlement programs started kicking in. And that started a snowball rolling along with the encouragement to congress to use our money to buy votes in many other ways too. So the debt began to seriously escalate in the 1970's and has been increasing in speed, size, and mass ever since.

This site also spells out those countries who are holding the debt that is farmed out elsewhere.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

It began to seriously increase in 71 following the end of an anchor to currency. Coincidence? No, it's not.

 

[Foxfyre]

Gladly!

1. In 1935, when Social Security was enacted, 5.6 percent of the population was over the age of 65. Life expectancy was 60. So Social Security was for those who lived beyond the mean.

In 1965, when Medicare was enacted, 9 percent of the population was over the age of 65. Average life expectancy was 70.

Today, 13 percent of our populaton is over 65. And life expectancy is 78. We are well on our way toward tripling the percentage of Americans drawing Social Security.

We are living decades longer than our ancestors, it is just plain common sense that we should be working longer.

Working five years longer, and thus paying into the system five years longer, and retiring five years later, and thus drawing from the system five years less, would be huge increases in revenues, and huge decreases in spending.



2. How Large Are Tax Expenditures? A 2012 Update




We are living in a society where people earning identical incomes are paying radically different amounts of their income in taxes. This is sheer insanity. For every penny of their income someone gets returned to them by an expenditures, someone else has to give up a penny.

This results in higher tax rates. But the American people will tolerate only so much when it comes to increasing taxes. So to pay for all those expenditures, our accomadating politicians who want to be re-elected borrow the money by the trillions.

Everyone who takes advantage of a deduction or credit is contributing to higher tax rates and the national debt. They are being carried on other people's backs.

Good information, but it does not address how your suggestion accomplishes balancing the budget and eliminating a $17 trillion dollar debt. I'm not saying you're wrong about that or that you aren't stating it like it is. I just want some evidence.

All right. I'm not even going to count the retirement age savings, since that number is not available. We'll use only the savings from eliminating tax expenditures.

The federal deficit for 2013 is $750 billion.

$1.2 trillion - $750 billion = $450 billion surplus.

You can knock $450 billion off the federal debt in your first year!

Where do you get the number of $750 as the 2013 deficit when you can look at the National Debt and see that, using the least scary numbers linked up there, the total has increase roughly 1.2 trillion or more between 9/30/12 and 9/30/13? And what do you mean by tax expenditures?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you survived to age 21 in 1940, you had a 55 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

If you survived to age 21 in 1990, you had a 75 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

It is far past time to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.

While doing nothing to address the massive amounts of money they take in, which concurrently drives up our national debt?

Social Security has 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities alone. Almost 5 times than the 17 trillion we owe now.

 

[g5000]

If you survived to age 21 in 1940, you had a 55 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

If you survived to age 21 in 1990, you had a 75 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

It is far past time to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.

They've already done that. I don't reach full retirement age until next year. I retired on Social Security this year because of my health and it was easier than applying for SSD.

The eligibility age for Social Security was raised by increments to 67, not 70. And they did not index it to the population. And it does not take full effect until something like 2022.

This was done by the Congress of the early 80s so all those politicians would be dead by the time the 67 eligibility age finally kicked in.

That's how chickenshit our politicians have been down through the ages.

 

[BlackSand]

If you survived to age 21 in 1940, you had a 55 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

If you survived to age 21 in 1990, you had a 75 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

It is far past time to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.

Why keep supporting Social Security and Medicare by increasing the eligibility age?

I think you are ignoring the fact that the Progressive Liberals wanted people to die before they got any benefit from the programs.
Just let the poor bastards die and save the bureaucracy, vote buying and taking money from young people who could spend it better than the government (they earned it).

If Progressive Liberals only had the honesty to admit they don't care except when you vote for them ... Then I think most of the American People would be smart enough to keep from starving.

.

 

[Foxfyre]

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]:

Yes this should bother any American with a conscience.

[EDIT] I thought you were referring to usdebtclock dot org. My apologies.

No apology necessary. Actually I was a little uncomfortable with the debt clock I posted in the OP because $300 billion looked excessive fto me for a week's time, even as fast as the clock is running.

So subsequently I posted the link to the clock you were referring to that I suspect does show a more realistic number.

 

[g5000]

If you survived to age 21 in 1940, you had a 55 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

If you survived to age 21 in 1990, you had a 75 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

It is far past time to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.

While doing nothing to address the massive amounts of money they take in, which concurrently drives up our national debt?

Social Security has 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities alone. Almost 5 times than the 17 trillion we owe now.

When people talk about future "unfunded liabilities", you never hear them mention the future payroll taxes that will cover most of that amount. It is a totally misleading figure.

 

[Foxfyre]

It began to seriously increase in 71 following the end of an anchor to currency. Coincidence? No, it's not.

So you see the problem as something different than runaway entitlements? Can you explain further?

 

[TemplarKormac]

If you survived to age 21 in 1940, you had a 55 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

If you survived to age 21 in 1990, you had a 75 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

It is far past time to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.

