How the hell are we going to pay for this?

[Sgt Staples]

We hear all about the $16 Trillion dollars in debt that our country is in, but the much larger problem and the one that our politicians and citizens do not want to talk about honestly is the $80 Trillion Dollars in Unfunded Liabilities at the federal level.

We have those in congress such as Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer who will not even let this be discussed in all the negotiations that we currently hear about going on with the debt crisis that this government created.


We hear so much about raising the taxes on the upper percent, but what so many fail to understand is that we are obligated to around $7 Trillion dollars a year on average just to cover our obligations from pensions to Medicare and Social Security and that is just going up as the baby boomer generation hits full stride in retiring.

It will not happen today because no one in politics has the guts to do so because they are all too worried about getting reelected, but at some point economics catches up to politics and we are on the verge of crossing the Rubicon now and in the near future.

Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2012/12/16-trillion-in-debt-but-80-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/#ixzz2DpG1B9ht

 

[ITALIA]

Yes Sarg, we know. The sky is falling.

 

[jammer]

First, we get the republicons to pay for the two wars they started and then we get them to pay for the tax breaks they gave their millionaire cronies, that would be a good start. Take your rightwinger nutjob rag "The Minute Men News" and wipe your ass with it, that's all it's good for.

 

[OldGaffer]

 

[Sgt Staples]

First, we get the republicons to pay for the two wars they started and then we get them to pay for the tax breaks they gave their millionaire cronies, that would be a good start. Take your rightwinger nutjob rag "The Minute Men News" and wipe your ass with it, that's all it's good for.

Well, Let's evaluate your comment......Ummmm......Fact: Millionaires paid the same tax rates in 2006 as they do now, and we had two wars going on in 2006 and the deficit was less than 200 billion.

Now, under your Messiah, the Deficit is about 1.2 trillion. So, once again, Liberal BS has proven to be false. (And really, it's so easy to do. because that's all Libealism is...BEEE ESSS.

 

[OldGaffer]

Bill Gates said he is OK with his tax rate going up 4%, its just water carriers of the 2% that are crying over their betters getting their taxes raised a bit.

 

[middleview]

Hmmm, were we in a recession in 2006? It was starting, but not impacting federal revenue yet.
At the time Bush was carrying the costs of the war off the books, so the real deficit was actually higher.
Did we have the impact of increased unemployment and food stamps because of the Bush recession? Not yet.
Had we felt the impact of the Medicare Part D legislation yet? Nope...January 1st, 2006.

 

[Bo-4]

Thanks for the MinutemanNews link Sarge.. their other top headlines are worthy of The Onion! :lol:


The Obamas Make Do with 54 Christmas Trees
3rd December 2012 / 0 Comments


Gun Control In Action: 3 Killed by a Knife-Wielding Attacker on a ‘Gun-Free’ Campus
3rd December 2012 / 0 Comments


Senate to Vote on Latest United Nations ‘Power Grab’
3rd December 2012 / 0 Comments


CIA: Calls, Texts, Chats; Nothing is Private Under the False Flag of Terrorism
3rd December 2012 / 0 Comments


FEMA Trailers Sit Idle While Sandy-Ravaged Communities Deal with Lack of Housing
3rd December 2012 / 0 Comments


SHOCK! Nevada Judge Defends Traditional Marriage
3rd December 2012 / 0 Comments


Obama Might Reclassify Semiautomatic Firearms – Second Amendment Alert!
3rd December 2012 / 0 Comments


Hillary Clinton Displays Ignorance and Insults Israel
3rd December 2012 / 0 Comments


Obama’s Deficit Lies Exposed in Three Easy to Read Charts
3rd December 2012 / 0 Comments


Only in a Liberal World is Charitable Giving a ‘Bad Thing’
3rd December 2012 / 0 Comments

 

[degsme]

We hear all about the $16 Trillion dollars in debt that our country is in, but the much larger problem and the one that our politicians and citizens do not want to talk about honestly is the $80 Trillion Dollars in Unfunded Liabilities at the federal level.

Because there is no such thing. Its an accounting gobbledygook. They are "unfunded" because they are liabilities in the future for which future taxes will need to be collected.

We hear so much about raising the taxes on the upper percent, but what so many fail to understand is that we are obligated to around $7 Trillion dollars a year on average just to cover our obligations from pensions to Medicare and Social Security and that is just going up as the baby boomer generation hits full stride in retiring.

And what is the expected size of the GDP at the time this $7 Trillion annual liability occurs? and for how long does that $7 Tri liability last?

MinuteMen News???

Please.

 

[Old Ridge Runner]

We hear all about the $16 Trillion dollars in debt that our country is in, but the much larger problem and the one that our politicians and citizens do not want to talk about honestly is the $80 Trillion Dollars in Unfunded Liabilities at the federal level.

