• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Surprising Jump in Tax Revenues Is Curbing Deficit

SouthernDemocrat said:
Of that total in Entitlement spending, what percentage is the Medicare and Social Security programs, and what is out of general revenue.
Click to expand...

Who cares? Its ALL entitlement spending.
Cut it, and you free up revenues.

In lean times, everyone needs to tighten their belt.
Why does that NOT include people on welfare?
 
Goobieman said:
Who cares? Its ALL entitlement spending.
Cut it, and you free up revenues.

In lean times, everyone needs to tighten their belt.
Why does that NOT include people on welfare?
Click to expand...

Once again, I pay 15% of my income in payroll taxes. These payroll taxes are to pay for the Social Security and Medicare Programs. Seniors who are retired today spent 40 to 50 years of their lives paying for those programs through their payroll taxes. Those programs currently have no fiscal problems. Granted 20 years down the road it could be a different story, but today they are fully solvent.

Why should they take a cut in Medicare and Social Security, programs they paid into their whole lives, just so you do not have to pay more in income taxes to fund an elective war? This is not just some handout, they paid into those programs their entire lives. If you want a war, you need to fund it. If a war is worth fighting, its worth you coughing up the tax dollars to pay for it. Its just greedy for you to expect a 80 year old senior to take a cut in their Social Security benefits just so you can have a free war.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Once again, I pay 15% of my income in payroll taxes. These payroll taxes are to pay for the Social Security and Medicare Programs.
Click to expand...
And then, as they have for the last 50 years, the excess dollars go to the general fund and an IOU issued to the trust fund. You can thank the Democrats for that, BTW, as the practice started when they held Congress.

You can argue all you want that it shouldnt be that way, but it is -- this is what society has decided to do; if you don't like it, you can go live somewhere else.

Why should they take a cut in Medicare and Social Security, programs they paid into their whole lives, just so you do not have to pay more in income taxes to fund an elective war?
Click to expand...
You arent creating a sound argument heere as to why their benifits should NOT be cut; you ARE asking this question to avoid having to make saiid argument.

Now, answer the question:
In lean times, everyone needs to tighten their belt.
Why does that NOT include people on welfare?

This is not just some handout, they paid into those programs their entire lives.
Click to expand...
It -is- a hand out. They money you pay into the 'system' is handed directly to them; the money they paid into the 'system' has handed directly to someone else. Its nothing more than welfare with a specific tax to fund it.
 
Goobieman said:
And then, as they have for the last 50 years, the excess dollars go to the general fund and an IOU issued to the trust fund. You can thank the Democrats for that, BTW, as the practice started when they held Congress.

You can argue all you want that it shouldnt be that way, but it is -- this is what society has decided to do; if you don't like it, you can go live somewhere else.


You arent creating a sound argument heere as to why their benifits should NOT be cut; you ARE asking this question to avoid having to make saiid argument.

Now, answer the question:
In lean times, everyone needs to tighten their belt.
Why does that NOT include people on welfare?


It -is- a hand out. They money you pay into the 'system' is handed directly to them; the money they paid into the 'system' has handed directly to someone else. Its nothing more than welfare with a specific tax to fund it.
Click to expand...

And let's not forget by the time my generation is going be eligable for our benefits there will be nothing left so by s.d.'s line of reasoning why are we the ones who have to get screwed but it's not allright to screw past generations; furthermore, is my generation really going to be expected to fight the war, pay for the war, AND pay for your guy's medicare and social security when we will not be recieving said benefits ourselves???
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Why should they take a cut in Medicare and Social Security, programs they paid into their whole lives, just so you do not have to pay more in income taxes to fund an elective war?
Click to expand...

Why should my generation fight the war, pay for the war, and pay into a welfare program that will be defunct by the time we are eligable to recieve the benefits?
 
Originally Posted by Goobieman
Sure about that?
Seems to me that with the huge increase in entitlement spending, that surplus is getting smaller and smaller. I can look it up, I suppose.
Click to expand...


SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes, the surplus is getting smaller, but they are borrowing more against it. Surpluses in payroll taxes fund deficits in general revenue. The deficits we have ran the last few years only serve to exacerbate projected shortfalls in Social Security and Medicare once the Baby Boomers start retiring.
Click to expand...

The SS surplus is increasing, not decreasing.

1985 9.4
1986 16.7
1987 19.6
1988 38.8
1989 52.4
1990 58.2
1991 53.5
1992 50.7
1993 46.8
1994 56.8
1995 60.4
1996 66.4
1997 81.3
1998 99.4
1999 124.7
2000 151.8
2001 163.0
2002 159.0
2003 155.6
2004 151.1
2005 173.5

I'm not sure the date when the SS surpluses will start declining, surpluses are supposed to stop in the latter part of the next decade at which time SS revenues will be exceeded by expenditures.
 
Goobieman said:
Who cares? Its ALL entitlement spending.
Cut it, and you free up revenues.

In lean times, everyone needs to tighten their belt.
Why does that NOT include people on welfare?
Click to expand...

I truly believe a complete investigation should be done on every person in this country who are on welfare........I have a friend who is a mail man and he has been delivering welfare checks to 3 generations of one family on his route for 30 years........

I believe that if you have complete welfare reform you could wipe out the deficit in short order.........
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Why should my generation fight the war, pay for the war, and pay into a welfare program that will be defunct by the time we are eligable to recieve the benefits?
Click to expand...

The past generations fought and paid for the wars of their time, why is it the greedy chickenhawks want to neither fight or pay for this elective war. Instead you opt for primarily the poor to fight it, and the next generation to pay for it.

Once again, if you believe that a war is worth sending Americans to fight and die for, then you would think you would have the decency to actually contribute the tax dollars to pay for it.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
The past generations fought and paid for the wars of their time, why is it the greedy chickenhawks want to neither fight or pay for this elective war. Instead you opt for primarily the poor to fight it, and the next generation to pay for it.

Once again, if you believe that a war is worth sending Americans to fight and die for, then you would think you would have the decency to actually contribute the tax dollars to pay for it.
Click to expand...

Bullshit we're still paying for Vietnam, the First Gulf War, Kosovo etc etc,

What you want is for my generation to fight the war, pay for the war, and pay for your social security and medicare but to hell with us right? What about our entitlements. And to top it all off we can't even privatize our own s.s. thanks to the AARP and other special interests raising a hissy fit.

Well you know what if we don't get s.s. but we have to pay for yours to hell with that jack.


NOTE 1: The National Debt has not gone down (from year to year) since the end of the Dwight Eisenhower administration.

NOTE 2: World War I increased the Debt by $25 Billion. The Great Depression increased the Debt by $33 Billion and World War II increased the Debt by $222 Billion. The Clinton "peace time" years increased the Debt by $1,200 Billion. I expect that the Geo. W. Bush years will be just as bad, except that Bush has the "War on Terrorism" to fund.

"It's the entitlements stupid!"

http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm
Click to expand...

so not even the greatest generation had to foot the bill for WW2, ahem which generation was expected to fight and pay for the war exactly?
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bullshit we're still paying for Vietnam, the First Gulf War, Kosovo etc etc,

What you want is for my generation to fight the war, pay for the war, and pay for your social security and medicare but to hell with us right? What about our entitlements. And to top it all off we can't even privatize our own s.s. thanks to the AARP and other special interests raising a hissy fit.

Well you know what if we don't get s.s. but we have to pay for yours to hell with that jack.
Click to expand...

Actually, Vietnam was the last time we ran a surplus prior to the Clinton years so not still paying for that. We also ran a surplus on the tail end of Kosovo, so not paying for that either. As far as the First Gulf war goes, a tax increase preceded it so one could argue that we were paying our fare share then.

As to this my generation crap, I just turned 30, so I don't think I am that much older than you are.

