• 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!

Obama sending Congress $4T budget replete with new spending, taxes

No, it is you that doesn't understand how SS was to be funded....
ugh.

What I'm pointing out is the separation of taxes isn't real. It's a political convenience. A federal tax is a federal tax, and it would be much simpler to stop breaking it up like we do now. I.e. instead of wasting our time with intragovernmental loans, and absurd claims like "Social Security is broke!" we could just talk about how much it costs us, how much we are willing to pay for it, and how to pay for it.


LBJ created the unified budget to pay for the Vietnam War and Congresses after that used the unified budget to show a lower deficit than actual.
And yet, somehow neither SS nor the federal government melted down between 1970 and 1993.

If you've been reading my posts, you'll see I don't really have an issue with a truly unified budget. In fact, I'd say it makes more sense. There's no real need to split up tax payments for different spending.


please tell me how running a deficit and having to borrow money to fund the deficit is a good thing?
OMG NOOOOO!!!! Not a DEFICIT!!!

latest


1) It allows the government to provide services, typically those requested by voters, without raising taxes.

2) Borrowing from the trust fund, yet again, doesn't pose a problem. We might make an argument there are better uses of those funds, or cheaper ways to borrow, but there is no real reason to fear that the trust fund won't be repaid.

3) Individuals and institutions around the world have been throwing money at the US government for years, loaning money to the government at zero interest rates. Since inflation is positive, that means those people are paying the government to borrow their money. In turn, US government bonds and securities are regarded as the safest investment in the world.

4) Governments are not like individuals, who are expected to pay off a mortgage or a credit card in a specific time frame. Governments can borrow indefinitely, and roll over debt for as long as someone's willing to lend the money. Deficits only really become an issue when we can't raise enough revenue to pay the interest.

5) As noted, deficit hawks have been screeching since the early 80s. That's thirty years of predictions of doom that haven't come about. After a few decades, the FUD starts to wear a bit thin.

6) If we ran a $50 billion/yr surplus starting in 2015, it'd take the federal government over 360 years to pay off the debt. It's not happening in our lifetimes. You might wanna deal with that.

7) Last but certainly not least: Most of the states, and some cities, require balanced budgets. What does that produce? More often than not, states that can't run deficits deliberately underfund their state pensions. <Neo>Woah.</Neo>


This doesn't mean that all budget issues magically go away. What it means is that deficits and debt are mostly a pseudo-problem, unless things get so bad that we can't pay the interest. The real issue is whether we want to provide certain services, and how much we want to tax our citizens. Scare tactics about SS shortages and "Ponzi schemes" and all this other bull**** ultimately distract us from the much more basic questions.


We are paying OUT debt service, not in. Using your funds to pay my SS is nothing more than a Ponzi scheme and something you don't understand.
I do understand it, which is why I know that it's not a Ponzi scheme.

Again: Instead of borrowing from the private sector, we're borrowing from the trust fund. The money is basically sitting there doing nothing. Letting it sit there, doing nothing, benefits no one.

The reason why we classify SS as having "unfunded liabilities" is because of exactly what I'm discussing -- expenditures are greater than revenues. Treating this like a horror show is not real. It's a direct result of separating out SS taxes from other types of taxes.

The way SS is set up, it's like having two jobs, and declaring that the funds from one job can only be used for the mortgage, and everything else is paid out of your second job. If your first job cuts your hours, would you default on your mortgage? No, because money is money, and income is income. You'd pay the mortgage out of both jobs.

There is no real reason to separate these taxes anymore. I don't pay a tax specifically for military, a second tax for education, a third tax for interest payments, and so on. These are mere political and accounting fictions. They're not real.

Speaking of unfunded liabilities, all those states that can't run deficits? They wind up, wait for it... underfunding their state pension fund liabilities. Who'da figured that might happen?
 
I would but then again I understand the Constitution which says PROVIDE for the Common defense. To me that justifies the military which by the way is 600 billion of the 4.0 trillion dollar request from Obama. Apparently that is too much for someone who enjoys their freedom because of that military

There is more money spent on defense than that 600 billion you mention.
 
You know as well as i do that the majority of spending in the federal budget is on domestic issues. What you do not seem to understand is that the federal government cannot cut funding for social programs without expierencing a hostile backlash from the people enrolled in those programs.

What cutback would that be if Obama simply accepted the fiscal year 2014 numbers which was 3.5 trillion dollars? for some reason we need another 500 billion dollars for social engineering and creating more dependence?
 
Do you have any idea what Provide for the Common defense means? You call that socialism?

Apparently, it means set up a government owned and operated industry (that sometimes contracts out to the private sector for supplies).