We have those in congress such as Dick Durbin and Chuck Schumer who will not even let this be discussed in all the negotiations that we currently hear about going on with the debt crisis that this government created.


We hear so much about raising the taxes on the upper percent, but what so many fail to understand is that we are obligated to around $7 Trillion dollars a year on average just to cover our obligations from pensions to Medicare and Social Security and that is just going up as the baby boomer generation hits full stride in retiring.

It will not happen today because no one in politics has the guts to do so because they are all too worried about getting reelected, but at some point economics catches up to politics and we are on the verge of crossing the Rubicon now and in the near future.

Read more: http://MinuteMenNews.com/2012/12/16-trillion-in-debt-but-80-trillion-in-unfunded-liabilities/#ixzz2DpG1B9ht

we's gonna pay fo it wif Obama bucks.

ORR

 

[degsme]

we's gonna pay fo it wif Obama bucks.

ORR

Why do we need to do anything special? in 1943 we paid down half of a 120% Debt/GDP ratio in 6 years WITHOUT ANY MAJOR SPENDING CUTS EXCEPT IN DEFENSE.

 

[Woolleybugger]

I think you missed the unfunded mandates for the years 2080 through 3000 AD. That number boggles the mind Sarge.

 

[degsme]

I think you missed the unfunded mandates for the years 2080 through 3000 AD. That number boggles the mind Sarge.

And the $250 Trillion in tax cuts the GOP proposes even though we only have a $16 Trillion GDP.

 

[trapdoor]

View attachment 4467

What was the economic growth rate when that level of taxation was imposed? Was it maybe a lot higher than it is today?

Attributing the successes of the 1950s and 1960s to the higher tax rates paid in the 1950s and 1960s is like saying the rooster's crow causes the sun to rise. Any good student of history will be quick to point out that when JFK was elected, and the economy was starting to slow somewhat, the first thing he did was propose to lower taxes to get the economy moving.

Also, during the period you describe there were almost no entitlement programs. Until the mid 1960s, there was only social security and whatever the then-current name for Aid to Families with Dependent Children amounted to (and some of that was no-cash, via commodity distribution). There was no Medicare or Medicaid. There was a much more limited Social Security disabilities program (and it didn't apply to such "disabilities" as sexual dysfunction or alcoholism). So what we had was a strong economy, with comparatively high taxation, that allowed us to spend on governmental luxuries from the outrageous expenditures on NASA and the Vietnam War, to the onset of Medicare and Medicaid, to a host of economically questionable regulatory programs. None of this is surprising, when you're rich, whether you're a country or an individual, you have money to spend -- but that is predicated on you remaining rich.

Today we don't have a strong economy. We have a damaged economy, that if it is not driven back into recession, may recover. No, I don't think a 1 or 2 percent tax increase will cause economic recession, particularly when it is confined to only about 2 percent of the population. It isn't going to work miracles, either -- it doesn't generate the funding to pay for the $1.1 trillion needed over the next decade to cover the costs of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, just for example.

 

[trapdoor]

Why do we need to do anything special? in 1943 we paid down half of a 120% Debt/GDP ratio in 6 years WITHOUT ANY MAJOR SPENDING CUTS EXCEPT IN DEFENSE.

Degs, 1943 is 12 months, so in 1943, we couldn't have done something "in six years." What you're saying is "if you start counting in 1943, we paid off half of a 120 percent debt-GDP ratio in six years (by 1949).

And that ignores the strong post-war growth rate, the expenditure of the literal billions that Soldiers had been saving during their WWII service, the fact that there were almost none of the entitlement programs that exist today, and the taxation was set at a rate that is politically impossible today.

It also ignores that we were a lender nation, owed literal billions from Lend-Lease and other wartime aid to allies. Your statement, in effect, ignores the simple historic and economic differences between then and now. Then we had strong growth and the prospect of additional growth, and the only reason for our excessive debt was a one-time expenditure on an essential war. Today we have weak growth and the prospect of additional weak growth, and 20 percent of our debt is structural payment for ongoing entitlement programs.

 

[Woolleybugger]

Taking those cuts into the year 5060 makes your number a bit low, my calculations based upon a number I pulled out of my ass yesterday while reading the funnies is that our total unfunded mandates through 5060 approaches 780 zillion with tax cuts adding to our deficit which at that time will be a number followed by 67 zeros.

 

[JuliefromOhio]

we's gonna pay fo it wif Obama bucks.

ORR

hey, why don't you show us your racist inclinations?

 

[degsme]

Degs, 1943 is 12 months, so in 1943, we couldn't have done something "in six years." What you're saying is "if you start counting in 1943, we paid off half of a 120 percent debt-GDP ratio in six years (by 1949).

And that ignores the strong post-war growth rate,

No it does not ignore it at all. And there wasn't that much "savings" soldiers were paid BELOW AVERAGE for their services (some got more than they could in civilllian life but the AVERAGE was below the previous median wage).

and there were no export markets to speak of

It also ignores that we were a lender nation, owed literal billions from Lend-Lease

Irrelevant since the biggest borrower never paid us back

Yes there are differences.

• Back then we had no global markets to sell into, Now we do
• Back then the dollar was strong, today we have a weak dollar strategy that encourages exports and domestic production
• Back then Canada was a fledgling market compared to today
• Back then South America was a non-existant market compared to today
• Back then we were tied somewhat to a species standard, today we are not

So while there are some differences that are more favourable for 1943/44 the net balance is towards today.

We had strong growth PRECISELY BECAUSE OF STIMLUS SPENDING

• On Agriculture
• On basic research
• On a broad expansion of access to post-secondary education
• On domestic infrastructure
  • rural electrification
  • rural telephony
  • the planning for interstate highway system
  • Expansion of support for education
• Veterans Benefits

Just to name a few. Being a lender or borrower nation really does not play into it. We have weak growth BECAUSE the stimulus was aborted in 2010 as an attempt to defeat Obama in 2012. It failed.

So what if 20% of our debt is structural payment for ongoing entitlement programs? What ECONOMIC consequence does that have IN THE CURRENT PERIOD?

 

[degsme]

But remember that by then Obama's tax increases are 666 Kazillion (notice how it is the number of the beast? Would you expect anything less from a devil worshipping socialist facist?)

 

[trapdoor]

No it does not ignore it at all. And there wasn't that much "savings" soldiers were paid BELOW AVERAGE for their services (some got more than they could in civilllian life but the AVERAGE was below the previous median wage).

The U.S. unemployment rate in 1940 was 14.6 percent. The war put a lot of unemployed back to work and took a lot of other unemployed out of the job market and into uniform (driving up salaries for those who remained). For those in uniform, below average earnings still exceed zero earnings -- especially when your "21 dollars a day once a month" (there's a WWII era song of that title) is essentially unspent and sent home to the family. There was quite a bit of saved money (billions of dollars) laying around that the returning troops spent on Buicks and education and housing -- which forestalled a post-war recession predicted by many economists at the height of the war.

Irrelevant since the biggest borrower never paid us back

But it wasn't seen as irrelevant at the time. By the "biggest borrower" I assume you mean the Soviets, who were the biggest borrower (but no the biggest beneficiary -- that was the Brits, who also never paid us back in full). Those were still seen as, for lack of a better term, "accounts receivable."

Yes there are differences.

• Back then we had no global markets to sell into, Now we do

• 
  
  Laughable. The U.S. was the world's largest exporter from the end of WWII until at least the 1970s.
  
  
  

  [*]Back then the dollar was strong, today we have a weak dollar strategy that encourages exports and domestic production

  Well, we have a weak dollar, and some say that's a result of strategy. We're not weak compared to the yuan.
  
  

  [*]Back then Canada was a fledgling market compared to today

  True, but not relevant. When Canada wanted to build its own supersonic fighter plane after WWII (they built the prototypes) the U.S. managed via some international political maneuvers to quash its production so they'd have to buy from the U.S.
  

  [*]Back then we were tied somewhat to a species standard, today we are not

  And today we suffer from inflation that we lacked then.
  
  

  We had strong growth PRECISELY BECAUSE OF STIMLUS SPENDING

  No, Degs --we had strong growth. Stimulus spending hadn't really begun. Stimulus spending is also irrelevant as it wasn't stimulus that was under discussion. Stimulus for good or ill and all its outputs are irrelevant to the comparison of the pre-entitlement U.S. that dug itself out of debt after WWII, and the entitlement-based government we have today, replete with a 20 percent structural debt surrounding those entitlements (entitlements make up 20 percent of the budget, and hence 20 percent of the debt as the budget increases the debt each year we deficit spend).
  
  
  
  

  Being a lender or borrower nation really does not play into it. We have weak growth BECAUSE the stimulus was aborted in 2010 as an attempt to defeat Obama in 2012. It failed.

  Nonsense. A nation that is owed money and has exports more than it imports is on better financial footing than a country that owes money and imports more than it exports (thereby exporting its currency). We have weak growth today for a host of reasons, not the least of which is that as a country we quit building things at home and started importing them from overseas.
  
  

  So what if 20% of our debt is structural payment for ongoing entitlement programs? What ECONOMIC consequence does that have IN THE CURRENT PERIOD?

  A LOT as we have to continuously pay on that debt, and we can't afford our current expenditures.
  
  How do I know we can't afford our current expenditures? Because I know we have to borrow money to meet them. When you have enough money to pay your bills, you don't have to borrow money to pay them (thereby increasing your future liability and the interest on it).