• 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!

What are unfunded liabilities and how do they threaten the future of American fiscal stability?

Checkerboard Strangler said:
Not to mention we already DO pay the cost of all those uninsured people every time they are forced to use the Emergency Room instead of going to the doctor, and we are paying five times the normal cost because ER care is more expensive.
The EMTALA, passed in 1986, mandates that all ER's treat all comers regardless of ability to pay.
So we DO pay, we pay more than we should, and we're doling out less treatment, because an ER can only stabilize someone, not treat illnesses.
Click to expand...

We do already pay the health costs of the poor and illegal, which highlights the democrat lie that poor people with no insurance will die if the government does not step up and provide them universal free healthcare coverage.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
OK. So explain where money comes from. In detail.
Click to expand...

Wealth is created by labor when individuals create things of value by their own work and effort. The government prints money which is the medium through which goods and services are traded, but the government does not create wealth and the government cannot raise the wealth of a nation by printing unlimited supplies of currency. Excessive printing of money dilutes the value of that money and does nothing to increase the real wealth of a nation.
 
MTAtech said:
I know this is supposed to sound scary -- say it in your best Dr. Evil voice: $210 TRILLION DOLLARS! So, over 75 years, the total liability is $210T. What's the designated contributions over that time?
Click to expand...

Contributions have been lagging in the past and will be lagging too far behind the budgeted expense in the foreseeable future. That is why the US government debt is increasing each year. The US total reported debt has more than doubled since 2009, and continues to rise alarmingly. Whatever the shortfall amounts to there will not be enough tax money taken in contributions to Social Security to cover the amount the government will be required to pay out over the next several decades.
 
Drawdown said:
The same projections would have us somewhere around $70T in annual GDP in 75 years. Medicare and Social Security cannot legally become insolvent anyway. Any shortfalls would have to be made up through those programs under current law. You cannot reallocate money from say defense into them. The retirement age may have to be raised; FICA may have to be adjusted; they may have to become means tested. Whatever it is that has to be done, has to be done from inside the medicare and social security system, not the general budget.
Click to expand...

Drastic steps will have to be taken to save the American economy. Cuts in spending, closing of government departments, laying off workers, selling off government properties, raising taxes, cutting benefits, and who knows what else.
 
MTAtech said:
SSA doesn't threaten. There is an annual report on the state of the system. Ten years ago, it was supposed to start dipping into the trust fund by 2018. It didn't. In any case, adjustments can always be made -- with changing the tax-rate or income subject to the tax. Let's be clear of the ultimate agenda -- those that never liked Social Security because it is a popular and successful program that undercuts conservative beliefs that the government can never do good, always invent dire warnings about the solvency of the system.
Click to expand...

The truth is that government expenditures are exceeding its income and that will result in damage to government agencies, programs, and expenses in the future. Those who don't want to recognize the truth simply pretend it is a lie.
 
marke said:
The truth is that government expenditures are exceeding its income and that will result in damage to government agencies, programs, and expenses in the future. Those who don't want to recognize the truth simply pretend it is a lie.
Click to expand...

Like yeah, your side keeps cutting taxes and then complains there isn’t enough money.
 
marke said:
Drastic steps will have to be taken to save the American economy. Cuts in spending, closing of government departments, laying off workers, selling off government properties, raising taxes, cutting benefits, and who knows what else.
Click to expand...
Your are referring to the second step in the conservative plan called “starve the beast.” First, deprive the government of revenue. Then, use the excuse of lower revenue to cut programs that right wingers never liked.

Yes, the conservative wet dream. Why not just return to the tax rates we had in the 1970s that provided all the revenue we needed?
 
marke said:
Wealth is created by labor when individuals create things of value by their own work and effort. The government prints money which is the medium through which goods and services are traded, but the government does not create wealth and the government cannot raise the wealth of a nation by printing unlimited supplies of currency. Excessive printing of money dilutes the value of that money and does nothing to increase the real wealth of a nation.
Click to expand...


How did JP Morgan become wealthy then? He sure as hell wasn't in a mine digging coal and saving his pennies.
 
Vadinho said:
When a child is born, it has a lifetime of unfunded liabilities. As has been stated countless times to these types of posts, a government that issues its own currency and has debts in the currency it alone can issue can never, ever run out of money or stop paying its liabilities.
Click to expand...

There is truth to what you wrote.

For example, in California, government agencies like cities, who can't tax in a manner to cover their unfunded liabilities (akin to issuing it's own currency), have filed for bankruptcy while cutting and eliminating emergency services and other vital public necessities.

And that is why at the State level, California has become home to the highest taxes and fees in the Nation.

An oldie but a goodie: David Crane: California's Pension Fiasco and the Great Nondisclosure of 1999 - WSJ
 
marke said:
Drastic steps will have to be taken to save the American economy. Cuts in spending, closing of government departments, laying off workers, selling off government properties, raising taxes, cutting benefits, and who knows what else.
Click to expand...

Over 75 years none of that would necessarily have to be drastic. Not that it will happen, but medicare for all would create room to soak in more cash. I think one of the problems we are seeing is that as more and more income is non-payroll income, we don't have a way for FICA to capture a growing part of the economy.
 
MTAtech said:
Like yeah, your side keeps cutting taxes and then complains there isn’t enough money.
Click to expand...
If taxes are raised too high the economy slows down. Congress has a fine balance to work out. New democrat plans to blow the lid off the debt with trillions in new spending are not wise.
 
MTAtech said:
Your are referring to the second step in the conservative plan called “starve the beast.” First, deprive the government of revenue. Then, use the excuse of lower revenue to cut programs that right wingers never liked.

Yes, the conservative wet dream. Why not just return to the tax rates we had in the 1970s that provided all the revenue we needed?
Click to expand...

High taxes under Carter turned him into a one term guy because the economy slowed down so much. But even with the high tax rates the US debt kept rising. Politicians need to stop spending so much.
 
Vadinho said:
How did JP Morgan become wealthy then? He sure as hell wasn't in a mine digging coal and saving his pennies.
Click to expand...

He provided a service and traded on it. He did not print his own money. He had to work for it just like others.
 
marke said:
If taxes are raised too high the economy slows down. Congress has a fine balance to work out. New democrat plans to blow the lid off the debt with trillions in new spending are not wise.
Click to expand...
I'll just quote Warren Buffett on this:

To understand why, you need to examine the sources of government revenue. Last year about 80 percent of these revenues came from personal income taxes and payroll taxes. The mega-rich pay income taxes at a rate of 15 percent on most of their earnings but pay practically nothing in payroll taxes. It’s a different story for the middle class: typically, they fall into the 15 percent and 25 percent income tax brackets, and then are hit with heavy payroll taxes to boot.

Back in the 1980s and 1990s, tax rates for the rich were far higher, and my percentage rate was in the middle of the pack. According to a theory I sometimes hear, I should have thrown a fit and refused to invest because of the elevated tax rates on capital gains and dividends.

I didn’t refuse, nor did others. I have worked with investors for 60 years and I have yet to see anyone — not even when capital gains rates were 39.9 percent in 1976-77 — shy away from a sensible investment because of the tax rate on the potential gain. People invest to make money, and potential taxes have never scared them off. And to those who argue that higher rates hurt job creation, I would note that a net of nearly 40 million jobs were added between 1980 and 2000. You know what’s happened since then: lower tax rates and far lower job creation.
Click to expand...
 
marke said:
High taxes under Carter turned him into a one term guy because the economy slowed down so much. But even with the high tax rates the US debt kept rising. Politicians need to stop spending so much.
Click to expand...

From the graph below, economic growth was doing fine (e.g. better than under Trump) until 1979. What happened in 1979? Did taxes go up? No. Taxes on high income was still the same 70% on earnings and a 60/40% long term/short term capital gains rate. What did happen was the Iran oil crisis, which had nothing to do with taxes, that caused the Fed to tighten interest rates (graph 2), starving the economy.

fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png


Just to drive home the point, below is economic growth from 1975 to 1980. Those high taxes that you said hurt economic growth was all during that period. Yet, the economy has 3, 4, 5, and 6% GDP growth. One quarter was 16%. You know, that's the kind of growth conservatives promised would happen if Trump got his 2017 tax-cut but never materialized.

fredgraph.png
 
marke said:
We do already pay the health costs of the poor and illegal, which highlights the democrat lie that poor people with no insurance will die if the government does not step up and provide them universal free healthcare coverage.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong. An ER does not provide treatment, they only stabilize the patient.
If you need cancer therapy or treatment, you're out of luck. If you have diabetes, they will inject generic insulin until you are stable, end of story, and your diabetes will remain untreated long term. If you come in with a virus, they will stabilize you, period. You will not get treated.

