MSNBC and Fox News are lying about longterm deficit and debt problems.
Options
politicalthug202
Members Posts: 3,098 ✭✭✭✭
On MSNBC, they lying saying that you can balance the budget
with just raising taxes on rich ppl and you want have to cut
medicare spending over the next 20 yrs even though we going to have
80 million new senior citizens on those programs,and even if you raised taxes
on rich ppl you would only get 700 billion dolllars over 10 years and you still wouldnt have a balanced
budget. and medicare is 32 Trillion dollars unfunded liability
and even if you raised taxes on everybody including poor ppl back to
clinton era tax rates you would still have a deficity of about 800 billion dollars.
so yes medicare and medicaid have to be cut.
On Fox they are lying saying you can balance the budget with just spending cuts
once again. they are lying even if you elimiated the entire government we would still
be in deficit,and with medicare and medicaid,yes you can make cuts but undoubtly ppl
will get sick,and somebody will have to pay and health care spending wrather in the private
or government spending will crowd out other spending in the economy hurting growth and tax receipts.
the only soloutions is to raise taxes and cut medicare and medicaid and social security
over the next 20 yrs. we dont have to do it at once you can faze them in over period so you
dont hurt the economy in the short term,but thats the only viable soloution
and watch Obama is going to say the samething in his budget deficit speech tommrow.
with just raising taxes on rich ppl and you want have to cut
medicare spending over the next 20 yrs even though we going to have
80 million new senior citizens on those programs,and even if you raised taxes
on rich ppl you would only get 700 billion dolllars over 10 years and you still wouldnt have a balanced
budget. and medicare is 32 Trillion dollars unfunded liability
and even if you raised taxes on everybody including poor ppl back to
clinton era tax rates you would still have a deficity of about 800 billion dollars.
so yes medicare and medicaid have to be cut.
On Fox they are lying saying you can balance the budget with just spending cuts
once again. they are lying even if you elimiated the entire government we would still
be in deficit,and with medicare and medicaid,yes you can make cuts but undoubtly ppl
will get sick,and somebody will have to pay and health care spending wrather in the private
or government spending will crowd out other spending in the economy hurting growth and tax receipts.
the only soloutions is to raise taxes and cut medicare and medicaid and social security
over the next 20 yrs. we dont have to do it at once you can faze them in over period so you
dont hurt the economy in the short term,but thats the only viable soloution
and watch Obama is going to say the samething in his budget deficit speech tommrow.
Comments
-
We're doomed. Straight and simple.
-
I've heard of fighting fire with fire --- but our government is spending so much money and the debt keeps getting higher and higher. I just cannot follow this logic.....spend more of the citizens money to get out of debt. DAMN we got one foot in the grave & the other one is on the shovel.....so just keep digging the hole deeper.....WOW! that's the craziest kind of logic I've ever heard.
wiser heads can explain it better than me (link below)
This level of government indebtedness just cannot be sustained, and will lead to catastrophic repercussions. While the politicians in Washington, particularly in the Obama administration, pay lip service to the need to “rein in” this profligate public spending, nobody believes that they are serious. The president’s claim that he “plans” to reduce the deficit cumulatively over ten years by just over a trillion dollars is an utter farce, since even by the most optimistic forecasts this would leave a combined deficit over the decade of more than ten trillion dollars.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sheldon-filger/obama-proposing-record-bu_b_823058.html
Obama is proposing a 4 trillion dollar cut over 10 yrs today what are you talking about.
and if we would have stayed with bill clinton tax rates the national debt would have been
paid off by 2013. -
All mainstream sides are lying.
It would take something a massive tax increase along with massive spending cuts to reach a balanced budget. There is no political will to do anything like this.
Tax revenues total about 2.5 trillion. The government spends about 4 trillion last year. That's 1.5 trillion per year that would need to be made up for in tax increases and spending cuts.
We don't have "the next 20 years". Fiscal reality is going to set in much sooner than that. A four trillion dollar cut over 10 years is also a non-solution that likely won't happen as well. We haven't even cut the RATE of GROWTH of the government spending in years, much less cut government spending any. Let me repeat, It is nearly impossible to REDUCE the RATE of GROWTH of government spending, much less government spending.
