Deficit Spending, Ds v Rs

[1972 Grad]

You mean stealing any more than they already are?

I love that.

Give me $100 today and I will maybe give you back somewhat less than $100 in 50 years, if you havent already died.

Only SS is kept in a separate pot. And considering that isnt actually held for the individuals, you cant really argue they are IOUs as the very idea is that people who dont put in get paid.

It's all socialism. People just want their version of socialism to be the only socialism there is.

I have had my brother, several friends, and 4 personal General Practitioners die before receiving one dime in S.S. My doctor just died at 62. He lived longer than the first 3 doctors I had. What a great program S.S. is.

 

[LouderVol]

It's still illegal to take that money and spend it on foreign debt interest payments or other things. If you want to wind down the programs, you have to wind down the collection of those funds. It's not a way to balance the budget. You would still need to raise taxes or cut actual non-entitlement programs.

I am for cutting. And I believe medicare is still subsidized from the general fund, and SS will need to be in about 15 years unless they change payouts.

Cutting the military spending to zero wouldnt fix the deficit we are in.

 

[LouderVol]

I have had my brother, several friends, and 4 personal General Practitioners die before receiving one dime in S.S. My doctor just died at 62. He lived longer than the first 3 doctors I had. What a great program S.S. is.

If they wanted to help people they would set up 401ks or something similiar for people.

As it is it's a pension fund. And we know how well those are managed....

 

[1972 Grad]

If they wanted to help people they would set up 401ks or something similiar for people.

As it is it's a pension fund. And we know how well those are managed....

My brother's contributions over a 45 year work life evaporated into thin air.

 

[LouderVol]

My brother's contributions over a 45 work life evaporated into thin air.

Yup. The system relies on that type of contributor.

 

[Thunder Good-Oil]

Obama had some large deficits, but remember a couple of things. One, the 2009 budget was submitted by the Bush Administration. Obama was President that year, but the budget was submitted before he took office. Bush did leave emergency spending for the financial meltdown to be determined by Obama, but it was inline with the Bush projections. The Bush 43 recession required a lot of spending, in a much weakened economy with lower tax revenues. Also, Bush 43 financed the Iraq War with off the budget appropriations.

That’s another pretty chart, but it doesn’t address the question. Since Ike there have been 8 sessions with the Dems having absolutely power. The Rs have had it 3x.

It also ignores that when one administration does things like neglecting the military (Obama) then the next must not only spend the necessary minimum but must also spend to catch up to fill the hole dug by the previous. Also when the economy is wrecked by one then the following is often penalized with more needed stimulus and with servicing the debt at higher interest rates in the discretionary spending portion of the budget. There is very little that any POTUS can do directly. Good policies to improve the economy will, but those are longer term measures that will typically lag and benefit or penalize future administrations. Like when Dubyah took drastic measures to prevent an even deeper financial disruption yet dumb liberals think that BHO saved the world by crushing some Blazers and Broncos.

Your graphs in isolation are also largely meaningless as they also ignore nation altering events like 9/11, pandemics, natural and man made disasters, etc.

 

[MontyPython]

This is all basically correct except the conclusion. Stating that deficit spending "destroys the economy" is a misnomer. Just like your own household, having debt is normal and OK. In fact, it's good and 'necessary' for most. It only becomes an issue when the proportion of debt payment to income (or GDP government-wise) becomes "too high". Currently, this runs about 110% I believe. Whether this percentage is "too high" or not is debatable, but I believe most economists are OK where we are for the moment, but the trend is troubling part. Some economists also argue that our debt is high enough now to stunt economic growth.

 

[USAFgolferVol]

Dave..dont waste your time

Directly, no. Indirectly, yes

 

[LouderVol]

This is all basically correct except the conclusion. Stating that deficit spending "destroys the economy" is a misnomer. Just like your own household, having debt is normal and OK. In fact, it's good and 'necessary' for most. It only becomes an issue when the proportion of debt payment to income (or GDP government-wise) becomes "too high". Currently, this runs about 110% I believe. Whether this percentage is "too high" or not is debatable, but I believe most economists are OK where we are for the moment, but the trend is troubling part. Some economists also argue that our debt is high enough now to stunt economic growth.

View attachment 336270

The fastest growing, as a percentage, piece of our budget is debt payment. And that shows no sign of slowing down. You add in all the healthcare bs on top of these two trillion dollar stimulus fiascos and we are going to see pretty big jumps.

 

[midnight orange]

Title should be renamed “Deficit Spending Ds and Rs vs Citizens”

 

[ETV]

I'd say you are making excuses. Why don't you goto the Football Forum. Economics and politics are not sports, as you seem to view them.

I asked a question and you responded with a cop-out. In fair comparison, the football forum does offer sensible discussions compared to anything you've contributed to.