EMTALA was passed precisely BECAUSE people were dying in front of hospitals.
Now they die when they get sent home instead.
You live in a world where facts can't get past your bubble. There is no "democrat lie" because this is not political.
It's real life.
 
Bullseye said:
Wow, you sure are impressed with yourself. Impressive self-imagine based on miniscule attributes.
Click to expand...

No, I'm just sick of "debating" with people who don't bother to educate themselves on the subject enough to make a useful contribution. Your team seldom comes up with a cogent argument, but there are no shortage of posts.
 
marke said:
States, like California, are deeply in debt and asking the US government to foot the bill for their debts, one of which is the rising unsustainable cost of caring for illegal immigrants.
Click to expand...

States can't create money. The Feds can.
 
marke said:
Wealth is created by labor when individuals create things of value by their own work and effort. The government prints money which is the medium through which goods and services are traded, but the government does not create wealth and the government cannot raise the wealth of a nation by printing unlimited supplies of currency. Excessive printing of money dilutes the value of that money and does nothing to increase the real wealth of a nation.
Click to expand...

Not even close. I asked about money, for good reason. Nobody "creates wealth" without using money.

Most money doesn't come from the government.

Tell me all about the wealth you have created over the years that doesn't involve money.
 
marke said:
The truth is that government expenditures are exceeding its income and that will result in damage to government agencies, programs, and expenses in the future. Those who don't want to recognize the truth simply pretend it is a lie.
Click to expand...

What about those (you) who can't explain why they believe what they believe? If what you say is the "truth," then you should have no trouble explaining why that is so.

So tell us, why has the US continued to operate, and grow, while constantly increasing the national debt?
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
No, I'm just sick of "debating" with people who don't bother to educate themselves on the subject enough to make a useful contribution. Your team seldom comes up with a cogent argument, but there are no shortage of posts.
Click to expand...
That's amazing when every single post of yours is so fact-filled, concise and educational. :no:
 
MTAtech said:
I'll just quote Warren Buffett on this:
Click to expand...

Warren does not explain how raising or lowering tax rates affected the energy of the economy, which is a key factor politicians must consider when setting tax policies. Nevertheless, the US debt cannot be paid through tax hikes and I believe most politicians know that also. If not for trying to buy votes I believe no knowledgeable politician would ever promise to spend more and more money on questionable projects which are surely to make the indebtedness of the US much worse.
 
MTAtech said:
From the graph below, economic growth was doing fine (e.g. better than under Trump) until 1979. What happened in 1979? Did taxes go up? No. Taxes on high income was still the same 70% on earnings and a 60/40% long term/short term capital gains rate. What did happen was the Iran oil crisis, which had nothing to do with taxes, that caused the Fed to tighten interest rates (graph 2), starving the economy.

fredgraph.png


fredgraph.png


Just to drive home the point, below is economic growth from 1975 to 1980. Those high taxes that you said hurt economic growth was all during that period. Yet, the economy has 3, 4, 5, and 6% GDP growth. One quarter was 16%. You know, that's the kind of growth conservatives promised would happen if Trump got his 2017 tax-cut but never materialized.

fredgraph.png
Click to expand...


Leftists claim the economy boomed under Carter, and they claim the economy boomed under Obama. They are talking about select economic indexes, not the whole picture. Here is more of the picture of Carter's presidency:

On assuming office in 1977, president Carter inherited an economy that was slowly emerging from a recession. He had severely criticized former President Ford for his failures to control inflation and relieve unemployment, but after 4 years of the Carter presidency, both inflation and unemployment were considerably worse than at the time of his inauguration.

The annual inflation rate rose from 4.8% in 1976 to 6.8% in 1977, 9% in 1978, 11% in 1979, and hovered around 12% at the time of the 1980 campaign.Jimmy Carter on Budget & Economy

People are right to point out that the oil crisis had a very bad effect on the US economy, but that serves to highlight the fact that Obama must have learned nothing from US history from that time because he steadfastly refused to allow America to drill for energy independence during the entire 8 years of his presidency.
 
JohnfrmClevelan said:
Not even close. I asked about money, for good reason. Nobody "creates wealth" without using money.

Most money doesn't come from the government.

Tell me all about the wealth you have created over the years that doesn't involve money.
Click to expand...

Money is the medium of exchange that people use to translate their labor into cash. People create wealth by labor and the values of those labors are transferred into cash for exchange with others.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom