Debt prevents us from realizing either side's vision

[Gimmesometruth]

You are free to do as you choose, but equating SS and Medicare (funded through FICA payroll taxes) to true entitlements is ludicrous...

Uh-huh....not everyone in bama thinks like you..
Entitlement program: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Yes, that's the level of intelligence that would be expected...

LOL....too funny, we know yours wasn't a degree from Auburn.

 

[vash1012]

Have you been reading and comprehending my posts about SS an Medicare? It seems not...

I edited my post after you clarified. If you'll please clarify which programs you consider entitlements, we can discuss those then.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Uh-huh....not everyone in bama thinks like you..
Entitlement program: A Glossary of Political Economy Terms - Dr. Paul M. Johnson

Do beneficiaries of life insurance policies receive a paid for benefit or entitlement?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Do beneficiaries of life insurance policies receive a paid for benefit or entitlement?

Go ask Dr. Johnson.

 

[ttwtt78640]

You are free to do as you choose, but equating SS and Medicare (funded through FICA payroll taxes) to true entitlements is ludicrous...

No more so than CSRS, farm price supports or military pensions. Who do you suppose funds these "promises" from the gov't to individuals? Not all gov't entitlements are based on economic need. Simply because something is not welfare (or some individual contribution of time/money was made) does not make it a non-entitlement.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

I edited my post after you clarified. If you'll please clarify which programs you consider entitlements, we can discuss those then.

All those programs where benefits are derived strictly by meeting some arbitrary criteria set forth by the government without any specific source of funding...

 

[vash1012]

Are you still confused about how much of a decline in revenue we have had?

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

No I'm not confused at all. Our revenues as a percentage of GDP have been just over 15% since the recession, compared to 17-19% over the last 40-50 years. However, if you look at the actual decrease in total revenues compared to the actual increase in budget deficit, you'll see you can't account for the budget deficit of the last 4 years simply by an issue of decreased revenues. My only point being that the causes of our deficit are multi-factorial and can't be simplified to be due to wage stagnation.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

No more so than CSRS, farm price supports or military pensions. Who do you suppose funds these "promises" from the gov't to individuals? Not all gov't entitlements are based on economic need. Simply because something is not welfare (or some individual contribution of time/money was made) does not make it a non-entitlement.

I have no problem with military pensions. All others are up for debate including federal worker pensions...

 

[Gimmesometruth]

The recession battered the budget, driving down tax revenues and swelling outlays for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other safety net programs.[3] We calculate that changes in the economic outlook since the summer of 2008 account for over $400 billion of the deficit in both 2009 and 2010 and smaller amounts in later years. We estimate that the downturn has pushed up deficits by $2.5 trillion (including the associated interest costs) over the 2009-2018 period

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

 

[ttwtt78640]

The recession battered the budget, driving down tax revenues and swelling outlays for unemployment insurance, food stamps, and other safety net programs.[3] We calculate that changes in the economic outlook since the summer of 2008 account for over $400 billion of the deficit in both 2009 and 2010 and smaller amounts in later years. We estimate that the downturn has pushed up deficits by $2.5 trillion (including the associated interest costs) over the 2009-2018 period

Economic Downturn and Legacy of Bush Policies Continue to Drive Large Deficits — Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

In what year were the "Bush" FIT rates set to expire?

Which president signed the bill to extended them?

Which president then kept 98.6% of them raising the marginal rate for only the highest 1.4% of individual taxpayers?

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Historical Federal Receipt and Outlay Summary

No I'm not confused at all. Our revenues as a percentage of GDP have been just over 15% since the recession, compared to 17-19% over the last 40-50 years. However, if you look at the actual decrease in total revenues compared to the actual increase in budget deficit, you'll see you can't account for the budget deficit of the last 4 years simply by an issue of decreased revenues. My only point being that the causes of our deficit are multi-factorial and can't be simplified to be due to wage stagnation.

I never said it was all of it, I am saying that declines in revenue are directly a result of demand declines from the recession. With outlays for UI and SNAP causing a lot of the spending increases, it has been a double whammy. Once we get emplotment back to normal historical levels, revenues will increase and benefits will drop.

I am just sick of people posting articles arguing that entitlements (specifying SS and Medicare) as the culprits for our current problems

 

[Gimmesometruth]

In what year were the "Bush" FIT rates set to expire?

Which president signed the bill to extended them?

Which president then kept 98.6% of them raising the marginal rate for only the highest 1.4% of individual taxpayers?

They were extended for the lower/middle classes as a demand side stimulus....be happy for that. The point still is that they should have not been in place during those wonderful Bush years, we should have kept driving down the debt.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

They were extended for the lower/middle classes as a demand side stimulus....be happy for that. The point still is that they should have not been in place during those wonderful Bush years, we should have kept driving down the debt.

Stimulus implies policies that promote growth. How does maintaining a status quo equate to promoting growth? At best, the continuation of the tax cuts for whomever only serves as an economic maintenance policy...

 

[ttwtt78640]

They were extended for the lower/middle classes as a demand side stimulus....be happy for that. The point still is that they should have not been in place during those wonderful Bush years, we should have kept driving down the debt.

By extending UI benefits, increasing college loan interest rate subsidies, giving away cash to "green" and union labor using industries and adding PPACA to dole out more borrowed money to "poor folks"? In the first month of 2013, when Obama got his $60 billion/year in tax hikes we spent $30 billion on UI extensions and $60 billion on Sandy storm relief - net federal deficit increase of $30 billion in a single month. Obama has no intentions of slowing federal spending, nor do most of our congress critters, they simply pretend that "pay as you go" really means borrow as you need.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

By extending UI benefits, increasing college loan interest rate subsidies, giving away cash to "green" and union labor using industries and adding PPACA to dole out more borrowed money to "poor folks"? In the first month of 2013, when Obama got his $60 billion/year in tax hikes we spent $30 billion on UI extensions and $60 billion on Sandy storm relief - net federal deficit increase of $30 billion in a single month. Obama has no intentions of slowing federal spending, nor do most of our congress critters, they simply pretend that "pay as you go" really means borrow as you need.