The debt will be repudiated in some form, which will cause upheavel all over the globe.
Bill Clinton tax rates would not have even touched the rate of growth, much less repay any of the national debt down. The national debt grew every year under Bill Clinton. Clinton is the one who started the social security cash for t-bill swap accounting fraud to pretend he had a legacy of a "surplus", which he certainly did not have. -
All mainstream sides are lying.
It would take something a massive tax increase along with massive spending cuts to reach a balanced budget. There is no political will to do anything like this.
Tax revenues total about 2.5 trillion. The government spends about 4 trillion last year. That's 1.5 trillion per year that would need to be made up for in tax increases and spending cuts.
We don't have "the next 20 years". Fiscal reality is going to set in much sooner than that. A four trillion dollar cut over 10 years is also a non-solution that likely won't happen as well. We haven't even cut the RATE of GROWTH of the government spending in years, much less cut government spending any. Let me repeat, It is nearly impossible to REDUCE the RATE of GROWTH of government spending, much less government spending.
The debt will be repudiated in some form, which will cause upheavel all over the globe.
Bill Clinton tax rates would not have even touched the rate of growth, much less repay any of the national debt down. The national debt grew every year under Bill Clinton. Clinton is the one who started the social security cash for t-bill swap accounting fraud to pretend he had a legacy of a "surplus", which he certainly did not have.
The social security T bill swap makes the debt look worse what are you talking about.
There is a 2.5 trillion dollar surplus in SS thats invested in treasury bills but its accounted as debt
when its really not debt because the government owes another part of government money.
no if we had stayed with bill clintons plan of taxes and expenditures/spending the national debt
would have been paid of by 2013. now it prolly would have taken a lil longer because of recesssions
and emergency that would have hurt tax receipts. the debt prolly never be completly
paid off which is not really a big deal because even fourtoune 500 companies have debt on their balance sheets.
the obama debt comission plan gets debt to GDP ratios down
to a point that will keep interest rates low and thats all that matter. -
Half of the national debt is fake, but the problem is, that money is still spent in the general fund, thus improving the ON budget deficit, while still being counted in the total operating figures. If you did this at a normal company, you go to jail for it. IOUs to yourself are not assets.
Spending rose under Clinton every year, as did the national debt.
All of that and Clinton benefited(historically anyway) from the huge run up toward the tech bubble.
Clinton influenced down the public debt(which doesn't include intragovernmental holdings), which is not the national debt. Which is the equivalent of kicking the can down the road, because those entitlements still expect to be delivered.
Nothing in the Clinton years would have brought down the national debt, at all. Every trend of his years was making it rise. The Ponzi scheme of social security was just more solvent then, with many more receipts than outlays. That curve is inverting.
(in all fairness, clinton had no real influence on the social security issue, outside of doing nothing to take advantage of the SocSec surplus years to perhaps put the Fedgov on better footing. He took advantage of the political usage of not having to borrow as much, leaving for himself a false legacy.)
As long as the government keeps two sets of books, people will continue to be confused. -
Half of the national debt is fake, but the problem is, that money is still spent in the general fund, thus improving the ON budget deficit, while still being counted in the total operating figures. If you did this at a normal company, you go to jail for it. IOUs to yourself are not assets.
Spending rose under Clinton every year, as did the national debt.
All of that and Clinton benefited(historically anyway) from the huge run up toward the tech bubble.
Clinton influenced down the public debt(which doesn't include intragovernmental holdings), which is not the national debt. Which is the equivalent of kicking the can down the road, because those entitlements still expect to be delivered.
Nothing in the Clinton years would have brought down the national debt, at all. Every trend of his years was making it rise. The Ponzi scheme of social security was just more solvent then, with many more receipts than outlays. That curve is inverting.
(in all fairness, clinton had no real influence on the social security issue, outside of doing nothing to take advantage of the SocSec surplus years to perhaps put the Fedgov on better footing. He took advantage of the political usage of not having to borrow as much, leaving for himself a false legacy.)
