| Author |
Message |
    
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1006
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:07 am: | 
|
and counting. According to the article by the time GW finishes his term we will be $10,000,000,000,000.00+ (10 trillion) plus in debt.
yahoo article
Tax cuts for the wealthy being redistributed as debt to the middle class and poor with more debt being heaped on us every second.
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4168
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:36 am: |
|
Please drink more KoolAid. This is no big deal. The Rapture is coming and a bit of debt is neither here nor there after the Rapture. Of course, it might suck a bit for those left behind, but I think most real Christians can count on being saved. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1008
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:38 am: |
|
Saving is not a value of this administration |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4169
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:42 am: |
|
That is SO not true! This administration is concerned with saving our souls. What can be more important that that. Christians have given everybody else 2000 years to get with the program. Now is not the time to start whining. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5462
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:02 pm: |
|
Saving hasn't been a big deal to any administration for quite some time. (This is where people will point to Clinton's surplus, but that's easily dispensed with). Those who are paying the debt or the interest on it are those who will pay income taxes. We all know that that disproportionately falls upon the top 5%.
Saving isn't important to this country as a whole. There's a wire story about Asian vs. US savings rates out today. Asians save not only for themselves in terms of retirement and security but also future generations of their family. They look at life as uncertain. The US savings rate is described as low because we're optimistic that government and private institutions (pensions) will hold up.
The US savings rate is based upon the belief that someone or something else will take care of us and we're not responsible -- or can't be -- for our personal well-being. And that something (such as Social Security) has to be funded with the dollars of someone else, or our kids, or both for it to work. It's a right we all have, goes the thinking. Doesn't matter if the system is a failure or the promises that shouldn't have been made in the first place can't be kept for everyone, long as "I got what's coming to me" from someone else's pocket. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4173
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:03 pm: |
|
CJC is right about this. Living within our means is such a pre-WW II idea. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1010
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
Its obvious that the deficit is a huge issue and your brushing it aside as a non issue is frankly disturbing.
10 trillion dollars in debt? That is an amount that cannot even be fathomed. I must assume that there are legitimate reasons for a government to borrow however there is no reason to borrow this amount.
The money train will end and by the way the top 5% of the tax payers should still kick in more then what they do. The top 5% are all sitting by the pool in San Tropez with Mai Tais complaining about their high tax rates. Oh boo hoo.
The middle class is being squeezed back into the lower class and the lower class is being squeezed into dire straights. Maybe tjohn is right. All that is required is for us to believe in the rapture or in paradise or some other imagined heaven so that we dont have to believe what is happening here right before our eyes.
It is not acceptable for CEO's to be earning 100's of times more then their average employees. For what? They siphon off the profits that are rightfully earned by the workers. Its ridiculous. Absurd and actually it is the road to ruin in this country.
Greed will be the end of democracy. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4658
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 12:52 pm: |
|
Quote:This is where people will point to Clinton's surplus, but that's easily dispensed with
only because it happened under a Democratic administration. By my math, the lack of a deficit during those years was due to the wise budgetary management of the Republicans in Congress, and whatever else in the form of a surplus was due to the Clinton bubble.
Do I have that right?
It's a remarkable occurence, statistically very unlikely to hit it right on the head like tht, but that's what the talking points seem to say.
Expanding on Hoops' greed point, their next target is still Social Security. The plan is for all the money that the middle class has poured into it their entire working lives to suddenly be not available, and the government so far in hock that it can't come up with the money. And don't even suggest that the tax cuts on the upper brackets had anything to do with eating up the surplus and driving up the debt!
Millions will be thrown into poverty, homelessness, starvation. Somehow this is supposed to be good for the nation. |
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4174
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 1:16 pm: |
|
Hoops,
We have two choices. Reducing spending to fall in line with government revenues or increase taxes to support our levels of spending.
No matter how you do it, there will be a lot of sacrifice. As always, the poor will suffer more than the wealthy.
