Deficit to close at 260 billion, 58 billion less than last year...That's good, right?

[Tipsy]

With the end of the fiscal year at hand, the government is going to announce their grand job with the deficit - 260 billion dollars, 58 billion lower than last year and 77 billion below predictions. It sounds good... until you ask why.

Once again, the government has raided the Social Security fund, 177 billion dollars of it. Apparently this "off-budget spending" doesn't count as "spending" and it looks good on paper.

For those of you who are Americans, you've heard that the baby boomers are going to start putting a strain on the Social Security system. What you may not realize is that the first baby boomers start collecting in 14 months. It's right around the corner, not some far off problem.

Point being: We're spending more, not having drastically needed changes, and it doesn't seem to be a big issue. To put it bluntly, if we continue at this rate we're screwed.

[Lizardbreath]

We were screwed when Bush took office and announced his social security overhaul.

[Undead Cheese]

Fiscal conservatism? Where?! At least the dem's have a slightly better track record.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by lizardbreath

We were screwed when Bush took office and announced his social security overhaul.

His overhaul was never passed (and rightfully so).

Originally Posted by Undead Cheese

Fiscal conservatism? Where?! At least the dem's have a slightly better track record.

And this neocon movement to function as the world police isn't helping much either. Though I think the data set might be a bit deceiving, it is Congress rather than the president who sets the budget and the party in control of Congress isn't always the same as that which control the presidency. An example being the Republican controlled Congress during the early Clinton years. Sad thing is, on average, neither party actually spends within the budget when in power.

[Ixon]

Honestly, it's not like it's some simple problem to solve.

Social Security is going to be a recurring problem for anyone who is supposed to draw after the boomers hit, but there's no obvious solution.

While it's easy to dump on someone else's idea(President, another poster, whatever) it's not quite so easy to come up with a plan that would effectively and efficiently solve this problem.

I, for one, don't even pretend to understand the ramifications of this further than "Oh ****."

[Tipsy]

There's actually a very simple solution to it. The problem is that we don't have a big enough workforce to get enough money for Social Security. From this the ideas of changing social security, raising taxes, or what not comes from various people, yet all we need to do is fix the main problem - the workforce. Simple solution: increase the workforce. Best way to do this? Immigration.

[mdawgmike]

Another, probably less problematic solution to social security (thinking into the future on the increased immigration one), would be to simply temporarily increase the social security tax coming out of everyone's paycheck. Also slightly decreasing the benifits for the baby boomers would help alot too. A few dollars either way would make for noticable improvments to funding. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind paying an extra $10 (or whatever ammount) every paycheck if it means I'll be able to have the same benifits ready for me when/if I need them.

[c9h13no3]

Originally Posted by Undead Cheese

[img]http://www.undeadcheese.com/images/budget.png[img]

Fiscal conservatism? Where?! At least the dem's have a slightly better track record.

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation? Just wondering.

[Undead Cheese]

Originally Posted by c9h13no3

Are those numbers adjusted for inflation? Just wondering.

That's why it says 2005 US $billion.

[c9h13no3]

Originally Posted by Undead Cheese

That's why it says 2005 US $billion.

Wow, I'm really getting lazy in my old age. Mebbe next time I should read the whole table eh?

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by mdawgmike

Another, probably less problematic solution to social security (thinking into the future on the increased immigration one), would be to simply temporarily increase the social security tax coming out of everyone's paycheck. Also slightly decreasing the benifits for the baby boomers would help alot too. A few dollars either way would make for noticable improvments to funding. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't mind paying an extra $10 (or whatever ammount) every paycheck if it means I'll be able to have the same benifits ready for me when/if I need them.

I, along with probably many other fiscal conservatives, would be against the idea of raising taxes for this purpose. As for cutting the benefits given to the baby boomers, I can't comment on that until I would know how much and how it would most likely affect them (through a study).

As for immigration, keep in mind that not all immigrants are the stereotyped manual laborers like the ones we think of when we talk about the ones that cross over from Mexico. Some people that have applied to enter the United States are decently and well educated. No one actually commented on this and I am not saying that you or anyone else has stated something contrary to this; I just want to put it out there just incase.

[c9h13no3]

I personally think it's gonna be financial problems that does the US in eventually. If one day we fall from being a major world power, it'll be because of financial problems. We'll get into more wars than we can afford and people will stop loaning us money.

However, one thing to consider about the debt that Bush racked up is that interest rates were pretty retardedly low at the time he took office. And borrowing money isn't exactly stupid all the time. If the loans an entity takes out are backed up by capital that holds its value fairly well, then it's not an entirely stupid decision. I'm not motivated enough to actually go find the numbers, but I think the last time I checked, the US government held more assets than it had outstanding debt.

Also, it's pretty difficult to make budget cuts these days. Earlier in Bush's term, he cut some veteran's benefits, and I remember everyone on the news going nuts. In terms of public opinion, making the kind of budget cuts that are required would be suicide. However, the best thing for the US at this point would be to seriously cut back on a lot of the expenditures we have now.