Hmm, yep, thats the textbook definition of socialism.
 
Then prove it? I have posted the link to the budget. Defense in 2014 was 600 billion dollars.

Nuclear weapon funding is done under the department of energy, Veterans Affairs isn't included in that budget, the Treasury Departments payment for pensions isn't included, the State Departments budget includes military related assistance to other countries, a lot of counter terrorism funding goes to the FBI and Homeland Security, NASA includes a budget for intelligence-gathering. That 600 billion dollars is just for the Department of Defense.
 
ugh.

What I'm pointing out is the separation of taxes isn't real. It's a political convenience. A federal tax is a federal tax, and it would be much simpler to stop breaking it up like we do now. I.e. instead of wasting our time with intragovernmental loans, and absurd claims like "Social Security is broke!" we could just talk about how much it costs us, how much we are willing to pay for it, and how to pay for it.



And yet, somehow neither SS nor the federal government melted down between 1970 and 1993.

If you've been reading my posts, you'll see I don't really have an issue with a truly unified budget. In fact, I'd say it makes more sense. There's no real need to split up tax payments for different spending.



OMG NOOOOO!!!! Not a DEFICIT!!!

latest


1) It allows the government to provide services, typically those requested by voters, without raising taxes.

2) Borrowing from the trust fund, yet again, doesn't pose a problem. We might make an argument there are better uses of those funds, or cheaper ways to borrow, but there is no real reason to fear that the trust fund won't be repaid.

3) Individuals and institutions around the world have been throwing money at the US government for years, loaning money to the government at zero interest rates. Since inflation is positive, that means those people are paying the government to borrow their money. In turn, US government bonds and securities are regarded as the safest investment in the world.

4) Governments are not like individuals, who are expected to pay off a mortgage or a credit card in a specific time frame. Governments can borrow indefinitely, and roll over debt for as long as someone's willing to lend the money. Deficits only really become an issue when we can't raise enough revenue to pay the interest.

5) As noted, deficit hawks have been screeching since the early 80s. That's thirty years of predictions of doom that haven't come about. After a few decades, the FUD starts to wear a bit thin.

6) If we ran a $50 billion/yr surplus starting in 2015, it'd take the federal government over 360 years to pay off the debt. It's not happening in our lifetimes. You might wanna deal with that.

7) Last but certainly not least: Most of the states, and some cities, require balanced budgets. What does that produce? More often than not, states that can't run deficits deliberately underfund their state pensions. <Neo>Woah.</Neo>


This doesn't mean that all budget issues magically go away. What it means is that deficits and debt are mostly a pseudo-problem, unless things get so bad that we can't pay the interest. The real issue is whether we want to provide certain services, and how much we want to tax our citizens. Scare tactics about SS shortages and "Ponzi schemes" and all this other bull**** ultimately distract us from the much more basic questions.



I do understand it, which is why I know that it's not a Ponzi scheme.

Again: Instead of borrowing from the private sector, we're borrowing from the trust fund. The money is basically sitting there doing nothing. Letting it sit there, doing nothing, benefits no one.

The reason why we classify SS as having "unfunded liabilities" is because of exactly what I'm discussing -- expenditures are greater than revenues. Treating this like a horror show is not real. It's a direct result of separating out SS taxes from other types of taxes.

The way SS is set up, it's like having two jobs, and declaring that the funds from one job can only be used for the mortgage, and everything else is paid out of your second job. If your first job cuts your hours, would you default on your mortgage? No, because money is money, and income is income. You'd pay the mortgage out of both jobs.

There is no real reason to separate these taxes anymore. I don't pay a tax specifically for military, a second tax for education, a third tax for interest payments, and so on. These are mere political and accounting fictions. They're not real.

Speaking of unfunded liabilities, all those states that can't run deficits? They wind up, wait for it... underfunding their state pension fund liabilities. Who'da figured that might happen?

You call it borrowing, borrowing from who and how is that borrowing repaid? How are those bonds going to be funded and paid for in cash in addition to all the other budget items? You think separation of taxes isn't realistic? Then you are part of the problem and ignore how SS was sold and originally paid for. the rest of your novel is just that fiction. By the way we already borrowed from the trust fund and that is why we have trillions in unfunded liabilities
 
What cutback would that be if Obama simply accepted the fiscal year 2014 numbers which was 3.5 trillion dollars? for some reason we need another 500 billion dollars for social engineering and creating more dependence?

Let us not pretend that we don't know what programs are the likely targets for conservative budget cutters.

Social security

Medicare

Medicaid

Unemployment

Food stamps

Federal education programs

All these seem to draw particular attention.
 
Sorry, one more thing.

