Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If the Fed Govt ran a surplus in the years 1998-2001 as you say, why did the Debt increase in each of those years?
Hint: (fancy bookkeeping)
BTW, on a separate issue:
Interest paid on the National Debt in 2011 was $430.4 billion (see http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0473.pdf ). You are reporting less than half that amount, and labeling it "Net Interest". And you're doing it for every year. You seem to be mixing the interest the govt paid on the Debt, with other, unrelated interest they took in on separate programs.
Why not report the actual (and much more alarming) figure, to give people a better idea of what government is really doing?
Heritage uncritically took their figures from officially published govt figures, which have been carefully masssaged to hide the truth about the National Debt and how much it is costing us.
Don't you do the same.
Last edited by Little-Acorn; 01-18-2013 at 09:55 AM..
I don't know that anyone is arguing about the graphs or the figures. But, when I see the unemployment figures have gone down to a record low, I have to remember that the way those figures are compiled is very ambiguous. It really does not mean a lot. When looking at the jobless rate, I tend to trust the figures for "entitlements" far more. Once someone goes beyond receiving unemployment benefits, they are no longer counted as unemployed. But, the fact that they would still be getting food stamps suggests they have not found a new job yet. So, with 62% of Americans receiving entitlements, I'd say that the jobs in this country are still in very serious trouble. If decent paying jobs were available for them, a substantial percentage of them would be earning their own paychecks and paying into the system, rather than receiving the benefits. Don't just look at the numbers and say "Woe is us". Look at the cause and effects. Why are so many receiving the benefits? And, what will it take to make jobs available for them? Over the last half dozen years, a whole lot of people have gotten the rugs pulled out from under them, and now you expect them to stand up and do what?????
Far too many people are not looking at a large enough picture (and that includes far too many of the politicians) to see any probable solutions. The "experts" say the problem is "too complex". No, it's not. It is "multi-facetted", and a viable solution will take extra effort to come up with, but not impossible.... Unless you don't have the guts and ambition to tackle it. It's much easier to roll with the punches, so the problem goes on and gets worse. The current debt ceiling is unsustainable, without going any higher. But, raising it is an easy, short-term patch rather than a long-term, permanent solution that may take months to hammer out. We can come up out of this economy and make ourselves strong again, but not with "business as usual".
I wonder why we never see a liberal who is upset at the federal financial picture?
Because the federal budget takes a backseat to the problems with the private sector financial system.
If the Heritage Foundation hadn't proven itself to be consistently wrong about economics for so long, maybe I'd listen to them now.
The only real danger of running deficits is potentially devaluing the dollar. Heritage Foundation has no credibility pretending that it has a "Strong dollar" policy, because it would amount to a 180 degree turn from their historic stance on markets and regulation. The reality is that groups like the Heritage foundation are OK with devaluing the dollar as long as big corporations get rich off it (see: Bailouts, Housing bubble).
So when you support dollar-devaluing measures that favor Citi and GE and Bank of America, and then turn around and oppose dollar-devaluing measures that favor social security recipients and students and the elderly, that looks kind of crooked to me. It tells me who Heritage answers to.
So killing off old people would be a budget proposal ?
I've noticed that many of your posts call for SS/medicare cuts and/or reform.
No other "entitlement" programs seem to get your ire up as do the old age programs which citizens actually pay into.
Thank you for reading me.
Killing off? No. Giving people the right to die, if they choose, with dignity- absolutely. Might this have a favorable long term impact on Medicare. You betcha, given it's all about the last year of life expenditures.
Medicare/SS/Defense are the greatest spends which is why I focus on them instead of getting waxed up about a small percentage of people who buy vodka with their EBT debit cards.
BTW, I am closer to the "golden" than the middle years. The " old Hag" screen name was taken.
We need a Supreme Court that will rule that "entitlements" are unconstitutional federal spending and have them all abolished or sent back to the states where they can be unwound.
If the Fed Govt ran a surplus in the years 1998-2001 as you say, why did the Debt increase in each of those years?
Hint: (fancy bookkeeping)
Absolutely. One of the slickest manuvers was spinning FNMA off as a GSE and taking it off blance sheet back in the 60's. Then the government created FHLMC in 1970 to compete with FNMA.
Killing off? No. Giving people the right to die, if they choose, with dignity- absolutely. Might this have a favorable long term impact on Medicare. You betcha, given it's all about the last year of life expenditures.
Medicare/SS/Defense are the greatest spends which is why I focus on them instead of getting waxed up about a small percentage of people who buy vodka with their EBT debit cards.
BTW, I am closer to the "golden" than the middle years. The " old Hag" screen name was taken.
The best we have today is DNR.
Euthanasia is illegal in the US. PAD is legal in only 3 states.
Get rid of medicare/ss and you'll just increase the other means tested programs and will have a lot more homeless, sick and starving elders on the streets rather than kids.
There are people who only have SS as a source of income.
The early boomers have company pensions.
Late boomers and the rest only have their 401K and are not saving enough to have it replace either pension or SS.
The only reform we should do for SS is to increase FICA for future generations.
To get rid of it will create a mass of destitute retirees.
Some of the numbers in the charts are dated. The 2012 numbers were not final numbers.
The 2009/2010 below were taken from the provided chart. The 2011/2012 numbers were taken from the Treasury report in Oct 2012 (http://www.fms.treas.gov/mts/mts0912.pdf).
I still hope for the day that the federal government will default on the whole mess.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