With regard to Social Security, I can't quite believe that any intelligent adult under the age of 50 is counting on getting anything from Social Security. We need to rollback Social Security to what it was originally intended to do - help out those who did all the right things (e.g. worked hard all their lives and lived frugally) but still came up short. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5463
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 1:20 pm: |
|
You're half right, tom!
You need look no further than Clinton's reticience to balancing the budget, much less his non-support of the Balanced Budget Amendment. When republicans were pushing for a tax cut off the rising tax revenues, Clinton came up with the brilliant "Save Social Security First" ploy. And we all see how 'saved' SSA is!
The rising revenues to the Treasury largely as a result of the cap gains tax cuts post-Republican takeover of Congress meaning more cap gains revenue came into the Treasury as well as the investment behind that creating jobs (many of which evaporated in the dot-com bust).
"Using the same kind of analysis, we can see that attempts to raise tax revenues by raising tax rates simply doesn't work. Consider the massive increase in personal income tax rates imposed by President Clinton and a Democratic congress in 1993. Compare actual total tax revenues for the four years from 1993 to 1996 to what had been estimated by CBO in 1992 before the tax hikes took effect. Despite increasing the top tax rate on incomes by 16 to 28 per cent, actual revenues only beat the 1992 estimate by less than 1 per cent.
So what led to the gusher of tax revenues in the late 1990s that helped to put the federal budget into surplus? Simple -- it was the capital gains tax cut engineered by a Republican congress in 1997. Compare actual total tax revenues for the three years from 1997 to 1999 to what had been previously estimated by CBO in January 1997. Despite cutting the capital gains tax rate by 28 per cent, actual total revenues beat the 1997 estimate by more than 11 per cent."
http://poorandstupid.com/2006_01_22_chronArchive.asp
Clinton's plans to increase spending were met by a Republican Congress that disallowed a lot of it, limiting the growth to 6-8% in government spending as I recall. That restraint is sadly missing today, and has those of us in the base very upset.
As for Social Security, the money of millions in that system isn't enough, will never be enough. The system is unsustainable given what it promises to give unless you take more money from some people to pay for other people. You could have left all the money that is now IOUs and you'd still be bankrupt given demographics.
|
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1586
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 1:23 pm: |
|
cjc,
You've got it half right. The other half is that consumerism is this country's primary religion. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5464
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 1:32 pm: |
|
Only made possible if you think someone else is going to carry your weight for you at the end. I don't have that 'faith,' and neither did my family. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1587
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 1:40 pm: |
|
They feed off of each other. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1011
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 1:45 pm: |
|
I dont think SSI has any bearing whatsoever on this discussion. While it would be great to find a valid SSI fix, it is not the gorilla in the room. It is a program that has many years to go before trouble hits and even then, minor adjustments to the tax levels or contribution limits can keep it going.
The big issue is exactly as cjc point out. The republicans have ignored fiscal responsibility in the quest of more money and personal power. The coalition of people that make up the republican base is a confused mishmosh of people who each think their party stands for something that evidently it does not. It is the democrats who are more fiscally responsible despite cjc's complaints about Clintons policies.
The republicans refused to put pay-go rules back into effect despite democratic support and lobbying for it. And yes there will have to be tax increases to support the government programs or better yet cuts in government spending, not to the poor and not to urban areas but rather to government attempts to privatize everything. Stop funding the religious right and end the bureau of faith based whatever its called. The pork is ridiculous. Stop the bridges to nowhere and stop corporate welfare. It would be wonderful if corporations actually had to be responsible and pay taxes (instead of paying CEO's).
I dont pretend to be an economist nor do I pretend to be an expert on world finance but I do know that you cant keep borrowing without consequence.
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5465
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 2:04 pm: |
|
Hoops -- 2/3 of every dollar going to Washington is entitlement spending, and the liabilities for those programs are going up. And Washington wants to add to them. It's insane.
The pork you cite and faith-based monies (which was also a part of the Clinton Administration) is chump change relatively speaking.
Pay-go rules make no sense in a strict application as Democrats would have it. You don't necessarily need to raise taxes if the tax cuts -- as illustrated in my above example -- bring in more revenue. Bush's tax cuts with that thinking should not have produced record revenues flowing into the US Treasury today. Conservatives in Congress wanted to find 20B in off-sets for Katrina and were defeated. Bush's budget limited growth in some entitlements, but gets defeated, and his budget has continuously been added to by both Republicans and Democrats.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1014
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 2:19 pm: |
|
I am sick to death of all the BS about 'Entitlement' spending. Look we have to look out for those of us who cant look out for themselves. Period. You can be a horses ••• if you want but I choose to be caring and giving and ready to help my fellow man.
People are 'entitled' to live life in a manner that is not harsh or cruel. We have all the resources we need in America so that ALL Americans can live a good life. Rampant capitalism and market forces do not give a rats ••• about people or the conditions we live in.
Where there are things in our society that are broken we should be able to fix them. And to fix them might mean to have a government program that provides the service or it may mean to fix the way we as a people see things. There is no reason that the quality of American schools should be so far down on the list vs. other countries. There is no reason why our health care system should be so far down on the list compared to other countries. There is no reason we should have so many Americans below the poverty line or so many middle class people falling into poverty.
The republicans do not have the answer to these questions. The dems may not either but they come a far sight closer to answering and respecting the common man then the confused and contradictory republican compassionate conservative Christian coalition party does.
Frankly if my taxes were 1% or 90% I would feel the same way. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5466
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 2:31 pm: |
|
"Frankly if my taxes were 1% or 90% I would feel the same way."
That's horse •••• .
You're very caring with other people's money, Hoops. And you don't care enough to give them the tools to do it themselves so they're able to provide for themselves with no fear of a government program running out of money or have something taken away from them and given to someone else for political reasons. You're talking about entitlements that aren't just for the poor, but they are being extended to the middle class. By design. Nice to have over 1/2 of the country dependent upon someone else for their wellbeing. You deserve what you get -- and don't get -- if you willingly put yourself into that position, but you should be cursed for putting others in that same situation.
You probably think the protesters in France have a good point. If everyone felt like you, THAT would end America. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2353
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 2:47 pm: |
|
"The top 5% are all sitting by the pool in San Tropez with Mai Tais complaining about their high tax rates."
Hoops take many trips to St. Tropez?
The top 5% of taxpayers had AGI of only $130,080 on their 2003 tax returns. Not very hard to do in this neck of the woods. Would you consider them to be "wealthy"? The top 1% only need to earn $295,495 to qualify. After paying their income taxes, their property taxes, interest on their homes and other various living expenses I doubt there would be much left over for trips to St. Tropez to sip Mai Tais.
Tom, Would you agree to a plan where people like me (who have contributed since I was 18) forgo whatever we have contributed to SS to date and in return I get to opt out of the plan and pay a significantly reduced rate. I am then free to do whatever I want with the leftover money? To me that seems fair. I wasn't counting on getting SS and I am planning accordingly. I suggest that if you have the means you should be doing the same.
I lean towards cjc on this one. Too many people thinking that they must have the latest cell phone, car, plasma tv without the means to pay for it. Thinking that the equity in their homes will last forever and if it doesn't - well someone will help bail me out so no worries. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1015
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 3:03 pm: |
|
no sportsnut, not you, really. The wealthy (if its not 5%, then the top 2% or 1%), and the corporations and there are plenty of them.
While your reality is such that you think there are poor people that want to be poor, that dont want to have good jobs and crime free neighborhoods, I'm here to tell you the opposite is true.
