Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-07-2015, 08:50 AM
 
26,475 posts, read 15,057,355 times
Reputation: 14626

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post


Of course they are expected to grow. The economy cannot grow without deficits.

GDP = Federal Spending + Private Sector Investment & Consumption + Net Exports
Are you telling me that the years that government ran true surpluses the economy didn't grow?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
Of the three variables, the only one that can create dollar is the "Federal Spending" portion.
Inflating and money creation doesn't necessarily equal economic growth see Weimar Republic and Zimbabwe.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Opin_Yunated View Post
"Debt owed to SS" is not "debt owed to real people." It is accounting notations on the Fed balance sheet. Intragovernmental asset swaps happen all the time. It does not affect the taxpayer.
Is your whole premise that national debt does not and can never have an influence on the tax payer?

OR

Is your whole point that Debt is Debt and there is no difference between debt owed to Social Security and a mutual fund?

OR

Something else?


Do you think that the over $5 Trillion in intragovernmental debt owed to various retirement programs for SS, Civil Service workers, Military personnel, and etc is totally inconsequential to our nations finances?



Social Security's trust fund and other government retirement accounts owns real government debt - bonds. These bonds accrue interest for social security. These programs base their future math on their invested money growing for them. If the government decided to not pay these bonds - social security as a program would be in a real world of hurt - would it not? How would these retirees of these nearly a dozen or so programs get their money to pay retirees? From raising new taxes, printing money or selling new government debt to cancel out the old debt? So what actually changed - you still have the exact same financial liability to these programs as we did before - we are arguing semantics if they hold debt or are just unfunded future (or in some cases current) liabilities.


Social Security payroll taxes usually have run a surplus (that is about to change if not already) - that money is spent now on other non-SS things (or invested if you prefer via government bonds). However, if the government magically poofed these bonds away - they would have to find another way to fund SS or face upheaval from the citizens.


If we eliminated intra-governmental debt today - poof gone - wouldn't the same exact long term financial problems exist - we just masked it with more unfunded future liabilities?



Social Security expenses are real - you must agree with this?

Social Security expenses are set to grow - you must agree with this?

The public as a whole approves of and wants to preserve Social Security to assist their retirement expenses - you must agree with this?

The Treasury Department itself lists the debt owed to Social Security as part of the National Debt - you must agree with this?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-07-2015, 08:55 AM
 
26,475 posts, read 15,057,355 times
Reputation: 14626
Quote:
Originally Posted by Finn_Jarber View Post
Every single post you make contains a personal insult. Your words are a reflection of your soul, and there is a lot of dark anger in your words.


Again, any agency with surplus is required to invest it in government bonds.

Let the anger out my friend. It is not my fault you don't get what people tell you.
You dodged the point - because you know you aren't telling the truth.

Something that must sting:

The national debt rose $1.1 Trillion in FY 2014.


P.S. If you believe in souls - what is a soul that is so hollow that it deliberately deceives because his/her team is a political party and must be jockeyed to win regardless of reality?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 09:00 AM
 
Location: Florida
76,975 posts, read 47,604,577 times
Reputation: 14806
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon View Post
You dodged the point - because you know you aren't telling the truth.

Something that must sting:

The national debt rose $1.1 Trillion in FY 2014.
That is actually not the point. The point is that you think debt and deficit are the same thing. This became your 'point' only after you realized your error. Now THAT is a deflection.

Quote:
P.S. If you believe in souls - what is a soul that is so hollow that it deliberately deceives because his/her team is a political party and must be jockeyed to win regardless of reality?
More personal BS............ The only way to end it is to put you, and your personal issues, to my ignore list.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-07-2015, 09:56 AM
 
26,475 posts, read 15,057,355 times
Reputation: 14626
You honestly think:

National Debt rose $1.1 Trillion in FY 2014...

...with a Budget Deficit of $0.45 Trillion in FY 2014...

...because government agencies didn't spend a whopping $650 Billion dollars allocated for FY 2014 and then just bought government bonds with it?*



LOL, you honestly think this? Okay.... But if you were correct that this entire discrepancy is explained away as you say it is, that debt then would show up as intra-governmental debt - because that would be debt held by other government agencies - you would agree with me there correct?

So you wouldn't see the debt held by the public increase about $800 Billion per the US Treasury during FY 2014? Correct? With your "Budget" deficit of ~450 Billion. All of the rest of the new debt should be on the intragovernmental side in your explanation.


*I am being kind to you, by letting you continue to ignore the fact that the government factually had to sell $1.1 Trillion in bonds to cover spending not covered by funding -- even if the government agencies buy bonds like SS etc...then there would be no need or less of a need to sell bonds to mutual funds, foreigners, citizens, etc...unless they had to sell that much to cover it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top