Let's say I have life insurance. I pay $2000/yr, and my policy pays $100,000.

The insurance company doesn't take my premiums, put it in a tiny hidey-hole, and return those funds to me. They pay the CURRENT life insurance collectors with my money.

Whatever is left over from the year's revenues does not sit around, doing nothing. The insurance company invests it, including lending it to people who may or may not pay back in full and/or on time. If the insurance company is having an off year, they may borrow to cover some of those expenses. Or, rather than withdraw money from an investment that pays a 10% return, they might borrow at 2% to pay off the collectors.

And yet, no one refers to commercial insurance as a Ponzi scheme. Huh.
 
Let us not pretend that we don't know what programs are the likely targets for conservative budget cutters.

Social security

Medicare

Medicaid

Unemployment

Food stamps

Federal education programs

All these seem to draw particular attention.

Looks like a pretty good list to me. You seem to have a problem understand that results matter and all you have done is give your politicians authorization to use your money how they see fit not on programs that were for the intended use. There is a reason SS and Medicare are underfunded and your answer is throw more money at it without finding where the money went in the first place

You also don't seem to understand personal responsibility. I suggest you ask yourself do we need all those programs to help those TRULY in need or do we need those programs to give the politicians more money to spend
 
Sorry, one more thing.

Let's say I have life insurance. I pay $2000/yr, and my policy pays $100,000.

The insurance company doesn't take my premiums, put it in a tiny hidey-hole, and return those funds to me. They pay the CURRENT life insurance collectors with my money.

Whatever is left over from the year's revenues does not sit around, doing nothing. The insurance company invests it, including lending it to people who may or may not pay back in full and/or on time. If the insurance company is having an off year, they may borrow to cover some of those expenses. Or, rather than withdraw money from an investment that pays a 10% return, they might borrow at 2% to pay off the collectors.

And yet, no one refers to commercial insurance as a Ponzi scheme. Huh.

The Federal Govt. isn't an insurance company, they took your money through payroll taxes to fund a retirement supplement for you. that money was never supposed to be put on budget but rather in a lock box. That didn't happen and people like you have no problem with that money being spent. You also have no idea where the funds are going to come from to pay for future long term retirees since there aren't enough workers to pay those retirees with existing dollars.
 
Nuclear weapon funding is done under the department of energy, Veterans Affairs isn't included in that budget, the Treasury Departments payment for pensions isn't included, the State Departments budget includes military related assistance to other countries, a lot of counter terrorism funding goes to the FBI and Homeland Security, NASA includes a budget for intelligence-gathering. That 600 billion dollars is just for the Department of Defense.

Department of energy 5 billion dollars

VA is separate funding and retirement and medical for all Military personnel 150 billion

Dept of State has nothing to do with military defense but if you want to eliminate it, great, do so. 47 billion dollars

I could go on but you are going to tie everything to defense and that is total ignorance. Doesn't really matter because you aren't going to ever come up with enough to justify a 4 trillion dollar budget. We spent 3.5 trillion in 2014 so why the 500 billion increase?
 
Looks like a pretty good list to me. You seem to have a problem understand that results matter and all you have done is give your politicians authorization to use your money how they see fit not on programs that were for the intended use. There is a reason SS and Medicare are underfunded and your answer is throw more money at it without finding where the money went in the first place

You also don't seem to understand personal responsibility. I suggest you ask yourself do we need all those programs to help those TRULY in need or do we need those programs to give the politicians more money to spend

It seems to me that you are the person who needs to understand the meaning of personal responsibility.

Do I justify giving my money to the federal government with the expectation that it will benifit me personally? No

I give my money to the federal government so that it can implement policies that are beneficial to society and the needs of all citizens, not just myself.

And unless I know for certain where exactly does the government spend its money, I cannot support propositions that blindly slash monatary amounts.
 
Department of energy 5 billion dollars

VA is separate funding and retirement and medical for all Military personnel 150 billion

Dept of State has nothing to do with military defense but if you want to eliminate it, great, do so. 47 billion dollars

I could go on but you are going to tie everything to defense and that is total ignorance. Doesn't really matter because you aren't going to ever come up with enough to justify a 4 trillion dollar budget. We spent 3.5 trillion in 2014 so why the 500 billion increase?

It's not total ignorance...I'm not saying we should cut or increase the budget for defense...but the defense of the nation is a much bigger portion of the pie than just the slice that goes to the Department of Defense. Anti-Terrorism is one of the main components of keeping the US safe a large potion of that occurs in Homeland Defense and the FBI. Minus debt spending (yes...defense spending has contributed to the national debt) total defense spending is pretty close to a trillion dollars. That's the amount we spend keeping the nation safe from terrorism and foreign threats.
 
It seems to me that you are the person who needs to understand the meaning of personal responsibility.

Do I justify giving my money to the federal government with the expectation that it will benifit me personally? No

I give my money to the federal government so that it can implement policies that are beneficial to society and the needs of all citizens, not just myself.

And unless I know for certain where exactly does the government spend its money, I cannot support propositions that blindly slash monatary amounts.

You live in the right state for entitlements, high taxes, and high debt. What exactly do you have to show for it?

You are very naïve if you believe that giving your money to the Federal Govt. does that and all you have to do is look at the results. Trillions in debt and what do you have to show for it other than massive dependence. What problems have been solved?

I suggest you find out where your state funds are going since most in your state are dependent on state for local social program and now you want the Federal Govt. to do what the state is doing. Why?
 
It's not total ignorance...I'm not saying we should cut or increase the budget for defense...but the defense of the nation is a much bigger portion of the pie than just the slice that goes to the Department of Defense. Anti-Terrorism is one of the main components of keeping the US safe a large potion of that occurs in Homeland Defense and the FBI. Minus debt spending (yes...defense spending has contributed to the national debt) total defense spending is pretty close to a trillion dollars. That's the amount we spend keeping the nation safe from terrorism and foreign threats.

Then take the budget of the U.S. and tell me what that amount is rather than speculating. If total defense spending is a trillion dollars that is 1/4 of the Obama U.S. Budget request and you still haven't told me why we need a 4 trillion dollar budget?
 
the thought of a 4 T budget is just cringe worthy.
 
You live in the right state for entitlements, high taxes, and high debt. What exactly do you have to show for it?

You are very naïve if you believe that giving your money to the Federal Govt. does that and all you have to do is look at the results. Trillions in debt and what do you have to show for it other than massive dependence. What problems have been solved?

I suggest you find out where your state funds are going since most in your state are dependent on state for local social program and now you want the Federal Govt. to do what the state is doing. Why?

I know that I was brought up correctly because I know it is wrong to take away from people something that they depend on.
 
12,500 per person. It scares me when people can't scale/normalize simple data. Shall we next discuss how that compares to the rest of the "first world", and why?

Interestingly, thats about what I pay in taxes, so Im doing my part at least.
 
Sorry, one more thing.

Let's say I have life insurance. I pay $2000/yr, and my policy pays $100,000.

The insurance company doesn't take my premiums, put it in a tiny hidey-hole, and return those funds to me. They pay the CURRENT life insurance collectors with my money.

Whatever is left over from the year's revenues does not sit around, doing nothing. The insurance company invests it, including lending it to people who may or may not pay back in full and/or on time. If the insurance company is having an off year, they may borrow to cover some of those expenses. Or, rather than withdraw money from an investment that pays a 10% return, they might borrow at 2% to pay off the collectors.

And yet, no one refers to commercial insurance as a Ponzi scheme. Huh.

Maybe this makes sense in another post, but how can you compare the federal government to your insurance company?

Your insurance premiums are determined by actuaries, and the premiums are intended and always were intended to help fund and run the company. There is no secret to that. Just like any service provider uses funds collected from its customers to run the company.

The federal government takes your taxes out of your paycheck (and it isn't voluntary) and those funds are supposed to be set aside for your old age. Those funds were intended to go directly to a fund set up for exactly that purpose. The money taken from workers was never supposed to be comingled with budget funds. The deductions from your paycheck weren't intended to run and fund the government.
 
Then take the budget of the U.S. and tell me what that amount is rather than speculating. If total defense spending is a trillion dollars that is 1/4 of the Obama U.S. Budget request and you still haven't told me why we need a 4 trillion dollar budget?

There's a lot of things that are increased above sequester numbers. Why don't you point out where the wasted spending is? I can go on a list that ranges from spending to combat anti-biotic resistant bacteria to increased spending to the National Science Foundation.
 
12,500 per person. It scares me when people can't scale/normalize simple data. Shall we next discuss how that compares to the rest of the "first world", and why?

Sure, knock yourself out. I'm sure someone would like to have that discussion with you. Start a thread on it and I'm sure someone will oblige you. I'd prefer to stay on topic, thanks.
 
I know that I was brought up correctly because I know it is wrong to take away from people something that they depend on.

Yes, I expected that from you, when you create an entitlement program and then try to take it away that does indeed happen which is why you create entitlement programs only as a last resort. That is happening with ACA now, another entitlement program that will cost more than intended and do less than intended except to the bureaucrats that created it. Liberalism loves having people like you who has no problem spending in the name of compassion to generate more dependence and thus job security.
 
Back
Top Bottom