General Discussion

muriel_volestrangler

(106,504 posts)

23. No, if you decreased defense and non entitlement spending, you'd have a primary surplus

Sun Apr 14, 2013, 07:50 AM

Apr 2013

which would mean the public debt would be decreasing, not increasing, and the net interest would also be decreasing. The chart shows it getting to a balance between revenue and non-interest spending in about 2018 and 2019 anyway. The problem is that, after that, spending gradually increases, and revenue hardly does, so a primary deficit appears again, and so we find that - shock, horror - the government can't just sit on its ass after 2019 and say "everything is perfect, forever, there's nothing we need to change".

It could, for instance, decide to take a bit more revenue from the portion of the population that has had the vast majority of the increase in living standards over the past 30 years - the rich. It could cut defence spending a bit. Take in another 1% of GDP in taxes from the rich, and decrease defence spending by 1% of GDP, and you just about get there.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

92 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

For anyone who doesn't believe entitlements + interest on the debt will crowd out all other spending [View all] dkf Apr 2013 OP

The chart does not support your conclusions unblock Apr 2013 #1

If you take the POV that entitlements are inviolate then everything else gets cut first. dkf Apr 2013 #2

Only a few extra percent of GDP in revenue would make a big difference unblock Apr 2013 #5

No, if you decreased defense and non entitlement spending, you'd have a primary surplus muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #23

If you collapsed both of those things now then maybe so. dkf Apr 2013 #30

The 'reasonable' bit is in my 2nd paragraph muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #34

Clinton raised taxes on the top earners by about 3%.... Wounded Bear Apr 2013 #36

Obama raised taxes on the top earners above Clinton rates. dkf Apr 2013 #46

In the OECD, only Mexico and Chile collect a lower percent of GDP in taxes than us. dawg Apr 2013 #40

I think the point is that entitlement spending is set by formula Recursion Apr 2013 #3

But revenues aren't etched in stone. unblock Apr 2013 #6

SS is self funded and doesn't cost the Fed Gov anything, Nor did it have anything to do with the sabrina 1 Apr 2013 #8

No matter how many times that myth gets repeated, lowering SS payments would decrease the deficit Recursion Apr 2013 #13

obviously cutting any expense will temporarily decrease the deficit magical thyme Apr 2013 #17

I'm all for dropping the full SS age to 55, at least until unemployment drops below X% Recursion Apr 2013 #18

well many of us are, because it's the 1st step to cutting for all magical thyme Apr 2013 #33

It is not an expense that is part of the budget, you are being lied to Dragonfli Apr 2013 #63

I realize they're trying to rob Peter to pay Paul's debts magical thyme Apr 2013 #68

fair enough! Dragonfli Apr 2013 #72

No matter how many times you repeat that lie, it is still a lie Dragonfli Apr 2013 #62

Apparently the Social Security trustees are liars. former9thward Apr 2013 #83

How? It does not claim it is part of the budget and says nothing to disagree with me Dragonfli Apr 2013 #84

So you are stating the SS trustees are part of the "Republican lie". former9thward Apr 2013 #85

No, just your misrepresentation of one of their projections, try reading the post Dragonfli Apr 2013 #86

No, that's still a strawman of your imagination Recursion Apr 2013 #89

Repeating a lie multiple times does not make it true, the treasury handles their money, so what? Dragonfli Apr 2013 #91

SS can not be funded out of General Revenue BY LAW. The myth is that SS has anything Vincardog Apr 2013 #80

Repeating that still doesn't make it true. Recursion Apr 2013 #90

Repeating lies does not make them facts. Quit it. Vincardog Apr 2013 #92

"So, where does the money come from", would be the next question bhikkhu Apr 2013 #59

The money comes from the trust fund's surplus when payments out exceed FICA in Dragonfli Apr 2013 #65

The point is, the surplus isn't held in cash, its held in US treasury bonds bhikkhu Apr 2013 #70

So the lie remains the same, not redeeming bonds= income Dragonfli Apr 2013 #71

Its about cash flow bhikkhu Apr 2013 #74

It's a lie. The SS trust fund is not "one area of the budget", you are talking about Dragonfli Apr 2013 #75

That's quite a ridiculous thing to say muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #19

We can set future entitlement spending, not future discretionary spending Recursion Apr 2013 #20

So is your concept of government that you can't trust future congresses? muriel_volestrangler Apr 2013 #25