Yawn, we have been over this same ground so many times and it never ceases to amaze me how you good old boys still remove the conversation from the context. We just had a recession that you won't fess up to, which has caused the need for massive support spending. You had no problem spending on two wars, lowering taxes, massively increasing unaccounted amounts for homeland security and maintaining a war machine that can't account for 25% of it's spending.....and you have the gall to bring up Sandy spending.

Your sense of perspective and responsibility just baffles.

 

[AlabamaPaul]

Yawn, we have been over this same ground so many times and it never ceases to amaze me how you good old boys still remove the conversation from the context. We just had a recession that you won't fess up to, which has caused the need for massive support spending. You had no problem spending on two wars, lowering taxes, massively increasing unaccounted amounts for homeland security and maintaining a war machine that can't account for 25% of it's spending.....and you have the gall to bring up Sandy spending.

Your sense of perspective and responsibility just baffles.

What never ceases to amaze me is your continued thinking that there was one person/party responsible for the recession. I agree that economic stimulus was needed, but it was not applied in the areas it would have been most effective. It seems to me, personally, that you are content to argue a side rather than a solution...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Yawn, we have been over this same ground so many times and it never ceases to amaze me how you good old boys still remove the conversation from the context. We just had a recession that you won't fess up to, which has caused the need for massive support spending. You had no problem spending on two wars, lowering taxes, massively increasing unaccounted amounts for homeland security and maintaining a war machine that can't account for 25% of it's spending.....and you have the gall to bring up Sandy spending.

Your sense of perspective and responsibility just baffles.

Yep. It was all sold as patriotic, crisis or emergency spending. The bottom line is that the national debt was increased. Budgeting is about establishing priorities and living within your means not making excuses and borrowing "just a bit more" until things get better. Make no mistake, I did not approve of what happened under Bush either, but that is not an excuse to double down. We could now cut almost all "discretionary" federal spending (over half of that is on defense, as you noted) and still have a deficit since "mandatory" federal spending and interest on the national debt now account for 70% of total federal spending.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

What never ceases to amaze me is your continued thinking that there was one person/party responsible for the recession. I agree that economic stimulus was needed, but it was not applied in the areas it would have been most effective. It seems to me, personally, that you are content to argue a side rather than a solution...

'bama, you don't have to keep telling me that you don't read my past posts.

 

[Gimmesometruth]

Yep. It was all sold as patriotic, crisis or emergency spending. The bottom line is that the national debt was increased. Budgeting is about establishing priorities and living within your means not making excuses and borrowing "just a bit more" until things get better. Make no mistake, I did not approve of what happened under Bush either, but that is not an excuse to double down. We could now cut almost all "discretionary" federal spending (over half of that is on defense, as you noted) and still have a deficit since "mandatory" federal spending and interest on the national debt now account for 70% of total federal spending.

I KNOW! Suddenly NOW it is time for slash and burn....and we MUST BALANCE IT NOW, uh uh uh!!!

I'm sure you can point to lots of postings from those glory years when you were in you Austin dorm room knocking that keyboard with your latest anti-GOP spending screed under your full size poster of Kinky Friedman! I can just see it now...

 

[ttwtt78640]

Stimulus implies policies that promote growth. How does maintaining a status quo equate to promoting growth? At best, the continuation of the tax cuts for whomever only serves as an economic maintenance policy...

The fact is that the "Obama" FIT rates are 98.6% the same as the "Bush" FIT rates but that is no longer part of the problem - it is now part of the solution. These tax rates only increased the debt under Bush - under Obama they are now demand side stimulus. UBL is dead, GM is alive, terrorism is "under control" and the economy is "better" (than it was when Obama first took office). If you have a job then it is only because Obama created (or saved) it, if you don't then Obama would take care of you if only the mean old GOP folks in the house would let him.

 

[rabbitcaebannog]

We could now cut almost all "discretionary" federal spending (over half of that is on defense, as you noted) and still have a deficit since "mandatory" federal spending and interest on the national debt now account for 70% of total federal spending.

This is so misleading since the bulk of present day entitlement spending is paid for in the form of payroll taxes but I can fully understand the agenda behind omitting such facts.

 

[vash1012]

This is so misleading since the bulk of present day entitlement spending is paid for in the form of payroll taxes but I can fully understand the agenda behind omitting such facts.

Yes, well the programs were designed to have a person on average pay into the system over their career what they would probably draw out.. but this isn't even close to the case. We have 2-3 workers paying for 1 retired person's SS and Medicare with costs still rising. Obviously this isn't sustainable. It isn't something that can be ignored just because it is still technically fully funded at this very moment.

 

[66gardeners]

The issue relates to spending in areas the produce no return. Yes, inflation is a very real concern because much of the government's current spending is done in areas that produce nothing...

Trillions of dollars already spent plus the cost of medical care for America's wounded soldiers for the rest of their lives. How does that produce a return?

 

[66gardeners]

This is so misleading since the bulk of present day entitlement spending is paid for in the form of payroll taxes but I can fully understand the agenda behind omitting such facts.

Again, they want to say "entitlement" spending alone contributes to the debt. Trillions of dollars spent in foreign wars over the last decade is just a sneeze.