• 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!

U.S. Adds 195,000 Jobs; Unemployment Remains 7.6%

Kushinator said:
Question: Where is the majority of ALL pension fund balances allocated?
Click to expand...

You mean like Public Service funds? Most in govt. bonds that have to be funded by cash and with trillions in debt where is the cash going to come from?
 
Conservative said:
You mean like Public Service funds? Most in govt. bonds
Click to expand...

Exactly!!!!

that have to be funded by cash
Click to expand...

This occurs via the S.S. tax surplus.

and with trillions in debt where is the cash going to come from?
Click to expand...

Debt levels of sovereign nations, with the greatest amount of economic activity the world has ever seen, do not restrict future borrowing capabilities. Much of the future value of compounded debt will be inflated away, while the proportion of S.S. on the U.S. budget will increase. Future tax revenue will pay future liabilities.

Assuming 2% growth on average until 2031, the U.S. economy will likely be around $23 trillion in 2013 dollars. Further assuming the post war average of 19.5% of GDP for federal receipts, equates to roughly $4.5 trillion in tax revenue (again in 2013 dollars). There is plenty of room in the budget for meeting S.S. liabilities.
 
Kushinator said:
Exactly!!!!



This occurs via the S.S. tax surplus.



Debt levels of sovereign nations, with the greatest amount of economic activity the world has ever seen, do not restrict future borrowing capabilities. Much of the future value of compounded debt will be inflated away, while the proportion of S.S. on the U.S. budget will increase. Future tax revenue will pay future liabilities.

Assuming 2% growth on average until 2031, the U.S. economy will likely be around $23 trillion in 2013 dollars. Further assuming the post war average of 19.5% of GDP for federal receipts, equates to roughly $4.5 trillion in tax revenue (again in 2013 dollars). There is plenty of room in the budget for meeting S.S. liabilities.
Click to expand...

Do you realize that tax surplus was created by someone else contributing to SS and that money is owed in the future? Because there was a cash surplus simply means that more people were contributing than were retiring, that doesn't really mean a surplus. That money is owed and thus is a long term expense to the govt.

Your picture is very rosy considering we already have a 17 trillion dollar debt and it is growing. GDP growth this year is now projected at less than 2%, and Obama has proposed a 3.77 trillion dollar budget. The labor force isn't keeping up with population growth nor the number of baby boomers retiring. We have a balance sheet insolvent program that is being kicked down the road.

You didn't respond to this article. What is wrong in this article?

Social Security is Much Worse Than a Ponzi Scheme - and Here's How to End It - Forbes
 
Gimmesometruth said:
What, me worry?

You are the one with henny penny chicken little shrill whining about Clinton not paying down the IOU's. Hint: It was accomplished via higher taxes during an economic boom. If you want a repeat then get out of the way with the phony arguments.
Click to expand...

What, what's that? Oh yes, good old Slick Willie. Jacks up the taxes on the working stiffs but delivers a big nice capital gains tax cut for business (Thanks to the GOP, Hint: it made a lot of sense).
Why is it you liberals never want to mention that tax cut? Just like it did for Regan, the tax cut brought in revenue to the government. And with the dot com business boom and adult GOP leadership delivering a more responsible budget good things happened. The tax hikes on the working stiffs didn't do a damn thing but cause misery on the working stiffs and slightly harm the economy. But liberals keep spreading misinformation so they can continue to spread more misery on more Americans.
 
Conservative said:
Do you realize that tax surplus was created by someone else contributing to SS and that money is owed in the future?
Click to expand...

Yes, and it has been invested in risk-free debt securities.

Because there was a cash surplus simply means that more people were contributing than were retiring, that doesn't really mean a surplus.
Click to expand...

What other than a cash surplus is.... a cash surplus?

That money is owed and thus is a long term expense to the govt.
Click to expand...

That money is "not owed". The promise of receiving S.S. payments after the age of 63 (up to 67) is owed, and is fully funded up to 2027.