Why should an 80 year old grandmother take a cut in Social Security benefits to fund this war simply because you don't want to pay for it? The payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security currently have large surpluses, the recipients of those programs have spent a lifetime paying their fare share in. You pay less in taxes than she would have (assuming you are working) during World War II, Korea, or Vietnam. So why are you trying to scapegoat on your patriotic duty to pay for a war that you believe is worth fighting? If you think a war is worth fighting for, what is wrong with coughing up the tax dollars to fund it?
Other than greed and selfishness, I can see no other excuse.
 
Navy Pride said:
I truly believe a complete investigation should be done on every person in this country who are on welfare........I have a friend who is a mail man and he has been delivering welfare checks to 3 generations of one family on his route for 30 years........

I believe that if you have complete welfare reform you could wipe out the deficit in short order.........
Click to expand...

Unless you include govt pensions like SS and medicare as as "welfare," even totally eliminating medicaid and "welfare" (includes unemployment compensation, Supplemental Security Income, the refundable portion of the earned income and child tax credits, Food Stamps, family support, child nutrition, and foster care) would reduce spending by $378 billion. Not enough to wipe out the (real) deficit, but it would definitely make a dent.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Actually, Vietnam was the last time we ran a surplus prior to the Clinton years so not still paying for that. We also ran a surplus on the tail end of Kosovo, so not paying for that either. As far as the First Gulf war goes, a tax increase preceded it so one could argue that we were paying our fare share then.
Click to expand...

Oh really then why has the national debt not decreased for two consecutive years since Eisenhower??? And you know what Clinton never actually decreased the National Debt not even in 2000 some people have been telling lies.
Date Amount
09/30/2003 $6,783,231,062,743.62
09/30/2002 6,228,235,965,597.16
09/28/2001 5,807,463,412,200.06
09/30/2000 5,674,178,209,886.86
09/30/1999 5,656,270,901,615.43
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
09/30/1993 4,411,488,883,139.38
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
12/31/1985 1,945,941,616,459.88
12/31/1984 1,662,966,000,000.00 *
12/31/1983 1,410,702,000,000.00 *
12/31/1982 1,197,073,000,000.00 *
12/31/1981 1,028,729,000,000.00 *
12/31/1980 930,210,000,000.00 *
12/31/1979 845,116,000,000.00 *
12/29/1978 789,207,000,000.00 *
12/30/1977 718,943,000,000.00 *
12/31/1976 653,544,000,000.00 *
12/31/1975 576,649,000,000.00 *
12/31/1974 492,665,000,000.00 *
12/31/1973 469,898,039,554.70
12/29/1972 449,298,066,119.00
12/31/1971 424,130,961,959.95
12/31/1970 389,158,403,690.26
12/31/1969 368,225,581,254.41
12/31/1968 358,028,625,002.91
12/29/1967 344,663,009,745.18
12/30/1966 329,319,249,366.68
12/31/1965 320,904,110,042.04
12/31/1964 317,940,472,718.38
12/31/1963 309,346,845,059.17
12/31/1962 303,470,080,489.27
12/29/1961 296,168,761,214.92
12/30/1960 290,216,815,241.68
12/31/1959 290,797,771,717.63
12/31/1958 282,922,423,583.87
12/31/1957 274,897,784,290.72
12/31/1956 276,627,527,996.11
12/30/1955 280,768,553,188.96
12/31/1954 278,749,814,391.33
12/31/1953 275,168,120,129.39
06/30/1953 266,071,061,638.57
06/30/1952 259,105,178,785.43
06/29/1951 255,221,976,814.93
06/30/1950 257,357,352,351.04
06/30/1949 252,770,359,860.33
06/30/1948 252,292,246,512.99
06/30/1947 258,286,383,108.67
06/28/1946 269,422,099,173.26
06/30/1945 258,682,187,409.93
06/30/1944 201,003,387,221.13
06/30/1943 136,696,090,329.90
06/30/1942 72,422,445,116.22
06/30/1941 48,961,443,535.71
06/29/1940 42,967,531,037.68
06/30/1939 40,439,532,411.11
06/30/1938 37,164,740,315.45
06/30/1937 36,424,613,732.29
06/30/1936 33,778,543,493.73
06/29/1935 28,700,892,624.53
06/30/1934 27,053,141,414.48
06/30/1933 22,538,672,560.15
06/30/1932 19,487,002,444.13
06/30/1931 16,801,281,491.71
06/30/1930 16,185,309,831.43
06/29/1929 16,931,088,484.10
06/30/1928 17,604,293,201.43
06/30/1927 18,511,906,931.85
06/30/1926 19,643,216,315.19
06/30/1925 20,516,193,887.90
06/30/1924 21,250,812,989.49
06/30/1923 22,349,707,365.36
06/30/1922 22,963,381,708.31
06/30/1921 23,977,450,552.54
07/01/1920 25,952,456,406.16
07/01/1919 27,390,970,113.12
07/01/1918 14,592,161,414.00
07/01/1917 5,717,770,279.52
07/01/1916 3,609,244,262.16
07/01/1915 3,058,136,873.16
07/01/1914 2,912,499,269.16
07/01/1913 2,916,204,913.66
07/01/1912 2,868,373,874.16
07/01/1911 2,765,600,606.69
07/01/1910 2,652,665,838.04
07/01/1909 2,639,546,241.04
07/01/1908 2,626,806,271.54
07/01/1907 2,457,188,061.54
07/01/1906 2,337,161,839.04
07/01/1905 2,274,615,063.84
07/01/1904 2,264,003,585.14
07/01/1903 2,202,464,781.89
07/01/1902 2,158,610,445.89
07/01/1901 2,143,326,933.89
07/01/1900 2,136,961,091.67

