• 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!

Boehner, Obama Remarks on Budget Deal

reefedjib

reefedjib

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Messages
6,762
Reaction score
1,619
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Private
Boehner, Obama Remarks on Budget Deal

“Let me thank my friend the Majority Leader and Speaker Boehner for their outstanding work during this difficult negotiation. You know, Mr. President, we had an opportunity tonight to decide whether we wanted to repeat history, or make history. Had we chosen to repeat history, we would have allowed a government shutdown. Instead we decided to make history by implementing in the middle of this fiscal year as the Majority Leader has indicated substantial reductions in spending.

Now, these reductions, Mr. President, are in the billions. Once we get through this process by the end of next week, we will move on to a much larger discussion about how we save trillions, by enacting hopefully on a bipartisan basis a budget that genuinely begins to get on top of this problem. And the problem as we all know is $14 trillion in debt, and over $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities. The President has asked us to raise the debt ceiling. And Senate Republicans and House Republicans and I hope many Democrats as well are going to say, Mr. President, in order to raise the debt ceiling, we need to do something significant about the debt. My definition of significant is that the markets view it as significant, the American people view it as significant and foreign countries view it as significant.

So for tonight, again, I congratulate the Majority Leader and the Speaker. This is an important first step, but just the beginning of what we need to do to get our house, our fiscal house, in order.
Click to expand...

Hells yeah, people. We got the big fight coming up: trillions in reductions for raising the debt ceiling.

And the problem as we all know is $14 trillion in debt, and over $53 trillion in unfunded liabilities.
Click to expand...
 
Unfunded liability is essentially a meaningless term, since it indicates there's a "funded liability" that is somehow superior.

The debt ceiling is far more serious than even the partial shutdown we just avoided. The GOP is going to do about the same as they did this time: make a bunch of noise to please the base and then raise the debt ceiling because they have to.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Unfunded liability is essentially a meaningless term, since it indicates there's a "funded liability" that is somehow superior.
Click to expand...

There IS a funded liability. It represents debt that already has revenue allocated to pay it.

There is $53 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities - projected debt that does not have revenue allocated to pay for it.

The true debt of the nation is the unfunded liability of $53 TRILLION.
 
reefedjib said:
There IS a funded liability. It represents debt that already has revenue allocated to pay it.

There is $53 TRILLION in unfunded liabilities - projected debt that does not have revenue allocated to pay for it.

The true debt of the nation is the unfunded liability of $53 TRILLION.
Click to expand...

Those funded and unfunded liabilities you mentioned are both backed by the same thing, though. The US treasury. Nothing is "allocated" until it's actually paid. Because whose to say the "allocated" funds will actually exist when the time comes?
 
What people dont realize is that to tackle the budget problem we need both spending cuts and higher taxes. Yes, we will be paying more taxes for less services. But that is better than either (a) cutting most important services, or (b) raising taxes to ridiculous levels.

What needs to be done is, not a fight over the budget, but a real discussion about, as a country, what is most important to spend on. What money has been well spent and what money hasnt. Stop spending money that isnt working.

Borrowing money is not a bad thing, if the money spent helps the economy grow. Then its Investing. Public safety, National Security, Education, healthcare (if done wisely, with a focus on prevention) are investments. The war in Iraq, is not. Foreign aid to countries that dont need it is not. I really want to make a thread on this, but Ill do it tomorrow when I have time.
 
Deuce said:
Those funded and unfunded liabilities you mentioned are both backed by the same thing, though. The US treasury. Nothing is "allocated" until it's actually paid. Because whose to say the "allocated" funds will actually exist when the time comes?
Click to expand...

That is a separate issue. Funded liabilities means that the allocation of revenue to pay for it equates to the amount to pay the liability is budgeted. If it is budgeted and requires borrowing through an increased deficit, it still gets paid.

Unfunded liabilities are not budgeted. So from the get go they represent borrowing above and beyond the budget.

The true debt of the US is $53 TRILLION dollars.
 
reefedjib said:
That is a separate issue. Funded liabilities means that the allocation of revenue to pay for it equates to the amount to pay the liability is budgeted. If it is budgeted and requires borrowing through an increased deficit, it still gets paid.

Unfunded liabilities are not budgeted. So from the get go they represent borrowing above and beyond the budget.

The true debt of the US is $53 TRILLION dollars.
Click to expand...

Do you have some objective independent verifiable evidence to support this number?
 
haymarket said:
Do you have some objective independent verifiable evidence to support this number?
Click to expand...

Ooops, sorry, it looks like the unfunded liability is actually $107 TRILLION in 2009.

Social Security and Medicare Projections: 2009

The 2009 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached nearly $107 trillion in today's dollars! That is about seven times the size of the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national debt.

The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits that have been promised to current and future retirees and what will be collected in dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, this debt rose by $5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax increases, large benefit cuts or both.

...

Future Payroll Tax Burdens. Currently, a 12.4 percent payroll tax on wages funds Social Se*curity and a 2.9 percent payroll tax funds Medicare Part A (Hospital Insurance). But if payroll tax rates rise to meet unfunded obligations:

  • When today's college students reach retirement (about 2054), Social Security alone will require a 16.6 percent payroll tax, one-third greater than today's rate.
  • When Medicare Part A is included, the payroll tax burden will rise to 25.7 percent - more than one of every four dollars workers will earn that year.
  • If Medicare Part B (physician services) and Part D are included, the total Social Security/Medicare burden will climb to 37 percent of payroll by 2054 - one in three dollars of taxable payroll, and twice the size of today's payroll tax burden!

Thus, more than one-third of the wages workers earn in 2054 will need to be committed to pay benefits promised under current law. That is before any bridges or highways are built and before any teachers' or police officers' salaries are paid.
Click to expand...

This is based on the THE 2010 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Which, again, is completely meaningless because you can infinitely extend the time frame and claim whatever number you like. If you extrapolate out to the year infinity, our unfunded liability is INFINITY DOLLARS!!!
Click to expand...

The Trustees Report uses a long range calculation of 75 years.
 
Surely you people aren't claiming that there is no unfunded liability estimate. The SSA estimates 75 year projections. The projection models a $107 TRILLION shortfall. It is basic business practice to estimate the financial health projections of your company. The same is true of the government. Unless benefits are seriously curtailed, payroll taxes alone will be 37%. Income taxes will fall on top of that. Mother****ers who passed this stinking pile of **** in 1937.
 
Deuce said:
Which, again, is completely meaningless because you can infinitely extend the time frame and claim whatever number you like. If you extrapolate out to the year infinity, our unfunded liability is INFINITY DOLLARS!!!
Click to expand...

Excellent point. This is all smoke and mirrors and more right wing think tank scare tactics.
 
reefedjib said:
Surely you people aren't claiming that there is no unfunded liability estimate. The SSA estimates 75 year projections. The projection models a $107 TRILLION shortfall. It is basic business practice to estimate the financial health projections of your company. The same is true of the government. Unless benefits are seriously curtailed, payroll taxes alone will be 37%. Income taxes will fall on top of that. Mother****ers who passed this stinking pile of **** in 1937.
Click to expand...

It's still a meaningless term. There's no "funded liability." There's "liabilities we expect to fund" and "liabilities we still haven't figured out how to fund yet"
 
Deuce said:
It's still a meaningless term. There's no "funded liability." There's "liabilities we expect to fund" and "liabilities we still haven't figured out how to fund yet"
Click to expand...

Whatever, dude. They are popularly called unfunded liabilities. The freaking "THE 2010 ANNUAL REPORT OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE FEDERAL OLD-AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND FEDERAL DISABILITY INSURANCE TRUST FUNDS", from the SSA, calls them unfunded obligations. Same ****ing difference. Take it up with the SSA.
 
Did John start crying?
 
Deuce said:
Unfunded liability is essentially a meaningless term, since it indicates there's a "funded liability" that is somehow superior.
Click to expand...

um. a funded liability (that is to say, money you will have to pay out in the future, but which you have on hand already) IS superior.

and as for "figuring out how to pay for it", there isn't a way to do so. the CBO modeling computers refuse to take the entitlement system as it is today past 2037 because they cannot come up with any set of economic data that allows us to have an economy past that point.

we will either reform our entitlements on purpose and as we want to, our our creditors will do it for us at a time and manner of their choosing. Those are our options at this point.

The debt ceiling is far more serious than even the partial shutdown we just avoided. The GOP is going to do about the same as they did this time: make a bunch of noise to please the base and then raise the debt ceiling because they have to.
Click to expand...

they don't have to. they probably will in return for something pretty serious.

but it's going to have to be pretty serious in order to get them on board.
 
Last edited:
Deuce said:
Those funded and unfunded liabilities you mentioned are both backed by the same thing, though. The US treasury. Nothing is "allocated" until it's actually paid. Because whose to say the "allocated" funds will actually exist when the time comes?
Click to expand...

What hogwash.

Funded liability is liability for which the taxes have been collected and the funds set aside for use paying that debt. Under no circumstances can any nation foolish enough to run trillion dollar annual deficits have anything resembling funded liabilities.

Thank you, Msrs Obama and Bush and Reid and the rest of the corrupt gang of leftists who've managed to con their way to Washington, thank you for putting slave collars on the Mayor's grandchildren.
 
sameerkale said:
What people dont realize is that to tackle the budget problem we need both spending cuts and higher taxes. Yes, we will be paying more taxes for less services. But that is better than either (a) cutting most important services, or (b) raising taxes to ridiculous levels.
Click to expand...

No, we don't need higher taxes, we need tar and feathers for the politicians who want to raise taxes, period, and those who refuse to cut spending need a double dose.

What needs to be done is, not a fight over the budget, but a real discussion about, as a country, what is most important to spend on.
Click to expand...

It's absolutely impossible to have a real discussion about the budget when the Democrats proposed four billion dollars in cuts from a four thousand billion budget, and were convinced they were cutting to the bone.

Once people are elected who are serious about ending deficit SPENDING, the next part of the discussion will not be where to cut, but which unconstitutional programs are cut first, which are cut later.

The final part of the budget repair process will be trimming the Constitutional spending to sane limits that meet sane national objectives.

As a hint, none of the following are allowed by the Constitution:

Education.
Health.
Welfare.
Corporate subsidies, including paying stupid farmers to not grow things.
Bells on the toes programs like NPR and the NEA.
Almost all pork.

Pay attention to the Constitution.

It means something.
 
Deuce said:
Which, again, is completely meaningless because you can infinitely extend the time frame and claim whatever number you like. If you extrapolate out to the year infinity, our unfunded liability is INFINITY DOLLARS!!!
Click to expand...

This is your response?

Your beloved government, which can do no wrong in your eyes unless it's defending the nation, you're now saying it's wrong when it projects the liability people ALIVE TODAY will have to pay if no actions are taken to alter the course of events? You're claiming that's an irrational baseless extrapolation?

And...you're one of the people crapping their pants over the ridiculous claims by the IPCC about global warming, too.

The Mayor supposes that you only accept extrapolations when they promote your world view. The truth means nothing to you, apparently.
 
reefedjib said:
Surely you people aren't claiming that there is no unfunded liability estimate. The SSA estimates 75 year projections. The projection models a $107 TRILLION shortfall. It is basic business practice to estimate the financial health projections of your company. The same is true of the government. Unless benefits are seriously curtailed, payroll taxes alone will be 37%. Income taxes will fall on top of that. Mother****ers who passed this stinking pile of **** in 1937.
Click to expand...

While you can blame them, and rightly so, when SS was passed, only the rare person lived to collect, and they only lived for a few years, typically.

The mofo's you should be upset with are every retiree who threatened his congressman if they ever did anything sensible lile raising the retirement age, means testing the system, or restricting eligibility in other ways to keep costs down.

You can especially blame those mofo's who declared wino's and drug addicts were "disabled" and eligible for SS Disability benefits, and all the other nonsensical expansions of payouts to garner more votes.

This is the natural course of societies who discover they can vote themselves bread from the treasury if they only violate the Constitution first.

And, naturally, the people at the top of the pyramid made out quite well.
 
Who cares if we have unfunded liabilities set in the future? There is plenty of time to adjust stuff yet.
 
megaprogman said:
Who cares if we have unfunded liabilities set in the future? There is plenty of time to adjust stuff yet.
Click to expand...

"the future" in which social security pays out more than it takes in started last year.

:) welcome to The Future.


we do have plenty of time.


specifically, on our current path, we probably have about 5 years before we will be past the tipping point. assuming our creditors like us and are nice to us.
 
Deuce said:
Those funded and unfunded liabilities you mentioned are both backed by the same thing, though. The US treasury. Nothing is "allocated" until it's actually paid. Because whose to say the "allocated" funds will actually exist when the time comes?
Click to expand...

Nothing is allocated until it's actually paid?
 
yes. that's why there is no such thing as "earmarked funds" ?
 
Mayor Snorkum said:
This is your response?

Your beloved government, which can do no wrong in your eyes unless it's defending the nation, you're now saying it's wrong when it projects the liability people ALIVE TODAY will have to pay if no actions are taken to alter the course of events? You're claiming that's an irrational baseless extrapolation?

And...you're one of the people crapping their pants over the ridiculous claims by the IPCC about global warming, too.

The Mayor supposes that you only accept extrapolations when they promote your world view. The truth means nothing to you, apparently.
Click to expand...

Literally everything you just speculated about me is wrong. I talk about bad things my government is doing constantly. I've repeatedly said that Obama is not substantially different from Bush. Wasn't a fan of Bush.

I'm not "crapping my pants" about anything, and the IPCC's "ridiculous claims" usually turn out to be made up by climate "skeptics" so that they have something to attack. (or are journalists who just have no idea what they're talking about)

You want to talk about extrapolations? Look at your own post, my friend. I didn't even say that medicare/SS wasn't even a problem. I've also repeatedly said that "fiscal responsibility" without taking cuts to medicare, social security, and defense is just impossible. All this talk about "non-defense discretionary spending" is just little morsels of a very big pie that politicians can point to in order to convince the public that they're actually doing something.

So why don't you go ahead and just forget anything you think you know about my opinion, because you have just about all of it wrong. This is the biggest annoyance I have with conservatives: absolutism. Mention that maybe Israel should go easier on the Palestinian civilians? OMG YOU SUPPORT TERRORISTS. Think we should make a strong push towards renewable energy? YOU WANT TO CONTROL EVERYTHING WE DO AND USE AND ALSO WANT US TO BE IN THE STONE AGE AGAIN. It's absurd.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom