CBO projects exploding debt and deficits under current law

[UCFKnight85]

They have projected that the federal debt will spiral to 150% of GBP in 30 years under current law, thanks almost entirely to explosions of cost in Social Security and Medicare.

The deficit at the end of 2016 stood at a whopping $587B or 3% of GDP and this will explode to over 10% of GDP gradually over the next 30 years.

Despite all of this, we still hear the same old talking points about how we can't possibly make cuts to Entitlements. We're actually just adding to them now.

Can't wait for the US to be insolvent later in my life, all so we can help provide everything the current baby boomers wanted.

 

[1ofTheseKnights]

Don't forget the boomers opened the flood gates for all the 3rd worlders.

 

[UCFWayne]

But Bernie told me a single payer medicare system would be awesome...

 

[CommuterBob]

Yet Trump wants to spend more and cut taxes...yay?

 

[Bob the Citronaut]

Lol. No one cares. Half the country votes themselves paychecks. It's too late to turn this around.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Yet Trump wants to spend more and cut taxes...yay?

The tax reform bill out of Ways and Means is revenue neutral.

 

[CommuterBob]

The tax reform bill out of Ways and Means is revenue neutral.

That's not going to be enough.

 

[UCFWayne]

Yet Trump wants to spend more and cut taxes...yay?

Hopefully, he cuts spending every single year.

 

[CommuterBob]

Hopefully, he cuts spending every single year.

Hopefully, yes. But his blueprint only increases it.

 

[UCFKnight85]

That's not going to be enough.

Well, no shit. But Corporate Tax reform is desperately needed to get this economy off the pathetic 1.5% growth clip.

 

[chemmie]

Well, no shit. But Corporate Tax reform is desperately needed to get this economy off the pathetic 1.5% growth clip.

You still don't seem to understand that our economy is at record high GDP, record high stock prices, and record high cash reserves. The problem isn't taxes, dumbass. The problem is corporations refuse to spend their earnings in America on their employees and their companies, and instead they are keeping cash, doing nothing with it, and paying huge executive bonuses. The rest of the economy will never catch up until the 99% of the people who have had their salaries stagnant for 35 years are able to spend more money.

Secondly, you've been telling me for over 2 years now that Obama was going to explode the deficit again, and it never happened. Maybe our deficit will be okay if another Democrat gets in office to fix the damage Republicans keep doing.

 

[knights of UCF]

Trump is planning to spend like a democrat but going to cut taxes like a republican. This isn't gonna end well if it continues.

 

[UCFKnight85]

You still don't seem to understand that our economy is at record high GDP, record high stock prices, and record high cash reserves. The problem isn't taxes, dumbass. The problem is corporations refuse to spend their earnings in America on their employees and their companies, and instead they are keeping cash, doing nothing with it, and paying huge executive bonuses. The rest of the economy will never catch up until the 99% of the people who have had their salaries stagnant for 35 years are able to spend more money.

Secondly, you've been telling me for over 2 years now that Obama was going to explode the deficit again, and it never happened. Maybe our deficit will be okay if another Democrat gets in office to fix the damage Republicans keep doing.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!

I stopped reading at your incredibly stupid first point. Record GDP?

https://www.thebalance.com/us-gdp-by-year-3305543

We ran a growth rate of pathetic 1.6% all of last year. Only in your own personal fantasyland could that be considered record GDP growth rate. Unless you're actually attempting to use raw numbers, which would be completely idiotic since the economy could grow by .1% annually and still claim "record GDP".

Sometimes I wonder if you ever research ANYTHING before you spout about it here.

 

[chemmie]

Do you even stop to think, or do you just immediately launch into emotional rants like a child?

Our country is at a point in history where our wealth is greater than ever. That is the point I was making. The rate at which that wealth is growing has nothing to do with it. You're spinning, again.

Of course, your analysis about the rate of growth is incorrect also. The last 6 years have seen steady economic growth without the massive crashes seen by previous administrations. Only a moron would believe a 1.8% growth rate would be pathetic, 6 years (of steady 1-2% growth) after inheriting -3.5% growth rate.

Here: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?end=2015&locations=US&start=1961
Go play. You might learn a thing or two.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

Healthcare spending and social security are the biggest issues. They amount for a significant percentage of spending and it's just not sustainable. The big problem is that to correct it, it will require 10-15 years of incremental changes. Partisan politics won't allow for it and we'll go in circles. Eventually, we'll have to address it and it will be extremely painful because we put it off for so long.

 

[UCF11and1]

The tax reform bill out of Ways and Means is revenue neutral.

Don't they usually hide expending, pick and choose a time frame or just cook the numbers to make the bills be revenue neutral?

The Gov should have to show how they are going to eliminate the $500B deficit before they cut $1 in taxes to anybody. They need to do it using current numbers and not future GDP growth that they usually pull out of their asses.

 

[UCFhonors]

Didn't the CBO also estimate a dramatic cost saving under Obamacare? Yeah. They aren't a reliable source.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

I just wish there was more transparency here. Tax cuts are rarely true tax cuts. They're cuts on the increases.

I do think the next recession will likely be the pinch point in this nearly 10 year experiment. Typically, we increase spending and lower interest rates in a recession to bolster the economy. With rates already low (but increasing) and massive deficit spending, I wonder what fiscal/monetary policy will be employed to stabilize the economy.

 

[chemmie]

I just wish there was more transparency here. Tax cuts are rarely true tax cuts. They're cuts on the increases.

I do think the next recession will likely be the pinch point in this nearly 10 year experiment. Typically, we increase spending and lower interest rates in a recession to bolster the economy. With rates already low (but increasing) and massive deficit spending, I wonder what fiscal/monetary policy will be employed to stabilize the economy.

The record high levels of wealth our economy has produced MUST be redistributed better in order for our economy to work. If that wealth is not distributed better, there are three possible outcomes:
1. Voluntary redistribution of wealth by those who currently benefit from our monetary policy and economy. This is, of course, what everyone has been told would happen. The wealth will trickle down...but it hasn't for roughly 35 years.
2. Socialism. If those with the most wealth won't do it voluntarily, the government will do it for them.
3. Violent revolution. As the numbers of people in poverty, and those barely getting by on traditionally viable professions grow, the masses will become more restless.

Everyone needs to realize this isn't about minimum wage. It isn't about soaking the rich. It is about sustainability of the economic system as a whole. Our economic system will not survive if we continue in the direction we are going where wealth is concentrated at the very top while the middle class shrinks and lower class grows.

 

[UCFWayne]

Anyone ever go to the DMV and think of how well its run? Anyone ever eat a school lunch and brag about how delicious it is? God, I wish our government would take over health care. Think of all the ways they could make it better.*

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

The record high levels of wealth our economy has produced MUST be redistributed better in order for our economy to work. If that wealth is not distributed better, there are three possible outcomes:
1. Voluntary redistribution of wealth by those who currently benefit from our monetary policy and economy. This is, of course, what everyone has been told would happen. The wealth will trickle down...but it hasn't for roughly 35 years.
2. Socialism. If those with the most wealth won't do it voluntarily, the government will do it for them.
3. Violent revolution. As the numbers of people in poverty, and those barely getting by on traditionally viable professions grow, the masses will become more restless.

Everyone needs to realize this isn't about minimum wage. It isn't about soaking the rich. It is about sustainability of the economic system as a whole. Our economic system will not survive if we continue in the direction we are going where wealth is concentrated at the very top while the middle class shrinks and lower class grows.

Problem is the wealth of the 1% is tied to a different metric than the other 99%. The 1% is tied to investments and stock price. They gain money by having companies run lean and exceed projections. The 99% derive their income from paychecks of those companies. They're almost inversely correlated. I do think a privatized Social Security would help in some ways. It makes all citizens interested in the economy and the well-being of those companies. It puts the 99% on the same side as the 1% for retirement at least.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Do you even stop to think, or do you just immediately launch into emotional rants like a child?

Our country is at a point in history where our wealth is greater than ever. That is the point I was making. The rate at which that wealth is growing has nothing to do with it. You're spinning, again.

Of course, your analysis about the rate of growth is incorrect also. The last 6 years have seen steady economic growth without the massive crashes seen by previous administrations. Only a moron would believe a 1.8% growth rate would be pathetic, 6 years (of steady 1-2% growth) after inheriting -3.5% growth rate.

Here: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.KD.ZG?end=2015&locations=US&start=1961
Go play. You might learn a thing or two.

Again- you're an idiot.

Unless a country is in a death spiral, economies expand. That is not remarkable, it is a mere fact that is a given when factoring in population growth and technology advances.

What does matter is how quickly an economy expands. If you had a shred of intelligence you'd understand that an annualized growth rate over 8 years of 1.6% is pathetic when weighed against the historical norms for growth in our history. It is anemic. It is barely above the rate of inflation, only because inflation has been so low thanks to the Fed. If inflation were normalized, with a 1.6% growth rate, we'd actually be contracting in real terms.

 

[chemmie]

Problem is the wealth of the 1% is tied to a different metric than the other 99%. The 1% is tied to investments and stock price. They gain money by having companies run lean and exceed projections. The 99% derive their income from paychecks of those companies. They're almost inversely correlated. I do think a privatized Social Security would help in some ways. It makes all citizens interested in the economy and the well-being of those companies. It puts the 99% on the same side as the 1% for retirement at least.

The biggest problem the 99% can ever have is thinking they have any kind of affect on the 1% when it comes to investing.
The rest of your analysis is correct, and it is an issue. We've reached the point where stock profits come at the expense of the worker. This is how Capitalism fails.

 

[Great2BAKnight2]

The biggest problem the 99% can ever have is thinking they have any kind of affect on the 1% when it comes to investing.
The rest of your analysis is correct, and it is an issue. We've reached the point where stock profits come at the expense of the worker. This is how Capitalism fails.

It's not about affecting how the 1% invest, it's about benefiting from their investment. If Social Security routed all contributions to the Total Stock Market Index Fund (captures all US equities), then everyone benefits in retirement from the Growth the 1% is pushing for. Someone who started working 30 years ago went through the 2 greatest Bull Runs in history (1987-2000 and 2009-present). If they were invested (and not selling in a panic), they would be sitting pretty in retirement (about 800% growth over the 30 years). Those relying on SS that worked in this time period should have more to show for it and that's a fault of the individual (for not investing) and the govt (for using an antiquated system). The 1% were invested in this time period and it's a main reason there's such a wealth gap.