I was gonna post this for you 20-30 minutes ago but then i got lazy and said i'll just wait for you to take care of it instead......you're a lot more used to speaking to the choir anyways
I understand your point. But you have to look at the borrowing relative to the spending. The borrowing is not nearly as drastic in your original example. Its hard to find statistics of year after year borrowing, but if the total debt is paid down, then of course they didn't borrow more than they spent. If you would like to post some of the web sites that go into the topic of borrowing from social security funds I would be more than willing to read them.
Again the deficit means nothing if we still increase the debt through over spending (borrowing) Fiscal Year ----- Year Ending ------ National Debt ------ Deficit FY1993 09/30/1993 $4.411488 trillion FY1994 09/30/1994 $4.692749 trillion $281.26 billion FY1995 09/29/1995 $4.973982 trillion $281.23 billion FY1996 09/30/1996 $5.224810 trillion $250.83 billion FY1997 09/30/1997 $5.413146 trillion $188.34 billion FY1998 09/30/1998 $5.526193 trillion $113.05 billion FY1999 09/30/1999 $5.656270 trillion $130.08 billion FY2000 09/29/2000 $5.674178 trillion $17.91 billion FY2001 09/28/2001 $5.807463 trillion $133.29 billion There are the numbers from the Treasury Dept.- Clinton never paid down the debt one penny. In Fiscal Year 2000- almost balanced the budget. link
This website will give you the basic mechanics of how the trust funds buy debt thus increasing the debt with the trust fund as the collateral. That is the basic process. link For further research this site will link you to the treasury dept.
debt held by the public goes down, the government doesn't need to pay itself down. and furthermore there is no conspiracy or hiding of this, you can get this information from the treasury. edit: from your site The Social Security Administration is legally required to take all its surpluses and buy U.S. Government securities, and the U.S. Government readily sells those securities--which automatically and immediately becomes intergovernmental holdings.
government does have to pay itself down or the currency is wrecked. take your pick. anyways this is a very complicated subject for a good reason... the only point I wanted to make is - how many candidates have a plan in place to stop the debt- NOT balance the budget? From Wikipedia-The United States total public debt, commonly called the national debt, or U.S. government debt, is the amount of money owed by the United States federal government to creditors who hold U.S. debt instruments. As of February 2008, the total U.S. federal debt was approximately $9.2 trillion, about $79,000 in average for each American taxpayer. Of this amount, debt held by the public was roughly $5.1 trillion.[1] Debt held by the public is all federal debt held by states, corporations, individuals, and foreign governments, but does not include intragovernmental debt obligations or debt held for Social Security. Types of securities held by the public include, but are not limited to, Treasury Bills, Notes, Bonds, TIPS, United States Savings Bonds, and State and Local Government Series securities. [2]. If intragovernment debt obligations are included, the debt figure rises to roughly $9.2 trillion.[3] If, in addition, unfunded Medicaid, Social Security, etc. promises are added, this figure rises to a total of $59.1 trillion.[4] In 2007 the public debt was 36.8 percent of GDP ranking 66th in the world.[5] It is important to differentiate between public debt and external debt. The former is the amount owed by the government to its creditors, whether they are nationals or foreigners. The latter is the debt of all sectors of the economy (public and private), owed to foreigners. In the U.S., foreign ownership of the public debt is a significant part of the nation's external debt (see also below). The Bureau of the Public Debt, a division of the United States Department of the Treasury, calculates the amount of money owed by the national government on a daily basis.
that's fair. the way I'm looking at this is the social security loan is on excess social security funds. correct me if i'm wrong, but that's an excess to what is budgeted that will need to be paid out in the future? therefore as long as the normal budgeted stream comes in, that debt can stay out there as long as needed.
It's not really necessary to pay down the debt. Really, the priority doesn't even have to be an entirely balanced budget. What the goal DOES need to be is making sure that the national debt is growing at a slower pace than the national GDP. Ideally, if you can do better that than, that's great because it frees up investment for the private sector. For example, if you owe $100,000 but are worth $200,000, you are in much worse shape than someone who owes $200,000 but is worth $1,000,000. The goal should be that debt is shrinking relative to GDP, not necessarily that it is shrinking in nominal terms.
you are correct, except the normal budgeted stream is changing quickly due to baby boomers and the pay back will become necessary soon unless benefits are drastically changed or at least that is what ALL the politicians agree on. Over-haul SS. I don't think we Americans understand exactly how dangerous the total debt really is. It directly impacts the currency, the liquidity of the money supply and the confidence of investors worldwide. Whenever money is pumped into the economy (consumer debt) or the govt. borrows and spends more in the fiscal budget, the dollar holds strength based upon the confidence bankers and investors and govts have that we can pay off the debt. That part is simple economics. We can borrow until we can't borrow. Then things get rough.