The poor want to help themselves. They dont want to be dependant on handouts.
cjcs point and reality is that each of us has the power to step out of the environment and the situations life hands us - without help. Its not true. If the cjc's of the world have their way, society will be back in the early 1900's with a great depression just around the corner.
tom mentioned the rampant consumerism that is going unchecked in our country but that does not mean that people are not suffering daily looking for where their next meal is going to come. It doesnt take into account the mentally ill homeless who have no hope of doing what cjc requires. It doesnt take into account the disabled and elderly who cant provide for themselves. It doesnt take into account the insanity of college costs and what you might have to do sportsnut if your child were accepted into a great school. You would have to decide whether to take out some kind of monster loan or not go to that school. At this time it applies to almost every college. There are no breaks out here.
cjc - if life is good and we have enough means to live comfortably, to go on vacation with the family, to have a home and a car then yes I dont care if I give all my extra cash to taxes as long as those taxes were used to help provide that quality of life.
If that means that I have to sacrifice so that those less fortunate, less skilled, less able to do what I have done, can live a better life then so be it. We will all be better off for it. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2355
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 3:30 pm: |
|
Hoops I didn't say that people want to be poor, but you can't deny that there are those who perpetually make poor decisions that result in keeping them in their situation. I have no problem paying taxes to take care of the mentally ill or destitute and those who can't do as cjc suggests. That's what a portion of my taxes is suppose to go towards. What I have a problem with is the ever growing portion of my taxes that go towards people who are more than capable of taking care of themselves.
Hoops see the difference is that when my son was born I started saving for his college so that when that day comes I'll be prepared. When we first started saving we didn't have a lot of money but we also didn't take vacations, we didn't spend on things we couldn't afford. In other words we did without extravegances and put the money towards him. He'll be prepared. Its all about sacrifices as you've said. Some are willing to make them others not.
|
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1018
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 3:38 pm: |
|
thats great sportsnut. But that is a middle class reality not a working class reality.
Getting back on point a bit - the deficit will be directly affecting you children and mine. The money has to be repaid and the debt has to be brought under control.
Right now we are flirting with disaster as a nation, our trade deficit is at all time highs and our policies have done nothing to reduce either deficit. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5467
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 9:22 pm: |
|
Per Hoops, we need to tax people so that everyone 'lives comfortably, takes the family on vacation, has a home and a car." And don't call it charity or welfare if you provide that to people. It stigmatizes what they're entitled to have. |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1035
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 9:34 pm: |
|
Back to the national debt for just a moment.
If, as I frequently read, we had a surplus during the years of the Clinton Administration; why did the national debt rise during the years of the Clinton Administration?
Have I misunderstood the relationship between a budget surplus (deficit) and the national debt?
Just wondering out loud here in Maplewood.
TomR |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2022
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 9:49 pm: |
|
interest |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1059
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 10:45 pm: |
|
dAMn, I found a short statement by CJC I completly, 100% agree with:
"Hoops -- 2/3 of every dollar going to Washington is entitlement spending, and the liabilities for those programs are going up. And Washington wants to add to them. It's insane." |
TomR
Citizen
Username: Tomr
Post Number: 1036
Registered: 6-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, March 30, 2006 - 11:42 pm: |
|
Casey,
If I understand you correctly, our national budget doesn't include interest payments?
TomR
|
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11110
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 4:43 am: |
|
So why doesn't everyone just write a check and be done with it? |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2023
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 6:45 am: |
|
tomr,
no it does. but if the deficit grew during surplus years (and I don't know that it did, but that's what you seem to be saying), the only possibility would be the interest accrued would have been more than the interest paid. but I don't believe we did add to the debt in surplus years. The Clinton administration, if I'm correct had 5 deficit years and 3 surplus years. that would also explain a net growth in the debt during his term. |
sportsnut
Citizen
Username: Sportsnut
Post Number: 2356
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 8:01 am: |
|
Bobk - I already do....every April 15th.
