Ten Inconvenient Truths About The National Debt: It's Worse Than You Think...

[OohPooPahDoo]

I have an income (the asset) that covers my future expenditures (the liabilities).

Wow. So you have enough money in the bank right now to cover all your expenses for the rest of your life. I guess you're retired. For the most of rest of us that's not the case.

That's not how it works, fella.

If "that's not how it works" - why do you apply it to the federal government and not your own pocketbook?

My revenue vs. my outlays is in the black, bud. I have an intake that far exceeds my outlays. Therefore any future projections on expenditures is covered by the assets I currently hold. In fact, I have a surplus, better known as, or perhaps in this day in age less understood, SAVINGS.

So you have enough current assets to cover all of your future expenses. Congratulations on your successful retirement, but like I said, for most of us, that's not the case.

Does the federal government have to borrow money cuurently just to meet outlays? Yes. Therefore they have exceeded their revenue to outlays ratio in the red and are now facing massive unfunded liabilities. Something to the tune of 120 trillion dollars and growing.

The fact that the government borrows to meet its outlays doesn't mean we change accounting practices altogether and consider the future liabilities of the government to be current liabilities.

 

[TakeAStepBack]

Wow. So you have enough money in the bank right now to cover all your expenses for the rest of your life. I guess you're retired. For the most of rest of us that's not the case.

That's not how it works, fella.

If "that's not how it works" - why do you apply it to the federal government and not your own pocketbook?

My revenue vs. my outlays is in the black, bud. I have an intake that far exceeds my outlays. Therefore any future projections on expenditures is covered by the assets I currently hold. In fact, I have a surplus, better known as, or perhaps in this day in age less understood, SAVINGS.

So you have enough current assets to cover all of your future expenses. Congratulations on your successful retirement, but like I said, for most of us, that's not the case.

Does the federal government have to borrow money cuurently just to meet outlays? Yes. Therefore they have exceeded their revenue to outlays ratio in the red and are now facing massive unfunded liabilities. Something to the tune of 120 trillion dollars and growing.

The fact that the government borrows to meet its outlays doesn't mean we change accounting practices altogether and consider the future liabilities of the government to be current liabilities.

You don't change accounting practices at all. The government has their own set of accounting practices in the first place. Most businesses must consider liabilities that are unfunded on their balance sheets. The government does not. It takes the road that it can simply expire any number of items it can not pay for, even if by social contract it is sold as an obligation. For instance, social security. SS does not and never has had its own fund. It is a general tax on the sheet. If they can not pay it, they simply will not pay it. And they will still collect the taxation for the "service".

You're trying to doublethink me, fella. It's not going to work. The government currently has 120 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in social programs. This is not an accounting practice change. it is true accounting. Someone else in here posted that we would need to come up with 24 trillion dollars right now in order to save these programs from an inevitable mathematical default. I read that we would need to raise GDP 24% right now and maintain it in order for the government to cover these unfunded liabilities based on real accounting practices.

 

[DontBeStupid]

So what's your point?

Your choice of copy and paste is 100% inaccurate and our debt level right now is not an issue.

What? We would need 24 trillion today to get SSN and Medicare caught up. What are you talking about. What world do you live in?

Here we go again!

$24T over how long? And we need it all TODAY? Why? I don't have savings to cover my mortgage for 30 years. Why are you demanding the Government be different?

 

[TakeAStepBack]

The other option is to tax us into oblivion via TryingNotToBeSoFuckingStupid. This will unfortunately as has been shown under harsh ecnomic conditions, to actually bring in less revenue. While the economy is never in a vacuum. I'd place my money on we'd kill the golden goose if the federal government raised taxes to meet its obligations. And that doesn't even take into account future spending plans. The government is always growing itself. A new dept for this and that. One of these, a new czar. This list is absolutely endless and theere is no reason to believe for one second that if they acquired more revenue off the backs of workiing folks adn business, that they simply would not create more pet projects with which to blunder the additional revenue. It happens like clock work in DC.

 

[The T]

That's not how it works, fella.

If "that's not how it works" - why do you apply it to the federal government and not your own pocketbook?


So you have enough current assets to cover all of your future expenses. Congratulations on your successful retirement, but like I said, for most of us, that's not the case.

Does the federal government have to borrow money cuurently just to meet outlays? Yes. Therefore they have exceeded their revenue to outlays ratio in the red and are now facing massive unfunded liabilities. Something to the tune of 120 trillion dollars and growing.

