Is GOP trying to sabotage economy to hurt Obama? Read more: http://www.newstimes.com

Why would I compound it by 5% over 75 years? We owe 61.6 trillion in today's dollars, not 2087 dollars.

 

Where are you getting we owe $61 trillion in today's dollars? Source for that assertion, please.

 

I posted a link that says the Government owes 61.6 trillion dollars. I see no indication that they are using 2087's dollars, so I will use common sense and assume they are not talking about 2087's dollars. You are asking me to prove your claim is false, which I usually don't do. I will this time, just because this particular dishonest argument from you is particularly dishonest.

 

So you simply lied when you stated: "We owe 61.6 trillion in today's dollars, not 2087 dollars" because you have not idea how that number was derived and simply assumed.

I figured.

 

You do realize our entire GDP isn't anywhere near that don't you? The entire world's GDP for 2011 was 65 trillion.

 

You realize that we don't actually owe $65 trillion for SS don't you? I don't the entire world's SS amount is $65 trillion.

What they have done is taken projections of obligations and income out for the next 75 years and added it up.

But 75 years from now, GDP will probably be in the $500 trillion range. A $65 trillion obligation is a lot less of an obstacle when you have a $1/2 quadrillion economy.

In other words, these are just scare tactics.

 

You are in error. The 65 trillion dollar figure is for all US unfunded liabilities (actually it's more like 61 trillion). And I do realize that it is only money promised under current law. If the government eliminates Medicare, and Medicaid, the bulk of that liability goes away. So it's not money we owe now by any means. And the Social Security unfunded liability is more like 8.6 trillion of that. The good news on the Social Security front is that under current law, when we are unable to meet our obligations to pay social security, in 2034, under current law we would only pay out the money we have, so every recipent, including myself at that time, will only get 70% of the benefit. So really social security doesn't have an unfunded liability since we are under no legal obligation to pay it.


As to your dissembling from my original question, where are you getting this 480 trillion in income? Do you expect the US economy to grow to that size in the next half century? It's only about 16 trillion now.

 

We don't owe $65 trillion. I'm not in error. That is based on projected costs and obligations over the next 75 years based upon current programs and assumptions.

If we cut benefits or increase revenues the problem disappears.

A $15 trillion economy growing at 5% per year will be $500 trillion in 75 years.

 

You keep responding to totally different things. Yes, you were in error for saying that Social Security had an unfunded liability of 65 trillion. And yes, I know what an unfunded liability is. You are just rehashing what I just told you in the last post.

Do you seriously think we are going to be growing at 5% a year for 75 years? That is counter to history and totally off base. For the first quarter of this year, GDP was 1.9%. That's a long way from 5%.

You usually are much better than this.

 

OK, I stand corrected. I did write SS when the figure is for all unfunded obligations.

No, the first quarter of this year was 3.5% on an annualized basis, and no one would suggest last quarter reflects and average quarter. 5% is not counter to history. GDP growth over the past the decades has averaged about 5.6%. It is not IMO off base to suppose it will grow in the 5% range.

Is this where I'm supposed to write an equally smarmy response like: You're about what I've come to expect? Those smary remarks just make you look foolish, IMO, when you make them after writing a completely erroneous statement.

 

Well I'm curious about your sources then for the first quarter GDP. Here's mine. http://money.cnn.com/2012/05/31/news/economy/gdp/index.htm

I would be curious also on your sources for GDP growth for the past couple of decades averaging 5.6%.

Oh and "smarmy" wasn't the intent. Merely and observation that usually your posts are much more lucid and fact filled.

 

Here's mine:

http://bea.gov/national/index.htm#gdp

Click on "Current-dollar and "real" GDP" to get to the data.

OK. but I think my posts are lucid and fact filled now.

 

Here, I'll run the numbers for you.

Year - GDP - % chng
1981 3,126.8 12.1%
1982 3,253.2 4.0%
1983 3,534.6 8.6%
1984 3,930.9 11.2%
1985 4,217.5 7.3%
1986 4,460.1 5.8%
1987 4,736.4 6.2%
1988 5,100.4 7.7%
1989 5,482.1 7.5%
1990 5,800.5 5.8%
1991 5,992.1 3.3%
1992 6,342.3 5.8%
1993 6,667.4 5.1%
1994 7,085.2 6.3%
1995 7,414.7 4.7%
1996 7,838.5 5.7%
1997 8,332.4 6.3%
1998 8,793.5 5.5%
1999 9,353.5 6.4%
2000 9,951.5 6.4%
2001 10,286.2 3.4%
2002 10,642.3 3.5%
2003 11,142.2 4.7%
2004 11,853.3 6.4%
2005 12,623.0 6.5%
2006 13,377.2 6.0%
2007 14,028.7 4.9%
2008 14,291.5 1.9%
2009 13,939.0 -2.5%
2010 14,526.5 4.2%
2011 15,094.0 3.9%

30 year average: 5.6%

 

yes they are, they made that clear and even made public that they plan to try to make him a one term president, that is their main goal

 

Isn't that what he promised?

 

Ah OK I see what you did. I knew something was wrong when I saw the 1981 GDP as 12.1% and particularly last year as 3.9%. If the 2011 GDP was 3.9%, Obama would already be popping the champagne bottles celebrating his re-election, and the job report we got today would never have happened. Since the actual 2011 GDP was 1.7%, you used the wrong column. The actual average GDP for that same time period was 2.7%.

 

You mean the tax cuts that kept everyone working and expanded the tax base which made revenues soar enabling the Republicans to lower the deficits for three years running down to $161 billion?

 

Let's look at them in a little more detail

Year - % chng
2000q1 1.1
2000q2 8.0
2000q3 0.3 Note the slow down before Bush was even sworn in
2000q4 2.4
2001q1 (1.3)
2001q2 2.7
2001q3 (1.1)
2001q4 1.4
2002q1 3.5
2002q2 2.1
2002q3 2.0
2002q4 0.1
2003q1 1.7
2003q2 3.4
2003q3 6.7
2003q4 3.7
2004q1 2.7
2004q2 2.6
2004q3 3.0
2004q4 3.3
2005q1 4.2
2005q2 1.8
2005q3 3.2
2005q4 2.1
2006q1 5.1
2006q2 1.6
2006q3 0.1
2006q4 2.7
2007q1 0.5
2007q2 3.6
2007q3 3.0
2007q4 1.7
2008q1 (1. hmmm the Democrats take over
2008q2 1.3
2008q3 (3.7) and it gets worse
2008q4 (8.9)
2009q1 (6.7)
2009q2 (0.7)
2009q3 1.7
2009q4 3.8
2010q1 3.9
2010q2 3.8
2010q3 2.5
2010q4 2.3
2011q1 0.4 and Obama's failed policies become more apparent as the stimulus spending peters out and the attempt at recovery can't sustain itself
2011q2 1.3
2011q3 1.8
2011q4 3.0
2012q1 1.9

 

Amazing, isn't it, how whenever anything bad happens after a tax cut, there's always something else to blame it on? Usually something done by Democrats? And isn't it amazing how the one policy that would magically make everything better if only the government would have the wisdom to do it is exempting you from having to pay taxes?

The level of your rationalizations is both amazing and pathetic. I don't think I've ever come across an example of someone going through such extreme mental gymnastics to try to disguise pure greed and selfishness as being for the greater good. Yes, there is a lag time between what the economy does and when you see it in tax revenues. No, it's not two years long! Attributing a big drop in revenues in 2003 to a recession that ended in 2001 is just plain dumb. Especially when that recession was so short and mild that some people don't consider it a recession at all. (The rule of thumb for recessions is two consecutive quarters of negative growth, which the 2000 - 2001 recession doesn't meet. That's not the definition used by the NBER.) What's next, are you going to try to attribute the good economy of the 90's to the Reagan tax cuts, or the early 90's recession to a tax hike from the LBJ administration? You just blatantly adjust the facts to fit your ideology. An ideology that ever so coincidentally involves you avoiding your responsibilities.

Honestly, grow up and quit whining about paying taxes like a little kid who doesn't want to eat their vegetables.

 

No, you are using the wrong column. You are using the "real GDP" figures.

We are taling about the ability to pay future obligations and debt which are not based on inflation adjusted dollars. Therefore using inflation adjusted GDP figures to compare GDP in that time frame would be improper.

 

The Democrats did not "take over" in 2007. Bush and the Republicans ran the administration of the govt until Jan 2009.

Conservative arguments make sense. If you ignore reality.

 

You pegged it spot on..

 

What is this "we" stuff, Kimosabe?

 

By "partisan positions", I assume you mean "Grover Norquist" positions, correct?

 

Here is is:

a) return tax rates for everyone to pre-Bush days.

b) close the frigging loopholes.

c) treat passive income as ordinary income. Dollars are, afterall, dollars.

d) desist from fighting Israel's wars.

f) tax outsourcers on the difference between their cost of labor here and abroad, thereby putting more taxpayers to work HERE.

g) Treat execs who bury profits in numbered bank accounts abroad as renouncers of citizenship.

h) Prime the pump with the new tax revenues.

Problem solved.