The Debt Clock is Overheating. . . .

[g5000]

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.

No, it is a fact. I can't help it if you are ignorant of how the system works. Social Security has actually been running a surplus all this time. Our "unfunded liabilities" have been more than covered when the time came to pay for them.

We have actually been raiding the SS surplus for decades. This "unfunded liabilities" thing is a illusion intended to unnecessarily frighten the rubes.

 

[TemplarKormac]

I did. Right in that post!

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

No, it is a fact. I can't help it if you are ignorant of how the system works. Social Security has actually been running a surplus all this time. Our "unfunded liabilities" have been more than covered when the time came to pay for them.

We have actually been raiding the SS surplus for decades. This "unfunded liabilities" thing is a illusion intended to unnecessarily frighten the rubes.

It isn't a fact unless you back it up... with facts. I know quite well how the SS system works. My grandmother happens to be on it.

Then again, would you care to tell me where or how we came up with $90 trillion in payroll taxes?

 

[ScreamingEagle]

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.

easy peasey....? well then YOU go convince the Demrats....

 

[g5000]

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?

These are political questions, not really fiduciary ones.

For example, there are people who can wax on and on about the necessity of providing food aid to the poor. They can make a pretty good case.

But then there are others who can wax on and on about the waste of providing food aid to the poor. They can make a pretty good case, too.

So the voters will have to decide which they prefer.


The same is true for, say, the mortgage interest deduction. You might have someone who thinks providing food aid to the poor that has to be paid for by others is a bad idea, but at the same time firmly believes a regressive tax break that has to be paid for by others is a great idea.


Also, waste, fraud, and abuse is not exclusive to government. I think the idea that the private sector or charities could do things more efficiently needs to be challenged. I am the president of a non-profit and I see a tremendous amount of waste by charities in the private sector. Far more than I see government waste in the same areas of concern.

The government does things on a larger scale, and so the dollar value of waste will be higher, but I do not buy the percentage of waste by government is greater in all cases.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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?

Oh, i didn't mean ti that way. There is certainly the issue of run away entitlements. But these things would have broken a LOT sooner if our currency was anchored.

 

[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?

Oh, i didn't mean ti that way. There is certainly the issue of run away entitlements. But these things would have broken a LOT sooner if our currency was anchored.

Okay. Can you explain further? I may want to add that one to my list of solutions.

 

[cutter]

It doesn't seem to do any good for a rep/Tea Party person to complain about the debt. The libs now control everything. Maybe the answer is getting more universities (normally a bastion of liberal thinking) talking about the spending going on in Washington. Students are introduced to liberal thinking in kindergarten ant throughout their education but once they realize THEY will be the ones paying off this burden they are liable to become staunch conservatives. Spending outrageous amounts of money is fine as long as you don't have to pay it off. Give it to the grand-kids.

 

[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.

easy peasey....? well then YOU go convince the Demrats....

I wish the GOP would get off its ass and start pushing this, instead of attacking the other guy's ideas all the time.

I have actually considered running for office. A lot of people keep pushing me to.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Also, waste, fraud, and abuse is not exclusive to government. I think the idea that the private sector or charities could do things more efficiently needs to be challenged. I am the president of a non-profit and I see a tremendous amount of waste by charities in the private sector. Far more than I see government waste in the same areas of concern.

No, it's not. The difference is that governmenr doesn't have any money of its own to waste. So comparing the two is apples and oranges. A private entity can go ahead and waste their own money unti it is gone if they desire. But the government doesn't have their own money to waste. They steal it from others.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey g5:

Faithful devotees on the Left continue to peddle the notion that Social Security is not in crisis, that it doesn’t contribute to the deficit, and there is no need for reform. However, reading through this year’s just-released Social Security Trustees report, the annual “State of the SSA”, we find that the Trustees tell a different narrative — one that is grim indeed. The following primer pulls directly from the report and then explains the statement in layman’s terms. It is copied text from summary of the entire report.

What it actually says:
“Social Security’s total expenditures have exceeded non-interest income of its combined trust funds since 2010, and the Trustees estimate that Social Security cost will exceed non-interest income throughout the 75-year projection period”.

What it means:
Non-interest income includes payroll taxes, taxes on scheduled benefits, and general fund transfers. Expenditures (payouts to beneficiaries) have exceeded (been more than) income (taxes collected ) since2010. Social Security has not been paying for itself for the last three years. Anyone telling you otherwise is patently false.

What it actually says:
“The deficit of non-interest income relative to cost was about $49 billion in 2010, $45 billion in 2011, and $55 billion in 2012″.

What it means:
Again, right here the report describes that there is a deficit occurring and provides a tangible figure for each year. It directly contradicts the notion the idea that Social Security is PAYGO. It is not.

What it actually says:
“The Trustees project that this cash-flow deficit will average about $75 billion between 2013 and 2018 before rising steeply as income growth slows to the sustainable trend rate after the economic recovery is complete and the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers”

What it means:
The deficit is only going to worsen by about 30% over the next 5 years to $75 billion a year. Then the deficit is going to RISE STEEPLY because even more people will be claiming benefits than those working and paying into the system.