As long as the government keeps two sets of books, people will continue to be confused.
but the books that investors look at that set interest rates are the only ones that matter.
debt doesnt matter interest rates on debt to gdp is what matters. All we have to do is put
up debt plan that satisfies the bond markets which logistically is not hard but politically hard. -
We don't need to address the national debt until we get employment back on track. We'll never get out of debt until we fix the economy and grow the taxbase again. It's just alarmist ? that the debt will crush our society any day now if we don't address it immediately.
That said, we could still get rid of tax cuts for the rich right now if we're so eager to get started cutting deficits. -
Interest rates are set by the market my friend. When money is cheap, rates are lower, and vice versa. NO way around that.
You are quoting an old fashioned idea, that "deficits don't matter" as the catchphrase goes. But they do matter, a lot. Government debt crowds out private bonds, plus when the Fed monetizes government debt, we get inflation, artificially low interest rates(that then get premiums), which brings on the business cycle. No positives, at all.
The bond markets buy government debt as long as the price is right. The price being an interplay between dollar devaluation rate and interest rates, which move in opposite directions. I would prefer it if nobody bought government debt, that would reign in the government big time. It's an inevitability.
The national debt and the related processes are a big part of WHY employment isn't back on track. The debt and bond markets affect interest rates and savings rates, which in turn hurt capital markets, capital formation, and ultimately job creation, especially for newer industries that might require high fixed costs.
And the thread running through all this is that government debt expansion is precursor #1 to bringing on the business cycle.
The debt will indeed crush society because the debt represents out of control government spending. Totally unsustainable government spending, especially on the military and entitlements. Also, that spending is ANTI-productive, not just inefficient. Entitlement spending, in addition to being a stage-one financial drain also causes social effects that make america less competitive. The more people in makeshift government jobs, or on welfare, or wealthfare, means that many less people being economically productive.
Same with inflation. Inflation punishes saving, which hurts capital formation, which is the greatest harm done to future economic expansion. High savings rate, moderate interest rates, and predictably stable currency encourage capital formation, which is the only thing that makes us richer. -
Your argument is complete ? . Low interest rates encourage growth.
-
politicalthug202 wrote: »All we have to do is put
up debt plan that satisfies the bond markets which logistically is not hard but politically hard.
ladies and gentlemen we have a winner!shootemwon wrote: »Your argument is complete ? . Low interest rates encourage growth.
simple economics. I think you learn this day 1 of classes.
Oh and we both agree that employment and the economy are the real issues. Not inflated profit margins by the financial sector. -
Not when they are artificially low, below market rates. Which is what happens under heavy inflation(money becoming artificially cheap).
Below-market interest rates encourage a lot of borrowing, not saving, which leads to flood of debt-financed projects(the "boom") that go belly-up when reality sets in and interest rates adjust to the realistic level("bust"). This is the business cycle, in a nut shell.
Old school historical low interest rates, circa 1880s-1910s were very different than current monetary expansion caused low rates. back then, rates were low because in real terms, money was gaining in value,2-3% per year, combined with 2.5% average interest rates. Instead of having a premium on top of artificially low rates, you got the added wealth in REAL TERMS from economic expansion making the dollar worth more.
There is more to the rate than just the number in the paper. Low rates under stable money and price deflation is very different from low rates under rapid monetary expansion and price inflation. -
Interest rates are set by the market my friend. When money is cheap, rates are lower, and vice versa. NO way around that.
You are quoting an old fashioned idea, that "deficits don't matter" as the catchphrase goes. But they do matter, a lot. Government debt crowds out private bonds, plus when the Fed monetizes government debt, we get inflation, artificially low interest rates(that then get premiums), which brings on the business cycle. No positives, at all.
The bond markets buy government debt as long as the price is right. The price being an interplay between dollar devaluation rate and interest rates, which move in opposite directions. I would prefer it if nobody bought government debt, that would reign in the government big time. It's an inevitability.
The national debt and the related processes are a big part of WHY employment isn't back on track. The debt and bond markets affect interest rates and savings rates, which in turn hurt capital markets, capital formation, and ultimately job creation, especially for newer industries that might require high fixed costs.
And the thread running through all this is that government debt expansion is precursor #1 to bringing on the business cycle.
