The Debt Clock is Overheating. . . .

[Newby]

If you survived to age 21 in 1940, you had a 55 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

If you survived to age 21 in 1990, you had a 75 percent chance of surviving to age 65.

It is far past time to raise the Social Security and Medicare eligibility ages.

They've already done that. I don't reach full retirement age until next year. I retired on Social Security this year because of my health and it was easier than applying for SSD.

The eligibility age for Social Security was raised by increments to 67, not 70. And they did not index it to the population. And it does not take full effect until something like 2022.

This was done by the Congress of the early 80s so all those politicians would be dead by the time the 67 eligibility age finally kicked in.

That's how chickenshit our politicians have been down through the ages.

Yeah, lets raise the age limit to the point where no one ever really gets to recieve any of the money they paid in back. After all, we didn't pay into it our entire lives to have a measure of security in our old age. Hell, why not eliminate it altogether then and everyone works until they die or are phsyically incapable? How about we elimiate it altogether and let people save on their own and they can choose when they want to retire without any mandate? Freedom is so scary.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Hey g5? I'm still waiting for you to answer how we paid off $90 trillion in SS liabilities with the same in payroll taxes. That is the fatal flaw in your argument. On top of that, I have debunked your claim of SS solvency.

Or will you try to beat me with experience again?

"Never argue with stupid people, they will drag you down to their level and then beat you with experience."

-Mark Twain

You cannot have a serious discussion about a budget 75 years from now. Hell, no one can even make an accurate prediction for just 5 years into the future. Go ahead and tell me how much we will be taking in in payroll taxes in 2088, and we'll all laugh our lungs out.

These projections into the future of 75 years from now are cheap scare tactics for rubes.

Your argument is bunk. Your references to "rubes" indicate why.

 

[Foxfyre]

But the problem comes in such definitions as 'bum' or 'agency that has no business being in the federal government.' Who are the 'bums'? And what agencies have no business in the federal government?

These are political questions, not really fiduciary ones.

For example, there are people who can wax on and on about the necessity of providing food aid to the poor. They can make a pretty good case.

But then there are others who can wax on and on about the waste of providing food aid to the poor. They can make a pretty good case, too.

So the voters will have to decide which they prefer.


The same is true for, say, the mortgage interest deduction. You might have someone who thinks providing food aid to the poor that has to be paid for by others is a bad idea, but at the same time firmly believes a regressive tax break that has to be paid for by others is a great idea.


Also, waste, fraud, and abuse is not exclusive to government. I think the idea that the private sector or charities could do things more efficiently needs to be challenged. I am the president of a non-profit and I see a tremendous amount of waste by charities in the private sector. Far more than I see government waste in the same areas of concern.

The government does things on a larger scale, and so the dollar value of waste will be higher, but I do not buy the percentage of waste by government is greater in all cases.

Hmm. Well our experiences are different. I have been executive director of a large not-for-profit organization and I too have been president of a local charity and we wasted nothing. Every penny was accounted for and stretched as far as it could possibly stretch. At the same time, fate has put me in positions to see government in action up close and personal and the amount of waste and fraud was and is apalling.

That tax deduction for mortgage interest and taxes? It took nothing whatsoever from you. It required not one dime from anybody other than the minute amount of time for a government employee to process it. It did not have to be paid for because it was never budgeted in the first place.

But what it probably did for you was increase your property values in the neighborhood where you live because the more home owners there are, the more value there is for all home owners. And even for those renting in that same neighborhood, it probably improved the government services to your neighborhood and other quality of life issues. It almost certainly improved the condition of your schools and the safety of your person and possessions. And because it contributed to more prosperity, unemployment is generally lower and wages are higher.

Now compare that to the housing subsidy given to low income families who have no incentive to keep up the property and little or no stake in the rest of the community. If that is the norm rather than incidental in the community, the property almost always deteriorates, the neighborhood will be declining, government services not as efficient, the schools suffer, and crime generally inceases, even becomes intolerable. There is usually much more unemployment and fewer, if any, tax doillars being returned to the treasury. Further every dollar that is given as a subsidy comes out of somebody else's pocket and drains vitality from the economy.

And in today's economy, it adds to the deficit and the National Debt.

 

[g5000]

Hmm. Well our experiences are different. I have been executive director of a large not-for-profit organization and I too have been president of a local charity and we wasted nothing. Every penny was accounted for and stretched as far as it could possibly stretch.

This is true in my organization as well. Every single penny goes to the people we are helping. None of us are paid to do what we do, and we pay for any overhead out of our own pockets.

And our due diligence is brutal.

But we are far and away the exception. People in our area have figured out how to abuse the living daylights out of the other charitable organizations in our area. Churches are especially abused.

At the same time, fate has put me in positions to see government in action up close and personal and the amount of waste and fraud was and is apalling.

The government employees in our area do very good due dilegence. The government requires no end of paperwork validation to receive funds.

Where the abuse occurs is that the government does not follow up. Most people only need help to get through a bad patch. Temporary help. But when they get through the bad patch and can stand on their own two feet again, they are, shall we say, a little slow to inform the government they no longer need assistance.