You can read more here:

Debunking the Myth of Social Security Solvency | RedState

 

[LoneLaugher]

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.

And idiots are completely mesmerized by it.

I am not sure about raising the retirement age.......I think ending the cap on contributions would be a better way to go.

Downside of a higher retirement age- MSN Money

I will be working when I am 70.......but I am not hauling furniture or mining coal or lifting patients. The very people who most need SS......will likely be forced to live without it for several years after they can no longer work their physically demanding jobs.

Think about the laborer.......why do that to him?

 

[g5000]

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

Your claim is not a coincidence, it is just plain wrong.

Debt to GDP was at its highest just after WWII.

Even higher than it is now.

Debt to GDP continued to decline after Nixon took us off gold, and did not start climbing again until Reagan.

I suppose you could blame Volker floating the interest rate. 1979, wasn't it? After he did that, the bond market went from boring to hot, hot, hot.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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

Oh, i didn't mean ti that way. There is certainly the issue of run away entitlements. But these things would have broken a LOT sooner if our currency was anchored.

Okay. Can you explain further? I may want to add that one to my list of solutions.

Well, it would take a dissertation to explain exchange rates on floating currencies, trade warfare, etc...

When time permits, give this a read through and see if you can make a correlation to the problem you're currently adddressing with the contents of the link.

http://www.nber.org/chapters/c6876.pdf

 

[g5000]

I am not sure about raising the retirement age.......I think ending the cap on contributions would be a better way to go.

Downside of a higher retirement age- MSN Money

The exact same thing was true in 1935 with 65 being the eligibility age. It affected the working poor and uneducated more than it did others.

It's a bogus argument.

We are living much longer than our ancestors, we should be working longer.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey g5? I'm still waiting for you to answer how we paid off $90 trillion in SS liabilities with the same in payroll taxes. That is the fatal flaw in your argument. On top of that, I have debunked your claim of SS solvency.

Or will you try to beat me with experience again?

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

-Mark Twain

 

[cutter]

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.

And idiots are completely mesmerized by it.

I am not sure about raising the retirement age.......I think ending the cap on contributions would be a better way to go.

Downside of a higher retirement age- MSN Money

I will be working when I am 70.......but I am not hauling furniture or mining coal or lifting patients. The very people who most need SS......will likely be forced to live without it for several years after they can no longer work their physically demanding jobs.

Think about the laborer.......why do that to him?

I would love to still be working. After 35yrs of breaking beef and cutting meat in a room at 30 degrees my back broke down and legs are shot. Retirement isn't what it's cracked up to be. Too broke down to do much physically now my days include reading and this message board. Talk about boring, I wish I were working, I miss it.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

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

Your claim is not a coincidence, it is just plain wrong.

Debt to GDP was at its highest just after WWII.

Even higher than it is now.

Debt to GDP continued to decline after Nixon took us off gold, and did not start climbing again until Reagan.

I suppose you could blame Volker floating the interest rate. 1979, wasn't it? After he did that, the bond market went from boring to hot, hot, hot.

Starting in 71, we set the valuation on gdp. It's not a logical comparison from then to today.

 

[g5000]

Hey g5? I'm still waiting for you to answer how we paid off $90 trillion in SS liabilities with the same in payroll taxes. That is the fatal flaw in your argument. On top of that, I have debunked your claim of SS solvency.

Or will you try to beat me with experience again?

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

-Mark Twain

You cannot have a serious discussion about a budget 75 years from now. Hell, no one can even make an accurate prediction for just 5 years into the future. Go ahead and tell me how much we will be taking in in payroll taxes in 2088, and we'll all laugh our lungs out.

These projections into the future of 75 years from now are cheap scare tactics for rubes.

 

[Newby]

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.

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.

But that's obviously without lowering the tax brackets either, which means if you eliminate expenditures, a large percentage of people's taxes drastically go up. How would the middle to middle-upper income tax payer afford to lose thousands per year in higher taxes?

 

[g5000]

Also, waste, fraud, and abuse is not exclusive to government. I think the idea that the private sector or charities could do things more efficiently needs to be challenged. I am the president of a non-profit and I see a tremendous amount of waste by charities in the private sector. Far more than I see government waste in the same areas of concern.

No, it's not. The difference is that governmenr doesn't have any money of its own to waste. So comparing the two is apples and oranges. A private entity can go ahead and waste their own money unti it is gone if they desire. But the government doesn't have their own money to waste. They steal it from others.

The problem with relying on wasteful private charities is that they don't come close to supporting the amount of need that is out there. So the people of America decided it was immoral to just stand by and let that happen. The people chose to have the government rescue the poor since the private sector miserably failed at it.

You see taxation to support the poor (redistribution) as immoral. Others see it quite the opposite (safety net).

It would please me infinitely if the private sector would support the poor competently. I would like nothing more. Unfortunately, speaking as one who has been on the front lines for quite a while, I have to say I have ZERO confidence of that ever being acheived. I'm afraid I have no doubt that if government support went away, and the concommitant funds allowed to stay in our own hands, the poor would experience catastrophe.