It's not about trust, it's about what decisions are binding Recursion Apr 2013 #35

Spooky chart of speculations! Rex Apr 2013 #4

You don't account for revenue Lasher Apr 2013 #7

+1 HiPointDem Apr 2013 #9

Not taking sides, but your closing comment is not quite correct ... DreamGypsy Apr 2013 #41

That is easy to see, as I intended. Lasher Apr 2013 #49

I am not disputing the fact that the MyGovCost website is spinning data to support its purposes... DreamGypsy Apr 2013 #57

Social Security is paid for with the payroll tax, that should not be included. AnnieK401 Apr 2013 #10

But why do you break it out that way? freedom fighter jh Apr 2013 #11

Well you can only decrease interest payments by reducing the deficit and the debt. dkf Apr 2013 #32

Social security payments do not contribute to the deficit and the debt. freedom fighter jh Apr 2013 #39

You can reduce interest payments by keeping interest really low = bad economy Coyotl Apr 2013 #44

Ever hear of ... GeorgeGist Apr 2013 #56

Why not pass the JObs Act that Obama proposed to get that tax revenue rolling in again? CTyankee Apr 2013 #12

History has shown it is rare to grow out of debt. dkf Apr 2013 #66

I've been reading Krugman since he started his NYT column over 10 years ago. He has CTyankee Apr 2013 #73

Makes a great case for a highly progressive tax rate ... Scuba Apr 2013 #14

They are two different things Cosmocat Apr 2013 #15

we definitely need Unrec back. magical thyme Apr 2013 #16

Here we go again. hobbit709 Apr 2013 #21

I sincerely don't get your angle. trumad Apr 2013 #22

This contradicts the post you put up yesterday that shows interest isn't a major factor. leveymg Apr 2013 #24

Well he uses information from RWing sources, proudly Rex Apr 2013 #60

Oh, just come out and say you think Social Security should be done away with, and get it over with. djean111 Apr 2013 #26

Social Security is not a government expense. Laelth Apr 2013 #27

Repeal the full Bush tax cuts. Thank we can begin this conversation Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #28

We aren't talking about cutting economic safety net programs for all of us Recursion Apr 2013 #37

Umm, Cost of Living Increases are designed so that benefits can be paid in constant dollars Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #43

"Constant dollars" is not an objective thing, though Recursion Apr 2013 #48

Yes he has, and the near unamimous concensus of independent economic experts is Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #52

Seniors today certainly have a higher standard of living than seniors 10, 20, or 30 years ago Recursion Apr 2013 #54

I don't accept that. Tom Rinaldo Apr 2013 #55

The richest 4/5 is a new silly season word game. TheKentuckian Apr 2013 #69

Republican tripe. 99Forever Apr 2013 #29

They are also spreading the Republican lie that SS is part of the budget Dragonfli Apr 2013 #79

Especially... 99Forever Apr 2013 #81

For anyone who doesn't believe that tax fraud and offshore banking, along with defense and .. ananda Apr 2013 #31

It would seem that it is all interest from looking at that chart. dawg Apr 2013 #38

Don't forget that thr Social Security spending assumes the big benefit cut which will occur bornskeptic Apr 2013 #77

Still, it isn't a picture of spending out of control. dawg Apr 2013 #82

If Social Security is the largest creditor, Downwinder Apr 2013 #42

Tax collections at 25% of GDP would cover everything, even in 2080. dawg Apr 2013 #45

Gee dawg, your chart makes it look like our low tax philosophy is the entirety of our problem. dawg Apr 2013 #47

Indeed, dawg. But going even beyond our unwillingness to pay adequate taxes ... dawg Apr 2013 #50

Right on, dawg! dawg Apr 2013 #51

I agree with all of the dawgs! Dragonfli Apr 2013 #76

Projections.... not so much MattBaggins Apr 2013 #53

We're borrowing at almost zero percent interest. Honeycombe8 Apr 2013 #58

OK, but isn't about 2/3 of that interest payable to the Social Security Administration? 1-Old-Man Apr 2013 #61

I believe you missed the gorilla in the room, like most usGovOwesUs3Trillion Apr 2013 #64

-1 ...and I miss the unrec button. L0oniX Apr 2013 #67

The same clowns who once assured us all that Obama would never ever Marr Apr 2013 #78

If I want to read RW ignorance there are plenty of other sites I can peruse. Doremus Apr 2013 #87

Seniors are not at fault for this situation. JDPriestly Apr 2013 #88