There is a very simple solution to all these debt and unfunded entitlement problems that will most certainly be enacted in the coming years: HYPERINFLATION Rest assured, the Fed is on your side!
"it's my impression to be honest with you, and this is confirmed by a lot of folks who are involved very heavily in regulatory matters involving firearms, that it is more difficult dealing with this administration than it was dealing with the prior administration." Bob Barr - former Republican Congressman and NRA board member.
I've been swamped with work and haven't had the chance to read this thread or most of the other Obama vs. Hillary threads so I apologize if what I'm posting is redundant. The argument regarding style over substance has more to do than just with policy positions where Clinton and Obama are very similar. Its true that Obama has a platform and policy positions but his campaign isn't framed around those and as even many Obama supporters will admit isn't what his campaign is about. The argument that Obama has substance just because he has positions doesn't hold water if that isn't what his campaign is about or if there is an understanding about how he would bring those positions about. Obama's campaign is based upon very vague and nebulous idea of "change" yet there is no understanding of how that change will come about or to the point where many Obama supporters argue that Obama is about compromise and unity is whether he could even make that change happen if that actually means enacting his platform. To the point of why this matters as an argument for Hillary Clinton is that while I agree that Obama is a phenomenal speaker as this is a matter of a two person race now for the Dem. nomination the negatives of one have to be considered. Hillary Clinton no doubt has a lot of faults but in many cases those faults are somewhat exagerated and more a matter of perception than reality. In regard to the style versus substance argument while both candidates have a fairly similar positions I get a better sense of what Hillary Clinton would push for and how she would get it done as her history is better known than Obama and her level of experience is greater. While many will argue that as US Senators Obama only has 6 years less experience than Hillary that 6 years is very critical as Obama won virtually unopposed while Clinton faced a stern test first from a fairly formidable Giuliani and then a viscious attack Rick Lazio. Further she overcame some serious doubts among heavily Republican parts of NY State and by all accounts has proven to be a fairly affective senator for all of NY and not just relying upon heavily democratic NYC for her support. The second issue of substance is that even though Hillary Clinton was first lady she was unlike any first lady in US history having taken a lead on some major policy decisions and being highly involved in much of the Clinton Admin.. While its true that her biggest policy action proved a dismal failure that didn't turn into the deathknell for her political aspiration or the Clinton Admin. as as many predicted but not only as she been able to come back from that disaster but has been able do exceptionally well politically in the face of repeated attacks and doubts about whether she could succeed. So while she wasn't the president in the 1990's her experience as First Lady put her actively in the highest level of national politics compared to serving in the IL state legislator. Obama on the other hand has seemingly led a charmed political career being vaulted in a matter of a few years from state senator to frontrunning contender for the Presidency. IMO he hasn't faced nearly the same tests that Hillary Clinton has faced. The question of style versus substance to me is that we have very little to look at in regard to Obama's history as to how he could actively push issues or deal with major crisis while there is a fairly good idea from Hillary Clinton's history to tell us. So while their positions are the same IMO there is a much better feel about how Hillary Clinton would pursue those versus how Obama would. What we have from Obama is a scant history on the national level and a lot of vague rhetoric. None of this is to say that Obama is a terrible candidate and if he wins the nomination I will likely support him but that I have a very hard time buying into a candidate and campaign that is so vague in nature. I noticed in another thread that an Obama supporter challenged Obama critiques to read his platform well I would challenge most Obama supporters to read his platform too. I get the feeling that most of them don't fully know his platform and that most of them can't give a solid answer to how he would implement it. None of us can completely know the future and we really have no idea how someone will govern. There was little in Lincoln's background that indicated he would be a great president. Obama's campaign is about hope but really every non-incumbant campaign is about hope. My own feeling is I would rather have something more solid to base that hope on than nebulous rhetoric and a limited record.
Nice post, Sishir. My own problem with Obama versus Ms. Clinton is similar to your own, although I have no doubts about voting for him. (he's a Democrat! ) I don't like the fact that Democrats that support Obama have made so many vicious attacks on Hillary Clinton, who is, I'll repeat, a good Democrat that has a decades long record of support for the party and its candidates, as well as a real record of accomplishment. I'm concerned that it appears too often that support for Barack Obama is based as much on his opponent as on his record, such as it is. One would think that after 8 years of incredible partisan attacks on both Clintons during Bill's Presidency, Hillary Clinton could at least expect respect from Democrats, regardless of who they support in the party. That is not the case. While Barack has largely refrained from personal attacks on Ms. Clinton, his supporters have, all too often, not only attacked her, but seem to relish doing it. Obama, meanwhile, is ardently defended against any hint of weakness in his resume, or any attack by him against his opponent, no matter how "mild" or subtle it might be. I would expect such behavior from some Republicans, but I am surprised that so much of it comes from my side of the political spectrum. Impeach Bush.
rhester, why is our economy dependent on foreign investors? Aren't we supposed to be an independent nation? .
when you got interest to pay on $9 trillion in debt, overextended budgets, trade deficits, etc.......you need a lifeline from over yonder..
I had a much longer post written up that got zapped by the BBS when it asked me to login when I hit post, so I'll go with a shorter version. This post was much more what I was looking for when I started the thread - so thank you! I want to flesh out details though. On the change thing, several people have tried to explain the idea. I'll simply point you to this article - I think it does a much better job than any of us have done: (It's long... VERY VERY long, but an interesting read) http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama Hillary didn't face any stern test. Guiliani dropped out in the middle of the year due to a cancer diagnosis, and then there was a last minute replacement who was a House Rep - facing the former First Lady in a state that adored her husband. Obama faced a similar last-minute opponent in Alan Keyes (an even worse one). But both had very easy routes. However, Obama also had Illinois races as well. Beyond that, they've both faced a tough campaign now - and Obama's has performed much better in every single regard, whether it be organization, fundraising, management, message, etc. And consider that he was an underdog to start, both in name recognition and the fact that she had her husband's connections and campaign infrastructure. On the flipside, over the last 3 weeks we've learned her entire campaign was in disarray - her own closest confidants were *scared* to tell her they were out of money. There was no information flow, no infrastructure post-Feb 5, etc. What does that say about their each being tested? I'd agree, to some extent. But her failure was far bigger than you suggest - that health care plan was a bit part of the Dems losing control of both the House and the Senate, and a large number of governorships and state legislatures. But beyond that, what other major successes did she have as first lady? A failure - even a major one - can be a learning experience, but what has she accomplished in either the Senate or as First Lady since that? In the Senate, the only thing she's really succeeded at is pork - she's at the top of the list of Senators when it comes to pork for her state (Obama is around #10) - is that a good thing though? What substantial pieces of legislation has she successfully passed? But what if Hillary's history tells us primarily *bad* things? The 1990's demonization was chalked up to a "vast right-wing conspiracy". But since South Carolina, she's managed to polarize a Dem electorate too - at what point do you have to say "maybe it's her?" Her record of success is thin at best. So what does all this experience suggest for the future? Here's my biggest beef. Let's take Hillary's signature issue - health care. What can you tell me about the plan and how it will be implemented? How will the mandates work? What is the enforcement mechanism? How does it affect employer plans and individual plan availability? What will it do to individual costs and coverage quality? What about emergency room costs? And, separate from the policy, HOW will it be implemented? I would venture to guess the vast majority of Hillary supporters can't answer a single one of these questions in any sort of useful detail. So why is it that Obama (or his supporters) gets criticized for not having those answers, while she doesn't? Is there REALLY more substance in Hillary's plan (or her supporters)? Or is it just an empty talking point like "hope"?
I think the exact opposite. Most of the Hillary argument seems to be "Obama is inexperienced" or "he's a hopemonger". And that's not only from Hillary supporters, but from Hillary herself. It's not about why Hillary is great, but why Obama is not. On the flipside, Obama has drawn wide support from first-time voters and people not previously involved in the process. That support doesn't come from anti-Hillary sentiment; it comes from people actually voting FOR him.
But what is Hillary's record? What has she accomplished as a member of the Senate that you are impressed with? A flag-burning amendment? Regulations against violent video games? (not trying to be sarcastic - I am, in fact, ignorant of what bills she has co-sponsored and/or passed)
This doesn't really make too much sense to me. You admit that Obama has substance in his detailed policy positions, but you seem to punish him, and hold it against him, that in addition to that, he strives for something more. As far as his history I've listed several bills that he's co-sponsored with Republicans and gotten them accomplished just in the two years he's been in the senate. But let's go back to the nebulous idea of hope. Obama himself seems to have answered this question nicely in his Wisconsin Dinner speech. Please check it out. It's youtubed in one of the other threads on this bbs. But to borrow some of the ideas from that speech. What plans did MLK have when spoke about Civil Rights, and I have a Dream? The civil rights workers who came from Northern colleges and went down to the South, and were beaten, arrested, and even killed, had hope of change, which they worked for, and their tactics worked. The hope, the inspiration brought about real change. If they had just sat there and talked about policy positions and reasons why this bill would be better than that bill, nothing would have changed. Real change isn't ever going to happen unless someone inspires people to become active, fight for what they want. It just doesn't make sense that you acknowledge he has complete policy positions but penalize him for striving for something more. But please watch that speech, because it answers your comments about nebulous hope far better than I could.
