So does that mean when deficits should be fixed by raising taxes? Current taxpayers have benefited from unprecedented (nearly) deficit spending since 2001. They should pay that back (through spending cuts/tax increases) FIRST.
Bush's own optimistic plan doesn't state there will be any kind of surplus anytime soon. Cutting the ridiculous deficit in half doesn't equate to a surplus, that just means we are bleeding a little less.
WTF is up with this thread? Jebus.
WTF is up with this thread? Jebus.
Wrong try again, congress needs to work within their budget. Remember they are taking money, not donations. If in a given year the money generated through tax revenues exceeds their ridiculous spending habits. The only moral thing to do is give it back.
Under your logic what stops congress from simply spending like fools and enslave us to 100% tax rates?
btw I heard our decifict for fiscal 07 could be in the 120-150 Billion range. That is a very low % of GDP.
Congress DOES work within in a budget. The problem is the budget is designed to run deficits. THEN the donkey's rectum President comes back with emergency? funding requests.
There's nothing fundamentally moral about giving back surplus tax revenue. To the contrary, it would be quite moral to pay down debt that has been accruing. Current citizens/Congress have used deficit spending to support their lifestyles. But that's a subsidy provided by future taxpayers. The most egregious aspect is that MANY of the Boomers receiving the benefits of recent tax cuts will expect (and vote for) platinum-level Medicare in the coming decades.
Under your lack of logic, spending restraint is going to magically appear. That sounds perfectly reasonable considering the SF Treat is running the House and there's a dry drunk in the White House.:roll:
But much like the 90s, we may get relief by gridlock. Democrats may have the savy to extend/modify broad tax cuts (lower marginal rates, marriage penalty, child tax credits) while allowing the bulk of Bush tax cuts to expire. Over the next 4-7 years that will likely bring the budget into balance . . . assuming spending doesn't get out of wack. Of course, that's assuming Democrats and Bush43 don't go the route of Reagan.
It's absolutely ridiculous to continue cite %GDP as the 'real' measure of the impact of deficit spending. NIH and NSF budgets have basically been flat for the past two years. In essence, the nation's best science has been hamstrung b/c the government cannot afford to even keep pace with inflation. The same is true at FDA, EPA, and a variety of other 'government' agencies.
Now if we could expect reduced liabilities in Medicare, Social Security, interest on the debt, national defense, etc . . . then it would make sense to be less concerned about deficit spending . . . in absolute terms and as a %GDP.
Instead:
1) Medicare spending is going to explode. We know this. Bush/GOP Congress even decided to accelerate the process.
2) The 'reported' low % of GDP is a function of SPENDING the SS surplus each year. That surplus is going to peak in the next few years and then decline to zero within a decade.
3) As long as Bush piles up deficits, the debt (and huge interest payments) will continue to grow. Interest on the debt is probably in the top 4 in government spending.
4) Defense spending is going to be huge drag . . . no matter what happens in Iraq. The world has become so unsafe/unstable under Bush that we may actually need the military that Rumsfeld was in the process of creating. A $600-700B behemoth in a military-industrial complex more concerned with feeding itself rather than the needs of society.
5) Then there's the whole notion of making actual INVESTMENTS in our country's future . . . public education, transportation infrastructure, energy R&D, healthcare reform. None of that is free.
NO! I hope they do NOT do this. SS is broken and needs to be fixed, not shored up with a budget surplus that would be much better spent elsewhere.
The 'elsewhere' would be primarily cutting into the huge amount of debt Congress/Bush racked up over the past several years. It also would be beneficial to add funding to public education, building up better public transportation systems, and funding green projects.
SS is NOT broken. Revenue from SS currently exceeds outlays by over $200B each year. Congress/Bush have spent over $1T in SS surpluses. Now SS does need urgent reform in order for it to be sustainable:
1) reduce benefits
2) means test
3) raise cap
4) raise rate
Arguably, #2 and #3 may be considered punitive for higher income Americans. Then again, they are also the ones that will never need a social safety net. Regardless, small, judicious reforms now . . . may allow SS to run an annual surplus for decades to come. But more dramatic reform (private accounts) would require SS to run huge surpluses with that money going towards reforms instead of going into the general Treasury.