The fact that the government borrows to meet its outlays doesn't mean we change accounting practices altogether and consider the future liabilities of the government to be current liabilities.

You don't change accounting practices at all. The government has their own set of accounting practices in the first place. Most businesses must consider liabilities that are unfunded on their balance sheets. The government does not. It takes the road that it can simply expire any number of items it can not pay for, even if by social contract it is sold as an obligation. For instance, social security. SS does not and never has had its own fund. It is a general tax on the sheet. If they can not pay it, they simply will not pay it. And they will still collect the taxation for the "service".

You're trying to doublethink me, fella. It's not going to work. The government currently has 120 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in social programs. This is not an accounting practice change. it is true accounting. Someone else in here posted that we would need to come up with 24 trillion dollars right now in order to save these programs from an inevitable mathematical default. I read that we would need to raise GDP 24% right now and maintain it in order for the government to cover these unfunded liabilities based on real accounting practices.

And an anemic economy of 1.2% GDP rise as presided over by this current regime will never get us there. Time to unleash business by getting the boot of regulation off the neck of the people.

 

[DontBeStupid]

That's not how it works, fella.

If "that's not how it works" - why do you apply it to the federal government and not your own pocketbook?


So you have enough current assets to cover all of your future expenses. Congratulations on your successful retirement, but like I said, for most of us, that's not the case.

Does the federal government have to borrow money cuurently just to meet outlays? Yes. Therefore they have exceeded their revenue to outlays ratio in the red and are now facing massive unfunded liabilities. Something to the tune of 120 trillion dollars and growing.

The fact that the government borrows to meet its outlays doesn't mean we change accounting practices altogether and consider the future liabilities of the government to be current liabilities.

You don't change accounting practices at all. The government has their own set of accounting practices in the first place. Most businesses must consider liabilities that are unfunded on their balance sheets. The government does not. It takes the road that it can simply expire any number of items it can not pay for, even if by social contract it is sold as an obligation. For instance, social security. SS does not and never has had its own fund. It is a general tax on the sheet. If they can not pay it, they simply will not pay it. And they will still collect the taxation for the "service".

You're trying to doublethink me, fella. It's not going to work. The government currently has 120 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in social programs. This is not an accounting practice change. it is true accounting. Someone else in here posted that we would need to come up with 24 trillion dollars right now in order to save these programs from an inevitable mathematical default. I read that we would need to raise GDP 24% right now and maintain it in order for the government to cover these unfunded liabilities based on real accounting practices.

And again ... over how long?? Why do you refuse to say that the $120T is over 75 years? Or over 100 years? Why the dishonesty?

And why are you ignoring the other mathematical options? Like a drop in benefits or an increase in tax revenue?

 

[Clementine]

It's all Bush's fault in 3...2...1...

Yup. I think Obama's slogan should be "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you place the blame."

 

[DontBeStupid]

The other option is to tax us into oblivion via TryingNotToBeSoFuckingStupid. This will unfortunately as has been shown under harsh ecnomic conditions, to actually bring in less revenue. While the economy is never in a vacuum. I'd place my money on we'd kill the golden goose if the federal government raised taxes to meet its obligations. And that doesn't even take into account future spending plans. The government is always growing itself. A new dept for this and that. One of these, a new czar. This list is absolutely endless and theere is no reason to believe for one second that if they acquired more revenue off the backs of workiing folks adn business, that they simply would not create more pet projects with which to blunder the additional revenue. It happens like clock work in DC.

heh heh I love the fear based economics.

 

[8537]

That's not how it works, fella.

If "that's not how it works" - why do you apply it to the federal government and not your own pocketbook?


So you have enough current assets to cover all of your future expenses. Congratulations on your successful retirement, but like I said, for most of us, that's not the case.

Does the federal government have to borrow money cuurently just to meet outlays? Yes. Therefore they have exceeded their revenue to outlays ratio in the red and are now facing massive unfunded liabilities. Something to the tune of 120 trillion dollars and growing.

The fact that the government borrows to meet its outlays doesn't mean we change accounting practices altogether and consider the future liabilities of the government to be current liabilities.

You don't change accounting practices at all. The government has their own set of accounting practices in the first place. Most businesses must consider liabilities that are unfunded on their balance sheets. The government does not. It takes the road that it can simply expire any number of items it can not pay for, even if by social contract it is sold as an obligation. For instance, social security. SS does not and never has had its own fund. It is a general tax on the sheet. If they can not pay it, they simply will not pay it. And they will still collect the taxation for the "service".

You're trying to doublethink me, fella. It's not going to work. The government currently has 120 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in social programs. This is not an accounting practice change. it is true accounting. Someone else in here posted that we would need to come up with 24 trillion dollars right now in order to save these programs from an inevitable mathematical default. I read that we would need to raise GDP 24% right now and maintain it in order for the government to cover these unfunded liabilities based on real accounting practices.

There are zero legally unfunded liabilities in social programs. The government is under exactly zero obligation to repay special-issue treasuries held by its own trust fund. If they chose to pay those obligations they will need to access general funds to do so - but they are not bound to do so by law.

 

[miami_thomas]

Your choice of copy and paste is 100% inaccurate and our debt level right now is not an issue.

What? We would need 24 trillion today to get SSN and Medicare caught up. What are you talking about. What world do you live in?

Here we go again!

$24T over how long? And we need it all TODAY? Why? I don't have savings to cover my mortgage for 30 years. Why are you demanding the Government be different?

I provided you a link. Basically the argument is if the Federal government had to play be state rules to do with budgeting we would need 22.2 trillion sitting in an account gaining interest to pay for future obligations.

Real federal deficit dwarfs official tally

 

[miami_thomas]

If "that's not how it works" - why do you apply it to the federal government and not your own pocketbook?


So you have enough current assets to cover all of your future expenses. Congratulations on your successful retirement, but like I said, for most of us, that's not the case.



The fact that the government borrows to meet its outlays doesn't mean we change accounting practices altogether and consider the future liabilities of the government to be current liabilities.

You don't change accounting practices at all. The government has their own set of accounting practices in the first place. Most businesses must consider liabilities that are unfunded on their balance sheets. The government does not. It takes the road that it can simply expire any number of items it can not pay for, even if by social contract it is sold as an obligation. For instance, social security. SS does not and never has had its own fund. It is a general tax on the sheet. If they can not pay it, they simply will not pay it. And they will still collect the taxation for the "service".

You're trying to doublethink me, fella. It's not going to work. The government currently has 120 trillion dollars in unfunded liabilities in social programs. This is not an accounting practice change. it is true accounting. Someone else in here posted that we would need to come up with 24 trillion dollars right now in order to save these programs from an inevitable mathematical default. I read that we would need to raise GDP 24% right now and maintain it in order for the government to cover these unfunded liabilities based on real accounting practices.

And again ... over how long?? Why do you refuse to say that the $120T is over 75 years? Or over 100 years? Why the dishonesty?

And why are you ignoring the other mathematical options? Like a drop in benefits or an increase in tax revenue?

Why don’t you be honest and just say that we don’t have to provide Social Security so it is not debt? That is why the federal government does not have to put it in the budget because it is not a guarantee. You are correct I’m already saving and planning that SSN will not be around when I retire.

 

[miami_thomas]

The other option is to tax us into oblivion via TryingNotToBeSoFuckingStupid. This will unfortunately as has been shown under harsh ecnomic conditions, to actually bring in less revenue. While the economy is never in a vacuum. I'd place my money on we'd kill the golden goose if the federal government raised taxes to meet its obligations. And that doesn't even take into account future spending plans. The government is always growing itself. A new dept for this and that. One of these, a new czar. This list is absolutely endless and theere is no reason to believe for one second that if they acquired more revenue off the backs of workiing folks adn business, that they simply would not create more pet projects with which to blunder the additional revenue. It happens like clock work in DC.

heh heh I love the fear based economics.

lol I love those that act like nothing is wrong. There is nothing to see here. There are no problems in Europe either. It is all a Republican conspiracy just to scare people into thinking that 16 trillion in debt is a problem. Just like saying we have no money saved up to pay for Social Security or Medicare for the future. It is all fake disability benefits will be all gone by 2016 according to the CBO. Medicare will be out of money by 2024 and SSN will be out of money by 2035. But there is no problem this is all made up. It is monopoly money.
U.S. Running Out of Money for Medicare and Social Security | Breaking Business News, Headlines, Stories and Video - CBS News

 

[DontBeStupid]

What? We would need 24 trillion today to get SSN and Medicare caught up. What are you talking about. What world do you live in?

Here we go again!

$24T over how long? And we need it all TODAY? Why? I don't have savings to cover my mortgage for 30 years. Why are you demanding the Government be different?

I provided you a link. Basically the argument is if the Federal government had to play be state rules to do with budgeting we would need 22.2 trillion sitting in an account gaining interest to pay for future obligations.

Real federal deficit dwarfs official tally

I'm assuming you read the article and just didn't understand the questions to ask. In the article, the author writes "Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. " Again, over how long? The author doesn't say. Doesn't even suggest, hint or guess. He just leaves the time frame hanging, while at the same time comparing this to auto and mortgage debt, which we all know you don't pay off all at once, but over time.

So, if the author is comparing SS payments to mortgage payments, and mortgage payments are allowed to be paid over time, why is he ignoring the very real fact that SS payments occur over time and therefore, you do not need the entire sum all at once.

Why is that being ignored? By the author. By you. By others here. Why are you ignoring the time frame?

 

[paulitician]

Here we go again!

$24T over how long? And we need it all TODAY? Why? I don't have savings to cover my mortgage for 30 years. Why are you demanding the Government be different?

I provided you a link. Basically the argument is if the Federal government had to play be state rules to do with budgeting we would need 22.2 trillion sitting in an account gaining interest to pay for future obligations.

Real federal deficit dwarfs official tally

I'm assuming you read the article and just didn't understand the questions to ask. In the article, the author writes "Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. " Again, over how long? The author doesn't say. Doesn't even suggest, hint or guess. He just leaves the time frame hanging, while at the same time comparing this to auto and mortgage debt, which we all know you don't pay off all at once, but over time.

So, if the author is comparing SS payments to mortgage payments, and mortgage payments are allowed to be paid over time, why is he ignoring the very real fact that SS payments occur over time and therefore, you do not need the entire sum all at once.

Why is that being ignored? By the author. By you. By others here. Why are you ignoring the time frame?

Why do you hate America so much? Supporting massive Debt & poverty is just plain Un-Patriotic. Your own Dear Leader said that before he became President.

 

[The T]

I provided you a link. Basically the argument is if the Federal government had to play be state rules to do with budgeting we would need 22.2 trillion sitting in an account gaining interest to pay for future obligations.

Real federal deficit dwarfs official tally

I'm assuming you read the article and just didn't understand the questions to ask. In the article, the author writes "Social Security had the biggest financial slide. The government would need $22.2 trillion today, set aside and earning interest, to cover benefits promised to current workers and retirees beyond what taxes will cover. " Again, over how long? The author doesn't say. Doesn't even suggest, hint or guess. He just leaves the time frame hanging, while at the same time comparing this to auto and mortgage debt, which we all know you don't pay off all at once, but over time.

So, if the author is comparing SS payments to mortgage payments, and mortgage payments are allowed to be paid over time, why is he ignoring the very real fact that SS payments occur over time and therefore, you do not need the entire sum all at once.

Why is that being ignored? By the author. By you. By others here. Why are you ignoring the time frame?

Why do you hate America so much? Supporting massive Debt & poverty is just plain Un-Patriotic. Your own Dear Leader said that before he became President.

DBS hates America because his own countrymen are rejectin him, his ideals. That simple. He's throwing a fit.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Your own Dear Leader said that before he became President.

Why do you think it's still 2007?

 

[paulitician]

Your own Dear Leader said that before he became President.

Why do you think it's still 2007?

Oh, so now massive Debt & poverty is suddenly good and Patriotic. Gee, what a convenient change of heart. You Bots do crack me up.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Your own Dear Leader said that before he became President.

Why do you think it's still 2007?

Oh, so now massive Debt & poverty is suddenly good and Patriotic. Gee, what a convenient change of heart. You Bots do crack me up.

Coward, I asked you a question.

Why do you think it's still 2007?

 

[The T]

Why do you think it's still 2007?

Oh, so now massive Debt & poverty is suddenly good and Patriotic. Gee, what a convenient change of heart. You Bots do crack me up.

Coward, I asked you a question.

Why do you think it's still 2007?

And the poster answered. Just NOT the way YOU expected.

 

[DontBeStupid]

Oh, so now massive Debt & poverty is suddenly good and Patriotic. Gee, what a convenient change of heart. You Bots do crack me up.

Coward, I asked you a question.

Why do you think it's still 2007?

And the poster answered. Just NOT the way YOU expected.

No. He's hiding, like he always does. Like a cowardly bitch.