But that still doesn't make me a fan of Bush's spending. Interest rates or not, he's running up debt for things that I don't believe are worth going into debt for. And I'm not sure the democrats are going to be that much better. Sure, they'll go into debt less, but like your table illustrates, we haven't had a president in the black in the past 80 years or so. Neither the democrats or the republicans really represent fiscal responsibility. Sure, I could vote for a libertarian canidate & hope that the big 2 take notice, but that's prolly not going to turn things around fast enough. And I still can't help but think that I'm throwing my vote away when I vote 3rd party.

And while I'm writing, I might as well throw my opinion in the mix. It shouldn't exist. If the government was a mutual fund manager, it'd be fired by now. If I invested the social security money in a 401k or an IRA, I'd easily have enough money to retire semi-comfortably on, instead of the measly checks the government pays out. But instead, the government uses that money as a mega low interest long term loan.

Anyways, as an aside, it's kinda crazy how this forum has picked up. Didn't this used to be the place where idiots told each other about how homosexuals should all be thrown into a big pit & burned alive?

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by c9h13no3

However, one thing to consider about the debt that Bush racked up is that interest rates were pretty retardedly low at the time he took office.

That has more to do with the Fed than with Bush. If they don't raise the interest rates then the economy isn't going to slow down, and with it just about at its peak of this current cycle, it could be worse if they were lower.

Originally Posted by c9h13no3

And while I'm writing, I might as well throw my opinion in the mix. It shouldn't exist. If the government was a mutual fund manager, it'd be fired by now. If I invested the social security money in a 401k or an IRA, I'd easily have enough money to retire semi-comfortably on, instead of the measly checks the government pays out. But instead, the government uses that money as a mega low interest long term loan.

What if others can't? Let them starve? What happens if you outlive your savings? What happens if you get married, and die in a tragic accident when you're 30? Do you want your wife to starve, or would you rather the government pay her a stipend? What happens if you get disabled in ten years and you don't have the money to support yourself? Will you want to starve or have the government help you? Not everyone's life goes as planned, sometimes things just go wrong, and sometiems people just don't plan. In any case, I personally believe that social security is a necessary safety net for society.

Don't get me wrong, it could be drastically improved, but I don't think it should be abolished.

Originally Posted by c9h13no3

Anyways, as an aside, it's kinda crazy how this forum has picked up. Didn't this used to be the place where idiots told each other about how homosexuals should all be thrown into a big pit & burned alive?

Don't worry, they still pop up here and there.


Anyway, if you want to see how great our government is at being fiscally conservative, here's a recent example:
http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/10/....ap/index.html

[AZN_FLEA]

social security net is essential. look at south korea. they barely have a social security net. the rich and poor are being separated at an ever quickening pace. the poor are rioting more frequently and the economy is slowing down despite the profits that SAMSUNG is making. the south korean economy is extremely inefficient, the number or people that are unemployed is much higher than what the statistics say. i fear for what will happen in 10 years time. the rich will be extremely rich and the poor will have nothing. at least in other countries, social security net will cover for the money that they cannot earn.

IMO the US needs to stop spending so much money on stupid military crap and focus the economy. cutting social security will make problems worse.

[c9h13no3]

Originally Posted by Tipsy

That has more to do with the Fed than with Bush. If they don't raise the interest rates then the economy isn't going to slow down, and with it just about at its peak of this current cycle, it could be worse if they were lower.

I wasn't speaking about the economy or anything. I was just mearly stating that with interest rates at about 1%, it makes a lot of sense to take out a loan.

Originally Posted by Tipsy

Not everyone's life goes as planned, sometimes things just go wrong, and sometiems people just don't plan. In any case, I personally believe that social security is a necessary safety net for society.

I disagree. For the majority of those instances, there are solutions that don't involve the government (life insurance, my wife getting a job, ect.).

I agree with you, that there needs to be a government safety net for a select few situations, but at the same time, things like planning for your retirement & taking care of your dependants is a basic thing that everyone should be doing for themselves. I don't think the government should be so hands on that it forces everyone to plan for their retirement. Not to mention that they just can't be trusted to manage the money correctly.

[AZN_FLEA]

no, social security is essential. there are times when insurance just cant be paid or whatever. and that is no reason to take social security net away. its essential for the people. taking it away for less deficit isnt right.

the government is for the people.

[simpleforce]

umm im pretty sure your numbers are off, 260 billion maybe just for this year or something, the total deficit is 8+ trillion.

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by simpleforce

umm im pretty sure your numbers are off, 260 billion maybe just for this year or something, the total deficit is 8+ trillion.

The numbers are correct. 260 billion is the national deficit. 8+ trillion is the national debt.

Originally Posted by c9h13no3

I don't think the government should be so hands on that it forces everyone to plan for their retirement. Not to mention that they just can't be trusted to manage the money correctly.

Though I do disagree with what you believe, the second part of what you said can be remedied by having a private company run social security (similar to what I support happening to the IRS, but that's just a side note).

[Arxces]

Retirement plan: 104k and Roth IRA anyone? And consider this: the UN estimates that the Pentagon's annual budget could feed the poor of Africa for 5 years. Now tell me, where are the US government's priorities?

[Tipsy]

Originally Posted by Arxces

And consider this: the UN estimates that the Pentagon's annual budget could feed the poor of Africa for 5 years. Now tell me, where are the US government's priorities?

To exactly where it should be - the American people. There is much corruption, ineffecient programs, and incompetence, however my point is that it isn't the United States' government' responsibility to feed all the poor people in Africa.