While doing nothing to address the massive amounts of money they take in, which concurrently drives up our national debt?

Social Security has 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities alone. Almost 5 times than the 17 trillion we owe now.

When people talk about future "unfunded liabilities", you never hear them mention the future payroll taxes that will cover most of that amount. It is a totally misleading figure.

Would you care to explain how it is a "misleading" figure then?

 

[g5000]

If you survived to age 21 in 1940, you had a 55 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

If you survived to age 21 in 1990, you had a 75 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

It is far past time to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.

Why keep supporting Social Security and Medicare by increasing the eligibility age?

I think you are ignoring the fact that the Progressive Liberals wanted people to die before they got any benefit from the programs.

The facts are quite the opposite of that claim. A great many seniors in that age group were living in extreme poverty. Too old and feeble to work, and not enough support from family or charity. And that is why both SS and Medicare were enacted.

If Progressive Liberals only had the honesty to admit they don't care except when you vote for them ... Then I think most of the American People would be smart enough to keep from starving.

.

I think that sentiment holds true for both parties these days. You don't think Republicans aren't piling on spending, too? I refer you to the Bush years. You don't think they pile on carve-outs for their friends? You don't think they are working hand-in-hand with Wall Street to rob the pockets of every common man in America, too?

Don't be naive.

 

[g5000]

While doing nothing to address the massive amounts of money they take in, which concurrently drives up our national debt?

Social Security has 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities alone. Almost 5 times than the 17 trillion we owe now.

When people talk about future "unfunded liabilities", you never hear them mention the future payroll taxes that will cover most of that amount. It is a totally misleading figure.

Would you care to explain how it is a "misleading" figure then?

I did. Right in that post!

 

[g5000]

I promise to pay someone fifty dollars in the future. I do not have the fifty dollars at the moment, and this makes my obligation an "unfunded liability".

However, I have arranged for someone else to pay me fifty dollars at the same time my obligation comes due.

It would be very misleading for someone to claim I had fifty dollars of future "unfunded liabilities" without mentioning I have fifty dollars coming in to cover it.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

If you survived to age 21 in 1940, you had a 55 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

If you survived to age 21 in 1990, you had a 75 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

It is far past time to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.

While doing nothing to address the massive amounts of money they take in, which concurrently drives up our national debt?

Social Security has 90 trillion in unfunded liabilities alone. Almost 5 times than the 17 trillion we owe now.

When people talk about future "unfunded liabilities", you never hear them mention the future payroll taxes that will cover most of that amount. It is a totally misleading figure.

damn.....we're in for some BIG paychecks.........

....considering every u.s. citizen is on the hook for about $400,000+ in unfunded liabilities....

 

[g5000]

1. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population.

2. Ban all tax expenditures.

Done! I just gave you a gigantic surplus.

Easy peasey.

 

[TemplarKormac]

When people talk about future "unfunded liabilities", you never hear them mention the future payroll taxes that will cover most of that amount. It is a totally misleading figure.

Would you care to explain how it is a "misleading" figure then?

I did. Right in that post!

That's not an explanation. That's a presupposition.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Imma calling out the poster who voted "Deficits don't matter." Come on, don't be shy.

 

[Foxfyre]

1. Raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages to 70, and index to 9 percent of the population.

2. Ban all tax expenditures.

Done! I just gave you a gigantic surplus.

Easy peasey.

Bring every citizen earning at least $1 into the group of income tax payers... no zero tax bills for anyone...

Stop handing out freebies to bums and foreign nations

Stop handing out bullshit 'stimulus' as corporate welfare

Eliminate agencies that have no business being in the federal government

Done. I just gave you a giant surplus.

Easy Peasey

Okay, you've offered some concrete suggestions that most people can understand without additional explanation. Thank you for that.

But the problem comes in such definitions as 'bum' or 'agency that has no business being in the federal government.' Who are the 'bums'? And what agencies have no business in the federal government?

My own solution covers just about all:

1. The President, Congress, and Bureaucrats in Washington will operate and live under the exact same laws they vote for the rest of us, both while they are in government service, and after they leave.

2. The President, Congress, and Bureaucrats in Washngton will fund their own healthcare plans and retirement programs out of their salaries and there will be no further compensation, other than secret service protection for the President, when they leave office.

3. The President, Congress, and Bureaucrats in Washington will be prohibited from using any tax payer money or any regulation that benefits one citizen but not all or that provides any advantage to any person, group, entity, or demographic that is not provided to all.

4. The government, except in extreme emergency such as an attack from a foreign nation, will tax the people no more than 10% of the people's money expended or earned, and will be constitutionally equired to balance the budget and not exceed it.

5. Baseline budgeting will be ended and every agency and department of government will have to itemize and justify every expenditure for the coming budget year.

And there you have it: no special privileges or career politicians, no ability to buy votes to keep themselves in power, practical campaign finance reform, elimination of all forms of welfare, including corporate welfare, resulting in elimination of unsustainable entitlements and a balanced budget. . .and. . .elimination of most government waste. Easy peesy? Nope. But doable.