Published: Wednesday, Aug. 21 2013 3:20 p.m. MDT
Let's see, aren't unfunded liabilities offset by uncollected revenues?
The Medicare and Social Security payments of the future can't be added to
the debt unless you also include the taxes we will collect in the same years.
Another "sky is falling" view of reality.
Barack added more to the national debt in his first term than all other
Remember when barack said he'd cut the deficit in half during his first
term?He increased it.
As I've been saying for at least a decade, Social Security, Medi-care/caid
are all part of the biggest Ponzi scam ever. Though there was **supposed** to
be some sort of fund into which all the dedicated contributions toward these
programs were **supposed** to be held, the fact is they have all been pilfered
by, who else, **the Federal government**, for many years!This
charade is only thinly obscured by the funny money policies concocted by the
Treasury and Federal Reserve, but only because of an electorate that is
grotesquely corrupt and/or inexcusably negligent.No matter which one
of these numbers are the most accurate, they all spell economic disaster.Dishonesty will ALWAYS be rewarded, ultimately, with unpleasant justice.
"we have to much debt!" But don't think we're going to pay it
because that would mean raising taxes or giving up unlimited warfare.Kent C. DeForrest was absolutely correct, conservatives love to look 50 years
into the future with liabilities but never consider 50 years of revenues.
@ Kent C. Deforrest and redshirt007. Here is some information for you; NEW YORK
(CNNMoney.com) "For the first time in nearly 30 years, the system will pay
out more benefits than it receives in payroll taxes both this year and next, the
government officials who oversee Social Security said on Thursday".
No charge for this view of actual reality for you! Have a nice day!
Stop the presses. A few conservatives think debt isn't just bad, it's
badder than we thought.
I'm pretty sure Kotlikoff's projections included future tax revenues,
or didn't you read that far?
Christopher B: "Barack added more to the national debt in his first term
than all other presidents combined."More fantasy from
conservatives. How about some historical reality instead, ok?During the presidency of George W. Bush, the gross public debt increased
from $5.7 trillion to $10.7 trillion, an increase of 88%. By
February 2012, in the aftermath of the worst recession since the Great
Depression, tax cuts and at least $3 trillion spent on the Iraq and Afghanistan
wars, public debt had increased to $15.5 trillion, an increase of 45%.So in terms of which president has increased the debt the most dramatically,
that distinction belongs to Dubya.Btw, you are aware that deficits
are now _falling_, right?
And over the years we, the People, just kept electing them over and over and
over. We have nobody to blame but ourselves because we have failed to do our
duty.We fail at civics, we fail at economics , we fail in politics.
The exploding national debt is proof Americans have discovered they can vote
themselves entitlements out of the treasury! That's why Obama is the
President and why entitlement spending has more than doubled since he took
office! But hey, who cares about the debt, we can pass it on to our
To all those who laud the ever increasing deficit spending, there is only one
place this can lead. The bubble burst called Bankruptcy.Don't
you care at all about the next generation? I guess not. As long as you get
Their going to need a MUCH bigger sign than the one in the picture for sure.To me the issue isn't just the size of the number we put on the
sign. That number is huge. More money than the average American can even
quantify in any visible or understandable way. If they tried to... it would
shock them.But the size of the number isn't what bothers me.
It's that we are getting close to the day when even if we applying 100% of
our taxes only to paying the debt... it will not even pay the interest. Even
if we dedicate everything we collect to the debt, the debt will continue to
increase.That's bad. That's like a father realizing even
if you pay 100% of what you earn to your debts... you can't even pay the
INTEREST on your loans (much less pay off any principle). That's when a
family realizes its too late, keeping up is only an illusion, and bankruptcy is
the only eventual possible outcome.I hope we do something different
BEFORE we get to that point of no return.
RE: blue Actually the final number on the obama first term debt
is 16.4 T. not 15.7, and that is about a 53% increase in debt during the obama
regime. He is on pace to crack 20T. for national debt, by the end of his 2
terms, and that puts him right in the same league as Bush, as far as debt
numbers go. Since you usually like looking at half the picture, let me
give that a try also. In Bush's first term as president (4 years) he
increased the debt by 31%. That's a number Bill Clinton would be jealous
of, and very impressive given he had to deal with 9/11 and the start of the war
on terror. Of course this is all a bit of a joke, since Presidents don't
create the budget all by themselves. However, it is interesting to see what has
happened to our debt, since the democrats took over congress in 2006!
Let me inject some numbers into this exercise.In the last year in
which President Bush presided over the budget, Oct 2008 - Sept 2009 (remember,
Obama took office in Jan 2009, but had no real control over the budget for the
remainder of this period), the deficit was $878.7 billion. In the last full
year of his presidency that I can find tabulated (Oct 2011 - Sept 2012), the
deficit was $555.7 billion. OK, he didn't cut it in half - but he did
reduce the deficit (which is different from the debt, remember?) by 36.8%. Most
of this is due to the painfully slow recovery from the financial meltdown of
2008, and if we ever manage to get the economy moving at its full capacity the
problem of deficit spending will largely cure itself. In the meantime, we
should be borrowing more and spending on real, productive infrastructure needs,
where we generate real value for the money we spend while simultaneously putting
people to work. Sadly, that will not happen with the likes of Mike Lee in
So what.The national debt has never had any effect on the actions of
politicians or our government.The only value to be assigned to the
national debt is to give the out-of-power political party an imaginary weapon to
scare the public.
To illustrate the point about how people misuse statistics, consider the
following.Yesterday Fox News criticized welfare by a study that
showed that welfare recipients received more money per hour in cash and benefits
than the hourly rate of working people. The classic fallacy of apples and
oranges is the comparison of the non cash benefits to the hourly rate of
starting employees. Fox didn’t give us any clue about the
amount of cash versus the value that they had assigned to the benefits. People who are working hard to tear down our government are not
Ultra Bob,RE: "The national debt has never had any effect on the
actions of politicians or our government"The debt may not have
any effect on the actions of our politicians, but I hope it has some effect on
how we vote. I would HOPE the people paying the bill would care, and not
re-elect people who keep kicking the can down the road to a future
generation.If the debt doesn't effect current politicians...
vote in some who will do something about it (and that doesn't necessarily
mean Republicans, they have proven just as bad on debt).
@ MM"@ Kent C. Deforrest and redshirt007. Here is some
information for you; NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) "For the first time in nearly
30 years, the system will pay out more benefits than it receives in payroll
taxes both this year and next, the government officials who oversee Social
Security said on Thursday"."Of course SS will pay more in
benefits than it received in payroll taxes. The payroll taxes were cut
temporarily for 2 years. That won't be the case now that the payroll taxes
are now set and the tax cut expired (something that many conservatives were all
upset about too). You cannot have it both ways. Complain when they are increased
(because cuts were let to expire) and then complain when revenue is down
(because of the tax cut).
@ freedomFighter. If you will do some fact checking you will see that those tax
cuts expired at the end of 2010.
DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.— About comments