Your picture is very rosy considering we already have a 17 trillion dollar debt and it is growing.
Click to expand...

I am not as worried about the Federal debt as you are. Interest rates are off record lows and still at historic lows.

GDP growth this year is now projected at less than 2%, and Obama has proposed a 3.77 trillion dollar budget.
Click to expand...

The deficit is now projected to be less than $700 billion. Baring a significant blow to consumer confidence and business investment, the budget deficit is on track to less than $500 billion. None the less, a 2% average is extremely conservative (and is factored for inflation).

The labor force isn't keeping up with population growth nor the number of baby boomers retiring.
Click to expand...

The labor force is in a restructuring phase, predicated by a once in a generation financial crisis. Eventually, firms will be unable to squeeze any more blood from a stone, and top line growth will be dependent upon production expansion.

We have a balance sheet insolvent program that is being kicked down the road.
Click to expand...

No, S.S. will not face an actuarial deficit until 2027, when it is expected to account for 6.2% of GDP.

You didn't respond to this article. What is wrong in this article?

Social Security is Much Worse Than a Ponzi Scheme - and Here's How to End It - Forbes
Click to expand...

It is an opinion piece not validated by actuarial analysis.
 
=Kushinator;1062103902]Yes, and it has been invested in risk-free debt securities.
Click to expand...

So let me see if I have this right, risk free debt securities are supported by what, the 17 trillion dollar debt? Come on, Kush, you are better than this, Think for a change. Do you understand what self insured means? Where is the money coming from to pay those IOU's?

What other than a cash surplus is.... a cash surplus?
Click to expand...

A cash surplus that will be eaten up quickly when those contributions that created that surplus comes due and that is happening now with baby boomers retiring. The labor force isn't keeping up with retirements and SS doesn't have the surplus you think

That money is "not owed". The promise of receiving S.S. payments after the age of 63 (up to 67) is owed, and is fully funded up to 2027.
Click to expand...

Your opinion noted and it is an opinion based upon predictions none of which have been accurate the past 5 years


I am not as worried about the Federal debt as you are. Interest rates are off record lows and still at historic lows.
Click to expand...

And what happens when interest rates rise? Of course you aren't worried about the debt because that is what your textbooks tell you. What in that article is false?


The deficit is now projected to be less than $700 billion. Baring a significant blow to consumer confidence and business investment, the budget deficit is on track to less than $500 billion. None the less, a 2% average is extremely conservative (and is factored for inflation).
Click to expand...

May's deficit was 139 billion dollars, economic projections for GDP are now less than 2% so once again projections are wrong. Why would any business invest in this economy under Obamanomics? Company stock is doing quite well without investing in new employees and growth

U.S. budget deficit widens $139 billion in May | masslive.com


The labor force is in a restructuring phase, predicated by a once in a generation financial crisis. Eventually, firms will be unable to squeeze any more blood from a stone, and top line growth will be dependent upon production expansion.
Click to expand...

Business owners cannot print cash and are subject to federal regulations and taxes. Things like Obamacare, the EPA preventing construction on the Keystone Pipeline, The NLRB which put roadblocks up in S. Carolina, and on and on affect business hiring. SS contributions have been spent and there aren't enough workers to replenish the fund. Seems like a hard concept for you and others to understand. The bigger issue however is why was SS put on budget in the first place? Why aren't you upset that your contributions have been spent and now you rely on future contributors to make up the shortfall?



No, S.S. will not face an actuarial deficit until 2027, when it is expected to account for 6.2% of GDP.
Click to expand...

Percentage of GDP is irrelevant in an economy that is predominantly private sector and it is a private sector economy that is stagnant.


It is an opinion piece not validated by actuarial analysis.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is an opinion piece, what part of it is wrong? Analyze until your heart's content but that doesn't change the reality.
 
