Reply With Quote
Cut spending, raise/reform taxes.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washing...t_n.htm?csp=hf
The federal government's financial condition deteriorated rapidly last year, far beyond the $1.5 trillion in new debt taken on to finance the budget deficit, a USA TODAY analysis shows.
The government added $5.3 trillion in new financial obligations in 2010, largely for retirement programs such as Medicare and Social Security. That brings to a record $61.6 trillion the total of financial promises not paid for.
This gap between spending commitments and revenue last year equals more than one-third of the nation's gross domestic product.
Medicare alone took on $1.8 trillion in new liabilities, more than the record deficit prompting heated debate between Congress and the White House over lifting the debt ceiling.
STORY: Government's mountain of debt
Social Security added $1.4 trillion in obligations, partly reflecting longer life expectancies. Federal and military retirement programs added more to the financial hole, too.
Corporations would be required to count these new liabilities when they are taken on — and report a big loss to shareholders. Unlike businesses, however, Congress postpones recording spending commitments until it writes a check.
The $61.6 trillion in unfunded obligations amounts to $534,000 per household. That's more than five times what Americans have borrowed for everything else — mortgages, car loans and other debt. It reflects the challenge as the number of retirees soars over the next 20 years and seniors try to collect on those spending promises.
"The (federal) debt only tells us what the government owes to the public. It doesn't take into account what's owed to seniors, veterans and retired employees," says accountant Sheila Weinberg, founder of the Ins ute for Truth in Accounting, a Chicago-based group that advocates better financial reporting. "Without accurate accounting, we can't make good decisions."
Michael Lind, policy director at the liberal New America Foundation's economic growth program, says there is no near-term crisis for federal retirement programs and that economic growth will make these programs more affordable.
"The false claim that Social Security and Medicare are about to bankrupt the United States has been repeated for decades by conservatives and libertarians who pretend that their ideological opposition to these successful and cost-effective programs is based on worries about the deficit," he says.
USA TODAY has calculated federal finances based on standard accounting rules since 2004 using data from the Medicare and Social Security annual reports and the little-known audited financial report of the federal government.
The government has promised pension and health benefits worth more than $700,000 per retired civil servant. The pension fund's key asset: federal IOUs.
Cut spending, raise/reform taxes.
Not fair! Pick a side!
If the economy is still in the doldrums in 2013, stimulus will be politically viable again, no matter who wins the election.
(Sooner if we go back into recession.)
It better be front-loaded this time. ing cut checks to citizens to pump back into the economy as they see fit.
That would take another easing. I think it would be our death knell tbh
The stimulus boat has passed. The problem now is that politicians can spin it as having failed when in reality there simply wasn't enough effective stimulus. We should have spent that money yesterday and we would have seen a more robust recovery as well as improvement in areas such as infrastructure but that boat has sailed. I don't see how stimulus in the native sense becomes palatable in 2013.
No, now instead of spending that money at that point in time we'll deal with shortfalls in revenue that will surpass what we should have spent.
Daddy needs new shooz.
Repugs will block ANY EFFORT by the Dems to get the economy moving.
As in the 2010 election, the Repugs want THEIR disastrous economy to continue to 2012 while continuing to blame everything on the Dems.
Fair enough, but people could be mis-undersestimating the human misery entailed by the next leg down. When added to the misery of the first down leg, we could be talking serious immiseration by first world standards.
In other words, the stimulus was a failure -- far too small to make a politically detectable diffference.
Maybe Obama should've gone for a much bigger one. Maybe you're right that the moment has passed for that. I tend to think unemployment will continue to be a burr to whoever is in power, may even become worse of one. Lotta state workers gonna lose their jobs in the next few years.
"the stimulus was a failure"
not because it was a bad idea (Keynesian counter-cyclical spending) but because it was too small compared to the Depression
"Obama should've gone for a much bigger one"
Repugs would have blocked it
I'm reading about "full-employment" structural unemployment movfing for 4.5-5% to 7 or 8%. Millions of people are going to be very ed, very 3rd world-y.
stimulus just wasn't big enough?
Mmmmkay.
No, the tax cuts weren't big enough.
Well I think I've stated that it was too small all a long. I take issue with the wording that it was a failure though. It did was it was supposed to do, it just wasn't enough. The failure wasn't the stimulus but rather in the amount used which isn't a knock on stimulus but those making the decisions.
I think its a very important distinction to make for obvious reasons.
Yeah, this might be true. Its hard to see 2 years into the future the way the political winds change to quickly. I find it hard to see that happening, but that may just be a knock on my perception more than anything.
Maybe Obama should've gone for a much bigger one. Maybe you're right that the moment has passed for that. I tend to think unemployment will continue to be a burr to whoever is in power, may even become worse of one. Lotta state workers gonna lose their jobs in the next few years.
BTW I just figured out where that Teysha Blue sounds remarkably close to Deja Vu. I feel as slow as DarrinS.
It was a great time to focus so much energy on the bureaucratic cluster known as Obamacare.
The tax cuts for the wealthy have saved this economy!
Naptime, little fella.BTW I just figured out where that Teysha Blue sounds remarkably close to Deja Vu. I feel as slow as DarrinS.
What specifically did you want him to do differently, that was permissible to the Repugs?
How bout only a little of both. Simplify taxes, reduce corporate taxes, and cut necessary spending like subsidies to start with. Tax reform like implementing a similar idea to "The Fair Tax" will collect revenue hidden from taxation and tax people on what the can afford to spend.
The problem isn't the tax rate so much as it is our exportation of good wage jobs. The solution is to improve our economy, and get more tax revenue by having more tax payers. Not tax ourselves out of more jobs. We need to make able bodied people work, even if it's low wage jobs instead of paying them to be lazy in those hammocks they made from abusing the safety nets.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 06-07-2011 at 04:53 PM.
Obamaaaaaaaaaaaaa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes...
Our future only sees change in our pockets.
No more dead presidents.
Don't they already pay zero or even get money back?
That needs to be fixed, and you know I am in favor of ending tax credits, which are too much like subsidies. You know my take on subsidies.
Last paragraph of Definition of a Tax Credit:
What it doesn't say is that a credit adds to your effective tax taken out. If it is more than your taxes owed based on taxable income, you get money back you never paid in.Credits and Deductions are often confused in the taxpayer’ mind when tax preparation time arrives. It is important to understand the distinction. Dollar for dollar, the credit will always be a better deal because it is directly subtracted from the tax owed. The deduction only reduces the taxable income and is dependent on the tax rate. In the case of certain items such as medical expenses, the deductions must exceed a certain amount before they result in any savings at all. The credit will always result in a savings.
Now if a business has no taxable income, then sure, they shouldn't pay any.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