Hoops I think you are getting caught up in the "republicans/conservatives despise all taxes" mantra of the left. Simply not true. As I've said in the past I don't care about paying taxes, what I care about is paying taxes towards programs that are so hopelessly broken or don't accomplish what they are supposed to accomplish then having guys like you scream that people don't pay their fair share. Well I pay plenty, as do many others in our town and it should be enough. That it isn't enough says to me that some/most/much of it is being wasted and that's where I get annoyed.
You say that there are plenty of corporations, plenty of wealthy people who should pay but what about the millions of people who are ready, willing and able to work but choose not to? What about the millions of immigrants who pour into this country and use our resources like education, medical etc. and don't pay into the system? You're willing to look the other way on those people while asking others to pay more. What's "fair" about that?
Show me that the budget is cut as much as possible first then come to me and ask for more money. If I agree that it will go to where its supposed to go...to help those truly in need I'll cut the check. Until then feel free to write checks to your favorite charity if you think that will help. That's what I do. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2024
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:00 am: |
|
tomr,
Quote:1.2) What is the difference between the debt and the deficit?
The deficit is the fiscal year difference between what the United States Government (Government) takes in from taxes and other revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money the Government spends, called outlays. The items included in the deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget. (The off-budget items are typically comprised of the two Social Security trust funds, old-age and survivors insurance and disability insurance, and the Postal-Service fund.) Generally, on-budget outlays tend to exceed on-budget receipts, while off-budget receipts tend to exceed off-budget outlays.
You can think of the total debt as accumulated deficits plus accumulated off-budget surpluses. The on-budget deficits require the Treasury to borrow money to raise cash needed to keep the Government operating. We borrow the money by selling Treasury securities like T-bills, notes, bonds and savings bonds to the public. Additionally, the Government Trust Funds are required by law to invest accumulated surpluses in Treasury securities. The Treasury securities issued to the public and to the Government Trust Funds (Intragovernmental Holdings) then become part of the total debt. For information concerning the deficit, visit the Financial Management Service website to view the Monthly Treasury Statement of Receipts and Outlays of the United States Government (MTS).
http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opdfaq.htm#opdfaq12 |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2724
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:35 am: |
|
Dr. W, what TomR is saying, I think (my apologies if I get this wrong, Tom), is that since the net change in our national debt is essentially the deficit (or surplus) from a given year, how could we have had a surplus if the national debt went up?
And your own answer provides some of the information, though I don't think it's what you want to hear. Off-budget items, including SS. They contribute to a surplus, but are not considered liabilities for debt. So it is possible to have a surplus (including SS), and still have increased debt.
I believe, though I could be wrong, that SS receipts were not always counted toward surpluses or deficits. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5468
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 10:45 am: |
|
Putting Social Security "On Budget":
"In early 1968 President Lyndon Johnson made a change in the budget presentation by including Social Security and all other trust funds in a"unified budget." This is likewise sometimes described by saying that Social Security was placed "on-budget."
This 1968 change grew out of the recommendations of a presidential commission appointed by President Johnson in 1967, and known as the President's Commission on Budget Concepts. The concern of this Commission was not specifically with the Social Security Trust Funds, but rather it was an effort to rationalize what the Commission viewed as a confusing budget presentation. At that time, the federal budget consisted of three separate and inconsistent sets of measures, and often budget debates became bogged-down in arguments over which of the three to use. As an illustration of the problem, the projected fiscal 1968 budget was either in deficit by $2.1 billion, $4.3 billion, or $8.1 billion, depending upon which measure one chose to use. Consequently, the Commission's central recommendation was for a single, unified, measure of the federal budget--a measure in which every function and activity of government was added together to assess the government's fiscal position.