The debt will indeed crush society because the debt represents out of control government spending. Totally unsustainable government spending, especially on the military and entitlements. Also, that spending is ANTI-productive, not just inefficient. Entitlement spending, in addition to being a stage-one financial drain also causes social effects that make america less competitive. The more people in makeshift government jobs, or on welfare, or wealthfare, means that many less people being economically productive.
Same with inflation. Inflation punishes saving, which hurts capital formation, which is the greatest harm done to future economic expansion. High savings rate, moderate interest rates, and predictably stable currency encourage capital formation, which is the only thing that makes us richer.
Spoken like a true Austrian...
So it was national debt, not a near implosion of the global financial system & a collapse of the housing market that decimated employment... RIIIGHT... I guess Hayek was right about deficits & debt being the cause of the Great Depression...............wait a minute...
You speak on inefficient systems. Medicare & Medicaid costs are rising because healthcare costs are rising, not bc more senior citizens are entering in. Our healthcare system is one of the most inefficient & broken considering how we spend THE most per capita yet dont even place in the top 20 of best healthcare systems of industrialized countries. You talk competitiveness...our healthcare system is literally made up of monopolies & oligopolies. How can one health insurer own 70% of the market and that be considered competitive?? Basically get healthcare system & costs under control & we will have Medicare & Medicaid under control.. Then in the future we can discuss ways to improve those systems.
SS trust is in the green as someone stated earlier & will be until 2037. Then from 2037 it can still pay out 85% with no indefinite end. So it isnt adding anything to the debt.
Son, inflation is not even a factor right now since we are in a liquidity trap (yikes!! they do exists!! and unfortunately we are in one of those times). Hopefully you wont refer to commodity prices as a "sign" of inflation because I didn't hear any hooting & hollering of deflation when commodity prices dipped 50% in 2008.
However, I do agree with you on military spending...... -
shootemwon wrote: »Your argument is complete ? . Low interest rates encourage growth.
^^^^ in normal times they would, but since we are in a liquidity trap we had an entity to boost growth & fill the gap between actual & potential output (whether it be public infrastructure investment of an explosion in exports) -
Great Depression was caused primarily by government attempts to correct markets after the crash. It was precipitated by huge monetary expansion during WWI and the 20s. If you try to fix prices during a period of monetary contractation, you get surpluses all over the place, particularly in the labor market. labor surplus is also known as unemployment.
Costs are rising because entitlements have been expanded in several ways, the ratio of payers to payees is changing for the 'worse', the value of the dollar is decreasing, alongside basic costs rising. The medical field is our most regulated area of the economy besides energy and banking, which is a major reason why it is so inefficient. The AMA has no desire to see a free market in healthcare. I totally agree medicine is cartelized, that's exactly what the AMA, FDA, and other letter organizations were setup to do.
There aint no trust fund my friend. The SocSec administration holds intragovernmental IOUs. No Cash/gold/etc. It is a pure cash and carry system. New payers pay for the current outlays and the surplus money is spend in the general fund. This is BY law. By law, the administration most trade the cash for government IOUs, as in my above post.
Deflation has never been a threat in my lifetime, nor even my grandparents.
Inflation is always a problem, because the money supply is, with few temporary exceptions, always expanding. The effects always occur, and they are all bad. -
wat u expect? for them to tell u the truth??? do u think the president will tell u the truth tomorrow even if he wanted to?
its the way of the states.. get more loans, create more debt..raise prices.. then get other countreis to get lonas so they canc ontrol those countries.. and blah blah blah...
? aint gon change till Americans get their heads out the TV and facebook and ? like that and actually come together to boycott or make their voices heard.... -
Liquidity trap even in keynesian theory is impossible because A) the government hasn't come to close to running out of debt to sell and
it most certainly will use every dollars it has the Fed monetize. The fed can always underwrite government spending, for the US domestic market at least.
The problem is the underlying assumption that central banks and governments can stimulate economies in positive ways to begin with, which they cannot. All they can do together is dislocate buying power either through pure inflation, debt crowding, or a combination of the two. Or pure taxes, if the fed is not involved, which is slightly less painful. -
wat u expect? for them to tell u the truth??? do u think the president will tell u the truth tomorrow even if he wanted to?
its the way of the states.. get more loans, create more debt..raise prices.. then get other countreis to get lonas so they canc ontrol those countries.. and blah blah blah...
? aint gon change till Americans get their heads out the TV and facebook and ? like that and actually come together to boycott or make their voices heard....
That is the American way. Teach you in one field of study, while you remain ignorant to the rest. -
Great Depression was caused primarily by government attempts to correct markets after the crash. It was precipitated by huge monetary expansion during WWI and the 20s. If you try to fix prices during a period of monetary contractation, you get surpluses all over the place, particularly in the labor market. labor surplus is also known as unemployment.
Costs are rising because entitlements have been expanded in several ways, the ratio of payers to payees is changing for the 'worse', the value of the dollar is decreasing, alongside basic costs rising. The medical field is our most regulated area of the economy besides energy and banking, which is a major reason why it is so inefficient. The AMA has no desire to see a free market in healthcare. I totally agree medicine is cartelized, that's exactly what the AMA, FDA, and other letter organizations were setup to do.
There aint no trust fund my friend. The SocSec administration holds intragovernmental IOUs. No Cash/gold/etc. It is a pure cash and carry system. New payers pay for the current outlays and the surplus money is spend in the general fund. This is BY law. By law, the administration most trade the cash for government IOUs, as in my above post.
Deflation has never been a threat in my lifetime, nor even my grandparents.
Inflation is always a problem, because the money supply is, with few temporary exceptions, always expanding. The effects always occur, and they are all bad.
This.... is sad.....zombie ideas die hard huh... so the Great Depression was created because the government interviened not because of a collapse in the banking system....again... RIIIGHT...
The fact you stated "The medical field is our most regulated area of the economy besides energy and banking, which is a major reason why it is so inefficient." proves you're so out of touch.......... Our financial system was "heavily" regulated?? So Reagan's "deregulation is great for America" never happened? RIIIIGHT... You call repealing banking regulation acts & allowing Wall St to run wild "regulation"?? But that is besides the point..... Our medical field isn't regulated, its protected, by that I mean the government has shielded it from any forms of competition and allowed medical & pharmaceutical companies to become monopolies & oligopolies. If it is "heavily" regulates as you state, why was a pharmaceutical company not stopped when it raised its price of prenatal meds from $10 to $1500 (which happened after the government gave it a patent that will last 7yrs)??? To get a hold of Medicare & Medicaid we HAVE TO control our healthcare system and our long-term budget......period.......
Yes, there is a trust... Yes, it is positive & will remain fully funded until 2037.. Yes, I know SS own 2.5 trillion in government bonds... You're point??
"Deflation has never been a problem".. Ask Japan how they are doing... Im not saying we will become Japan by any means but until recently core inflation was dipping well below 1%.
Why are YOU so scared of inflation in times when inflation is not rising (liquidity trap anyone??). Yes, the Ms is expanding bc the Fed wants to encourage private investment...but with no investment & a large accumulation of inventories, where will this inflation come from?? Unless we start trading with Nebula 25 (since we are in a global recession) expect inflation to be low for years to come. -
Liquidity trap even in keynesian theory is impossible because A) the government hasn't come to close to running out of debt to sell and it most certainly will use every dollars it has the Fed monetize. The fed can always underwrite government spending, for the US domestic market at least.
The problem is the underlying assumption that central banks and governments can stimulate economies in positive ways to begin with, which they cannot. All they can do together is dislocate buying power either through pure inflation, debt crowding, or a combination of the two. Or pure taxes, if the fed is not involved, which is slightly less painful.
So interest rates are low, but inflation isnt raising.... Explain this new phenomenon to us then sir..
"The problem is the underlying assumption that central banks and governments can stimulate economies in positive ways to begin with, which they cannot" so how did the Great Depression end????
Do you honestly think companies will invest when consumption is low?? Poll after poll conducted on businesses shows the reason they are not investing is due to low sales (ie lack of demand)... If private enterprise refuses to plug the gap then who is left to fill the gap output??