Very interesting opinion piece regarding this President and his inability to effectively manage a predominantly private sector economy. He is still campaigning for a job that he already has and failing to lead as promised

The Architect of Destruction
 
ItAin'tFree said:
What, what's that? Oh yes, good old Slick Willie. Jacks up the taxes on the working stiffs but delivers a big nice capital gains tax cut for business (Thanks to the GOP, Hint: it made a lot of sense).
Why is it you liberals never want to mention that tax cut? Just like it did for Regan, the tax cut brought in revenue to the government. And with the dot com business boom and adult GOP leadership delivering a more responsible budget good things happened. The tax hikes on the working stiffs didn't do a damn thing but cause misery on the working stiffs and slightly harm the economy. But liberals keep spreading misinformation so they can continue to spread more misery on more Americans.
Click to expand...


total_federal_graph-thumb-454x273-21231.png


Those figures include all federal taxes: individual income, payroll, corporate income, excise, etc.

Ezra Klein - Research desk responds: Tax rates galore!

So you are totally wrong about tax increases on working people, the effective rates DECLINED for the lower quintiles.


And if I remember correctly, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 had as one of it's big changes a tax exemption on the sale of a house on profits under $250K. The compromise was a decline in capital gains rates, but it had little effect on domestic investment as that had increased in spite of the higher rates in place since 1987.

capital_gains_2_investment_450x363.jpg
 
Conservative said:
So let me see if I have this right, risk free debt securities are supported by what, the 17 trillion dollar debt? Come on, Kush, you are better than this, Think for a change. Do you understand what self insured means? Where is the money coming from to pay those IOU's?
Click to expand...

U.S. government securities are about as risk free as you can get. The inability of the U.S. government to meet any and all financial obligations would equate to a collapse of the global economy. Therefore, unless you believe the U.S. (and global) economy is going to collapse, they can issue as much revenue and/or debt as they need to fulfill promises.



A cash surplus that will be eaten up quickly when those contributions that created that surplus comes due and that is happening now with baby boomers retiring.
Click to expand...

As it is designed to!


The labor force isn't keeping up with retirements and SS doesn't have the surplus you think
Click to expand...

They have trillions of dollars in risk free, cash flow generating assets.



Your opinion noted and it is an opinion based upon predictions none of which have been accurate the past 5 years
Click to expand...

Actuarial analysis trumps ideological analysis when it comes to public insurance funding.

And what happens when interest rates rise?
Click to expand...

A rise in interest rates will be predicated upon economic growth.

Of course you aren't worried about the debt because that is what your textbooks tell you. What in that article is false?
Click to expand...

Debt is only an issue when it crowds out private investment. We can easily observe when such a situation arises, and when the U.S. economy operates with an output gap, crowding out will not occur.

May's deficit was 139 billion dollars, economic projections for GDP are now less than 2% so once again projections are wrong. Why would any business invest in this economy under Obamanomics? Company stock is doing quite well without investing in new employees and growth
Click to expand...

This has already been analyzed in another post:

Kushinator said:
Some fun analysis!

U.S. budget deficits since Obama has been in office (giving him all of January, 2009) in millions of dollars:

2009$1,471,297
20101,240,497
20111,249,569
20121,060,756
2013*216,528*

* denotes January through June

Now. If we are to weight the first 6 months of the year throughout Obama's tenure, they would constitute 51% of the January-December budget deficit.

Applying this estimation for the remaining 6 months of 2013 (49%), the U.S. budget projects to be $424,565 million. A 71% decrease since Obama has been in office.

The data used for the calculations can be obtained here.
Click to expand...


Business owners cannot print cash and are subject to federal regulations and taxes. Things like Obamacare, the EPA preventing construction on the Keystone Pipeline, The NLRB which put roadblocks up in S. Carolina, and on and on affect business hiring. SS contributions have been spent and there aren't enough workers to replenish the fund. Seems like a hard concept for you and others to understand. The bigger issue however is why was SS put on budget in the first place? Why aren't you upset that your contributions have been spent and now you rely on future contributors to make up the shortfall?
Click to expand...

