Biden is adding $1 TRILLION to the debt every 100 days.

[Greenbeard]

Saying he is the worst ever is the understatement of the century. His chief economic advisor thinks we can’t go broke because the gove can print money.

Everyone in this regime is clueless.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/01/the-us-national-debt-is-rising-by-1-trillion-about-every-100-days.html#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Treasury%20building%20in,%2C%20on%20March%2013%2C%202023.&text=The%20debt%20load%20of%20the,crossing%20the%20mark%20on%20Dec.

Not sure there's much Biden can do about the underlying problem.

America is hitting "peak 65" in 2024 as record number of boomers reach retirement age. Here's what to know.

If you're one of the millions of Americans turning 65 this year, here's what should you know about retirement — whether you intend to continue working or not.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Independent thinker]

Saying he is the worst ever is the understatement of the century. His chief economic advisor thinks we can’t go broke because the gove can print money.

Everyone in this regime is clueless.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/01/the-us-national-debt-is-rising-by-1-trillion-about-every-100-days.html#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Treasury%20building%20in,%2C%20on%20March%2013%2C%202023.&text=The%20debt%20load%20of%20the,crossing%20the%20mark%20on%20Dec.

And yet Democrats will tell you that it's all Trump's fault.

 

[Greenbeard]

And yet Democrats will tell you that it's all Trump's fault.

It's the fault of anyone who argued for revenue levels below what's needed to pay for our obligations.

Trump is just the latest in a long line.

 

[task0778]

It's the fault of anyone who argued for revenue levels below what's needed to pay for our obligations.

Trump is just the latest in a long line.

Not to be snarky, but Biden is the latest in a long line. And both parties are at fault no matter who the president is/was, although I will say that it is always the democrats who want to spend more of our money than the GOP does. I cannot think of any appropriation bill where the democrats wanted to spend less, but that does not leave the repubs off the hook. They are supposed to be the conservatives but when it comes to fiscal policy, they ain't conservative. Maybe it's partly the only way to get business done in Washington, you gotta spend more so everybody gets something.

 

[Nostra]

It's the fault of anyone who argued for revenue levels below what's needed to pay for our obligations.

Trump is just the latest in a long line.

Latest? Ever hear the name Biden, Moron?

 

[task0778]

It's the fault of anyone who argued for revenue levels below what's needed to pay for our obligations.

Trump is just the latest in a long line.

It is also the fault of everyone in both parties who spent far more of our money than what the revenue was. WE DO NOT HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. It ticks me off when effing progressive liberal democrats talk about a revenue problem; that is pure bullshit.

 

[Greenbeard]

It is also the fault of everyone in both parties who spent far more of our money than what the revenue was. WE DO NOT HAVE A REVENUE PROBLEM, WE HAVE A SPENDING PROBLEM. It ticks me off when effing progressive liberal democrats talk about a revenue problem; that is pure bullshit.

We do have a revenue problem. Our spending obligations are increasing over time as the population ages and our revenues are not keeping pace. So we can either cut back on our spending on older folks (not in 30 years, now), accept that we're going to permanently need higher revenue levels, or just learn to live with big deficits.

 

[task0778]

We do have a revenue problem. Our spending obligations are increasing over time as the population ages and our revenues are not keeping pace. So we can either cut back on our spending on older folks (not in 30 years, now), accept that we're going to permanently need higher revenue levels, or just learn to live with big deficits.

Read my lips: the current deficit is running about $2 trillion/year and rising. Only an effing idiot can think the US Govt can raise revenues that much without consequences. Do you really think that is possible without causing one hell of an economic recession/depression? And BTW the gov't needs to cut spending on a lot more than on older folks. Spending needs to be cut across the board, discretionary AND non-discretionary. Cuz if we don't, just about everybody except the really wealthy will be FUCKED.

Some say all we have to do is print more money, IOW monetize the debt. But guess what, that has been tried before and it doesn't work. Ever. People bitched when we had like 9% inflation a couple of years ago, well it'll get a lot worse than that if/when the US gov't tries that idea. So, massive inflation or massive economic ruin, probably both. Pick your poison, maybe it doesn't happen for a few years, 10, 20 who knows? But it's gonna happen. And now for the good news: I'll be dead by then.

 

[Greenbeard]

Read my lips: the current deficit is running about $2 trillion/year and rising. Only an effing idiot can think the US Govt can raise revenues that much without consequences. Do you really think that is possible without causing one hell of an economic recession/depression?

Alas, there are consequences for not raising it, too. Demographic changes are going to continue driving our outlays up.

And BTW the gov't needs to cut spending on a lot more than on older folks. Spending needs to be cut across the board, discretionary AND non-discretionary.

Discretionary spending is down more than a point of GDP from what it was twenty years ago. All the growth in outlays as a percentage of GDP since then has been driven by mandatory spending growth, much of it in those programs supporting our swelling population of old folks.

 

[task0778]

Alas, there are consequences for not raising it, too. Demographic changes are going to continue driving our outlays up.

Discretionary spending is down more than a point of GDP from what it was twenty years ago. All the growth in outlays as a percentage of GDP since then has been driven by mandatory spending growth, much of it in those programs supporting our swelling population of old folks.

Then I think Congress and the President need to amend our mandatory spending somehow to bring it more in line with revenue. I'm not saying we don't need to raise more revenue, but we sure as hell better cut our spending drastically or at some point the shit is going to hit the economic fan. If I'm not mistaken, Canada faced a growing debt/deficit problem some 30 years ago, and the liberal and conservative parties managed to address the problem together. I think it was 7 dollars of spending cuts for 1 dollar of revenue, and it worked.

 

[Greenbeard]

Then I think Congress and the President need to amend our mandatory spending somehow to bring it more in line with revenue. I'm not saying we don't need to raise more revenue, but we sure as hell better cut our spending drastically or at some point the shit is going to hit the economic fan.

The biggest long-term spending driver has always been Medicare, both because of the long-term growth in seniors as a share of the population and because historically health care spending has grown faster than general inflation and the rest of the economy.

But Medicare reforms were passed fourteen years and real per beneficiary Medicare costs haven't grown since. That's a huge development for the long-term budget outlook and you can see its mounting impact in the evolution of the CBO's projections of future federal health spending obligations as more and more data comes in. The difference in the health spending trajectory in the 2009 (light blue) projections and the latest 2024 (purple) projections is trillions and trillions of dollars in savings.

But significant as that is, it's not enough. Spending still grows because the number of beneficiaries still grows and ages and at some point we need to either raise more revenue to pay for those obligations or start cutting benefits for older folks.

 

[d0gbreath]

The biggest long-term spending driver has always been Medicare, both because of the long-term growth in seniors as a share of the population and because historically health care spending has grown faster than general inflation and the rest of the economy.

But Medicare reforms were passed fourteen years and real per beneficiary Medicare costs haven't grown since. That's a huge development for the long-term budget outlook and you can see its mounting impact in the evolution of the CBO's projections of future federal health spending obligations as more and more data comes in. The difference in the health spending trajectory in the 2009 (light blue) projections and the latest 2024 (purple) projections is trillions and trillions of dollars in savings.

But significant as that is, it's not enough. Spending still grows because the number of beneficiaries still grows and ages and at some point we need to either raise more revenue to pay for those obligations or start cutting benefits for older folks.

Cut benefits for older folks and see what happens.

 

[IDIOCRACY]

Saying he is the worst ever is the understatement of the century. His chief economic advisor thinks we can’t go broke because the gove can print money.

Everyone in this regime is clueless.

https://www.cnbc.com/2024/03/01/the-us-national-debt-is-rising-by-1-trillion-about-every-100-days.html#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Treasury%20building%20in,%2C%20on%20March%2013%2C%202023.&text=The%20debt%20load%20of%20the,crossing%20the%20mark%20on%20Dec.

Any meanwhile, the stock market has lagged well behind inflation three years running. How come that dose of information isn't being communicated? Same as most things reality, it's because primary sources of information are frauds.

Fuck, even our monetary system is a fraud. The only thing that makes sense is we go deeper into debt, the effect being inflation eats us alive. How is it sustainable? Rhetorical.

 

[Greenbeard]

Cut benefits for older folks and see what happens.

Then we’ll need to raise revenues instead.

 

[Nostra]

The biggest long-term spending driver has always been Medicare, both because of the long-term growth in seniors as a share of the population and because historically health care spending has grown faster than general inflation and the rest of the economy.

But Medicare reforms were passed fourteen years and real per beneficiary Medicare costs haven't grown since. That's a huge development for the long-term budget outlook and you can see its mounting impact in the evolution of the CBO's projections of future federal health spending obligations as more and more data comes in. The difference in the health spending trajectory in the 2009 (light blue) projections and the latest 2024 (purple) projections is trillions and trillions of dollars in savings.

But significant as that is, it's not enough. Spending still grows because the number of beneficiaries still grows and ages and at some point we need to either raise more revenue to pay for those obligations or start cutting benefits for older folks.

Mandatory givernment healthcare spending for 2024 is $1.67 trillion.

The government takes in over $5 TRILLION.


Find another strawman, Simp.

 

[Nostra]

Then we’ll need to raise revenues instead.

Why?

 

[d0gbreath]

Then we’ll need to raise revenues instead.
So be it. Whatever it takes.

 

[d0gbreath]

Then we’ll need to raise revenues instead.

Whatever it takes.

 

[Greenbeard]

Mandatory givernment healthcare spending for 2024 is $1.67 trillion.

The government takes in over $5 TRILLION.


Find another strawman, Simp.

Mandatory spending in 2024 is $4.191 trillion (after factoring in off-setting receipts). Revenues are $4.890 trillion.

 

[Greenbeard]

Why?

Because the driver of our long-term debt is the ongoing growth in Social Security, Medicare, and now net interest. If we're not going to cut the things that are growing, we need to rescale our revenue to match it. Or just learn to live with deficits forever.