What's causing rising debt?

[Oneuli]

Are you familiar with something called tactical calculus?

Of course.

One concern is the aging planes of our air force. They are mostly outdated

Outdated RELATIVE TO WHAT? That's the issue the military-industry-welfare flacks don't generally address. Outdated relative to what they'd need to be to keep billions of dollars flowing into the right defense industry pockets? Yes, to be sure. Outdated relative to the planes that make up the bulk of our adversaries' air forces.... not even close.

For example, take a look at Russian fighter aircraft. The great bulk of their jets are essentially "Soviet Surplus" -- aging hulks from the mid-80s and earlier, which generally haven't had the updates our continually get. Even in their primes, many of them were just cut-rate rip offs of old western designs. That includes around 210 SU-27s, in service from '85, 125 IL-76's, in service from 1974, 143 Mig-29s of various sorts, from 1982, 196 Su-25s from 1981, 170 Su-24s from way back in 1974, and 24 Mig-31s from 1981.

They have a handful of more modern fighters and attack jets: a combined force of Su-34s, Su-33s, Su-35s's, and Su-30s, of about 350 total jets. They range in unit price of between about $30 million and $65 million. To put that in context, our F-22 has a unit cost of about $120 million and the F-35 has a unit cost of about $90 million. Even the latest F/A 18-E Super Hornet has a unit cost of a bit over $70 million. Of the Russian options, only the Su-35 arguably exceeds the capabilities of our last-generation fighters, and Russia has fewer than 100 of them in service.

So, what would have happened if out "outdated" fleet of updated F-15s, F-16s, and F-18s had gone up against the Russians, without any of those F-22s and F-35s? Well, keep in mind the huge gap in numbers. We have 435 F-15s of various sorts in service (with a unit cost and overall capabilities in line with the Su-34 and Su-30.) We have 791 F-16s in service. In addition, we have almost 800 F-18s of various kinds in service. We're talking about well over 2000 of those fighters and multi-role jets, versus a bit over 1200 Russian equivalents. Without the need for the next generation of fighters or any help form out allies, we'd already have had an overwhelming advantage.

The same basic analysis applies with regard to China, too. The bulk of their fighter jets are Chengdu J-7s and J-10s, the former of which is basically just 1960s-era Soviet technology, while the later is roughly on par with our F-16s, in terms of unit cost and capabilities.

and we do not have anywhere near enough stockpiles of munitions or spare parts. Our troops are not properly trained because of a lack of funding.

Again, if those in charge of our military are so horrifically incompetent that they can't find the funding to train our troops with a budget four times larger than any other military on Earth, then they should be fired immediately, and then investigated for embezzlement.

I've seen it first hand, so don't even try to deny it. Our military is weaker than most people realize.

Weaker relative to what? Unless you've also served in the Russian and Chinese militaries, I'll go ahead and assume you're not claiming first-hand knowledge of how weak our military is relative to our likely adversaries. Rather, you're comparing it to some ideal you have of how strong it should be.

 

[Oneuli]

...and increased again in 2011, and was still in the trillions. Yet here you whine about things you know nothing about.

What makes you imagine I know nothing about them? Be specific, please.

Again, the full effect of Obamacare hits in 2016 and 2017.

Read up on the implementation timetable of the tax on cadillac plans.

Apparently you can't do the math; even if you cut the entire Military budget, Obamacare and social welfare will still create a deficit.

As a reminder, I never claimed we wouldn't have a deficit if we'd stayed on the trend-line Obama left us with. It's just that the deficit would have been significantly smaller and falling, instead of the high and rising deficit we now have.

 

[Superfreak]

why is Trayvon dead?

Because he tried to beat up a guy with a gun.

 

[Getin the ring]

As a reminder, I never claimed we wouldn't have a deficit if we'd stayed on the trend-line Obama left us with. It's just that the deficit would have been significantly smaller and falling, instead of the high and rising deficit we now have.

suppose you explain to us in a few short sentences how Obama put us 10 trillion MORE in debt,
but YET he was trimming the deficit

does that make any sense to anyone, except you

 

[evince]

Because he tried to beat up a guy with a gun.

who hit him on the chest for calling him a creepy assed cracker

Why is it Trayvon has no right to try and defend himself from an attacker in your mind racist?

 

[Oneuli]

Sure we can list job growth under each President, we can list GDP growth under each President, we can list amount of debt that grew under each President. We can also argue what role Congress played in those numbers because President's aren't kings. And many people forget the Fed because the Fed plays a huge role by setting monetary policy.

See, that's the point I'm making. Building arguments is incredibly easy for me. All I have to do is present the numbers and they speak for themselves. You, on the other hand, have a tougher time -- you need to offer up various complicating factors to distract from the numbers. For me, it's as simple as laying out the facts without need for any artifice. For you, it requires spinning and weaving stories to fit a narrative to make your side look better.

