• 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!

Deficit at Highest Level in 6 Years

Conservative said:
Treasury says I am right prove me wrong with data

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

No it doesn’t. Raw numbers don’t explain how the came to be. But that’s your MO. Chunck numbers out without details or circumstances behind them.
 
Removable Mind said:
No it doesn’t. Raw numbers don’t explain how the came to be. But that’s your MO. Chunck numbers out without details or circumstances behind them.
Click to expand...
I noticed how you have never posted any numbers therefore you have no idea what raw numbers are. They aren't raw numbers they are the official government numbers showing performance

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
Treasury says I am right prove me wrong with data

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Yes, looking at the dollar numbers, President Obama did preside over the largest increase in the national debt. BUT, when one looks at the numbers on a percentage increase, Barack comes in at #5.

FDR had the largest increase, owing to becoming president during the Great Depression, presiding over the nation during WWII AND being the only president elected to four terms. Added $236 billion, a 1,048 percent increase from the $23 billion debt at the end of Hoover's last budget, FY 1933.

Woodrow Wilson: Added $21 billion to the debt, a 727% increase from the $2.9 billion debt at the end of Taft's last budget, FY 1913.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981

George W. Bush: added $5.849 trillion, the second-greatest amount, the fourth-largest percentage increase. He increased the debt 101 percent

Barack Obama added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase.


Always remember, there are three types of lies -- Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.
 
Somerville said:
Yes, looking at the dollar numbers, President Obama did preside over the largest increase in the national debt. BUT, when one looks at the numbers on a percentage increase, Barack comes in at #5.

FDR had the largest increase, owing to becoming president during the Great Depression, presiding over the nation during WWII AND being the only president elected to four terms. Added $236 billion, a 1,048 percent increase from the $23 billion debt at the end of Hoover's last budget, FY 1933.

Woodrow Wilson: Added $21 billion to the debt, a 727% increase from the $2.9 billion debt at the end of Taft's last budget, FY 1913.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981

George W. Bush: added $5.849 trillion, the second-greatest amount, the fourth-largest percentage increase. He increased the debt 101 percent

Barack Obama added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase.


Always remember, there are three types of lies -- Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.
Click to expand...
OMG we pay debt service on dollars not percentage change. You leftist are a real problem making things up to suit your agenda whatever that is and why. Please learn how to research and what numbers mean

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
Conservative said:
OMG we pay debt service on dollars not percentage change. You leftist are a real problem making things up to suit your agenda whatever that is and why. Please learn how to research and what numbers mean

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

And after Team China/Russia/Iran remove the dollar as the global currency of record we will see.....PAINFULLY......what the result is.
 
Somerville said:
Yes, looking at the dollar numbers, President Obama did preside over the largest increase in the national debt. BUT, when one looks at the numbers on a percentage increase, Barack comes in at #5.

FDR had the largest increase, owing to becoming president during the Great Depression, presiding over the nation during WWII AND being the only president elected to four terms. Added $236 billion, a 1,048 percent increase from the $23 billion debt at the end of Hoover's last budget, FY 1933.

Woodrow Wilson: Added $21 billion to the debt, a 727% increase from the $2.9 billion debt at the end of Taft's last budget, FY 1913.

Ronald Reagan: Added $1.86 trillion, a 186 percent increase from the $998 billion debt at the end of Carter's last budget, FY 1981

George W. Bush: added $5.849 trillion, the second-greatest amount, the fourth-largest percentage increase. He increased the debt 101 percent

Barack Obama added $7.917 trillion, a 68 percent increase.


Always remember, there are three types of lies -- Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics.
Click to expand...


Here liberal logic, Reagan increased the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or 1.7 trillion dollars and that is worse than Obama increasing the debt from 10.6 trillion to 19.9 trillion or up 9.3 trillion because the percentage change is higher?