NOTE 1: The National Debt has not gone down (from year to year) since the end of the Dwight Eisenhower administration.

NOTE 2: World War I increased the Debt by $25 Billion. The Great Depression increased the Debt by $33 Billion and World War II increased the Debt by $222 Billion. The Clinton "peace time" years increased the Debt by $1,200 Billion. I expect that the Geo. W. Bush years will be just as bad, except that Bush has the "War on Terrorism" to fund.

"It's the entitlements stupid!"

http://www.toptips.com/debt_history.htm
Click to expand...
As to this my generation crap, I just turned 30, so I don't think I am that much older than you are.

Why should an 80 year old grandmother take a cut in Social Security benefits to fund this war simply because you don't want to pay for it? The payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security currently have large surpluses, the recipients of those programs have spent a lifetime paying their fare share in. You pay less in taxes than she would have (assuming you are working) during World War II, Korea, or Vietnam. So why are you trying to scapegoat on your patriotic duty to pay for a war that you believe is worth fighting? If you think a war is worth fighting for, what is wrong with coughing up the tax dollars to fund it?
Other than greed and selfishness, I can see no other excuse.
Click to expand...

Umm she payed for the programs to recieve the benefits, but I'll be paying and not recieving the benefits, I'll be 80 one day too so why should I get screwed all the way and her not at all? I'll pay for the war just not a failed welfare program which will not benefit me one iota.
 
Last edited:
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Bullshit we're still paying for Vietnam, the First Gulf War, Kosovo etc etc,

What you want is for my generation to fight the war, pay for the war, and pay for your social security and medicare but to hell with us right? What about our entitlements. And to top it all off we can't even privatize our own s.s. thanks to the AARP and other special interests raising a hissy fit.
Click to expand...

Sure you can. Open an IRA or 401k. I highly recommend it.

Well you know what if we don't get s.s. but we have to pay for yours to hell with that jack.
Click to expand...

Worst case scenario SS is still funded at current tax levels to 75%.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
Oh really then why has the national debt not decreased for two consecutive years since Eisenhower??? And you know what Clinton never actually decreased the National Debt not even in 2000 some people have been telling lies.
Click to expand...