My contributions are held in the form of special purpose treasury securities. Top line growth is beginning to decelerate to the point where the growth of input costs is sure to hit margins. Political rhetoric is of no interest to me.

Percentage of GDP is irrelevant in an economy that is predominantly private sector and it is a private sector economy that is stagnant.
Click to expand...

It allows us to understand S.S. outlays relative to national income; a most necessary metric when analyzing the long to medium term solvency of the program. The private sector is growing, but it has yet to be able to sustain necessary growth in the face of a pull-back in government stimulus.

Yes, it is an opinion piece, what part of it is wrong? Analyze until your heart's content but that doesn't change the reality.
Click to expand...

Make a thread about it.
 
Last edited:
Boo Radley said:
That's one reading, largely revisionist. Care to bet I can another?
Click to expand...

FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom

Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies."
Click to expand...

Only the true hardcore Obama worshipers still have "faith" at this point. To the rest of the world, he looks like a wannabe dictator that never stops campaigning.
 
upsideguy said:
Hey, thanks for using facts. Now if we could just get you to use real (verifiable) facts.

Where did you get your numbers as they do not jive with table 1.1 of the US Budget (Historical Tables | The White House or see below)? I would love to indulge you in your question, but not your fantasies. Let's see a link and settle on the real numbers so that we can actually have a discussion.

Note per the table below, 2001 had an on-budget deficit of $32B; but the total budget showed a surplus of $128B. In 1999, we had a surplus on-budget and in total. The 2001 on-budget deficit was 100% attributable to a revenue shortfall of a greater amount (see tax collection column), largely caused by the tech bubble crash rather than specific policies of the President.

Regardless, the discussion of whether we had a small deficit or small surplus is moot. Either way our budget had negligible surplus or modest, manageable deficits. In essence, they were the same thing: the budget was balanced when the tenant at 1600 Pennsylvania changed. In fact, the prevailing wisdom and political discussion at the time was about how to spend the forecast surpluses.

Happy to discuss you issue, but please either accept the real numbers or produce some support for yours. I refuse to debate your impressions, which without verifiable numbers is all you have brought to the table.

Notwithstanding anything you might come up with to refute the starting point as "balanced budget", the ending point (the day the George turned the keys to 1600 Pennsylvania to Barack) was huge deficits. Hard to blame anyone but George for that mess.

Looking forward to your response, champ.

View attachment 67150943
Click to expand...

Facts? You think political spin from the Whitehouse is "facts"? Seriously? You have to be joking, right?

Alright, back to the main topic. There was no Clinton "surplus". Just spin.

The deficit:
1 Oct 1999-5,652,679,330,611
29 Sep 1999 5,674,178,209,886
total-21,498,879,275

1 Oct 2000-5,674,178,209,886
28 Sep 2001-5,807,463,412,200
total-133,285,202,314

Those facts came from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/np/debt/current

So what to make of them? Simple. The capital gains tax cut and the dot com boom created good business conditions. Then, dot com boom played out and was way past its peak and it showed. Clinton didn't have a clue and was leaving Bush a mess but so what? He got plenty of sex, wasn't convicted of impeachment and his punishment for his felony conviction wasn't going to stop him from making millions. The numbers don't lie and both budgets 1999 and 2000 belong to Clinton. Business conditions were not real good the day Bush took office, in fact a major downward trend was what Bush was faced with along with Clintons $133,285,202,314 deficit his first year.

Lets also not pretend the federal debt started with Bush. Clinton added to it every year (once again use the treasury website for facts instead of whitehouse spin). You and I can both blame Bush for added to the federal debt but no president in American history has added to the debt like Obama has. And with Obama, because of unaffordable Obamacare, our nation is doomed.

real numbers. real facts. real truth. No whitehouse spin. have a good day chump.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Facts? You think political spin from the Whitehouse is "facts"? Seriously? You have to be joking, right?