At some level I can respect that greater degree of difficulty. It's a bit like if someone wanted to argue that the Cavaliers were a stronger team than the Warriors last season. Arguing the opposite view is easy -- just lay out their respective records and the result of their Finals series and your work is done. You don't need to frame that information: just present it. Even someone who knows as little about basketball as me could pull it off. But if you wanted to make the opposite position sound plausible, you'd need to be masterful at rhetoric and deeply knowledgeable about basketball, to offer up as much obfuscatory material as possible.

 

[evince]

suppose you explain to us in a few short sentences how Obama put us 10 trillion MORE in debt,
but YET he was trimming the deficit

does that make any sense to anyone, except you

suppose you explain to us why your assholes crashed the entire world economy with their idiot republican economic ideas yet again

 

[Grugore]

suppose you explain to us in a few short sentences how Obama put us 10 trillion MORE in debt,
but YET he was trimming the deficit

does that make any sense to anyone, except you

Rhetorical question? Lol.

 

[Oneuli]

Obviously, cutting Social Security or Medicare (A) would not reduce the deficit (although it would reduce the debt).

What makes you believe that?

Social Security has to be reformed in some way to continue to pay benefits at current levels

How about a "reform" that simply supplements the revenue funding it from general tax receipts? Or how about boosting payroll tax receipts by ending the preferential treatment for unearned income (e.g., making payroll taxes apply equally to money handed to someone for her investments, or as an inheritance, rather than only money she earns by the sweat of her brow)?

One of the few times government has done something to solve future problems is the 1980s payroll tax increase that provided Social Security the $2.5 trillion surplus that is financing the current revenue shortfall.

How about simply doing for Social Security what we did for Medicare in the Clinton years -- removing the annual tax cap? Currently, rich people only have to pay into Social Security for part of the year, whereas the poor and the middle-class are required to pay in for the full year. How about just eliminating that privilege for the wealthy?

 

[Oneuli]

suppose you explain to us in a few short sentences how Obama put us 10 trillion MORE in debt,
but YET he was trimming the deficit

Your question is nonsensical. It's like asking "explain to us how it is you were stepping on the brakes and yet the car ended up further down the road than it was." If you take control of a car at a time when it's barreling down the road at 100 mph, and you step on the brakes, reducing its speed rapidly, you're still going to end up further down the road than you were when you took control.

 

[Truth Detector]

The budget deficit is caused by three things
1) two thirds are do to mandates out of Trumps control.

Correct.

2) military budget

Wrong.

3) tax cuts

Wrong. Revenues went up after the tax cuts.

There is ONE thing that causes deficits; SPENDING more than you take in. 2/3rds of that spending are unconstitutional mandated spending for social welfarism. That is where the cuts need to occur. Not to mention a massive bureaucracy that has exploded well beyond it's original constitutional limitations.

Why do we need the department of education? That's a State issue.

Why do we need a Department of Energy?

Why do we need a Department of Health and Human services? Why can't that be a State issue?

Why do we need a Department of Housing and Urban Development? That's a State issue.

Why do we need a Department of Labor? State issue.

Why do we need a Department of Agriculture? State issue.

Imagine the Federal budget savings eliminating most of that? Why do we need Social Security? People can't take care of their own retirement? Why? Why do we need Medicare? People can't take care of themselves? Why? Isn't that why we have an educational establishment? To teach people how to do things?

 

[Truth Detector]

Lying about Trayvons death is what a racist would do

The only one lying here is you, you dumb twat.

no one claims Trayvon was following his killer

He had to have been to surprise him you ignorant twat.

the entire police record says the asshole was following a child at night with a gun and had a violent record

No it does not. A jury of ten people disagree with your lies as well. STFU, seriously.

then killed that child for trying to protect himself

I am amused by the left's dishonesty calling Trayvon a child. But it does feed the false narrative they attempt to bloviate about.

 

[Truth Detector]

That is somewhat misleading. The original Social Security law requires any surplus in the trust fund be placed in government treasuries at 2% interest. If those funds (provided by the 1980s payroll tax increase) had not been available government would still have borrowed that money from the market; so, you would be paying interest on those funds either way--in SS treasuries or bonds sold to the public. It makes more sense to use the SS treasuries since it puts less press on interest rates.

The problem is the government spends and borrows too much money, not that it used the SS treasuries.

Who do you think pays the 2% interest rates on those Government treasury notes diwmit? If SS pays for itself; why all the Government trustees saying it is headed for insolvency unless we.....INCREASE the age of access to SS or INCREASE the SS tax?

Social Security and Medicare are inching slowly toward insolvency, according to annual trustees reports on the entitlement programs released Wednesday.
https://thehill.com/policy/finance/248816-social-security-projected-to-hit-insolvency-by-2034

 

[Superfreak]

who hit him on the chest for calling him a creepy assed cracker

Why is it Trayvon has no right to try and defend himself from an attacker in your mind racist?

Why do you hate Brown people you racist piece of shit?