It doesn't matter apparently that we pay debt service on the actual dollar debt or the 9.3 trillion Obama debt. For some reason you and the radical left cannot seem to grasp reality nor can you do actual research. Treasury direct has the debt by fiscal year and Treasury data is the only data that matters. Oh, the mind of a socialist totally ignoring the starting number for both and not able to understand the difference and how percentage change is irrelevant to taxpayer expense
 
Conservative said:
Here liberal logic, Reagan increased the debt from 900 billion to 2.6 trillion or 1.7 trillion dollars and that is worse than Obama increasing the debt from 10.6 trillion to 19.9 trillion or up 9.3 trillion because the percentage change is higher?

It doesn't matter apparently that we pay debt service on the actual dollar debt or the 9.3 trillion Obama debt. For some reason you and the radical left cannot seem to grasp reality nor can you do actual research. Treasury direct has the debt by fiscal year and Treasury data is the only data that matters. Oh, the mind of a socialist totally ignoring the starting number for both and not able to understand the difference and how percentage change is irrelevant to taxpayer expense
Click to expand...

Its moot anyway. Neither Reagan or Obama did anything themselves, and most spending is on autopilot with no one actually approving it. And in the end its the people fault for letting them do it. Until we get beyond the blame game, nothing will change.
 
Conservative said:
Good Lord man your ignorance is staggering, where is the money going to come from to fund those IOU's?
Click to expand...

The SSA shows that SS revenues are CURRENTLY exceeding expenditures.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html

Year /receipts /expenditures/ Net increase/ Asset Reserves at end of year (millions)

2013 /855,021 /822,925 /32,096 /2,764,431
2014 /884,276 /859,230 /25,046 /2,789,476
2015 /920,157 /897,123 /23,034 /2,812,510
2016 /957,453 /922,276 /35,177 /2,847,687

"Asset reserves at end of year" is the balance in the Trust fund, you see it's increasing each year.

Other sources say that SS is only collecting enough revenues to cover about 75% of the benefits being paid out, and the Trust fund will run out in 2035 ...

"As long as people continue to work and pay taxes, Social Security will not run out of money, says Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

The numbers fluctuate depending on tax revenue and Social Security benefits, but the system brings in enough money each year to cover roughly three-quarters of the benefits it pays out. “The Social Security system is the simplest system in the world,” says Munnell, who was previously on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and served as assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy. “Money comes in and money goes out.”

So what’s all the talk of insolvency? That refers to the Social Security Trust, which is a surplus that was built up when taxes collected exceeded benefits paid out. The trust makes up the difference between money coming in via Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes and money paid out. “Once that is gone, the system will only be able to pay the 75% covered by the payroll tax,” she says. “The system is not going to zero. It is going to 75%.”


So depending on which source you believe, either the SS fund is going to be just fine, or in about 20 years it's going to be able to pay for only about 75% of benefits.

For such an unclear outcome 20 years in the future, I think making any major changes to they system in premature. Let's leave the system as/is until 2025-ish, and then start worrying about it. We're not going to be able to predict the employment and economic trends for the mid 2030s this far in advance. Let's wait till we're within a decade of draining the fund and see what the trends are then.
 
Critter7r said:
The SSA shows that SS revenues are CURRENTLY exceeding expenditures.

https://www.ssa.gov/oact/STATS/table4a3.html

Year /receipts /expenditures/ Net increase/ Asset Reserves at end of year (millions)

2013 /855,021 /822,925 /32,096 /2,764,431
2014 /884,276 /859,230 /25,046 /2,789,476
2015 /920,157 /897,123 /23,034 /2,812,510
2016 /957,453 /922,276 /35,177 /2,847,687

"Asset reserves at end of year" is the balance in the Trust fund, you see it's increasing each year.

Other sources say that SS is only collecting enough revenues to cover about 75% of the benefits being paid out, and the Trust fund will run out in 2035 ...

"As long as people continue to work and pay taxes, Social Security will not run out of money, says Alicia H. Munnell, director of the Center for Retirement Research at Boston College.

The numbers fluctuate depending on tax revenue and Social Security benefits, but the system brings in enough money each year to cover roughly three-quarters of the benefits it pays out. “The Social Security system is the simplest system in the world,” says Munnell, who was previously on the President’s Council of Economic Advisers and served as assistant secretary of the Treasury for economic policy. “Money comes in and money goes out.”

