Lets focus on economics and a balanced budget

[Valerie]

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.

- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.

- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.

- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since.



CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.

- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.

- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.

- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since.



CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget

Clinton's "surplus" was monkey business and there was never a surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

 

[Dovahkiin]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

You are indeed correct. These idiots want the government to drain the private sector of dollars year after year and force people to rely on loans.

Drain the private sector of dollars? How would that happen?

The government stops deficit spending and runs a surplus, taxing more then its spending. It's simple stuff really.

 

[Centinel]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

You are indeed correct. These idiots want the government to drain the private sector of dollars year after year and force people to rely on loans.

Drain the private sector of dollars? How would that happen?

The government stops deficit spending and runs a surplus, taxing more then its spending. It's simple stuff really.

Paying down the government debt entails returning dollars to the private sector.

Both expenses and debt repayment return dollars to the private sector.

 

[Valerie]

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.

- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.

- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.

- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since.



CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget

Clinton's "surplus" was monkey business and there was never a surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

cnn has the facts but nice try

 

[Slade3200]

What

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

You are indeed correct. These idiots want the government to drain the private sector of dollars year after year and force people to rely on loans.

Drain the private sector of dollars? How would that happen?

The government stops deficit spending and runs a surplus, taxing more then its spending. It's simple stuff really.

Paying down the government debt entails returning dollars to the private sector.

Both expenses and debt repayment return dollars to the private sector.

How exactly does the government pay off the debt? It's not a credit card bill... If I have 100k in treasury bonds in my IRA retirement account or Acme Corp has 5 million in bonds that are maturing, is the government supposed to force us to sell them back the bonds??? What is your plan and what is the benefit?

 

[Agit8r]

View attachment 69109

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending.

One of the huge drivers of medicare and social security is the baby boomer generation retirees. We have an enormous number of old people drawing benefits. I think the current stat on ratio of those paying in for those receiving is 3:1 where as it was 15:1 when we started the program.

How do we get there?
1. do we cut social security benefits?
2. do we gut medicare?
3. do we lift the cap on taxed income?

we can talk about cutting food stamps or eliminating the department of education or cutting farm subsidies or foreign aid but those are such small pieces of the pie. Everything has to be on the table

One could look at reducing the refundable portion of some tax credits.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.

- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.

- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.

- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since.



CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget

You realize that is the unified budget measure which treats Social Security as a profit and loss center?

Clinton had two balanced budgets, which reflect the Y2K employment, the internet bubble, and

Fact Check: Who was president the last time the budget was balanced?

- The U.S. government suffered budget deficits every year from 1970 through 1997.

- Democrat Bill Clinton was president in 1998, when the government finally recorded a surplus.

- There also were budget surpluses in 1999, 2000 and in 2001. 2001 was the last year the Clinton administration proposed the budget.

- Republican George W. Bush succeeded Clinton in 2001. The United States had a budget deficit in 2002, and it has recorded budget deficits every year since.



CNN Fact Check: The last president to balance the budget

Clinton's "surplus" was monkey business and there was never a surplus.

The Myth of the Clinton Surplus

cnn has the facts but nice try

CNN has facts. Unfortunately you do not understand what they mean. Do you think that Social Security is a slush fund? The Unified Budget that you are quoting treats it as one. There is no Social Security Trust Fund in the UB world. Do you believe that the Trust Fund does not exist? Unless it is your claim that Clinton invented the Y2K employment boom and the internet bubble, your point about Clinton balancing the budget is frivolous.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The problem isn’t the lack of a balanced budget.

The problem is the blind adherence to errant, wrongheaded conservative fiscal dogma, and the rejection of a pragmatic approach based on the facts and what’s demonstrated to work.

 

[Dovahkiin]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

You are indeed correct. These idiots want the government to drain the private sector of dollars year after year and force people to rely on loans.

Drain the private sector of dollars? How would that happen?

The government stops deficit spending and runs a surplus, taxing more then its spending. It's simple stuff really.

Paying down the government debt entails returning dollars to the private sector.

Both expenses and debt repayment return dollars to the private sector.

Yeah, explain how that works...

 

[Centinel]

There is no need to balance the federal budget.

You are indeed correct. These idiots want the government to drain the private sector of dollars year after year and force people to rely on loans.

Drain the private sector of dollars? How would that happen?

The government stops deficit spending and runs a surplus, taxing more then its spending. It's simple stuff really.

Paying down the government debt entails returning dollars to the private sector.

Both expenses and debt repayment return dollars to the private sector.

Yeah, explain how that works...

Here's how it works: the government consistently pays off more bonds than it issues.

 

[SwimExpert]

Ok so roughly 33% of the federal budget is discretionary spending. To balance the budget will require more than just cuts in discretionary spending

Eliminate medicare and social security, then reduce taxes by 35% of current levels. Boom! Budget balanced.

 

[Centinel]

How exactly does the government pay off the debt? It's not a credit card bill... If I have 100k in treasury bonds in my IRA retirement account or Acme Corp has 5 million in bonds that are maturing, is the government supposed to force us to sell them back the bonds??? What is your plan and what is the benefit?