Alright, back to the main topic. There was no Clinton "surplus". Just spin.

The deficit:
1 Oct 1999-5,652,679,330,611
29 Sep 1999 5,674,178,209,886
total-21,498,879,275

1 Oct 2000-5,674,178,209,886
28 Sep 2001-5,807,463,412,200
total-133,285,202,314

Those facts came from: http://www.treasurydirect.gov/np/debt/current

So what to make of them? Simple. The capital gains tax cut and the dot com boom created good business conditions. Then, dot com boom played out and was way past its peak and it showed. Clinton didn't have a clue and was leaving Bush a mess but so what? He got plenty of sex, wasn't convicted of impeachment and his punishment for his felony conviction wasn't going to stop him from making millions. The numbers don't lie and both budgets 1999 and 2000 belong to Clinton. Business conditions were not real good the day Bush took office, in fact a major downward trend was what Bush was faced with along with Clintons $133,285,202,314 deficit his first year.

Lets also not pretend the federal debt started with Bush. Clinton added to it every year (once again use the treasury website for facts instead of whitehouse spin). You and I can both blame Bush for added to the federal debt but no president in American history has added to the debt like Obama has. And with Obama, because of unaffordable Obamacare, our nation is doomed.

real numbers. real facts. real truth. No whitehouse spin. have a good day chump.
Click to expand...

what fate is our nation doomed to suffer because of our debt?
 
Bronson said:
FDR's policies prolonged Depression by 7 years, UCLA economists calculate / UCLA Newsroom
Click to expand...

A bias bit of research.

From the actual paper:
We find that New Deal cartelization policies are an important factor in accounting for the post-1933 Depression
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... Post-1933 means after the majority of job, wealth, and monetary destruction bottomed out. There are some valid points in claiming various labor contracts which were counterproductive, but the largest most intervention-ist of New Deal policies were Glass Steagall orientated, namely the FDIC. The FDIC stabilized the banking sector, and there has never been a run on U.S. FDIC banks since its implementation.
 
ItAin'tFree said:
Facts? You think political spin from the Whitehouse is "facts"? Seriously? You have to be joking, right?

Alright, back to the main topic. There was no Clinton "surplus". Just spin.
Click to expand...
We have gone over this a thousand times, there was a surplus and BY FEDERAL LAW, it was required to be paid back into the SSTF which had been borrowed against to fund previous deficits, so you were not going to see a reduction in total debt. There was a surplus from FY1998 to FY2001.

Lets also not pretend the federal debt started with Bush. Clinton added to it every year (once again use the treasury website for facts instead of whitehouse spin). You and I can both blame Bush for added to the federal debt but no president in American history has added to the debt like Obama has. And with Obama, because of unaffordable Obamacare, our nation is doomed.

real numbers. real facts. real truth. No whitehouse spin. have a good day chump.
Click to expand...
The increases in the budgets since 2009 have been among the smallest since Eisenhower, the issue has been the major cost increases during the Bush years (unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare D, tax cuts) and of course the huge decline in revenue from the recession.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
We have gone over this a thousand times, there was a surplus and BY FEDERAL LAW, it was required to be paid back into the SSTF which had been borrowed against to fund previous deficits, so you were not going to see a reduction in total debt. There was a surplus from FY1998 to FY2001.
Click to expand...

Another thing is that when the Treasury issues securities that adds to the debt.
 
Kushinator said:
A bias bit of research.

From the actual paper:

Hmmmm.... Post-1933 means after the majority of job, wealth, and monetary destruction bottomed out. There are some valid points in claiming various labor contracts which were counterproductive, but the largest most intervention-ist of New Deal policies were Glass Steagall orientated, namely the FDIC. The FDIC stabilized the banking sector, and there has never been a run on U.S. FDIC banks since its implementation.
Click to expand...

