The Forum Site - Join the conversation
Forums:
Politics

Election 2020 Issues: National Debt

Reply to Topic
AuthorMessage
Pages: 1 2 · >>
Leon On September 16, 2019




San Diego, California
#1New Post! Jun 24, 2019 @ 15:17:22
If you were Presdident, and had a House majority and Senate supermajority on your side, how would you address our national debt?

For a summary of the national debt, see below.

Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century, the US government has generally outspent its tax revenue every year, with the exception of a few years in the mid 1920s, late 1940s, and late 1990s. This has resulted in an increasing debt that now stands at a total of 22 trillion dollars, highest figure in the world for any country, although it is 14th in the world in terms of percentage to its gross domestic product, or GDP. The public debt as a percentage of GDP is currently at 80%, and is at its highest in the nation’s history since the end of World War II, when it was at 110%.

It declined rapidly after World War II, reaching a low under President Nixon, and has risen since then. It rose sharply under President Reagan due to tax cuts and increased defense spending, fell sharply under President Clinton due to decreased military spending, rose sharply under President George W Bush due to tax cuts, increased military spending and a massive 2008 bank bailout, and rose sharply President Obama due to decreased revenue from the Great Recession and and economic stimulus efforts at combating the recession. Along with further tax cuts under President Trump, it is estimated to reach 100% of the GDP in ten years.

Foreign holders of the debt is at approximately 28%, with a sixth of the debt belonging to China and another sixth of the debt belonging to Japan. China has been decreasing its holdings in recent years, however, due to fears of its stability.

Currently, the US receives approximately 3.3 trillion US dollars in revenue from taxes each year and spends approximately 4 trillion US dollars, which created a deficit of over 700 billion US dollars in 2018, highest in history. Two thirds of current spending is mandatory, with almost 25% going to Social Security and 15% going to Medicare payments. Debt interest accounts for 7% of total spending. These figures are all expected to continue to increase in the coming years. In non-mandatory spending, defense spending, which is at 15% of total spending, accounts for over half of all non-mandatory spending.

The Social Security Trust Fund, which currently sits at 2.79 trillion US dollars, started paying out more than it received in Social Security taxes in 2010, although interest payments on the trust fund has helped it continue to operate on a surplus, from which the government has used to offset budget spending elsewhere. This surplus, however, is expected to end in 2019, after which the Trust Fund is expected to be depleted by 2034 unless the US borrows elsewhere to maintain Social Security payments, or makes changes to the program. The Medicare situation is even more dire, as the program is expected to run out of funds in less than a decade if no changes are made in its current revenue and/or spending. Both of these are due to the increasing numbers of Baby Boom generation retirees in recent and coming years.
mrmhead On about 3 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#2New Post! Jun 24, 2019 @ 16:24:04
So many incomplete thoughts:

Cut out cheats, scams and waste, and a lot of systems (Education, Military, Healthcare, Infrastructure, Agriculture) could operate at a lower cost, maybe employ more and generate more tax revenue.

If I'm not mistaken, some of that "mandatory" spending is also in the form of giving other countries money so they will play nice (to put it too simply). Is it as effective as intended?

I've long been a skeptic of how much is spent on the military. I've seen charts where US spending on the military outpaces most other countries with respect to % of GDP as well as flat out dollars. It's not uncommon to "spend all you have", otherwise you might not get the same amount budgeted next year.

If the healthcare industry can shed the waste and profiteering, it could be more affordable and in turn reduce Medicare costs.

Somehow, increase the number of workers to increase the tax base. For corporations - figure out some formula that takes into account the number of employed and their pay rates and company profit to determine a tax rate that encourages employment over bottom-line profit.




Or we can just invade Iran and take their oil.
Leon On September 16, 2019




San Diego, California
#3New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 20:56:53
@mrmhead Said

So many incomplete thoughts:

Cut out cheats, scams and waste, and a lot of systems (Education, Military, Healthcare, Infrastructure, Agriculture) could operate at a lower cost, maybe employ more and generate more tax revenue.

If I'm not mistaken, some of that "mandatory" spending is also in the form of giving other countries money so they will play nice (to put it too simply). Is it as effective as intended?

I've long been a skeptic of how much is spent on the military. I've seen charts where US spending on the military outpaces most other countries with respect to % of GDP as well as flat out dollars. It's not uncommon to "spend all you have", otherwise you might not get the same amount budgeted next year.

If the healthcare industry can shed the waste and profiteering, it could be more affordable and in turn reduce Medicare costs.

Somehow, increase the number of workers to increase the tax base. For corporations - figure out some formula that takes into account the number of employed and their pay rates and company profit to determine a tax rate that encourages employment over bottom-line profit.




Or we can just invade Iran and take their oil.


Thanks. You seem to be the only one responding to these now lol. I do appreciate at least someone is reading them. I’ve also been doing this for my own education on all the issues, as each one requires a lot of research and I’ve learned a lot from them. I have 4 more lined up to go in July and that will be it.
Leon On September 16, 2019




San Diego, California
#4New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 21:15:47
As far as what I’d do on this issue, we have a health care crisis and education crisis, but we simply cannot keep adding to the debt, so new programs that address these need to be paid for without doing so - namely eliminating the Trump tax cuts and loopholes for the former, and cutting back on defense spending for the latter.

As far as reducing debt...

1. Tax capital gains and corporate profits as income with the same rates individuals are taxed for wages, rather than the lower rates they currently are.

2. Get rid of the $11 million exemption from estate inheritance taxes, and, again, tax all of it as income.

3. In addition, all income, including the above capital gains, corporate profits, and estate inheritance, should be taxed for Social Security rather than just the first $132,900 of wages. It doesn’t need to be the current 12.4% rate though, but it can be depending on how quickly we want to keep the program solvent AND pay down our debt. Additionally, we should raise the age of eligibility for the annuity to kick in, probably to 70. But we need to have a universal healthcare system in place for this to better ensure preventative care and reverse the recent trend of lowered average US life expectancy.

4. Review all discretionary spending and cut the waste.
gakINGKONG On about 17 hours ago




Angeles City, Philippines
#5New Post! Jun 26, 2019 @ 21:19:52
So, President Nixon took us (the US) off the gold standard.

They probably had a good reason --at the time -- for doing this.

I feel like it was a short-term gain.

Over-spending by the government is a problem. The American people aren't capable of doing the hard work needed to stay on budget.

There will be a reckoning -- if not before the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord.


nooneinparticular On September 10, 2019




, Hawaii
#6New Post! Jun 27, 2019 @ 05:27:18
@gakINGKONG Said

So, President Nixon took us (the US) off the gold standard.

They probably had a good reason --at the time -- for doing this.

I feel like it was a short-term gain.

Over-spending by the government is a problem. The American people aren't capable of doing the hard work needed to stay on budget.

There will be a reckoning -- if not before the Great and Terrible Day of the Lord.




Well considering that the US was basically experiencing what amounts to a bank run, just with gold instead of paper money, at the time, their choices were to either decouple the dollar from gold or watch as their gold reserves evaporated and take the value of the dollar with it. Hyperinflation would probably not have been the best thing to invite during the height of the Cold War.
nooneinparticular On September 10, 2019




, Hawaii
#7New Post! Jun 27, 2019 @ 05:35:03
@Leon Said

If you were Presdident, and had a House majority and Senate supermajority on your side, how would you address our national debt?

For a summary of the national debt, see below.

Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st century, the US government has generally outspent its tax revenue every year, with the exception of a few years in the mid 1920s, late 1940s, and late 1990s. This has resulted in an increasing debt that now stands at a total of 22 trillion dollars, highest figure in the world for any country, although it is 14th in the world in terms of percentage to its gross domestic product, or GDP. The public debt as a percentage of GDP is currently at 80%, and is at its highest in the nation’s history since the end of World War II, when it was at 110%.

It declined rapidly after World War II, reaching a low under President Nixon, and has risen since then. It rose sharply under President Reagan due to tax cuts and increased defense spending, fell sharply under President Clinton due to decreased military spending, rose sharply under President George W Bush due to tax cuts, increased military spending and a massive 2008 bank bailout, and rose sharply President Obama due to decreased revenue from the Great Recession and and economic stimulus efforts at combating the recession. Along with further tax cuts under President Trump, it is estimated to reach 100% of the GDP in ten years.

Foreign holders of the debt is at approximately 28%, with a sixth of the debt belonging to China and another sixth of the debt belonging to Japan. China has been decreasing its holdings in recent years, however, due to fears of its stability.

Currently, the US receives approximately 3.3 trillion US dollars in revenue from taxes each year and spends approximately 4 trillion US dollars, which created a deficit of over 700 billion US dollars in 2018, highest in history. Two thirds of current spending is mandatory, with almost 25% going to Social Security and 15% going to Medicare payments. Debt interest accounts for 7% of total spending. These figures are all expected to continue to increase in the coming years. In non-mandatory spending, defense spending, which is at 15% of total spending, accounts for over half of all non-mandatory spending.

The Social Security Trust Fund, which currently sits at 2.79 trillion US dollars, started paying out more than it received in Social Security taxes in 2010, although interest payments on the trust fund has helped it continue to operate on a surplus, from which the government has used to offset budget spending elsewhere. This surplus, however, is expected to end in 2019, after which the Trust Fund is expected to be depleted by 2034 unless the US borrows elsewhere to maintain Social Security payments, or makes changes to the program. The Medicare situation is even more dire, as the program is expected to run out of funds in less than a decade if no changes are made in its current revenue and/or spending. Both of these are due to the increasing numbers of Baby Boom generation retirees in recent and coming years.


I remember being told in high school, that if I ever payed into SS as a working adult, chances were it would be defunct by the time I could use it. At this point, I think of SS as a young person tax that we'll never get anything back from.
mrmhead On about 3 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#8New Post! Jun 28, 2019 @ 11:53:14
@Leon Said

Thanks. You seem to be the only one responding to these now lol. I do appreciate at least someone is reading them. I’ve also been doing this for my own education on all the issues, as each one requires a lot of research and I’ve learned a lot from them. I have 4 more lined up to go in July and that will be it.



I like your recaps of the topics. A lot of the info we've seen or heard in bits and pieces, but seldom wrap it up in one place like this.

What often comes out in these threads is that you can't "fix" one topic without affecting others.
Leon On September 16, 2019




San Diego, California
#9New Post! Jun 28, 2019 @ 14:31:51
@mrmhead Said

I like your recaps of the topics. A lot of the info we've seen or heard in bits and pieces, but seldom wrap it up in one place like this.

What often comes out in these threads is that you can't "fix" one topic without affecting others.


Right, even on a spending level, as we only have so much to spend. I’m careful in my proposals not to spend the same money twice. I hope the candidates do the same in their promises.
Leon On September 16, 2019




San Diego, California
#10New Post! Jun 28, 2019 @ 14:36:41
@nooneinparticular Said

I remember being told in high school, that if I ever payed into SS as a working adult, chances were it would be defunct by the time I could use it. At this point, I think of SS as a young person tax that we'll never get anything back from.


And that was even before Congress started dipping into the fund to cover budgetary needs elsewhere, which was not the intention when the program was started of course (but not illegal).

We can probably fix this by applying the Social Security tax on all income and raise the retirement age to 70. People had life expectancies of only a few years after retirement when the program started under FDR, not 15-20 like they do today.

Otherwise benefit amounts will need to be cut, which will add to our poverty problem.
mrmhead On about 3 hours ago




NE, Ohio
#11New Post! Jun 28, 2019 @ 15:24:59
@Leon Said

And that was even before Congress started dipping into the fund to cover budgetary needs elsewhere, which was not the intention when the program was started of course (but not illegal).

We can probably fix this by applying the Social Security tax on all income and raise the retirement age to 70. People had life expectancies of only a few years after retirement when the program started under FDR, not 15-20 like they do today.

Otherwise benefit amounts will need to be cut, which will add to our poverty problem.


To raise the retirement age, more jobs will be needed, or there will be more unemployed at the other end of the spectrum - which is kind of already happening with a lot of people taking what once was a high school kid's entry into the workforce - and now with calls for "A living wage" (we've been through that before)
Leon On September 16, 2019




San Diego, California
#12New Post! Jun 28, 2019 @ 15:31:20
@mrmhead Said

To raise the retirement age, more jobs will be needed, or there will be more unemployed at the other end of the spectrum - which is kind of already happening with a lot of people taking what once was a high school kid's entry into the workforce - and now with calls for "A living wage" (we've been through that before)


Well the age wouldn’t be raised for those already on the verge of retirement. We could set the increase in increments and starting with those who are, say, under 40 right now.

So any short term negative effects like what you describe above wouldn’t be felt. Besides, right now more people are retiring than entering, with Boomers exiting and Gen Y/Z entering, probably contributing to the historically low employment rate and vacancies in job positions that we are seeing. Even if we drastically increase everyone’s retirement age to 70 no matter how close they are to retirement, Boomers would still be the ones retiring at the present and foreseeable future.
nooneinparticular On September 10, 2019




, Hawaii
#13New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 00:36:58
@Leon Said

Well the age wouldn’t be raised for those already on the verge of retirement. We could set the increase in increments and starting with those who are, say, under 40 right now.

So any short term negative effects like what you describe above wouldn’t be felt. Besides, right now more people are retiring than entering, with Boomers exiting and Gen Y/Z entering, probably contributing to the historically low employment rate and vacancies in job positions that we are seeing. Even if we drastically increase everyone’s retirement age to 70 no matter how close they are to retirement, Boomers would still be the ones retiring at the present and foreseeable future.


The mistakes of the old are always felt most by the ones who come after, apparently.
Leon On September 16, 2019




San Diego, California
#14New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 02:21:20
@nooneinparticular Said

The mistakes of the old are always felt most by the ones who come after, apparently.


True with a lot of these issues.
chaski On about 18 hours ago
Stalker





Tree at Floydgirrl's Window,
#15New Post! Jul 06, 2019 @ 15:31:48
@gakINGKONG Said


Over-spending by the government is a problem.


Let's be honest here.

Over-spending by the pre-Trump government was a problem, but with the Trump administration it is OK because we need to spend all that money to support his agenda.

Be a Patriot! Don't tax! Spend more!
Reply to Topic<< Previous Topic | Next Topic >>
Pages: 1 2 · >>

1 browsing (0 members - 1 guest)

Quick Reply
Politics Forum - Some Rudeness Allowed

      
Subscribe to topic prefs

Similar Topics
    Forum Topic Last Post Replies Views
New posts   Politics
Sun Mar 10, 2013 @ 15:12
49 2836
New posts   Politics
Fri Mar 23, 2012 @ 02:21
11 805
New posts   News & Current Events
Wed Jan 18, 2012 @ 13:24
0 217
New posts   Politics
Thu May 27, 2010 @ 01:31
109 3575
New posts   US Elections
Wed Mar 18, 2009 @ 04:50
11 2654