This change took effect for the first time in the President's budget proposal for fiscal year 1969, which President Johnson presented to Congress in January 1968. This change in accounting practices did not initially put the President's budget proposal into surplus--it was still projecting an $8 billion deficit. However, it is clear that the budget deficit would have been somewhat larger without this change (it is difficult to say how much larger because this change was mixed-in with the other legislative, budgetary and fiscal policies the President was urging Congress to adopt). In early 1969--just five days before leaving office--President Johnson sent his 1970 budget message to Congress, also using the revised accounting procedures. At this point, a year later than his initial estimate, he was projecting the budget for 1969 to be in a net balance of $2.4 billion. (The fiscal year 1969 began on January 1, 1969, even though the President had released his FY 1969 budget almost a year earlier.)
The FY 1969 budget would not be implemented by President Johnson; it would instead be presided over by President Nixon, who took office on January 20,1969. This was 20 days into the 1969 fiscal year. When President Nixon took office, he too adopted the unified budget approach, and it was used by all Presidents thereafter until 1986." |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2025
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:05 am: |
|
rastro,
there's a ton of "off budget" stuff besides SS. for example, much of the cost of the current war is off budget. the deficit refers only to "on budget" expenses, and it is certainly conceiveable to be adding a host of off budget expenses to the national debt while running a surplus on the budget.
also, there are a lot of other fluid factors that I don't pretend to understand that go into the national debt, like obligations that the Treasury has to pay back when the holders redeem them. I don't believe those go into the on budget costs either. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2725
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:17 am: |
|
Dr. W, from the item that you posted:
Quote: The deficit is the fiscal year difference between what the United States Government (Government) takes in from taxes and other revenues, called receipts, and the amount of money the Government spends, called outlays. The items included in the deficit are considered either on-budget or off-budget. (The off-budget items are typically comprised of the two Social Security trust funds, old-age and survivors insurance and disability insurance, and the Postal-Service fund.) Generally, on-budget outlays tend to exceed on-budget receipts, while off-budget receipts tend to exceed off-budget outlays.
[emphasis mine]
So it's not just off-budget expenses that are included, but off-budget "income ."
So the deficit does include off-budget items. Income from the SS funds gets lunmped in to reduce the deficit, but I don't believe the future obligations that are represented by SS payments are included as part of our national debt. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2026
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:21 am: |
|
I'm bowing out, since I'm now not sure what any of this means with regard to the national debt, except to say that I've always assumed the deficit ant the debt although related, are not the same thing. but maybe I'm wrong |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2728
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:29 am: |
|
Dr. W, what I'm trying to say (with way too many words), is that by including SS income in the surplus/deficit equation, it skews the results. If SS were handled properly, it would be monies wholly separate from the general funds available, and not included in the surplus/deficit. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5469
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:32 am: |
|
In fact, a recent bill in Congress was defeated where it proposed to completely wall off SSA monies from the budget both in accounting procedures and in terms of the government taking the cash and issuing IOUs. In other words -- the Lock Box when down in flames. Democrats were no help here. Fiscal stewards that they are. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2729
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
cjc, I find it interesting that in a Republican-controlled Congress, you find it the Democrats' fault that a fiscally prudent idea is defeated. If you mock Democrats as fiscal stewards for this issue, what does it say of Republicans?
I'm curious. Who introduced this bill? |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1026
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:39 am: |
|
Right the democrats run congress. cjc - whatever bill the right wing wants to be voted on gets voted on and whatever they want voted on gets approved. They are the majority party. Dont talk about dems not getting things done because they cant even get a conference room to hold hearing in. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5470
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
It was in the Senate, and it was introduced by Jim DeMint, R-SC
" Sen. Jim DeMint, South Carolina Republican, offered the proposal, which would have let Congress create a reserve fund protected under budget rules to save the Social Security surplus to pay for future benefits instead of other federal programs, as happens now."
http://www.washtimes.com/national/20060320-122350-5936r.htm
I'd imagine the 8 Republicans who voted against it were of the squishy, liberal spending variety that have voted against any trimming of domestic programs in the name of fiscal responsibility. Article didn't say even one Democrat voted for it, but I'd have to check that out too.