That is exactly why my organization only provides temporary help to people.

That tax deduction for mortgage interest and taxes? It took nothing whatsoever from you. It required not one dime from anybody other than the minute amount of time for a government employee to process it. It did not have to be paid for because it was never budgeted in the first place.

It is highly regressive, and it most certainly is budgeted for. By higher tax rates. You can't seriously believe that two people earning identical incomes paying different amounts of tax does not mean one is carrying the other. One is definitely carrying the other.

But what it probably did for you was increase your property values in the neighborhood where you live because the more home owners there are, the more value there is for all home owners.

What it actually does is raise the price of houses. The deduction is factored into the price of your house. You aren't saving a penny with that deduction.

But you are causing tax rates to be higher than they should be, which means others are carrying you.

 

[Foxfyre]

Hmm. Well our experiences are different. I have been executive director of a large not-for-profit organization and I too have been president of a local charity and we wasted nothing. Every penny was accounted for and stretched as far as it could possibly stretch.

This is true in my organization as well. Every single penny goes to the people we are helping. None of us are paid to do what we do, and we pay for any overhead out of our own pockets.

And our due diligence is brutal.

But we are far and away the exception. People in our area have figured out how to abuse the living daylights out of the other charitable organizations in our area. Churches are especially abused.

At the same time, fate has put me in positions to see government in action up close and personal and the amount of waste and fraud was and is apalling.

The government employees in our area do very good due dilegence. The government requires no end of paperwork validation to receive funds.

Where the abuse occurs is that the government does not follow up. Most people only need help to get through a bad patch. Temporary help. But when they get through the bad patch and can stand on their own two feet again, they are, shall we say, a little slow to inform the government they no longer need assistance.

That is exactly why my organization only provides temporary help to people.

That tax deduction for mortgage interest and taxes? It took nothing whatsoever from you. It required not one dime from anybody other than the minute amount of time for a government employee to process it. It did not have to be paid for because it was never budgeted in the first place.

It is highly regressive, and it most certainly is budgeted for. By higher tax rates. You can't seriously believe that two people earning identical incomes paying different amounts of tax does not mean one is carrying the other. One is definitely carrying the other.

But what it probably did for you was increase your property values in the neighborhood where you live because the more home owners there are, the more value there is for all home owners.

What it actually does is raise the price of houses. The deduction is factored into the price of your house. You aren't saving a penny with that deduction.

But you are causing tax rates to be higher than they should be, which means others are carrying you.

We'll have to agree to disagree on whether charities or government abuse the trust more. But the bottom line is, the charities cannot force me to give them a penny to abuse. And if they abuse their trust it does not affect me in any way. The government can force me to give any amount of my money or other property that it wants and that affects me hugely.

And baloney, I am not requiring anybody to 'carry me' when I am earning what I get, paying for what I buy from whatever I earn, and am contributing far more to the economy than anything I take out of it. If my home values increase, then so do everybody else's home values increase in the same area. And if a bustling economy due to high home ownership results in lower unemployment, higher wages, and more taxes overall contributed to the government, how in the world can you claim that as regressive? Most especially when my tax deduction costs nobody anything but rather results in more money going to the treasury?

And if I go to dinner and order a $10 steak, does that cost the guy who can only afford the dollar menu at McDonald's a single penny? And if I have a coupon that allows me $2 off my meal, does that take anything away from the guy at McDonalds? If I pay a substantial amount in interest in order to be building equity in a home, and am allowed a deduction that made it possible to buy that home, how does that cost the guy paying rent a single penny? Most especially since I am contributing to a stronger economy that is far more likely to give the guy in the apartment and eating the dollar menu at McDonalds an opportunity for a better job and better circumstances?

Taking more from me in taxes won't help him one whit. A good economy can if he is willing to take advantage of it.

You only budget the money you expect to get. What you do not expect to get is not budgeted.

For sure if taking more of my tax dollars results in less opportunity or incentive for others, that is very likely to be a component of those huge deficits and the runaway national debt. Stimulating the private sector economy is not.

 

[Lumpy 1]

a little blast from the past...

[ame=http://youtu.be/QZCzUecCT3M]Barack Obama on the National Debt - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Foxfyre]

a little blast from the past...

Barack Obama on the National Debt - YouTube

And the national debt at the time of that interview was presumably $9 trillion. And it is now well past $17 trillion and counting. For the mathematically challenged, when it hits $18 trillion it will have doubled.

Has anybody done the math? As abysmal a track record on spending vs income as we saw during the Bush adminisration, is it true you can add up all his deficits plus every other President going back to George Washington, and Obama has accumulated more debt than all the others combined?

 

[Lumpy 1]

a little blast from the past...

Barack Obama on the National Debt - YouTube

And the national debt at the time of that interview was presumably $9 trillion. And it is now well past $17 trillion and counting. For the mathematically challenged, when it hits $18 trillion it will have doubled.

Has anybody done he math? As abysmal a track record on spending vs income as wel saw during the Bush adminisration, is it true you can add up all his deficits plus every other President going back to George Washington, and Obama has accumulated more debt than all the others combined?

But Foxfyre try to be more "liberaly logical".

Spending 34%ish more than you bring in ... always works out well...

 

[Foxfyre]

a little blast from the past...

Barack Obama on the National Debt - YouTube

And the national debt at the time of that interview was presumably $9 trillion. And it is now well past $17 trillion and counting. For the mathematically challenged, when it hits $18 trillion it will have doubled.

Has anybody done he math? As abysmal a track record on spending vs income as wel saw during the Bush adminisration, is it true you can add up all his deficits plus every other President going back to George Washington, and Obama has accumulated more debt than all the others combined?

But Foxfyre try to be more "liberaly logical".

Spending 34%ish more than you bring in ... always works out well...

Oh yeah. If I max out my credit card, no worries. I'll just ask the credit card company to increase my credit limit. I won't worry about it until the interest I pay every month exceeds the value of whatever I bought in the first place. When that happens I hand it to my kids and granddaughter to pay off and I move on to live happily ever after.

Sound like a plan to me.

 

[Sarah G]

Maybe congress should get to work on this instead of focusing on the ACA so much.

 

[Foxfyre]

Maybe congress should get to work on this instead of focusing on the ACA so much.

No maybe about it. Since the ACA is projected to add mega billions if not trillions to the debt, Congress should rescind it or at least defund it and put it on the back burner for the time being and focus on getting rid of everything else we can't afford too.

I would vote for that. Would you?

 

[Lumpy 1]

And the national debt at the time of that interview was presumably $9 trillion. And it is now well past $17 trillion and counting. For the mathematically challenged, when it hits $18 trillion it will have doubled.

Has anybody done he math? As abysmal a track record on spending vs income as wel saw during the Bush adminisration, is it true you can add up all his deficits plus every other President going back to George Washington, and Obama has accumulated more debt than all the others combined?

But Foxfyre try to be more "liberaly logical".

Spending 34%ish more than you bring in ... always works out well...

Oh yeah. If I max out my credit card, no worries. I'll just ask the credit card company to increase my credit limit. I won't worry about it until the interest I pay every month exceeds the value of whatever I bought in the first place. When that happens I hand it to my kids and granddaughter to pay off and I move on to live happily ever after.

Sound like a plan to me.

That's the ticket... take the easy path, be selfishly self absorbed, the future isn't "Your" problem after-all...

 

[g5000]

That tax deduction for mortgage interest and taxes? It took nothing whatsoever from you. It required not one dime from anybody other than the minute amount of time for a government employee to process it. It did not have to be paid for because it was never budgeted in the first place.

But what it probably did for you was increase your property values in the neighborhood where you live because the more home owners there are, the more value there is for all home owners.

[MENTION=6847]Foxfyre[/MENTION]

How is asking the government to provide you a subsidy a conservative principle? How is asking the government to interfere in the housing market a conservative principle?

That's funny. The Right was all up in arms over government interference in the housing market when the economy crashed.

 

[g5000]

Yeah, lets raise the age limit to the point where no one ever really gets to recieve any of the money they paid in back. After all, we didn't pay into it our entire lives to have a measure of security in our old age. Hell, why not eliminate it altogether then and everyone works until they die or are phsyically incapable? How about we elimiate it altogether and let people save on their own and they can choose when they want to retire without any mandate? Freedom is so scary.

We are living longer, we should be working longer. I am sorry that kind of common sense eludes you. Or are you lazy?

 

[g5000]

Hey g5? I'm still waiting for you to answer how we paid off $90 trillion in SS liabilities with the same in payroll taxes. That is the fatal flaw in your argument.

Go ahead. Tell us how much the US government will be taking in in payroll tax revenues in 2088 and how much it will be paying out in Social Security. This should be a hoot.

You seriously don't see the lunacy of your 75 year liability argument?

 

[Rozman]

Candidate Obama when running the first time seemed to think it was an issue...

 

[Rozman]

Now...not so much...

 

[Two Thumbs]

$17,000,000,000


And the party in the WH cared until it was in the WH


Four legs good
Two legs better

 

[Two Thumbs]

Now...not so much...

Nothing matters to them.

well, nothing important when they are in charge

(R) in charge; war bad
(D) in charge; war good
(R) in charge; raising debt unpatriotic
(D) in charge; not raising the debt is treason
(R) in charge; Patriot act bad
(D) in charge; Patriot act patriotic

and so on

 

[Sarah G]

Maybe congress should get to work on this instead of focusing on the ACA so much.

No maybe about it. Since the ACA is projected to add mega billions if not trillions to the debt, Congress should rescind it or at least defund it and put it on the back burner for the time being and focus on getting rid of everything else we can't afford too.

I would vote for that. Would you?

No, if congress focuses on creating jobs, it will create more revenue, yes? Then we can get back to being the most powerful nation in the world instead of treating our citizens like they are living in a third world nation.

But you feel free to make excuses for this pitiful congress.