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33
12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

http://www.publicdebt.treas.gov/opd/opd.htm
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
And still pay for your entitlements? Why should I?
Click to expand...

Because by having your own private savings account, you can accumulate wealth tax free, and if you save regularly, your will be able to live a comfortable retirement, even without SS.

Ya right it's going to be gone.
Click to expand...

If you guys have your way.
 
The Social Security Reform the Bush Administration proposed was a great concept..........If I was a young man I would be jumping all over the idea being able to put aside a small portion of my SS contributions into safe Mutual Funds or CDs that yield at the very minimum of 4% compared to what they yield now of 1%....................

Even Democrats admit that SS needs to be fixed but they were against the Plan Bush advocated strictly because the is the one that advocated it and their hate for him will not allow them to go along with something he proposes or give him credit for it.........

That is the sad part.............
 
Navy Pride said:
The Social Security Reform the Bush Administration proposed was a great concept..........If I was a young man I would be jumping all over the idea being able to put aside a small portion of my SS contributions into safe Mutual Funds or CDs that yield at the very minimum of 4% compared to what they yield now of 1%....................

Even Democrats admit that SS needs to be fixed but they were against the Plan Bush advocated strictly because the is the one that advocated it and their hate for him will not allow them to go along with something he proposes or give him credit for it.........

That is the sad part.............
Click to expand...

Bush's privatization was a silly idea. It does nothing to address the problem of funding current SS benefits. It would create another huge Govt program (which the Republicans are great at doing) that would regulate how you choose to save and invest. It would not provide social security because if you became disabled, or ran out of money, you'd be SOL and on the street. And it is unecessary; we already have private accounds.
 
Iriemon said:
Because by having your own private savings account, you can accumulate wealth tax free, and if you save regularly, your will be able to live a comfortable retirement, even without SS.
Click to expand...

But why should I have to give my hardearned money to a welfare program of which I will not be able to recieve the benefits from?


If you guys have your way.
Click to expand...

No if you guys have your way I'll be forced to throw more of my money down the rabbit hole.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
What? No it didn't.
Click to expand...

I'll help you with the calculation:

At the end of 1999, the total debt was:

12/31/1999 $5,776,091,314,225.33

At the end of 2000, the total debt was:

12/29/2000 $5,662,216,013,697.37

To find if it went higher or lower, you take the 2000 number, and subtract the 1999 number. The answer is:

-$113,875,300,527.96

Which means that at the end of 2000, the total debt was $114 billion lower than it was at the end of 1999. By any definition, that is a "decrease."

It was back up less than a year later. It didn't even last a year.
Click to expand...

Had you said that, I would not have to had point out the error in your statement. But what you said was:

"And you know what Clinton never actually decreased the National Debt not even in 2000 some people have been telling lies."

In fact, Clinton did decrease the national debt in 2000, which means you were telling lies about some people telling lies.
 
Last edited:
I found this chart on a web site and thought it was interesting.

percent_of_gdp.png


The only time the national debt was above GDP was during WWII. Also note that Defense spending was over 40% of GDP during WWII and had an additional blip in the early 50's. Since around 1970, defense spending has been relatively stable.

I agree that the national debt rose greatly under Reagan, but as a child of the 50's and 60's, I can assure that anyone of my generation would consider it a bargain. While many of you may not believe that Reagan's military buildup was the primary cause of the Soviet Union's collapse, I firmly believe it. When we were doing drop and cover drills in elementary school, any amount of money would be a bargain to eliminate the SU threat of nuclear attack.
 
Trajan Octavian Titus said:
But why should I have to give my hardearned money to a welfare program of which I will not be able to recieve the benefits from?
Click to expand...

That is a different issue. The reason you should do it is because you get in a lot of trouble if you don't pay your taxes.

No if you guys have your way I'll be forced to throw more of my money down the rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

That is the way it is.

But I agree, it is extremely frustrating to me too to know that all the extra SS taxes I've paid since 1983 to save for my SS benefits have been stolen to finance the Repbulican deficits.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom