0
Darius11

U.S. NATIONAL DEBT

Recommended Posts

  Quote

Interesting. The main cost drivers for the national debt are medicare, medicaid, social security, gov't retirement programs, and interest on the national debt itself. Discretionary spending, though a contributor, is chump change in comparison. Any CBO, GAO, or OMB projections will show that to be the case. Without attacking the main source of the debt via reform inititatives and/or program elimination, no person claiming to be concerned about the debt and proposing a solution may be taken seriously.

Regardless of who wins the White House in '08 and controls Congress after '06 or '08, the age demographics of this country MANDATE the debt ceiling be increased several times over the next couple of decades due to the structure of our entitlement programs. The current state of the debt can be attributed to many generations of congressmen and Presidents. I think, however, that the true fault lies with the lack of education of the average American.

The current social programs safety net at the federal level is fiscally unsustainable. Anyone see any politicians proposing reform? Other than GWB's private accounts idea, I haven't seen anyone really push that on the national level.

Disgusting.

:S



  Quote

The main cost drivers for the national debt are medicare, medicaid, social security, gov't retirement programs, and interest on the national debt itself. Discretionary spending, though a contributor, is chump change in comparison.



With this, and the knowledge thet the Repubs are responsible for most of teh debt, we can establish that Reagan, Bush, Bush have opened many new social programs..... oh wait, they kill them and cut taxes/military spend... The logic doesn't add up.

  Quote

Without attacking the main source of the debt via reform inititatives and/or program elimination, no person claiming to be concerned about the debt and proposing a solution may be taken seriously.



Since most of the debt has been accrued in the last 25 years by Reagan, Bush, Bush, I think it's meaningless not to address where the spending was made to spur that kind of surge.

  Quote

Regardless of who wins the White House in '08 and controls Congress after '06 or '08, the age demographics of this country MANDATE the debt ceiling be increased several times over the next couple of decades due to the structure of our entitlement programs.



Then explain how Clinton had the graph going vertical as to the national debt, at the end of his tem. And let's face it, Clinton was known for social spending, education, etc...

  Quote

The current state of the debt can be attributed to many generations of congressmen and Presidents. I think, however, that the true fault lies with the lack of education of the average American.



UH, no. Most of teh debt, in fact probably 70% at the end of Bush's term, will be attributed to Reagan, Bush, Bush. BTW, local state university tuition has increased 80% since BushII, so we can't afford an education. I have a degree.....

  Quote

The current social programs safety net at the federal level is fiscally unsustainable. Anyone see any politicians proposing reform? Other than GWB's private accounts idea, I haven't seen anyone really push that on the national level.



Increase taxes on the rich, cut military spending... How is it that these countries I assume you consider inferior for dolling out medical care like it should be a birthright, can have a manageable economy? Could it be they don't spend 30% of their GNP on the military? Could it be they tax the rich as they should?

  Quote

Disgusting.



Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

For the life of me I can't understand all the whining from the Lefties. You guys act as if you will have to pay all this money when the truth is you ought to be dancing in the streets because the rich, who pay most of the taxes are getting soaked again.

Unbelievable....:S:S

-




Address the graphs and the interest paid on the debt. Also, address the shrinking value of teh dollar - they are correalated.



Address my questions. Why do you care, you aren't payng much towards it. Just something else to whine about?

I thought so......



The argument here is about the national debt, not me or you or the amount we will contribute to the debt.

  Quote

Address my questions.



You didn't post any.

Let's see you address the graphs or the national debt; who fault, who's doing, etc.... I could be a millionaire or homeless - doesn't matter. The issue of teh thread is the debt, care to jump in?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

For the life of me I can't understand all the whining from the Lefties. You guys act as if you will have to pay all this money when the truth is you ought to be dancing in the streets because the rich, who pay most of the taxes are getting soaked again.

Unbelievable....:S:S

-




Address the graphs and the interest paid on the debt. Also, address the shrinking value of teh dollar - they are correalated.



Address my questions. Why do you care, you aren't payng much towards it. Just something else to whine about?

I thought so......



The argument here is about the national debt, not me or you or the amount we will contribute to the debt.

  Quote

Address my questions.



You didn't post any.

Let's see you address the graphs or the national debt; who fault, who's doing, etc.... I could be a millionaire or homeless - doesn't matter. The issue of teh thread is the debt, care to jump in?



No thanks. I do find it amusing when I hear Lefties bitch about a debt that will mostly be paid by the same rich people they demonize all the time. About as amusing as whining about increases in the price of gasoline, that will cost about $300 per year more, and then whining that a $300 tax cut is nothing. Really .......if only you knew how amused I am. :D:D

Please continue.

-

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

  Quote

For the life of me I can't understand all the whining from the Lefties. You guys act as if you will have to pay all this money when the truth is you ought to be dancing in the streets because the rich, who pay most of the taxes are getting soaked again.

Unbelievable....:S:S

-




Address the graphs and the interest paid on the debt. Also, address the shrinking value of teh dollar - they are correalated.



Address my questions. Why do you care, you aren't payng much towards it. Just something else to whine about?

I thought so......



The argument here is about the national debt, not me or you or the amount we will contribute to the debt.

  Quote

Address my questions.



You didn't post any.

Let's see you address the graphs or the national debt; who fault, who's doing, etc.... I could be a millionaire or homeless - doesn't matter. The issue of teh thread is the debt, care to jump in?



No thanks. I do find it amusing when I hear Lefties bitch about a debt that will mostly be paid by the same rich people they demonize all the time. About as amusing as whining about increases in the price of gasoline, that will cost about $300 per year more, and then whining that a $300 tax cut is nothing. Really .......if only you knew how amused I am. :D:D

Please continue.

-



The debt affects everyone. If you don't understand that, it reflects poorly on you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

Interesting. The main cost drivers for the national debt are medicare, medicaid, social security, gov't retirement programs, and interest on the national debt itself.



Interesting. Are you saying that giant increases in spending on medicare, medicaid, social security and government retirement programs are to blame for your incredible growth in national debt? I would love to see those numbers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It seems to me, that the USA could be building up this massive debt to help fund it's wars (wow that took a huge mind stretch).... but (here comes the biggie).... They dont care because they [may] not have any intensions for ever repaying that debt... they may just say Fuck Off... if you want it come and get it......we've just saved your collective arses (not that they have, but in their minds that doesn't matter:P).


.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

What a lot of people don't know is that Republicana aren't irresponsible, they want to disempower government and empower corporations. They throw the government into the crapper in an attempt to do exactly this.



And Dems penalize those who work and earn money so those that don't want to work can have a free ride.

Given the choice, since I have a job, I would rather support those that have my best interest at hart. And that is not to tax me and give to those that are unwilling to work.

  Quote

Poor people and mainstream America actually has rights when they have access to basic coverage and labor unions,



The people do have rights. I have read the Constitution and nowhere does it say the right to have a Union.

In fact Unions don't make a company stronger. Look at Delta, United, and US Airways. Friends of mine that work for UPS will gladley point out that only the drivers have good pay compared to the rest of the work force at other companies. Another friend of mine used to work for Delta at a light MX facility. She used to brag about how many books she read a week. She was getting paid 80,000 a year to read books. Then when she did get laid off, she was pissed at the COMPANY?!?!?!?!

  Quote

I just can;t understand why poor people vote for Republicans.....



I can't either to be honest. They want a handout, they should vote Democratic. I also don't understand how anyone making a living can vote Democrat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
> I have read the Constitution and nowhere does it say the right
>to have a Union.

Perhaps a closer read is in order.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

We have EVERY right that is not proscribed by federal or state governments. That's one of the most basic parts of being an american. It can be scary, having so many rights and so much freedom, but most americans like things that way.

>I also don't understand how anyone making a living can vote
>Democrat.

I often do. (Course I also often vote republican or libertarian.) If you honestly think the parties are significantly different, you are probably buying into some pretty serious partisan nonsense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

>If you honestly think the parties are significantly different, you are probably buying into some pretty serious partisan nonsense.



wierd - I've read DaVinci say explicitly that the parties are very much the same and we need to be skeptical of anyone saying otherwise. You've frequently been very partisan in your post (even though I know you aren't really). So that was a bit confusing to read for a second.

Cool though to see that note.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

Perhaps a closer read is in order.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

We have EVERY right that is not proscribed by federal or state governments. That's one of the most basic parts of being an american. It can be scary, having so many rights and so much freedom, but most americans like things that way.



What about the second? People read it both ways. See the problem is that the Constitution can be read different ways. Just like the Bible.

I personally think that is good. It allows both to change some with the times, while still standing on principles.

However, it does not state Unions by name. So while I agree the people have the right to Unionize, the Corporations also have a right to not have Unions. And so do the people.

So you can either have or not have Unions according to the Constitution. And if the people elect a Government that is anti-Union, then the Government, being of the people, has the right to eliminate them.

Or do you not agree?

  Quote

>I also don't understand how anyone making a living can vote
>Democrat.

I often do. (Course I also often vote republican or libertarian.) If you honestly think the parties are significantly different, you are probably buying into some pretty serious partisan nonsense.



Oh I don't actually think that. It was just a counter to the other poster who said he didn't know how the poor could vote Republican.

I can think of several reasons why a poor person would vote Republican. One might be since Republicans are seen as stronger on Defense and after 9/11 that is a big issue. Maybe they understand what happens if the factory shuts down and wants the Factory to be strong. Even if that means that some get really rich, they see that the factory being in town is good for everyone.

I also think that some with money could vote Democrat based on how they are doing well and do not mind giving back.

Neither is wrong, however some do not see that. I find that funny.

I tend to be Republican since I know that to have a good economy we need strong companies. The Country will not be stronger by having more people on public aid.

Someone once said something like, "Taxing yourself into a good economy is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up." I think it was Churchill.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

  Quote

Perhaps a closer read is in order.

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people."

We have EVERY right that is not proscribed by federal or state governments. That's one of the most basic parts of being an american. It can be scary, having so many rights and so much freedom, but most americans like things that way.



What about the second? People read it both ways. See the problem is that the Constitution can be read different ways. Just like the Bible.

I personally think that is good. It allows both to change some with the times, while still standing on principles.

However, it does not state Unions by name. So while I agree the people have the right to Unionize, the Corporations also have a right to not have Unions. And so do the people.

So you can either have or not have Unions according to the Constitution. And if the people elect a Government that is anti-Union, then the Government, being of the people, has the right to eliminate them.

Or do you not agree?

  Quote

>I also don't understand how anyone making a living can vote
>Democrat.

I often do. (Course I also often vote republican or libertarian.) If you honestly think the parties are significantly different, you are probably buying into some pretty serious partisan nonsense.



Oh I don't actually think that. It was just a counter to the other poster who said he didn't know how the poor could vote Republican.

I can think of several reasons why a poor person would vote Republican. One might be since Republicans are seen as stronger on Defense and after 9/11 that is a big issue. Maybe they understand what happens if the factory shuts down and wants the Factory to be strong. Even if that means that some get really rich, they see that the factory being in town is good for everyone.

I also think that some with money could vote Democrat based on how they are doing well and do not mind giving back.

Neither is wrong, however some do not see that. I find that funny.

I tend to be Republican since I know that to have a good economy we need strong companies. The Country will not be stronger by having more people on public aid.

Someone once said something like, "Taxing yourself into a good economy is like standing in a bucket and trying to lift yourself up." I think it was Churchill.[/repl

"The power to tax involves the power to destroy" Chief Justice John Marshall McCulloch v. Maryland(1819)

The I.M.F. is an agency of the United Nations, Blacks Law Dictionary,sixth edition, page 816

The U.S. has not had a treasury since 1921. (41 Stat. ch 214 pg 654)

The U.S. Treasury is now the I.M.F. (Presidential Documents Volume 29-No. 4, pg 113; 22 USC 285-288).
we are all one consciousness experiencing itself subjectively


wishers never choose, choosers never wish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

I tend to be Republican since I know that to have a good economy we need strong companies. The Country will not be stronger by having more people on public aid.



1 for 2 IMO.

I don't necessarily think either party has the high road on making companies strong. But the stereotypes might disagree with me. A more free market approach would make survivor-culture companies stronger, but neither Dems or Reps are 'really' free market now, are they? They both meddle to their personal interests.

I do think that the Dems policies tend to put more people on public aid though. I'll agree with that. Economically, that's why I'd lean more libertarian, and in the absense I'll hold my nose and lean Rep in those areas. But it's getting harder and harder to tell the diff.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Haven't read the budget, eh? Don't worry - most people haven't. Seriously, dude, you're a bright guy and articulate your points really well when we banter on here. Take a look at table S-11 here for a glimpse at how mandatory spending is the main cost driver for budget deficits. DoD itself accounted for 19.1% of outlays in '05 and per the '07 budget should account for 18.8% of outlays for '06 (recall the PB is submitted to Congress right after the SOTU in Feb).

In contrast, mandatory spending for '05 was 60.8% of the budget in '05 and 61.9% in '06. Again, recall the '06 #'s in the '07 budget will be estimates.

Breakdown the programs however you like over the past several years and in future years, and you'll find that it is the SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Debt Interest, and other mandatory spending that are the major expenditures for the federal government, i.e. the main cost drivers. If you want to cut spending, that is where you really have to do it.

Also, take a look at the CBO projections for how Medicaid and Medicare alone will increase over the next few years as the Baby Boomers start to retire. It's pretty obvious that even were discretionary spending to remain constant - it will go up between 2 and 7 percent per year, the grown in mandatory spending will MANDATE an increase in the debt ceiling, i.e. be the cost driver for the national debt.

Hope that's what you were looking for. We might disagree about how to address the problem, but I believe you'll agree with me that the real problem to be addressed is the structure of the programs the mandatory spending category encompasses.
:)
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the budget, do some math, read up on your history, lose a bit of your hatred, and I'll discuss this with you.

I gave Justin some good data. Check it out, come to terms with reality, and let me know when you're ready.

:)
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

Hope that's what you were looking for.



Sort of, but not quite.

Are you asserting that if the money wasn't spend on your war in Iraq, the National Debt would be in the same shape?

Or do you think the current Administration should just cancel any and all social services to fund the war?

  Quote

Breakdown the programs however you like over the past several years and in future years, and you'll find that it is the SS, Medicare, Medicaid, Debt Interest, and other mandatory spending that are the major expenditures for the federal government, i.e. the main cost drivers. If you want to cut spending, that is where you really have to do it.



on a long term basis...yes. Or increase receipts to keep funding the "mandatory" outlays.

In the mean time, your president has gone way overboard on the discretionary spending, causing a giant increase in National Debt. I agree that in the long run mandatory spending has to be looked at, but to suggest that mandatory spending is the main reason for the giant increase in National Debt is a bit of a joke.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, without 9/11 and the Iraq War the budget would have a completely different character/flavor. The mere addition of DHS added new dimensions to it.

GWB and this Congress have definitely increased discretionary spending - no doubt about it. Not one spending bill has been vetoed and there's pork everywhere. However, the programs that created the mandatory spending were made decades ago and have only been modified since - not reformed in a major way.

Look at the % of GNP you'd have to tax to keep up with the projected outlays - even holding discretionary spending constant. Can't be done realistically.

:)
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

Oh, without 9/11 and the Iraq War the budget would have a completely different character/flavor. The mere addition of DHS added new dimensions to it.



Which makes the enormous mistakes made in the run up to the Iraqi War that much more glaring.

  Quote

GWB and this Congress have definitely increased discretionary spending - no doubt about it. Not one spending bill has been vetoed and there's pork everywhere.



I am no expert in American politics. But where exactly could the democrats have vetoed a spending bill?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

to suggest that mandatory spending is the main reason for the giant increase in National Debt is a bit of a joke.



You want this to be an either/or kind of discussion, it's not. The mandatory totals are nuts and getting worse. The war is also expensive and a big adder to the outrageous base. But also equivalent to one of the line items in the giant 'group' of mandatory. It would be a huge benefit to veto a freakin' spending bill for once. I would be a bigger benefit to dismantle a few giant programs, also.

No one says we have to choose. We could do both.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

I am no expert in American politics.



The President vetoes. Everyone adds pork. Stop trying to make it partisan and realize that government (here anyway) is about spending and maintaining incumbancy for both parties.

Edit: I'm sure other governments are perfect and don't have power issues with elected government officials. Political corruptness only occurs in the US I understand. And only in one party. (Always the other guy's)

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's really intesting that governements (most act the same) prattle on to their citizens about fiscal control... living within your means, yet they fail to practice what they preach... sickening really.

If my wife and I ran out chequing account like they run our countries.... we'd be thrown out of our house.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

The President vetoes. Everyone adds pork. Stop trying to make it partisan and realize that government (here anyway) is about spending and maintaining incumbancy for both parties.



I understand that. Anvil's writing had an underlying tone that the democrats had the opportunity to veto any spedning bill, but thewy hadn't. That is why I was asking where exactly they would have done that.

  Quote

Edit: I'm sure other governments are perfect and don't have power issues with elected government officials. Political corruptness only occurs in the US I understand. And only in one party. (Always the other guy's)



nice rant, hope it made you feel better.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

You want this to be an either/or kind of discussion, it's not. The mandatory totals are nuts and getting worse. The war is also expensive and a big adder to the outrageous base. But also equivalent to one of the line items in the giant 'group' of mandatory



I agree....so what has your current president done to start balancing the ship?

(please don't say...none of the other presidents have, or something along those lines)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

Anvil's writing had an underlying tone that the democrats had the opportunity to veto any spedning bill, but they hadn't.



I didn't get that at all. He seems to be trying to talk certain budget categories and looks to be trying to NOT be partisan. I doubt he'd imply that a party in congress has veto power. That would be silly. Even if you disagree with him, he does seem to know his stuff (although many here to take a position that disagreement = wrong = evil, you've never done that in a serious way).

I like rants. Very relaxing.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  Quote

I agree....so what has your current president done to start balancing the ship?



I think he's been stinking up the place in terms of fiscal responsibility. I've already said it many times. refer to the veto spending bill comments, refer to the mandatory budget problem. He's done little to nothing on both. The partial privatization of SS was a good idea, but doomed from the start. So the best I can say is he made one honest gesture and gave up too fast and nothing since.

And your parenthetical statement is real insult. If you ever read my posts you'd know it's not needed.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dem's can't veto anything right now - the veto power rests with the Executive branch. The fact that not one of the pork laden spending bills have been vetoed is a disgrace.

The President did propose that several programs shown to be ineffective or having no measurable effect within the Department of Education be eliminated. The cries from the leftists and their sycophant NEA were horrendous.

:)
Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0