One of your classic nonsensical responses

Obama has been giving the same speech for 5 years. You've been shilling up this forum for years with the same gibberish. I remember you were doing high fives and cartwheels when there was 3% GDP growth one quarter. Oh wait, that got revised down "unexpectedly". Total cumulative GDP Growth under Obama is PATHETIC. This is happening while the Fed creates 85B out of nothing a month to enrich their Wall Street bankster pals with our savings and Obama robs future generations blind with ill conceived stimulus plans that crash and burn.

From the article you're trying to cherry pick and speculate from

Why the Great Depression lasted so long has always been a great mystery, and because we never really knew the reason, we have always worried whether we would have another 10- to 15-year economic slump," said Ohanian, vice chair of UCLA's Department of Economics. "We found that a relapse isn't likely unless lawmakers gum up a recovery with ill-conceived stimulus policies

Cole and Ohanian calculate that NIRA and its aftermath account for 60 percent of the weak recovery. Without the policies, they contend that the Depression would have ended in 1936 instead of the year when they believe the slump actually ended: 1943
Click to expand...

It's not worth my time even engaging you. We're nearly 17T in debt and it's growing by the second. Time and again your talking points have proven to be lies and obfuscation. For any future responses, feel free to reference this post and the previous one.
 
Bronson said:
From the article you're trying to cherry pick and speculate from
Click to expand...

I read the actual paper years ago.

Perhaps you can explain to us the validity of adopting their cartel model which assumes zero market entry and constant returns to capital (page 26 of the paper).

It's not worth my time even engaging you.
Click to expand...

You can't engage me because you have a limited (at best) understanding of political economy and global finance. Referencing a study you lack the ability to comprehend, much less defend, doesn't score you any points.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
We have gone over this a thousand times, there was a surplus and BY FEDERAL LAW, it was required to be paid back into the SSTF which had been borrowed against to fund previous deficits, so you were not going to see a reduction in total debt. There was a surplus from FY1998 to FY2001.

The increases in the budgets since 2009 have been among the smallest since Eisenhower, the issue has been the major cost increases during the Bush years (unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare D, tax cuts) and of course the huge decline in revenue from the recession.
Click to expand...

Paid back into the SSTF? Who wrote the check? Who transferred the funds? That's right, nobody. Why? Because government debt is government debt. When congress borrows money from SS (I know, it's stupid) it owes money to itself. If they paid money back, a no political spin balance sheet would show a reduction in debt somewhere. There was no surplus. They spent the money or gave it away however you want to look at it. And that's assuming that it was accounted for correctly to begin with as who knows how much "off the books" ate up of the phony surplus to begin with. Using a document from the Whitehouse for fiscal purposes is beyond silly when other government agencies clearly show the data from the Whitehouse is in deliberate error.
 
Gimmesometruth said:
We have gone over this a thousand times, there was a surplus and BY FEDERAL LAW, it was required to be paid back into the SSTF which had been borrowed against to fund previous deficits, so you were not going to see a reduction in total debt. There was a surplus from FY1998 to FY2001.

The increases in the budgets since 2009 have been among the smallest since Eisenhower, the issue has been the major cost increases during the Bush years (unfunded wars, unfunded Medicare D, tax cuts) and of course the huge decline in revenue from the recession.
Click to expand...

So what is your answer to the 6.2 plus trillion dollar debt Obama has created over the past 4 plus years? It is great pointing back to what you perceive Clinton did but for what purpose. Obama has wiped any projected surplus out completely and that seems to be something you want to ignore. Right now debt service is the 4th largest budget item. Want to make it number one?
 
Conservative said:
So what is your answer to the 6.2 plus trillion dollar debt Obama has created over the past 4 plus years?
Click to expand...
Oh, it is ground hog day again, con has forgotten all previous discussion, we must start from zero all over....wash rinse repeat.
It is great pointing back to what you perceive Clinton did but for what purpose.
Click to expand...
What purpose? That was self evident, to repay the SSTF that you constantly lament has been used to cover deficits. Ground hog day.


Obama has wiped any projected surplus out completely and that seems to be something you want to ignore.
Click to expand...
Actually, it was Bush that wiped out the projected surplus long before Obama was elected...but you knew that....and forgot it...over and over.


Right now debt service is the 4th largest budget item. Want to make it number one?
Click to expand...
No, it actually is further down the line and is @ 6% of the budget.

Wash rinse repeat.
 
Kushinator;1062104345]U.S. government securities are about as risk free as you can get. The inability of the U.S. government to meet any and all financial obligations would equate to a collapse of the global economy. Therefore, unless you believe the U.S. (and global) economy is going to collapse, they can issue as much revenue and/or debt as they need to fulfill promises.
Click to expand...

You seem to miss the point, where are the dollars going to come from to pay those obligations? What does your textbook tell you about the effects of printing and borrowing money on the value of the dollar?


As it is designed to!
Click to expand...

Was SS designed to prop up the Treasury and give the President and Congress a slush fund to spend? Imagine what kind of condition we would be in now without trillions in IOU's?


They have trillions of dollars in risk free, cash flow generating assets.
Click to expand...

I see, so your return on your "investment" in SS is generating the kind of return you would generate without it and then having that investment your Money? Trillions of risk free IOU's you mean? Where is the money going to come from to fund the cost of our bloated Federal Govt. and those SS/Medicare IOU's?


Actuarial analysis trumps ideological analysis when it comes to public insurance funding.
Click to expand...

Actual analysis is nothing more than an educated guess that future activities will follow historical performance? How many predictions of Obama have been accurate?

A rise in interest rates will be predicated upon economic growth.
Click to expand...

What will a rise in interest rates to do debt service on the current 17 trillion dollar debt? Any idea what printing and borrowing money will do to interest rates? What does your textbook tell you?


Debt is only an issue when it crowds out private investment. We can easily observe when such a situation arises, and when the U.S. economy operates with an output gap, crowding out will not occur.
Click to expand...

Right now debt service is about 250 billion a year and rising. That is the fourth largest budget item. Tell me that is good fiscal policy to have a rising debt and rising debt service taking up a bigger percentage of the budget?


This has already been analyzed in another post:
Click to expand...

Your projections of a significant reduction in debt service is misguided glee especially since the deficit will still be close to a trillion dollars if not over a trillion. 139 billion isn't a good indication of what is going to happen during these summer months.




My contributions are held in the form of special purpose treasury securities. Top line growth is beginning to decelerate to the point where the growth of input costs is sure to hit margins. Political rhetoric is of no interest to me.
Click to expand...

That are self insured by the Federal Govt. who has to print or borrow money to pay off those obligations. Logic and common sense apparently aren't of interest to you either.


It allows us to understand S.S. outlays relative to national income; a most necessary metric when analyzing the long to medium term solvency of the program. The private sector is growing, but it has yet to be able to sustain necessary growth in the face of a pull-back in government stimulus.
Click to expand...

Analyze until your heart's content but what happens if you are wrong? The private sector is growing at a very poor rate. Never in the history of this country have we had such a slow recovery after the end of a recession, a recovery stymied by the poor leadership of our community organizer. Until you stimulate the private sector to put 21 plus million unemployed/underemployed/discouraged workers back to work full time the economic situation isn't going to get any better. Bank on it. Actual reality trumps your analysis
 
Gimmesometruth said:
Oh, it is ground hog day again, con has forgotten all previous discussion, we must start from zero all over....wash rinse repeat. What purpose? That was self evident, to repay the SSTF that you constantly lament has been used to cover deficits. Ground hog day.


Actually, it was Bush that wiped out the projected surplus long before Obama was elected...but you knew that....and forgot it...over and over.


No, it actually is further down the line and is @ 6% of the budget.

Wash rinse repeat.
Click to expand...

How are things in your liberal dream world? When was the last time you looked at the U.S. Budget? It is the fourth largest budget item
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom