Our Looming Budget Disaster

[dogtowner]

Not yet, but soon:



Those treasury bonds will start being cashed in in two more years, then, and then the self described "conservatives" will holler, wail, and moan about the terrible expense and want to cut back or end SS, probably while continuing the payroll tax that pays for it.


link

Might want to re read this. That interest being referred to is money out of the general fund. All they do i s roll over the tbills and pay interest which is why the true debt is hundreds of trillions.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

Might want to re read this. That interest being referred to is money out of the general fund. All they do i s roll over the tbills and pay interest which is why the true debt is hundreds of trillions.

"Hundreds of trillions"? Must be those damn poor people. Can't be the wealthy who just keep getting bennies from the Repugnants.

Then too, Mother Russia, with all of its financial problems, seems to be able to buy American debt in spite of sanctions imposed by the Congress, however, Trump won't enforce them:

http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/17/investing/russia-us-debt/index.html

 

[PLC1]

Might want to re read this. That interest being referred to is money out of the general fund. All they do i s roll over the tbills and pay interest which is why the true debt is hundreds of trillions.

Sure, if I buy T bills, I'd expect them to earn some interest. How that adds up to hundreds of trillions I have no idea.

 

[dogtowner]

Sure, if I buy T bills, I'd expect them to earn some interest. How that adds up to hundreds of trillions I have no idea.

Beaver paid any IOUs to begin with, just interest on rolled over debt.

 

[BigRob]

Why do you keep on placing social security as influencing the budget deficit, when it is self-sustaining. . .at least prior to the government stealing the reserves to balance the federal budget!

I quoted the CBO data - which says unequivocally that mandatory spending (which the bulk of is the big three lines items I mentioned) is going to consume roughly 80% of all federal spending by 2040. When you include interest on existing debt there is almost no discretionary budget left that will not be fueled entirely by new debt.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

I quoted the CBO data - which says unequivocally that mandatory spending (which the bulk of is the big three lines items I mentioned) is going to consume roughly 80% of all federal spending by 2040. When you include interest on existing debt there is almost no discretionary budget left that will not be fueled entirely by new debt.

So, lets not tax the wealthy, lets give them more of the countries wealth.

 

[PLC1]

Beaver paid any IOUs to begin with, just interest on rolled over debt.

I don't understand that one at all. What do beavers have to do with anything? Your avatar is a sea cow, is it not?

 

[dogtowner]

I don't understand that one at all. What do beavers have to do with anything? Your avatar is a sea cow, is it not?

Spell check is not my friend... never wa the intent.
Yes, a west indian manatee as they are also known. Relative of the elephant and a pachyderms. I love my pachyderms.

 

[BigRob]

So, lets not tax the wealthy, lets give them more of the countries wealth.

In reality, the only "wealth" a government has is what it has taxed away from individuals. That aside, mathematically speaking, you can "tax the wealthy" and that does not even begin to solve the bigger issue at hand here. Several estimates out there (based on CBO numbers) show a needed tax rate of over 100% just to balance the budget within the decade - which of course is laughable since no one is effectively going to pay to work over a certain income level.

 

[dogtowner]

In reality, the only "wealth" a government has is what it has taxed away from individuals. That aside, mathematically speaking, you can "tax the wealthy" and that does not even begin to solve the bigger issue at hand here. Several estimates out there (based on CBO numbers) show a needed tax rate of over 100% just to balance the budget within the decade - which of course is laughable since no one is effectively going to pay to work over a certain income level.

And we are out of games to play to hide the issue.
Keep an eye on whatever sort of retirement you have. It's been getting talked about for some time. You may find it's been replaced with an iou.

 

[Openmind]

I quoted the CBO data - which says unequivocally that mandatory spending (which the bulk of is the big three lines items I mentioned) is going to consume roughly 80% of all federal spending by 2040. When you include interest on existing debt there is almost no discretionary budget left that will not be fueled entirely by new debt.

Then why spend more on the tax breaks to the wealthy? And on increased military spending?

Because it feeds the wealthy!

The social security benefits do NOT add to the deficit, anyway you want to look at it! It is not funded by the government, but self-funded. The fact that the social security reserve was placed in T-bonds to pay for other items in the federal budget (and to pay for interests on deficit) is a big sham.

 

[Openmind]

In reality, the only "wealth" a government has is what it has taxed away from individuals. That aside, mathematically speaking, you can "tax the wealthy" and that does not even begin to solve the bigger issue at hand here. Several estimates out there (based on CBO numbers) show a needed tax rate of over 100% just to balance the budget within the decade - which of course is laughable since no one is effectively going to pay to work over a certain income level.

Let's just go back to the pre-Reagan years, when the very wealthy were taxed up to 90%. The economy STILL worked. . .But obviously, the very wealthy (the top 0.1%) doesn't work anyway!
And, let's count on balancing the budget over a 20 years period.

 

[dogtowner]

Let's just go back to the pre-Reagan years, when the very wealthy were taxed up to 90%. The economy STILL worked. . .But obviously, the very wealthy (the top 0.1%) doesn't work anyway!
And, let's count on balancing the budget over a 20 years period.

The wealthy never paid 90% because there were a great many loopholes. A fact constantly ignored by the left.

 

[dogtowner]

Then why spend more on the tax breaks to the wealthy? And on increased military spending?

Because it feeds the wealthy!

The social security benefits do NOT add to the deficit, anyway you want to look at it! It is not funded by the government, but self-funded. The fact that the social security reserve was placed in T-bonds to pay for other items in the federal budget (and to pay for interests on deficit) is a big sham.

No, it's not. You re an economist, you have the numbers from the government. Do the math.

 

[Old_Trapper70]

In reality, the only "wealth" a government has is what it has taxed away from individuals. That aside, mathematically speaking, you can "tax the wealthy" and that does not even begin to solve the bigger issue at hand here. Several estimates out there (based on CBO numbers) show a needed tax rate of over 100% just to balance the budget within the decade - which of course is laughable since no one is effectively going to pay to work over a certain income level.

Of course that is the excuse now. However, the tax on the wealthy has been lowered ever since Kennedy, and if you think that has not contributed to the debt then you are dumber then Dog is. Now they want to take from the poor so they can give more to the wealthy never grasping the truth that as long as you take from the poor the country will never grow again. Income inequality was hated by the Founders, was hated by Jesus Christ, and should be hated by anyone with common sense, or a sense of morality.

And the right wing will not be happy until the poor in this country have the same standard of living as those who live in the huts of Africa:

http://dailysignal.com/2014/09/15/9-facts-poor-america-live/