But lets be honest about our future. It is indeed a zero sum game. We are not going to grow out of our future (next 15 years) liabilities in Medicare (and to a far lesser extent SS). If military spending is cut in half, it's going to be pie. If PNAC thinking rules, non-military discretionary spending will have to go to near zero in order to balance the budget. Remember, not only do old people vote . . . a lot of them hold office.
I don't believe Franklin Roosevelt created the Social Security Act as a means of taxing the American people, yet that's bascially what it's become. Add to the fact that eventually it will not be able to support itself and it's apparent it is not working properly and will work even less effectively if something is not done about it.
If something's not going to work the way it is supposed to, that fits most defintions of broken. Sure, it might be easy to fix, but it's broken until such measures are taken. Getting those measures enacted is the hard part because no one wants to part with the money they feel is owed to them.
Not quite, if they did, they would be within a stones throw of break even. Rarely has this happened.
It is moral to allow people to keep as much of their money as they have earned. You must be under the false impression govt overspending somehow benefits everybody.
Not at all, but under my sound logic, the deficit spending keeps them somewhat in check by an apathetic public. You essentially said anytime these douchebags run a deficit, taxes should be immediately raised to pay it. That is a recipe for enslavement.
The budget is already working towards balance without the above. Through the first 6 months of Fiscal 07, the govt recorded a ~82 billion dollar deficit. Lowest it has been in years. The idea raising taxes always results in a balanced budget is failed theory.
Hardly, it is a good measure to compare across different time periods. Using anecdotal evidence about certain agencies seeing a flat rate of increase means what exactly? It just means the govt has been spending the money elsewhere. The damn budget has been ballooning, so the increase in spending is there.
Ok?
Yes and? This practice has been in place for decades. Clintons surpluses were built on the back of the SS surplus.
This is why a % is a good measure. If the % of deficit shrinks, it can become nearly non-existent in statistical terms. If we ran a 50 billion dollar deficit every year for the next 100 years, each year the affect of that deficit becomes less and less on the current budget. We will rack up 5 trillion in debt over that time but our economy will most likely be 50-70 trillion. As a % it becomes a non-issue.
This doesnt mean I dont think we should balance the budget, however if we can keep it within a fraction of a 1% of our gdp, it isnt the end of the world either.
Defense spending as a % of our budget and GDP has shrunk big time. I find it funny you are still railing against the defense budget which should eat about 450 billion in the next budget cycle out of a nearly 3 trillion budget. The military industrial complex is dwarfed by the social industrial complex. You cant argue that.
We are making investments in the above. One of them, public education has proven more money isnt the answer. We spend ridiculous amounts of money subsidizing alternative energy sources which wont benefit anybody anytime soon except the people who run these projects making a living off the tax payers back. And healthcare is a mess and will always be a mess. Dont have an answer for that.
I find it hard to believe a program like SS that had an eligibility age at the avg age of citizens wasnt more than a tax guised as a social program. What FDR was more or less brilliant. He needed cash to fund his makework projects. He gets a feel good social program through to do it. Under the initial design of the program, the eligibility age today should be 78 years. That will fix SS and fund those drunks in DC's spending habits pretty easy.
How can you talk about a surplus when there is so much debt?
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
According to this clock there is $29,157.45 in debt / american. Maybe the U.S. should do something about this?
(For comparision my country has about 64 000 $ in savings pr. person)
Just a thought..
U.S. NATIONAL DEBT CLOCK
According to this clock there is $29,157.45 in debt / american. Maybe the U.S. should do something about this?
(For comparision my country has about 64 000 $ in savings pr. person)
Just a thought..
Well if there was one (there more than likely won't be without spending reduction or tax increases) it should go toward paying down our debt. It would be nice to run persistent surpluses so we could get privatized Social Security. Unfortunately that will never happen.
Don't hold your breath. Your short term so called "suprlus" doesn't include "supplemental" and "emergency" funding the Bushwhackos WAR OF LIES, and it won't put much of a dent in the trillion dollar debt our great grandchildren will still be paying long after we're gone from this planet.
In other words, PJ, you're still blowing the same old party BS. :thumbsdown: :frown: :thumbsdown:
And since you forgot your usual line, remember that the last real budget surplus we had was Clinton's "fault." :laugh:
Until the spending bill for the troops is signed the president should veto all spending bills for anything else.
Arkaign
Lifer
- Oct 27, 2006
- 20,736
- 1,379
- 126
Surplus = Pay down some of the national debt
Also :
*Cut spending
**Cut spending
***Cut spending
*Eliminate/Merge redundant government agencies
*Increase corporate taxes
*Fix our borders
*Close redundant overseas bases
*Get the hell out of Iraq
*Make sure every soldier & support personnel on deployment has top-notch armor to go with top-notch training and support
*SPEND less than we TAX, and TAX less than we do ALREADY
*BAN ALL BRIBES (PAC MONEY, GIFTS, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, ETC) from Politics, with a Criminal penalty of a MINIMUM of FIFTY YEARS for violations. Set the campaign spending limit at $1,000 per candidate per campaign. Make the candidates walk the streets spreading their message to whomever will listen, but do NOT LET THEM BUY UNLIMITED COVERAGE/PROPAGANDA.
Also :
*Cut spending
**Cut spending
***Cut spending
*Eliminate/Merge redundant government agencies
*Increase corporate taxes
*Fix our borders
*Close redundant overseas bases
*Get the hell out of Iraq
*Make sure every soldier & support personnel on deployment has top-notch armor to go with top-notch training and support
*SPEND less than we TAX, and TAX less than we do ALREADY
*BAN ALL BRIBES (PAC MONEY, GIFTS, CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS, ETC) from Politics, with a Criminal penalty of a MINIMUM of FIFTY YEARS for violations. Set the campaign spending limit at $1,000 per candidate per campaign. Make the candidates walk the streets spreading their message to whomever will listen, but do NOT LET THEM BUY UNLIMITED COVERAGE/PROPAGANDA.
Until spending bills for the troops and other supplemental bills are included in the budget totals, the president and all other (R) talking heads should have the word "Surplus" stricken from their vocabulary.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,791
- 6,350
- 126
The last time there was a "pending budget surplus" it was estimated to be $10trillion(IIRC) over 10 years. Before even a penny of it was seen, a certain political Party had vowed to give it back to the tax payer. The certain Party not only failed to give the money back, but they killed the Surplus before it had a chance and then brought back Deficits and Debt with a glee a dog shows its' master when it comes home. Classic Chicken counting using unhatched eggs.
When you got the money in hand, decide what to do with it.
When you got the money in hand, decide what to do with it.
Careful there. Congress has spent a lot of SS trust fund money over the last few decades but that was LONG before GWB came on the scene. While I'll be the first to admit the last 6 six years of Republican control haven't been a shining example of fiscal conservatism, laying the blame for this on GWB is intellectually dishonest.
There's that word again. Help me out, will ya? What's the difference between 'intellectually dishonest' and 'dishonest'?
XZeroII
Lifer
- Jun 30, 2001
- 12,572
- 0
- 0
Why should we do anything about it? The debt of a country is not the same as the debt for an individual.
Let's say, for instance, that the entire sum of US debt was suddenly erased (all debts were forgiven). How would the average American's life change? The answer is, not much, if at all. Taxes would not go down. Spending would not change. Nothing would really change.
I came in here thinking there was going to be some big breaking news.
budget surplus? yeah right
budget surplus? yeah right
Until Dole/Greenspan there were not HUGE SS surpluses to spend. The surplus grew over the 90s as a function of Boomers being in their prime earning years. It will continue through the next few years for the same reason. If the 90s Clinton/GOP Congress had current SS surpluses to work with then Clinton era budget surpluses would have been ridiculous.
By the numbers . . . since I'm disinclined to do the work for you . . . review Treasury tables on SS surpluses (absolute and %GDP) then compare them to budget deficits (not including SS surplus). It will be pretty obvious that 02-05 were among the worst years in the past two decades. In essence, Bush/GOP Congress have likely spent more in SS surpluses during their reign than the previous three decades (if not more).
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter