• 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!

Debt Crisis is Worse than we Think

Is the "mistake" you're referring to the fact that the economy expanded after the tax increases?

That would make sense because, based on the results, republicans prefer to destroy the economy for political gain

lKJXT.png

All this spin is making me dizzy!

Can anyone on the Left explain why the Democrat plan isn't working? Is it Bush's fault?
 
That book explains exeactly what is going on. This crisis is nothing but a show

Nonsensical conspiracy theories belong in the conspiracy theory subforum. It's absurd to think that all the crises of the last three decades have been manufactured to lead us to precisely the point we are at now. One should always assume ****-up before conspiracy.
 
SS has contributed billions towards reducing our deficits and debt. And the CBO has not projected that. You're spinning





Actually, it's not just republicans. It's the entire rightwing. They were all silent about the runaway spending when republicans are in the white house. The dems at least worked towards reducing the deficits.

Social security was never intended for that. Now, it's running short and we need to go into debt to prop it up.

Looks like robbing Peter to pay Paul isn't working too well.
 
If either side of this debate was honest it would acknowledge:

a) we can't continue on this trajectory of deficit spending.

b) when we do cut back on spending it will have an adverse effect on the economy short term.

When you look at the deficits the U.S. has built up over the last thirty years. By debt look not only to Federal government but also personal, state and local as well as the current account deficit ( import more than export). This piling on of debt has allowed the U.S. standard of living to grow beyond what we were earning.

So the overall standard of living has to come down. We are seeing that now as headline inflation outstrips salary inflation. We see it in having the Fed keep interest rates at an effective negative return ( two year treasury rate minus inflation). What politician is willing to essentially commit suicide by saying that the standard of living has been artificially high and will have to come down.

The game of living beyond our means has finally caught up with the overall American economy.
 
that is incorrect. both times in the last century that the government slashed spending as a response to economic turmoil it was rewarded with booms. in contrast, over the last 40 years, in every single OECD nation, the "stimulus" packages that have been dependent on increasing transfer payments have been the ones that have failed (the success stories generally included cutting business taxes).

Umm, the govt hasn't slashed spending at any time in the last 100 years.



demand is a function of supply. you won't fix the one till you've worked on t'other.

Nonsense, you can increase the supply of transistor radios all you want and demand will remain at near zero
 
Last edited:
Nonsensical conspiracy theories belong in the conspiracy theory subforum. It's absurd to think that all the crises of the last three decades have been manufactured to lead us to precisely the point we are at now. One should always assume ****-up before conspiracy.

Straw man. No one has claimed it explains all the crises of the last three decades
 

From your own link

Social Security expenditures exceeded the program’s non-interest income in 2010 for the first time since 1983. The $49 billion deficit last year (excluding interest income) and $46 billion projected deficit in 2011 are in large part due to the weakened economy and to downward income adjustments that correct for excess payroll tax revenue credited to the trust funds in earlier years. This deficit is expected to shrink to about $20 billion for years 2012-2014 as the economy strengthens. After 2014, cash deficits are expected to grow rapidly as the number of beneficiaries continues to grow at a substantially faster rate than the number of covered workers. Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow.

It doesn't say that SS will be running a deficit. It says they will be running a "cash deficit"

Social Security's Long-Range Outlook Remains Strong

The Trustees project that the combined Old-Age, Survivors and Disability (OASDI) Trust Funds will be able to pay benefits until the year 2037. Thereafter, Social Security will have sufficient annual revenue to pay about 78 percent of benefits. Last year's Trustees' Report also predicted that Social would be able to pay full benefits until 2037, but pay only 75 percent of benefits thereafter.

The projected actuarial deficit of the Social Security program, measured as a percent of taxable payroll over the 75-year projection period is 1.92 percent of taxable payroll, 0.08 percentage point smaller than last year's estimate.

At the same time, Social Security's accumulated assets continue to grow. For 2010, Social Security's reserves are projected to rise to $2.6 trillion by the end of the year and reach $3.8 trillion by 2019.

Social Security Relative to Gross Domestic Product

Another important way to look at Social Security's future is to view its annual cost and tax income as a share of U.S. economic output, or Gross Domestic Product (GDP). Social Security's cost as a percentage of GDP is projected by the Trustees to rise from the current level of 4.8 percent to about 6.1 percent in 2035, and then decline to 5.9 percent of GDP for the period 2050 through 2084.

Seen from this perspective the projected growth of the program is modest and can be managed through relatively modest changes to the program.
 
Last edited:
It seems like the downgrade is going to happy even if we don't default.

Definitely. Still, the difference between AAA and AA isn't that much (Bankersalmanac.com - Standard & Poor's Definitions)

AAA - An obligor rated 'AAA' has EXTREMELY STRONG capacity to meet its financial commitments. 'AAA' is the highest Issuer Credit Rating assigned by Standard & Poor's.




AA - An obligor rated 'AA' has VERY STRONG capacity to meet its financial commitments. It differs from the highest rated obligors only in small degree.
 
From your own link



It doesn't say that SS will be running a deficit. It says they will be running a "cash deficit"

And from my own links it shows how the cash deficits will be made up.

"Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow."

Like I said, SS is solvent until 2037
 
And from my own links it shows how the cash deficits will be made up.

"Through 2022, the annual cash deficits will be made up by redeeming trust fund assets from the General Fund of the Treasury. Because these redemptions will be less than interest earnings, trust fund balances will continue to grow."

Like I said, SS is solvent until 2037

Exactly!! SS will be able to pay with the income from its assets.

Social Security’s surplus is not disappearing. While it is true that revenue income received by the Trust Funds has declined during the recession, the program’s financial health is still sound. In fact, as we stated earlier, the surplus held by the Trust Funds is still growing, and is projected by the Social Security actuaries to reach a peak in 2020 of $3.1 trillion.

These surpluses and the interest income they yield, along with continuing payroll taxes and other receipts to the Trust Funds, are sufficient to assure payment of all benefits through 2037. However, it is also true that, at least for the time being, Social Security’s Trust Funds are not able to loan money to the general government and will loan less in future years than was previously projected.

Don't confuse one kind of surplus with another. Whether intentionally or unintentionally, those who assert that the "surplus in Social Security is disappearing" are misleading the American public. In fact, Social Security has two types of surpluses: the "annual surplus" and the "total assets" (sometimes also known as the "surplus"). An "annual surplus" occurs in any year in which the revenue to Social Security that year exceeds the outgo for the year. As those annual surpluses accumulate over time, they become the "total assets" of the Social Security Trust Fund. Because many people refer to those accumulated assets as Social Security's surplus, they may incorrectly conclude that the reduction in projected annual surpluses over the next few years means that all of the assets in the Trust Fund, which equal over $2.5 trillion, will disappear in the short term and that Social Security will soon be unable to pay benefits. The truth is that, even after taking into account the impact of the recession, the assets held by the Trust Fund will continue to permit payment of full benefits until 2037.

Maybe they should pay attention to what their source is saying instead of picking one sentence out and running with it.
 
Last edited:
Ya know... I sit here and I watch Republicans blaming Democrats, Democrats blaming Republicans, the poor blaming the rich, the rich blaming the poor.... "we need to spend more" vs "we need to spend less"... "more taxes" vs "less taxes"... "more gov't vs less gov't".... arguing about where to cut a few tens of billions this year while we rack up another trillion-plus in gov't debt every year and the collapse looms ever closer while the economy still stagnates.

We are royally ****ed, because there is no consensus on what to do and politicians are largely incapable of thinking beyond the next election cycle. A plague on both their houses.

What does Joe Average do when he can't pay his bills, when he's going ass-deep further in debt every year? If he's smart, he cuts his expenditures as much as possible, then tries to raise his income by working more hours/taking a second job/wife goes back to work/etc. Clearly, the addition of a trillion-plus to our already ass-deep debt is unsustainable. Cuts must be made accross the board... but we're probably going to have to raise taxes on the wealthy as well, since they're the ones who can afford a tax increase. Reducing the annual deficit to less than 200 billion a year is essential.

Next, address the economy. Most businesses are holding on to their capital instead of expanding... why? Because they're scared. The economy is very uncertain and every possible investment is risky right now. Cutting the deficit will probably help, but what will induce businesses to put that money back into the economy? Rational and stable and predictable pro-business policy on the part of government. What does the economic "recovery" need most? More new jobs. Who primarily creates jobs? New businesses and expanding businesses. Make policy that encourages and incentivizes the opening of new businesses, expanding existing ones, and particularly the creation of new jobs. Most of the time this means easing regulatory costs and offering tax incentives.

No one is going to do these things because we're too damn busy playing partisan politics with it. We're going to experience an economic collapse on the scale of Argentina soon, and we're going to fracking deserve it because, collectively, we're a pack of fracking idiots! :moody
 
Last edited:
Exactly!! SS will be able to pay with the income from its assets.



Maybe they should pay attention to what their source is saying instead of picking one sentence out and running with it.

EDIT: My bad, I thought you said that I should pay attention to my source instead of running with it
 
Last edited:
We're going to experience an economic collapse on the scale of Argentina soon, and we're going to fracking deserve it because, collectively, we're a pack of fracking idiots!


I'm good with guns, discipline and natural farmin'.
 
If either side of this debate was honest it would acknowledge:

a) we can't continue on this trajectory of deficit spending.

b) when we do cut back on spending it will have an adverse effect on the economy short term.

When you look at the deficits the U.S. has built up over the last thirty years. By debt look not only to Federal government but also personal, state and local as well as the current account deficit ( import more than export). This piling on of debt has allowed the U.S. standard of living to grow beyond what we were earning.

So the overall standard of living has to come down. We are seeing that now as headline inflation outstrips salary inflation. We see it in having the Fed keep interest rates at an effective negative return ( two year treasury rate minus inflation). What politician is willing to essentially commit suicide by saying that the standard of living has been artificially high and will have to come down.

The game of living beyond our means has finally caught up with the overall American economy.

Ofcourse everyone wants to cut someone elses benefits while never making any sacrifices themselves.

It's time to trim down America. Back to the factories we go making stuff for China as their reign of terror begins and ours end. Back to living within our means. All of us.
 
It turns out the author of this hit piece was totally owned on C-SPAN. Coy admitted that, according to his own charts, SS has a $22TRILLION SURPLUS :lol:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/07/29/1000366/-$22-trillion-Social-Security-surplus-revealed-on-C-SPAN?via=siderec

When Peter Coy, the Bloomberg Businessweek Economics Editor, appeared this morning on "Washington Journal," he brought along a chart for his discussion of the magazine's cover article, "Why the Debt Crisis is Even Worse Than You Think." But, the chart, purported to show a national fiscal gap, did not match Coy's talking points. As Coy concluded commenting that cuts would be needed to Social Security and other entitlements, C-SPAN moderator Susan Swain pointed out that Coy's chart showed a long-term surplus for Social Security of $22 trillion. Coy confirmed as accurate her interpretation of the chart and, after some stumbling, admitted that, "The trust fund is not the crucial issue." Indeed, his own figures show that it is not an issue at all. So, why did he continue to insist that Social Security cuts are needed?

There's a link to the video of his pwing at the link I posted :lol:
 
SS has contributed billions towards reducing our deficits and debt. And the CBO has not projected that. You're spinning
SS is responsible for trillions of the current debt figure, and tens of trillions in unreported debt as unfunded liabilities.
 
SS is responsible for trillions of the current debt figure, and tens of trillions in unreported debt as unfunded liabilities.

SS has a $22TRILLION surplus, according to the guy who wrote the article linked to in the OP
 
cpwill you are wrong. The government needs to spend money, no one else is doing it. You want to cut spending not because of economic factors but because it furthers your social agenda of less government, the economy be damned. We are a consumer economy, we don't produce enough, if someone doesn't spend the economy will never recover, it will just keep getting worst.

Good idea.

Keep borrowing and spending, borrowing and spending. That should get you out of the hole.
 
We cut spending before and this happened:
Recession of 1937


Congress' proposed spending cuts could weaken U.S. economy - Politics Wires - MiamiHerald.com

"I think the idea is a very serious policy error," he said. "This would be the fodder for another recession. The economy may be able to digest $25-30 billion more (in federal spending cuts) ... but $100 billion, I don't think it could digest that."
Zandi, who's frequently cited by Republicans and Democrats alike, favors spending cuts "when the economy is off and running," but he cautions that "to add more fiscal restraint in the latter part of 2011 and 2012 would be a mistake."

States that Cut Spending in Wake of Recession Worse Off Today | The Keystone Research Center




Now all you people who think less spending is good for the economy post your sources. History backs me up. Companies are not hiring because of demand. There is plenty of supply.
 
Last edited:
In addition we should reduce some regulations. Which specific ones do you guys have in mind? Government spending is not drag on the economy. Debt dd not cause this economic collapse.
 
Back
Top Bottom