The National Debt

Quote from Hello:

you are an idiot, Social security costs are set to spiral out of control in the next 10 years, and cost us about 25 trillion or more over the next 75 years.



Thus, $3.7 trillion is not what is needed over the next 75 years. It is what the federal government would have to invest right now to meet the Social Security's 75-year shortfall.

Since the federal government isn't going to come up with an extra $3.7 trillion to invest tomorrow, a more useful figure in understanding the shortfall is the "cumulative cost." That is the cost to the taxpayers, over a 75-year period, of paying off all the treasury bonds in the Social Security trust fund plus meeting all the obligations of Social Security once the trust fund runs dry. Using data from the 2004 Trustees' report, that number is (sit down) $24.9 trillion in inflation-adjusted dollars! That is an annual average of $332 billion extra that the taxpayers will have to pony up for Social Security. Even that doesn't tell the full story because included are the years 2004-2018 when Social Security is still running a surplus. After 2018, the annual Social Security deficit grows quickly: By 2022 taxpayers will have to pay almost $100 billion above what they will shell out in payroll taxes to meet all of Social Security's obligations. That will reach over $200 billion in 2027, over $300 billion in 2033, and $400 billion in 2046. If you are under 40 years of age, chances are quite good you will live to see all of those dates.


http://spectator.org/archives/2005/01/19/the-true-cost-of-social-securi


Maybe you missed it,but Each 0.5% tax rate increase addresses 23% of shortfall.
 
Quote from Mav88:

California didn't fight a war, California is in deep financial shit, guess why.

I dont even think there is a point arguing with this idiot, he is on another thread saying Pelosi is going to be president in 2016 with an 11% approval right now, and he thinks that social security is operating on a surplus, and will continue to do so. He is either delusional, trolling or flat out retarded.


These are the dumb fucks who voted Obama in and now will be responsible for the complete destruction of the United States. Their solution to the disaster which is coming from our unfunded liabilities was to create a new government entitlement program to try to clean up the old ones which have over 100 trillion in combined liabilities.
 
Quote from Mav88:

Why do these braindead assertions even continue? Why in the face of simple refuting arithmetic do people even try to make false assertions that somehow social and corporate welfare is affordable and defense is the culprit, and that we can afford more of this?

total war tally ~ $2.5T
social welfare unfunded obligations >>$40T

Social welfare outlays 2009, pensions health and welfare: (federal, state local): $2.5T, 41% of total gov't spending
War and the DoD ~$790B 13% of total govt spending

Constitution says to provide for the common defense, and the GENERAL welfare, not individual welfare

So if military expenditures are not the culprit, then how do countries with greater entitlement commitments than ours get by?
 
I could easily dismiss this tool, but the reality is that he and his cohorts are getting their way.

They are actually cheering this legislation, and they can't add.
 
Quote from Mav88:

Why do these braindead assertions even continue? Why in the face of simple refuting arithmetic do people even try to make false assertions that somehow social and corporate welfare is affordable and defense is the culprit, and that we can afford more of this?

total war tally ~ $2.5T
social welfare unfunded obligations >>$40T


That is the biggest load of crap,TODAY,social security has a huge surplus,cant say the same about the wars.

We have borrowed over 3.7 trillion from ss,that has saved the US lots of money since they didn't have to borrow that money from elsewhere and have to pay huge sums in interest

to fix it all that is needed is a small tax increases


Revenue raisers

Raise the cap to 90% of taxable earnings

Approximately 39% reduction in shortfall

PRO:Affects only 6% of taxpayers or top 15% of income.
Can be phased in gradually.
Not a new tax, restores prior policy.
CON:It’s a tax increase for higher earners.


Increase payroll tax rate

Each 0.5% tax rate increase addresses 23% of shortfall.

PRO:A gradual increase would maintain 75-year solvency.
CON:A regressive tax increase that adversely affect workers.
 
Ricter, you are a little more intelligent than dot dot dot loser,

Read the history of Canada and Sweden, they about killed themselves with socialism, they had to cut back. We all know what happened to the eastern block, and keep your eye on sweden as it implodes under the weight of a large non assimilating minority population who will suck their social services dry.
 
Quote from Hello:



These are the dumb fucks who voted Obama in and now will be responsible for the complete destruction of the United States. Their solution to the disaster which is coming from our unfunded liabilities was to create a new government entitlement program to try to clean up the old ones which have over 100 trillion in combined liabilities.

And I'll be voting for him again in 2012 :)
 
Democratic-Controlled Legislatures Overseeing 17 of the 20 Highest State Budget Deficits Nationwide

How are states going to balance the budget deficits that are mounting across the nation?

For that answer, you'll have to ask the Democrats - as they control both the Senate and House in 17 of the top 20 states with the largest FY 2010 per capita deficits.

The National Conference of State Legislatures recently issued state level budget deficit data.

A Smart Politics analysis finds Democrats are in charge of 35 of the 40 chambers in states with the 20 largest deficits, including control of both the Senate and House in 17 of these 20 states.

Only Arizona (ranked #9) and Kansas (#15) have legislatures entirely under control of the GOP in the states facing the biggest budget crises nationwide. In Virginia (#20), control is split, with Democrats in charge of the Senate and Republicans with the partisan advantage in the House.

Democrats, meanwhile, control both chambers in the other 17 states: Hawaii, New York, Connecticut, California, New Jersey, Delaware, Washington, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Louisiana, Wisconsin, Rhode Island, Nevada, Vermont, Maryland, Maine, and Iowa. (Note: while Democrats currently control a majority of state legislatures (27), they still preside over a vastly disproportionate number of states in the deepest financial trouble).
 
That is the biggest load of crap,TODAY,social security has a huge surplus,cant say the same about the wars.

We have borrowed over 3.7 trillion from ss,that has saved the US lots of money since they didn't have to borrow that money from elsewhere and have to pay huge sums in interest

to fix it all that is needed is a small tax increases

I said total social welfare moron, since you can't do arithmetic you are not qualified to make conclusions. You are odds with every budget analysis out there.

The SSI 'surplus' was due to disappear anyway, it is long term insolvent when considering it in a vacuum. But that's not the point since SSI is not the sum total of social welfare.
 
Back
Top