**Even your explanation of why liquidity traps are impossible suggests you yourself don't even know what a liquidity trap is.** -
Hyde Parke wrote: »That is the American way. Teach you in one field of study, while you remain ignorant to the rest.
which is why i dont fuxx wit the AmeriKKKan way -
yall ? jus need to watch that zeitgeist movie... or go to thezeitgeistmovement.com ; seems pretty legit to me
-
Correct. The Fix caused the Depression. An economic contraction is bad enough, but left alone, the economy rights itself. The bust is necessary. But if you put price controls everywhere, you are going to prevent price levels from reaching the market clearing points. Especially in Labor. Add in the Smooth tariff instigated trade war, and you internationalize the problem. A banking collapse would have been a blessing, but unfortunately, we weren't allowed to have a banking collapse, they were bailed out all over the place, and institutions like the FDIC were setup, exacerbating the problem for the future.
The financial system IS heavily regulated. The Federal Reserve exists to cartelize the banking industry. That's exactly what it was created to do. There is no free market in banking, we have legal tender laws, fractional reserve banking is enshrined in law, protected via several quasi-government agencies, etc. We don't even have free coinage anymore, nor a market in bank notes. Not to mention what the establishment thinks of hard money.
No, Reagan didn't touch the financial industry in any meaningful way, just the usual smoke and mirrors. Real de-regulation would require ending the legal tender status of Federal Reserve Notes, the elimination of the Federal Reserve System, The FDIC, etc.
Regulations on Wall Street in general is another issue, and no, Reagan didn't do much there either. In fact, under Reagan, the takeover market was completely eviscerated. The takeover market was one of the most powerful free market checks on big business, which the government has all but eliminated. A whole lot more can be said here.
SS owning government bonds is akin to them owning nothing. Those bonds are unfunded. They are just promises to tax future incomes. It has no cash after it pays current recipients. "Unfunded liabilities". Two and a half trillion dollars in government bonds(which it is a art of), is just a promise to tax that much in the future. No cash, no assets, nothing.
Japan has no deflation worries either, which isn't to say they don't have problems. That's just not what their problem is. Japan, like us, experiences periodic moments of perceived price deflation when their output outpaces monetary expansion. Much rarer for us, but sometimes we are blessed with it. Japan's problems can be summed up by noting their outrageous labor market controls, heavy degree of corporate regulation, massive(by our standards)welfare state, and legacy of corporate and government debt.
There is no liquidity trap, nor will they ever be.
Expanding the money supply does not encourage private investment. It does the opposite of that. That pushes rates below the market level, discourages saving, makes debt more attractive, all the things we do not need in any way. Inflation is high and will be high as long as we run these outrageous deficits. In real terms, we are somewhere near 10%, seasonally adjusted and including energy costs.
In addition, expanding the money supply primarily just shifts purchasing power away from the typically economically efficient(cash heavy corporations and individuals) to the government and heavy borrowers. The last thing we need now is more below-market debt-financing and to punish savers. -
I know what a liquidity trap is. I know the Keynesian theory of one, at least. They don't exist in real life.
I also know that a main underlying premise(government spending to stimulate the economy) is false, as well as the theory behind what causes the trap. For example, one of the key events they propose that causes one is deflation. IN reality, this would be the exact opposite, because under a period of deflation, future money would be worth more than present, making investment MORE attractive, not less. But Keynesian are so far removed from monetary real-term effects, it's not surprising they believe this.
Even the fear of a zero or below zero interest rate is a bogeyman because people will not contract for negative return on their money UNLESS there is some value-securing benefit to the contract. Either scenario works, but the later is very unlikely, and the former is just common sense.
But the main problem is the idea of government stimulated economy. As I said above, they can only transfer wealth, via various means. as a whole, government spending tends to be a SUBTRACTION, not an addition to the economy. It's not just inefficient, which is bad enough, it is most often explicitly anti-productive. -
LMFAO, this chump sh0t thinks government intervention CAUSED the Depression.
Government intervention relieved the Depression, then we introduced austerity measures and the economy fell off again. Plain and simple. Now we're making the same mistakes again. -
shootemwon wrote: »LMFAO, this chump sh0t thinks government intervention CAUSED the Depression.
Government intervention relieved the Depression, then we introduced austerity measures and the economy fell off again. Plain and simple. Now we're making the same mistakes again.
didnt legalizing liquor and taxing it play a big part in recovering from the depression?