Trayvon started the physical altercation. Zimmerman lost sight of him. He could have simply gone home. But no, he came back and tried to beat up Zimmerman. It was Martin's fault.

 

[Truth Detector]

What makes you imagine I know nothing about them? Be specific, please.

What makes you think you know anything about them? Be specific please.

Read up on the implementation timetable of the tax on cadillac plans.

I will, right after you read up on the massive costs to Government budgets of providing all the subsidies to Obamacare.

As a reminder, I never claimed we wouldn't have a deficit if we'd stayed on the trend-line Obama left us with. It's just that the deficit would have been significantly smaller and falling, instead of the high and rising deficit we now have.

Once again you ASSume a lot in your claims. If you ASSumed less and could comprehend simple math, you wouldn't make such moronic ASSumptions all the time.

 

[Truth Detector]

How about a "reform" that simply supplements the revenue funding it from general tax receipts? Or how about boosting payroll tax receipts by ending the preferential treatment for unearned income (e.g., making payroll taxes apply equally to money handed to someone for her investments, or as an inheritance, rather than only money she earns by the sweat of her brow)?

Even better; why don't they eliminate it altogether and allow voluntary participation instead of mandating it and playing it as a Ponzi scheme?

How about simply doing for Social Security what we did for Medicare in the Clinton years -- removing the annual tax cap?

Typical liberal solution; just keep raising taxes regardless of the programs massive funding failures, red tape and massive regulations.

Currently, rich people only have to pay into Social Security for part of the year, whereas the poor and the middle-class are required to pay in for the full year.

You do know the reason the middle class pay in the entire year right? When did the poor pay taxes?

How about just eliminating that privilege for the wealthy?

You call it a privilege to pay into Medicare? And then presume to take it away because someone has done well? Dumbest thing you may have said to date.

Why not just call it a WEALTH tax and be honest?

 

[cawacko]

See, that's the point I'm making. Building arguments is incredibly easy for me. All I have to do is present the numbers and they speak for themselves. You, on the other hand, have a tougher time -- you need to offer up various complicating factors to distract from the numbers. For me, it's as simple as laying out the facts without need for any artifice. For you, it requires spinning and weaving stories to fit a narrative to make your side look better.

At some level I can respect that greater degree of difficulty. It's a bit like if someone wanted to argue that the Cavaliers were a stronger team than the Warriors last season. Arguing the opposite view is easy -- just lay out their respective records and the result of their Finals series and your work is done. You don't need to frame that information: just present it. Even someone who knows as little about basketball as me could pull it off. But if you wanted to make the opposite position sound plausible, you'd need to be masterful at rhetoric and deeply knowledgeable about basketball, to offer up as much obfuscatory material as possible.

Like I said, Clinton had very different economic policies than Obama although they both have D's next to their name. Obama brought us the weakest economic recovery since the Great Depression and that was with a Fed who did three rounds of QE. Reagan got much greater growth and did it with a Fed that created a recession to tame inflation. Simply saying put a D in office doesn't suffice. Once Clinton started to triangulate he had a much more pro-growth agenda than did Obama.

 

[Truth Detector]

suppose you explain to us why your assholes crashed the entire world economy with their idiot republican economic ideas yet again

Moron thinks Republicans caused the crash.

 

[Flash]

What makes you believe that?

Because SS revenues do not meet current expenditures (as of 2010). To pay for the difference the SS trust fund must redeem some of the surplus and they do that by increased borrowing. We don't ever pay down the debt, we roll over current treasuries when they are due.

That is why the debt continued to increase even when the budget was balanced under Clinton. It is also why if the government is shut down because of failure to increase the debt limit SS could not pay full benefits because it could not borrow additional funds.

 

[Truth Detector]

Your question is nonsensical. It's like asking "explain to us how it is you were stepping on the brakes and yet the car ended up further down the road than it was." If you take control of a car at a time when it's barreling down the road at 100 mph, and you step on the brakes, reducing its speed rapidly, you're still going to end up further down the road than you were when you took control.

How was the car barrelling down the road when Democrats increased deficit spending into the trillions? Deficits were on the decline under Republicans until the Democrats took over in 2007. After that, the deficits ballooned out of control.

After tax cuts were implemented:

2004 Deficit 412.7 billion.
2005 Deficit 318.3 billion.
2006 Deficit 248.2 billion.
2007 Deficit 160.7 billion.

Democrats win control:

2008 deficit 458.6 billion
2009 deficit 1,412.7 trillion
2010 deficit 1,294.4 trillion
2011 deficit 1,299.6 trillion

Republicans take control

2012 deficit 1,087.0 trillion.
2013 deficit 679.5 billion
2014 deficit 484.6 billion
2015 deficit 438.5 billion

Obamacare comes into full effect.

2016 deficit 584.7 billion
2017 deficit 665.4 billion.

Facts do not support your emotional hysterics or lies about tax reductions or Republican Administrations.