What does it say about Republicans? It says you need conservatives in there, which doesn't necessarily translate to republicans. You certainly don't want liberals.
Hoops -- you really think Dems can't get a conference room to hold hearings? They've orchestrated 'hearings' that lack subpoena power and are mostly staged for the cameras, but they've done it and they have a willing media turning on the mics for it. "What ever bill the right wing wants gets approved"? You really want to stand by that? Right wing conservatives have lost repeatedly in Rove's grand strategy. Tariffs. Medicare Drug Bill. Trimming federal budgets. Campaign Finance Reform. Conservative right-wingers lost all those votes. |
Rastro
Citizen
Username: Rastro
Post Number: 2731
Registered: 5-2004
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:11 pm: |
|
cjc, what is different from the proposal by liberal Al Gore, that got him laughed at in perpetuity? |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5471
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, March 31, 2006 - 12:48 pm: |
|
Gore's Lock Box would lock up the Social Security surplus and spend it on the national debt, from what I gathered. Found this off a site that copied this from the Gore website back then:
"Gore would transfer the entire Social Security surplus, $2.2 trillion over ten years, to strengthen Social Security and to pay off the nation’s public debt by 2013. Reducing the public debt would produce significant interest savings. By 2016, these interest savings would be about $250 billion annually. Gore would use these long-term savings to strengthen Social Security until 2050."
The site has other information on it, including Gore then for increasing benefits for widows and women who take time off for children (?):
Paying off national debt keeps trust fund solvent until 2054
* Gore wants to maintain the existing Social Security system (and indeed raise benefits), by subsidizing it from general taxation. He would:would pay down the national debt as soon as possible, and transfer the equivalent of the interest saved to the Social Security trust fund
* supports providing increased Social Security benefits to widows and women who take time off to bring up children
* opposes raising retirement age to 70
* would introduce, in addition to Social Security, individual accounts called “Retirement Savings Plus”, in which savings would be matched (at different rates according to income) by the federal government
Source: The Economist, “Issues 2000” Sep 30, 2000
http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Al_Gore_Social_Security.htm |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1069
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 2:10 am: |
|
CJC good post about LBJ. What he did, was to count SS monies twice. Which is utter BS. He turned the SS "Trust Fund" into a slush fund. We currently take about 150 billion out of SS, and out it in the general revenue fund, making the deficit appear smaller than it is.
Gores plan was to stop taking SS funds to pay for the deficit. Basically undoing what LBJ did.
The link to "on the issues" site: please warn people when your link is to a site with pop ups. The number of adds associated with that site makes me weary & suspicious. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5474
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 3:21 pm: |
|
Foj -- sorry about the pop-ups. Some tech guy made my browser eliminate all or most of them, and I wouldn't know if there were any on a site to be able to warn anyone.
Back to The Trust Fund -- I think Gore was going to take SS money out of the system and apply it to the debt, as if Congress didn't have a say in that. This differs from what DeMint was proposing, which was to wall off the SSA funds within the SSA system, not applying it to debt, deficits or anything else except the SS. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1075
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, April 1, 2006 - 9:09 pm: |
|
cjc--
By locking SS funds in SS. The SS "Trust fund" would earn more interest, Right?
IIRC in 2004 about 150 billion was taken from SS, put into the general revenue fund, in effect reducing the annual deficit.
I dont know who DeMint is. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5479
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 10:04 am: |
|
Foj -- SS funds would then 'earn more interest' that would be applied to the US debt as a whole is the jist of Gore's plan. Jim DeMint, R-SC, had a proposal that said surplus monies would absolutely stay within Social Security and not be used for retiring the national debt, lowering the deficit, or any other spending the government wanted to do. Gore's Lock Box did not have that feature in it as I read it. |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 9094
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Sunday, April 2, 2006 - 10:56 am: |
|
DeMint must be the guy who prints too much paper money and causes inflation. |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page