It pays off the debt by paying off T-Bills, notes, and bonds as they mature and issuing less of each over time. If, over time, the gov't redeems more maturing bonds than it issues, the total number of bonds (i.e. the debt) will decrease.

 

[Slade3200]

How exactly does the government pay off the debt? It's not a credit card bill... If I have 100k in treasury bonds in my IRA retirement account or Acme Corp has 5 million in bonds that are maturing, is the government supposed to force us to sell them back the bonds??? What is your plan and what is the benefit?

It pays off the debt by paying off T-Bills, notes, and bonds as they mature and issuing less of each over time. If, over time, the gov't redeems more maturing bonds than it issues, the total number of bonds (i.e. the debt) will decrease.

The government is currently paying off bonds as they mature so there are no new action items there... So your proposition is to issue less bonds, is that correct? I'm not seeing the benefit to that as T bonds are one of the most stable investments and represent a sig proportion of most people's portfolios.

I've seen you mention that the other part of your solution would be to cut taxes by 35% and eliminate SS and Medicare. So now you have less revenue and a bunch of broke seniors who can't pay their medical bills.... I just can't follow your logic. It feels like you are just stating hot talking points and not really thinking through the application and impact. Care to better explain?

 

[Centinel]

The government is currently paying off bonds as they mature so there are no new action items there... So your proposition is to issue less bonds, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. Reduce the number of bonds issued over time until bonds are not necessary to fund the operations of the US government.

I'm not seeing the benefit to that as T bonds are one of the most stable investments and represent a sig proportion of most people's portfolios.

The government doesn't exist to provide people with investment options.

I've seen you mention that the other part of your solution would be to cut taxes by 35% and eliminate SS and Medicare. So now you have less revenue and a bunch of broke seniors who can't pay their medical bills.... I just can't follow your logic. It feels like you are just stating hot talking points and not really thinking through the application and impact. Care to better explain?

I don't think I said that in this thread. However, I do agree with gradually phasing out SS and Medicare. I don't see why seniors would be broke. They'd have a whole lifetime of savings to support themselves.

 

[JoeTheEconomist]

I don't think I said that in this thread. However, I do agree with gradually phasing out SS and Medicare. I don't see why seniors would be broke. They'd have a whole lifetime of savings to support themselves.

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it. The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

 

[Centinel]

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it.

I think a sudden change like that would be too painful for some. I think it would be wiser to phase it out gradually. Maybe over twenty to twenty-five years.

The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

After SS and Mediare are phased out, there's no reason to think the elderly will be poor. They will have an entire lifetime of savings by that point.

 

[Slade3200]

The government is currently paying off bonds as they mature so there are no new action items there... So your proposition is to issue less bonds, is that correct?

Yes, that is correct. Reduce the number of bonds issued over time until bonds are not necessary to fund the operations of the US government.

I'm not seeing the benefit to that as T bonds are one of the most stable investments and represent a sig proportion of most people's portfolios.

The government doesn't exist to provide people with investment options.

I've seen you mention that the other part of your solution would be to cut taxes by 35% and eliminate SS and Medicare. So now you have less revenue and a bunch of broke seniors who can't pay their medical bills.... I just can't follow your logic. It feels like you are just stating hot talking points and not really thinking through the application and impact. Care to better explain?

I don't think I said that in this thread. However, I do agree with gradually phasing out SS and Medicare. I don't see why seniors would be broke. They'd have a whole lifetime of savings to support themselves.

Is your goal to reduce the debt for the sake of reducing the debt because you fear that we are close to defaulting or are you trying to make an impact to positively effect our economy? This is a very important question because the ends should justify the means. If in the process of eliminating the debt you end up destroying the economy then it is not an effective path. If smart deficit spending boosts the economy and puts us on a path towards prosperity then that can end up reducing our debt as well as strengthening the economy. There are too many factors that need to be considered to simply state that we need to pay off our debt. There are many many why's and what if's that need to be analyzed.

 

[Dovahkiin]

You are indeed correct. These idiots want the government to drain the private sector of dollars year after year and force people to rely on loans.

Drain the private sector of dollars? How would that happen?

The government stops deficit spending and runs a surplus, taxing more then its spending. It's simple stuff really.

Paying down the government debt entails returning dollars to the private sector.

Both expenses and debt repayment return dollars to the private sector.

Yeah, explain how that works...

Here's how it works: the government consistently pays off more bonds than it issues.

The interest on bond is paid by crediting accounts. The money comes from nowhere, in all reality.

 

[Brain357]

I don't think I said that in this thread. However, I do agree with gradually phasing out SS and Medicare. I don't see why seniors would be broke. They'd have a whole lifetime of savings to support themselves.

Why gradually? If you are going to end it, just end it. The reason that they would be broke is because they have paid a whole lifetime of contributions to support someone else's retirement. The need for Social Security is only growing, so it is non-sense to suggest that phasing it out is the answer. If that is the answer, phase is not part of it.

Yes it is a pay as you go system. Their money went for someone else's retirement. And being a pay as you go, there will be money as long as people are working. Benefits might have to go down based on worker/retired ratio, but it will always be there.