So what’s all the talk of insolvency? That refers to the Social Security Trust, which is a surplus that was built up when taxes collected exceeded benefits paid out. The trust makes up the difference between money coming in via Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) taxes and money paid out. “Once that is gone, the system will only be able to pay the 75% covered by the payroll tax,” she says. “The system is not going to zero. It is going to 75%.”


So depending on which source you believe, either the SS fund is going to be just fine, or in about 20 years it's going to be able to pay for only about 75% of benefits.

For such an unclear outcome 20 years in the future, I think making any major changes to they system in premature. Let's leave the system as/is until 2025-ish, and then start worrying about it. We're not going to be able to predict the employment and economic trends for the mid 2030s this far in advance. Let's wait till we're within a decade of draining the fund and see what the trends are then.
Click to expand...

Again, you miss the point which is the purpose of the taxes you pay and why SS and Medicare Contributions through Payroll taxes were used to fund operating expenses of the United States? Then when there is a shortfall the cause is to raise taxes never address the issue of spending
 
Conservative said:
Again, you miss the point which is the purpose of the taxes you pay and why SS and Medicare Contributions through Payroll taxes were used to fund operating expenses of the United States? Then when there is a shortfall the cause is to raise taxes never address the issue of spending
Click to expand...

So enlighten me, instead of continually telling me I don't know anything and then asking me a rhetorical, smarmy question.
 
Critter7r said:
So enlighten me, instead of continually telling me I don't know anything and then asking me a rhetorical, smarmy question.
Click to expand...

The problem is something you don't understand, the UNIFIED BUDGET. Figure out what hat is and get back to me. That will enlighten you
 
Conservative said:
The problem is something you don't understand, the UNIFIED BUDGET. Figure out what hat is and get back to me. That will enlighten you
Click to expand...

'Splain it to me, Sensei. Your understanding is obviously much deeper than anything I could find on Google.
 
Critter7r said:
'Splain it to me, Sensei. Your understanding is obviously much deeper than anything I could find on Google.
Click to expand...

Typical, didn't look very hard


In the United States a unified budget is a federal government budget in which receipts and outlays from federal funds and the Social Security Trust Fund are consolidated. The change to a unified budget resulted in a single measure of the fiscal status of the government, based on the sum of all government activi
Click to expand...
ty.

Unified budget - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_budget
 
chuckiechan said:
Declined to 19 trillion? Who's missing what here?
Click to expand...

Just goes to show how the left always skews data and totally ignores context. There was no 2009 budget from Bush so Obama didn't inherit any budget deficit, he created it when he signed the budget in March 2009. At that time the debt was 11 trillion of which 450 billion was TARP spending most of which was repaid later in 2009 but not credited against the deficit. Obama knew his minions would blame it on Bush as he proceeded to have three more years of trillion dollar deficits. Incredible partisan ignorance on the part of the left
 
Originally Posted by upsideguy

Obama inherited a very large deficit ($1T) due to a deep recession, two wars and tax cuts. The deficits steadily DECLINED during his administration.
Click to expand...

chuckiechan said:
Declined to 19 trillion? Who's missing what here?
Click to expand...

The deficit has never been $19 Trillion. I think I know who is missing what.

Conservative said:
Just goes to show how the left always skews data and totally ignores context. There was no 2009 budget from Bush so Obama didn't inherit any budget deficit, he created it when he signed the budget in March 2009. At that time the debt was 11 trillion of which 450 billion was TARP spending most of which was repaid later in 2009 but not credited against the deficit. Obama knew his minions would blame it on Bush as he proceeded to have three more years of trillion dollar deficits. Incredible partisan ignorance on the part of the left
Click to expand...

"The United States federal budget for fiscal year 2009 began as a spending request submitted by President George W. Bush to the 110th Congress. The final resolution written and submitted by the 110th Congress to be forwarded to the President was approved by the House on June 5, 2008"

"The Bush Administration submitted it to Congress in February 2008, right on schedule, but Congress stated it was dead on arrival ... As a result, it wasn't signed until President Obama took office in 2009. At the end of FY 2008 (September 30, 2008), President Bush and Congress signed a Continuing Resolution to fund the government for another six months."

It's OBVIOUSLY Obama's fault that Bush and Congress couldn't agree on the budget that was proposed prior even to Obama's election. :roll:
 
Conservative said:
Typical, didn't look very hard

Unified budget - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unified_budget
Click to expand...

Well, see ... I already was aware of that. I thought maybe you had some insight. That you can't just agree to disagree whether SS is simply an additional income tax (albeit one that is REgressive rather than PROgressive) shows that your mentality is "my way or my way".

The only difference in the collection of FICA if it weren't separated out from income tax is that there wouldn't be a cap on the amount of income it is collected against. Whether it's defined as Income tax or FICA, I'm still paying it to the government, and it's still not being held for me for when I retire. It IS funding the CURRENT retirees whether you like it or not.
 
Critter7r said:
Well, see ... I already was aware of that. I thought maybe you had some insight. That you can't just agree to disagree whether SS is simply an additional income tax (albeit one that is REgressive rather than PROgressive) shows that your mentality is "my way or my way".

The only difference in the collection of FICA if it weren't separated out from income tax is that there wouldn't be a cap on the amount of income it is collected against. Whether it's defined as Income tax or FICA, I'm still paying it to the government, and it's still not being held for me for when I retire. It IS funding the CURRENT retirees whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

The return you are going to get on your forced contribution is disgusting and again taxes all going into the same pot doesn't seem to resonate with you. That big pot of money being spent on everything other than the intent certainly don't bother you but do bother me
 
Conservative said:
The return you are going to get on your forced contribution is disgusting and again taxes all going into the same pot doesn't seem to resonate with you. That big pot of money being spent on everything other than the intent certainly don't bother you but do bother me
Click to expand...

But it's not as if it's a contribution to anything any more than paying taxes is a "contribution". It isn't a retirement for you personally. It's a tax that gets paid out to current retirees. You may disagree with whether or not it was intended to be that way because of the word-smithing and the way it was sold to the public initially, but that's just semantics. From day 1, surplus revenues collected for SS via FICA were required by law to be invested in Treasuries. Money loaned to the government via the purchase of Treasuries is just revenue that can be used however Congress sees fit. And SS is just a welfare program with different qualifying criteria.
 
Critter7r said:
But it's not as if it's a contribution to anything any more than paying taxes is a "contribution". It isn't a retirement for you personally. It's a tax that gets paid out to current retirees. You may disagree with whether or not it was intended to be that way because of the word-smithing and the way it was sold to the public initially, but that's just semantics. From day 1, surplus revenues collected for SS via FICA were required by law to be invested in Treasuries. Money loaned to the government via the purchase of Treasuries is just revenue that can be used however Congress sees fit. And SS is just a welfare program with different qualifying criteria.
Click to expand...

Got it, all taxes are the same and it is irrelevant what those taxes were established for?? The left loves people like you
 
upsideguy said:
Obama inherited a very large deficit ($1T) due to a deep recession, two wars and tax cuts. The deficits steadily DECLINED during his administration.
chuckiechan said:
Declined to 19 trillion? Who's missing what here?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Deficit is different than the debt. Deficits can fall and the debt still rises.
 
chuckiechan said:
Declined to 19 trillion? Who's missing what here?
Click to expand...
You seem to not understand basic economics....

Defict/surplus is the difference between income and costs/out going/spending.

Debt is money owed...

The 19 trillion.. now 21 is money owed to mostly banks/institutions and the public.. plus a minority to foreign goverments. Japan, China and Saudi Arabia being the biggest holders.

1 trillion in deficit is the Trump administration spending 1 trillion more than it gets in, in taxes and to cover that they need to borrow or print money. That trillion will be added to the 21 trillion at the end of the year.

Sendt fra min SM-N9005 med Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom